Roe v Wade is on deck

[Loren Pechtel]

Sadly, many times people decide whether or not someone lives or dies. This is aside from criminals or our justice system. In mass emergencies, medical personnel triage patients according to severity of injuries and sometimes, who has injuries that are likely survivable. Doctors and families make decisions about whether to continue all sorts of medical treatment or whether to let the patient die.

You have not made a case for why a fetus, a potential new living human, takes precedence over an already living human beings

And triage can mean knowingly allowing to die individuals that could have been saved. Your aim is to save as many total as you can, not necessarily the worst off. You still have people that are injured but haven't been looked at, you don't stop and do CPR. You clear the airway and move on.

 

[Toni]

The connection to slavery is not as you suggest. You are suggesting that women men must give up control of their bodies, and their lives, even against their will, much as slaves were forced to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will.

FIFY. We have this right now, legally. Its called conscription.

And the last time there was a draft was... *checks notes* 1973. Though I hear the regressives might want to bring it back.

Which does not contradict anything I said. Or change the fact that many hundreds of thousands of men have lost their lives because the government "forced them to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will".

For the record: I oppose the draft.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

And when they spend millions saving you you probably don't come through it anything like intact.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Think about why they did that.

I don't like third trimester abortions, but I think it's better for them to be basically unregulated--because I trust the doctor's decisions a lot more than I trust the politician's decisions. Nothing's perfect--but I think the doctors will get it wrong a lot less often than the politicians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am thinking of all those babies who were killed. They had no say in their fate.
You would not accept that fate for any other person so why the unborn?

Viability is currently at about 24 weeks. If that falls to 23, the fetuses that will consequently survive are the 23-week ones, so that’s who you’re calling “persons”. Why do you think a 23-week fetus is a person?

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.

Why do you believe that? A human egg is an entity that is surely human, and it already existed for many years before it absorbed a sperm. Proportionally, fertilization adds about as much material to an egg as a measles vaccine adds to a child. So how does that smidgin change the preexisting human entity into a person any more than adding some random internet crackpot’s idiosyncratic moral formula to a ten-year-old boy change him into a person?

Yup.

The use of the word "human" in such discussions is deceptive by design. The problem is that it can mean "person", or it can mean "of human origin". This is routinely exploited to make false arguments.

And, as you say, it's not sensible to say the egg suddenly became a person.

This leaves me with only one way to come up with a sensible definition: possesses at least a minimum of consciousness. I consider personhood to extend from first consciousness to last consciousness. The person dies at the end of their last consciousness even if their body lives on. It is not currently possible to accurately pin down either of these points in time but that doesn't change the basic nature of the definition, just makes it's application fuzzy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fact is that sometimes someone deliberate assaults a pregnant woman with the intent to cause her to lose the pregnancy. I find it hard to call that simple assault. For one thing, the woman or girl's life would be endangered. For the other, it is causing her to lose something she very much does not want to lose, in which she has invested a great deal of time and energy and something that is not replaceable, even if she survives the attack and her fertility remains intact.

I believe the legal term here is grievous bodily harm.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sadly, many times people decide whether or not someone lives or dies. This is aside from criminals or our justice system. In mass emergencies, medical personnel triage patients according to severity of injuries and sometimes, who has injuries that are likely survivable. Doctors and families make decisions about whether to continue all sorts of medical treatment or whether to let the patient die.

You have not made a case for why a fetus, a potential new living human, takes precedence over an already living human beings

It is already a new living human.

And how do you determine this?

What exactly is unique about it that can not otherwise happen? Pornography definitions (I know it when I see it) have no place in law.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Another crux of the whole discussion.
If the mother wants to kill the foetus (with or within the help of others) that is considered permissible. But if some else wants to kill it or does kill the foetus that is not permissible.
When else in considered perrmissible to kill another just because you wish too?

You can throw away your own property, others can't.

And, to me, until there's a mind it's property, not a person.

 

[Tigers!]

Another crux of the whole discussion.
If the mother wants to kill the foetus (with or within the help of others) that is considered permissible. But if some else wants to kill it or does kill the foetus that is not permissible.
When else in considered perrmissible to kill another just because you wish too?

You can throw away your own property, others can't.

Aagin the slavers of the world rejoice.

And, to me, until there's a mind it's property, not a person.

Got a considered, unchallenged or unchallengeable definition of 'mind'?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The connection to slavery is not as you suggest. You are suggesting that women men must give up control of their bodies, and their lives, even against their will, much as slaves were forced to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will.

FIFY. We have this right now, legally. Its called conscription.

And the last time there was a draft was... *checks notes* 1973. Though I hear the regressives might want to bring it back.

Which does not contradict anything I said. Or change the fact that many hundreds of thousands of men have lost their lives because the government "forced them to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will".

For the record: I oppose the draft.

You know who opposes the draft? Commies, that's who.

 

[Toni]

The connection to slavery is not as you suggest. You are suggesting that women men must give up control of their bodies, and their lives, even against their will, much as slaves were forced to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will.

FIFY. We have this right now, legally. Its called conscription.

And the last time there was a draft was... *checks notes* 1973. Though I hear the regressives might want to bring it back.

Which does not contradict anything I said. Or change the fact that many hundreds of thousands of men have lost their lives because the government "forced them to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will".

For the record: I oppose the draft.

You know who opposes the draft? Commies, that's who.

Cool.

 

[laughing dog]

Another crux of the whole discussion.
If the mother wants to kill the foetus (with or within the help of others) that is considered permissible. But if some else wants to kill it or does kill the foetus that is not permissible.
When else in considered perrmissible to kill another just because you wish too?

You can throw away your own property, others can't.

Aagin the slavers of the world rejoice.

Coming from a proponent of forcing women to carry to term as if they are breeding stock, that is ironic.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The connection to slavery is not as you suggest. You are suggesting that women men must give up control of their bodies, and their lives, even against their will, much as slaves were forced to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will.

FIFY. We have this right now, legally. Its called conscription.

And the last time there was a draft was... *checks notes* 1973. Though I hear the regressives might want to bring it back.

Which does not contradict anything I said. Or change the fact that many hundreds of thousands of men have lost their lives because the government "forced them to give up control of their bodies abd their lives, against their will".

For the record: I oppose the draft.

You know who opposes the draft? Commies, that's who.

Cool.

I brought that up because it's the same paranoia about commies that started the last draft, which is ironic considering who was complaining about the draft.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know the pilot scenario isn’t what you had in mind; I don’t know how you’d go about making your explanation of when you’ll feel at liberty to get rid of an organism more precise; but that’s not important since I know you can if you set your mind to it. What I don’t know that is important is why you think whatever hair-splitting distinction you’ll come up with is morally significant. Why does it make a difference whether the oxygen and nutrients they’re relying on your blood to keep transporting in order to not die are yours or theirs? It was in hope that you’d explain that that I brought up pilots.

And note that the pilot scenario has a specific legal exception around it. You choose to do something which puts others in danger if you don't finish the job, you are under a legal obligation to finish the job. Pilot isn't even the best example of this--look in the ER. Intubating patients is common--but if you stop in the middle it looks an awful lot like the standard euthanasia protocol.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure. But choices have consequences. If you choose not to be vaccinated without good medical reason or choose not to vaccinate your children then you may be excluded from certain places, especially schools and day cares at all levels, any congregate housing situation, some employment, and some other venues and even some transportation such as planes and busses and trains

You have the right to assume risk yourself but you do not have the right to impose additional risk on others.

Yup. So many people do not understand that freedom of choice in no way shields you from the consequences of your choice. The government will not stop you from marching in that Klan rally--but neither will the government intervene when your employer decides they don't want a Nazi working for them. (Or, more generally, you do anything public that casts a negative light on your employer, expect that they might soon be your ex employer.)

I think that unless medical condition make it unwise to be vaccinated, we are morally obligated to be vaccinated in order to protect ourselves and those who are unable to be vaccinated.

It us not really different than being required to keep your property free from garbage which can attract rats and other animals or to fail to maintain property so that it creates a health and safety risk to our neighbors and the community at large.

Yeah. It's a tragedy of the commons situation. I find it entirely reasonable that the government dictates that people do what is clearly of a benefit to everyone if done, but which rewards individual non-compliance. That's why the government mandated preventative health stuff be covered at 100%--the long term effect is beneficial, but employers change insurance plans enough that much of the cost savings goes to someone else.

Consider measles--95% of cases are unvaccinated. 95%, not 100%.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When else in considered perrmissible to kill another just because you wish too?

I dunno about “else”, but any time another organism is living on my blood oxygen, I feel quite at liberty to get rid of it.
YMMV, and it would be the height of hubris for me to dictate or restrict others’ options in that regard.

If you’re piloting a plane, your passengers are living on your blood oxygen.

While the human body does expel a small amount of oxygen, it's far less than it takes in. The oxygen must be present before hand to be breathed in. If outside oxygen isn't added to the system, everyone will slowly die from the lack of oxygen.

Pilot doesn't have blood oxygen, plane goes in, passengers die.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My argument is that a 28 week developed human has a 90% chance of survival with minimal medical complications. That's not opinion, that's fact. Based on that fact, I argue that the developmental stage is of more import than geography - that a 28 week developing human inside a womb is not materially different than a prematurely delivered 28 week developing human outside the womb. The only difference is where they are located. The prematurely delivered human is considered a person in its own right, and if it were killed all of us (except perhaps Jarhyn, not sure about him) would consider it to be murder. If we consider it to be murder for a baby of the exact same developmental stage, we should consider it to also be murder if that baby is still inside the womb. We should allow self-defense as we would in any other interaction, but we should not condone outright murder.

28 weeks has about 1 in 4 chance of serious damage.

To get to a normal level of safety is 32 weeks.

 

[Toni]

And for this and because of many lessons I've learned over many many years: I really don't think it is my place or yours or the legislature's to tell a pregnant girl or woman whether or not her reasons are 'good enough' to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot bear to continue. I don't want to see hard and fast legislation about pregnancy enacted. Just no. These are not easy decisions. There is no need to complicate matters more by a bunch of ignorant old men trying to decide what is a good enough reason to choose yourself over something growing inside of you that you do not want there and what time frame you have to make that decision.

Very pejorative of you, the comments about ignorant old men.
What if some of the opponents are young women?

Some? A vast majority of women are not in favor of 3rd trimester abortions. The actual numbers are very similar between men and women, and in fact the table below shows men are slightly more tolerant than women for 3rd trimester abortions by a couple of points. So, getting kind of tired of the misandry when it comes to abortion issues. And age is a minor factor in this (a couple of percentage points), so let's stop with the ageism too:

Trimesters Still Key to U.S. Abortion Views

Americans Who Say Abortion Should Generally Be Legal in Each Trimester, by Key Demographic Group

	First trimester	Second trimester	Third trimester
	%	%	%
U.S. adults	60	28	13
Gender
Men	60	31	14
Women	60	26	12
Age
18 to 34	66	33	14
35 to 54	63	26	12
55+	54	27	12
Education
College graduates	72	40	19
Some college	63	22	10
No college	49	24	9
Party ID
Republicans	42	12	6
Independents	60	27	13
Democrats	77	46	18

In fact, the vast overwhelming number of women are never in a circumstance where they might feel the need to seek out a third trimester abortion. Thankfully. Third semester abortions are performed under very difficult circumstances for the woman.

It is amazing how people's minds can change when they find themselves in a circumstance they never anticipated. I was pretty much anti-abortion except in cases of rape or to save a mother's life.....right up until the moment I thought I might need one. I did not but a whole lot of things coalesced for me in those few days as I gathered up resources until I knew I did not need them. When I think back to that time, I remember very well how I felt and how horrified I was at the idea of being pregnant at that time by that person, ever. Just as foxholes can make believers out of atheists so can fearing pregnancy make someone rethink their position re: abortion.

 

[Toni]

And for this and because of many lessons I've learned over many many years: I really don't think it is my place or yours or the legislature's to tell a pregnant girl or woman whether or not her reasons are 'good enough' to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot bear to continue. I don't want to see hard and fast legislation about pregnancy enacted. Just no. These are not easy decisions. There is no need to complicate matters more by a bunch of ignorant old men trying to decide what is a good enough reason to choose yourself over something growing inside of you that you do not want there and what time frame you have to make that decision.

Very pejorative of you, the comments about ignorant old men.
What if some of the opponents are young women?

Some? A vast majority of women are not in favor of 3rd trimester abortions.

Firstly, Toni's context was clearly about those in Congress writing the laws... that would involve (particularly in the US Senate) a lot of old men.

Second, there is an asterisk here, as the article you site indicates 3 in 4 Americans feel a third trimester should be legal when safety of the mother is involved. As we've seen in Texas, "safety of the mother" isn't a particular concern for those governing Texas which makes Toni's concerns hardly hypothetical.

The correct response is that if a woman opposes abortion at any any stage, she should not have an abortion at that stage. Full stop. Probable exceptions for medical necessity if the woman is not in a position to give consent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again, just because Texas is stupid doesn’t mean we have to be stupid in the opposite direction.

This isn't a case of Texas is stupid. Rather, Texas is saying the quiet part out loud.