Can Roe v Wade be overturned?

[RavenSky]

Under the normal circumstances of birth, a female never has to give away any organs or parts of her body during the birth process.

The hormone relaxin also plays a role. As its name suggests, relaxin helps relax ligaments and bones in the pelvis, so the body can be elastic during childbirth. But relaxin also affects ligaments all over the body, including in the feet, which can make a woman's feet looser and more spread out, said Dr. Leena Nathan, an assistant clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

New moms: Once your feet grow, you should get used to sporting a larger shoe size, as these changes are permanent, even after you lose weight and relaxin production stops, Cackovic said.

A 2008 study of 2,635 women in the American Journal of Public Health found that the more children women had, the more likely they were to have lost teeth. Women between the ages of 35 and 49 with one child had lost an average of two teeth, while women with two children lost an average of four. Meanwhile, women with four or more children had lost an average of seven teeth. It's not clear exactly why, as frequency of dental care didn't seem to be tied to this association.

Other dental problems include enlarged gums and more bleeding from gums during pregnancy because of increased blood flow, Nathan told Live Science. And the acid from vomiting, if women have morning sickness, can also wear away the enamel on teeth, Nathan said.

Gestational diabetes — that is, elevated blood sugar during pregnancy — develops in up to 10 percent of pregnancies in the United States. But the mother's diabetes risk doesn't end when the pregnancy does. After giving birth, up to half of the women who had gestational diabetes will develop type 2 diabetes later in life, Cackovic said.

One surprisingly common, and ultimately permanent, change associated with pregnancy is a condition called diastasis recti abdominis. It's when the abdominal muscles separate, creating a gap between the stomach muscles.

All women will have this separation at the late stages of pregnancy to make room for the growing belly. But by a year postpartum, somewhere between a third to more than two-thirds of women will retain some separation between their abdominal muscles, various studies suggest.

https://www.livescience.com/63291-post-pregnancy-changes.html

Skin: A woman's face, areolas, stomach and moles often darken during pregnancy, and might stay that way. An increase in estrogen is usually to blame. Butler Tobah said an easy way of telling if a woman has had a baby is to check her belly for a pregnancy line (linea nigra), which usually fades after pregnancy but might never really go away. The same goes for darkening of the central part of the face, often known as the mask of pregnancy. Stretch marks, scars from skin tears as skin expands, can also fade but might not go away.

Thyroid hormones, which help regulate body temperature, metabolism and organ function, can be affected by giving birth, too. According to the American Thyroid Association, five to 10 percent of women have postpartum thyroiditis, an inflammation of the thyroid gland, and the exact cause isn’t known. Symptoms can include insomnia, anxiety, rapid heart rate, fatigue, weight loss and irritability (one to four months after birth) or fatigue, weight gain, constipation, dry skin and depression (four to eight months after birth).

and so on....

No... no losses to a woman's body from a pregnancy.

 

[RavenSky]

They only get charged with murder because the pro-lifers noted that one of the reasons behind Roe vs Wade is the law didn't treat that as murder. The fetal murder laws are an attempt to undermine Roe vs Wade.

So you agree that if the fetus dies in the womb due to a stabbing, the person shouldn't be charged with murder?

Depends on the mom. She’s the one who makes a choice. If she made the choice to carry it to term, it should be treated like a person.

I disagree. A fetus should not be given "personhood" status, even if the unborn baby was very much wanted.

What should be done, imo, is that the actual crime (the assault on the woman) have added penalties due to the loss of the pregnancy.

Somewhat similar to the way a "hate crime" is an added element to the actual crime of murder, assault, etc - not the crime in and of itself - but much easier to define.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Depends on the mom. She’s the one who makes a choice. If she made the choice to carry it to term, it should be treated like a person.

Civilized law is not suppose to allow the victim of the crime to be both judge and executioner. Because such biblical justice would take us back to the old testiment days when the remedy was an "eye for an eye".

I agree with Loren on this one. Or maybe even 6 months. But whatever was decided, the law must be the same for everyone for the same crime with no prejudices.

I don't get your point or see how having it this way would make it significantly different from other laws.

"Sir, we pulled this man over in a car which was registered to you. Did you give him permission to take it?"
"Yes officer, I did" or "No officer, I didn't"

Right there, I just singlehandedly decided whether or not this guy was going to be charged with a crime. If he stole it and I don't want him to go to jail, I am the victim of the crime and also the judge who sets him free.

 

[bilby]

Depends on the mom. She’s the one who makes a choice. If she made the choice to carry it to term, it should be treated like a person.

I disagree. A fetus should not be given "personhood" status, even if the unborn baby was very much wanted.

What should be done, imo, is that the actual crime (the assault on the woman) have added penalties due to the loss of the pregnancy.

Somewhat similar to the way a "hate crime" is an added element to the actual crime of murder, assault, etc - not the crime in and of itself - but much easier to define.

^This.

As a general principle, the statute law should provide a framework of what is or is not legal; And the courts should decide on the severity of breaches based on the specifics of each individual case.

So assaulting a person should be a crime; But the penalty for an assault should depend on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of each individual case - loss of a pregnancy would be one of the aggravating factors that would lead to a much harsher sentence in an assault case, in a similar way to other aggravating circumstances such as permanent disfigurement, or permanent disability.

Legislators who attempt to abrogate to themselves powers that they should leave to the judiciary are in breach of the principle of the separation of powers. Legislation should never determine sentencing (although a maximum sentence might be justified for certain crimes, a minimum sentence never is, and either should be avoided).

It is clear that a fetus does not have personhood in all circumstances; And there's no factual basis for declaring one to have personhood in ANY circumstances. Nor is there a risk of injustice due to this lack of personhood. Loss of a fetus due to assault isn't murder, but it's certainly aggravated assault, and can and should be punished more harshly than an assault that does not lead to the loss of the pregnancy - without any implication that the fetus is a person.

If a woman's nose is cut off in a knife attack, that's an aggravating circumstance and should lead to a more severe sentence than a similar (but not disfiguring) assault. This is due to the long term damaging effect on the victim - not to the personhood of her nose.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This is due to the long term damaging effect on the victim - not to the personhood of her nose.

But if the fetus is a person, then it is a victim as well and the decision of whether or not it is a person is a choice made by the woman carrying it.

 

[bilby]

This is due to the long term damaging effect on the victim - not to the personhood of her nose.

But if the fetus is a person, then it is a victim as well and the decision of whether or not it is a person is a choice made by the woman carrying it.

Nah, the question of personhood is answerable only by biology. Someone isn't able to be denied personhood based on another person's opinion, and so nor can a non-person be granted personhood in that way.

I love my dogs; But I can't decide that they are people just because I am angry that someone hurt them. A fetus is even less qualified than a dog for personhood - a fetus doesn't even have a brain, at least for the first couple of trimesters.

 

[RVonse]

Depends on the mom. She’s the one who makes a choice. If she made the choice to carry it to term, it should be treated like a person.

Civilized law is not suppose to allow the victim of the crime to be both judge and executioner. Because such biblical justice would take us back to the old testiment days when the remedy was an "eye for an eye".

I agree with Loren on this one. Or maybe even 6 months. But whatever was decided, the law must be the same for everyone for the same crime with no prejudices.

I don't get your point or see how having it this way would make it significantly different from other laws.

"Sir, we pulled this man over in a car which was registered to you. Did you give him permission to take it?"
"Yes officer, I did" or "No officer, I didn't"

Right there, I just singlehandedly decided whether or not this guy was going to be charged with a crime. If he stole it and I don't want him to go to jail, I am the victim of the crime and also the judge who sets him free.

1. Technically the officer can and still will charge you anyway especially if there is other evidence to support a crime. It is still the law and the courts who get to decide guilt or innocence. Not the victim

2. The severity in the crime and the punishment of it. For the case of a fetus human, that would be considered a capital crime...and all based on victim testimony. Stealing a new car would be at most only a crime against property.

 

[RVonse]

Depends on the mom. She’s the one who makes a choice. If she made the choice to carry it to term, it should be treated like a person.

I disagree. A fetus should not be given "personhood" status, even if the unborn baby was very much wanted.

What should be done, imo, is that the actual crime (the assault on the woman) have added penalties due to the loss of the pregnancy.

Somewhat similar to the way a "hate crime" is an added element to the actual crime of murder, assault, etc - not the crime in and of itself - but much easier to define.

This makes the most sense.

 

[Toni]

Depends on the mom. She’s the one who makes a choice. If she made the choice to carry it to term, it should be treated like a person.

I disagree. A fetus should not be given "personhood" status, even if the unborn baby was very much wanted.

What should be done, imo, is that the actual crime (the assault on the woman) have added penalties due to the loss of the pregnancy.

Somewhat similar to the way a "hate crime" is an added element to the actual crime of murder, assault, etc - not the crime in and of itself - but much easier to define.

A woman A learns that her lover has been unfaithful and the other woman B is pregnant—about to give birth, actually. A attacks B and cuts the full term fetus C from B’s body. B survives but the baby’s head is bashed in by A. Baby C dies.

A has obviously assaulted B. In fact it is not a stretch to charge her with the attempted murder of B. But A also obviously deliberately murdered C and should be charged with murder.

Should this attack have taken place at 10 weeks gestation or 20 weeks, or even25 weeks, the fetus was not viable. But at 40 weeks—definitely viable and the issue of murder is raised.

 

[J842P]

This is due to the long term damaging effect on the victim - not to the personhood of her nose.

But if the fetus is a person, then it is a victim as well and the decision of whether or not it is a person is a choice made by the woman carrying it.

Nah, the question of personhood is answerable only by biology. Someone isn't able to be denied personhood based on another person's opinion, and so nor can a non-person be granted personhood in that way.

I love my dogs; But I can't decide that they are people just because I am angry that someone hurt them. A fetus is even less qualified than a dog for personhood - a fetus doesn't even have a brain, at least for the first couple of trimesters.

Personhood is more of a social category, not really a biological one.

 

[bilby]

Nah, the question of personhood is answerable only by biology. Someone isn't able to be denied personhood based on another person's opinion, and so nor can a non-person be granted personhood in that way.

I love my dogs; But I can't decide that they are people just because I am angry that someone hurt them. A fetus is even less qualified than a dog for personhood - a fetus doesn't even have a brain, at least for the first couple of trimesters.

Personhood is more of a social category, not really a biological one.

I think that view is accurate, but out of date. We fought a series of wars about it between 1861 and 1945. The result was that personhood is granted to all humans with functional brains. There are no 'subhumans', or 'potential humans'; Humans with functioning brains are considered persons (even if they are dark skinned, or Jewish); all others are not.

It's a socially ratified definition, but we have settled, after much bloodshed, on a socially ratified definition based only on simple biology.

The criteria for personhood are:

1) Has functioning brain
and
2) Is human

If you have 1 but not 2, you are an animal but not a person.

If you have 2 but not 1, you may be a corpse, or a fetus, or a tumour, or even a body part; but you are not a person.

If anyone wants to expand or contract this definition today, they're going to need a formidable armed force.

 

[ruby sparks]

Nah, the question of personhood is answerable only by biology. Someone isn't able to be denied personhood based on another person's opinion, and so nor can a non-person be granted personhood in that way.

I love my dogs; But I can't decide that they are people just because I am angry that someone hurt them. A fetus is even less qualified than a dog for personhood - a fetus doesn't even have a brain, at least for the first couple of trimesters.

Personhood is more of a social category, not really a biological one.

I think that view is accurate, but out of date. We fought a series of wars about it between 1861 and 1945. The result was that personhood is granted to all humans with functional brains. There are no 'subhumans', or 'potential humans'; Humans with functioning brains are considered persons (even if they are dark skinned, or Jewish); all others are not.

It's a socially ratified definition, but we have settled, after much bloodshed, on a socially ratified definition based only on simple biology.

The criteria for personhood are:

1) Has functioning brain
and
2) Is human

If you have 1 but not 2, you are an animal but not a person.

If you have 2 but not 1, you may be a corpse, or a fetus, or a tumour, or even a body part; but you are not a person.

If anyone wants to expand or contract this definition today, they're going to need a formidable armed force.

I might take a different view on one thing you mentioned there (while still largely agreeing with you).

I myself accept that there is, effectively, something which could be called a potential person. To me a fetus is both a human being and a potential person.

I'm still 100% pro-choice.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Nah, the question of personhood is answerable only by biology. Someone isn't able to be denied personhood based on another person's opinion, and so nor can a non-person be granted personhood in that way.

I love my dogs; But I can't decide that they are people just because I am angry that someone hurt them. A fetus is even less qualified than a dog for personhood - a fetus doesn't even have a brain, at least for the first couple of trimesters.

Personhood is more of a social category, not really a biological one.

I think that view is accurate, but out of date. We fought a series of wars about it between 1861 and 1945. The result was that personhood is granted to all humans with functional brains. There are no 'subhumans', or 'potential humans'; Humans with functioning brains are considered persons (even if they are dark skinned, or Jewish); all others are not.

It's a socially ratified definition, but we have settled, after much bloodshed, on a socially ratified definition based only on simple biology.

The criteria for personhood are:

1) Has functioning brain

Oh, well, that rules out most of the GOP then.

 

[Half-Life]

Can't you see frozen embryos are not in any woman's womb? We are talking about protection of babies in the womb.

You just tipped your hand Half-Wit If it is "a baby" in the womb, it is "a baby" out of it too.

It is 100% obvious that you don't give ANY shits about the fetus nor babies and children. You are just a twisted authoritarian who thinks you can control women's bodies.

You can't!

And most people who are pro-choice are only pro-choice for the first 3 months. After that, they agree with no abortions. So for 6 months, the woman has no control over her body, despite you guys saying it's all about giving women control over their bodies.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

But again, this discussion is about YOUR hypocrisy.

If it is "a baby" in the womb, it is "a baby" out of it to. And if it is "a baby" at 3 month's pre-born, it is "a baby" at 9 month's pre-born.

I assume you support abortion. How late is too late? What's the difference between a baby the day before it's born and the day it's born? Someone born today on May 23, should it be legal to kill them on May 22? If not, why not?

 

[bilby]

You just tipped your hand Half-Wit If it is "a baby" in the womb, it is "a baby" out of it too.

It is 100% obvious that you don't give ANY shits about the fetus nor babies and children. You are just a twisted authoritarian who thinks you can control women's bodies.

You can't!

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

But again, this discussion is about YOUR hypocrisy.

If it is "a baby" in the womb, it is "a baby" out of it to. And if it is "a baby" at 3 month's pre-born, it is "a baby" at 9 month's pre-born.

I assume you support abortion. How late is too late? What's the difference between a baby the day before it's born and the day it's born? Someone born today on May 23, should it be legal to kill them on May 22? If not, why not?

You appear to be hung up on killing. But abortion has NOTHING to do with killing.

Abortion is the removal of a fetus from the uterus before it is able to survive outside that environment. The survivability criterion varies depending on both the physiological development of the fetus, and the technological capabilities that can be employed at the time.

It's about the woman - it's her choice to say whether to continue allowing the fetus the use of her body. If the answer to that is 'no', then it must be removed; But whether that removal is fatal is irrelevant to the question of whether it should occur.

Your "gotcha" question here is a perfect illustration that you have no clue what you are on about, and are just trying to make a cheap debating point. If a fetus is sufficiently developed as to have any chance of survival outside the womb, then it's almost certainly a wanted pregnancy - if the woman wanted not to have a child, she would have aborted it much earlier.

So the choice to abort that late implies some disastrous situation has occurred, that either threatens the woman's life, or means that the fetus has little chance of one (or both). Such disasters are all different in their details, and require differing medical decisions to be made by the woman involved, with medical advice from experts.

None of the people who find themselves in this horrific situation are helped in any way by intrusive and arbitrary legal restrictions on their difficult choices. The law needs to step back, and allow women and their doctors and medical professionals to make any necessary decisions without the fear of legal sanction.

The crazy scenario you present here isn't an abortion; It's a caesarean. Your bizarre idea that abortion entails deliberately killing something has blinded you to the fact that there is no difference between a very late stage abortion, and a caesarean that the baby sadly doesn't survive. Your eagerness to ban abortion has the unwanted consequence of criminalising attempts to save a woman's life in the event of life-threatening complications immediately before, or even during, childbirth. (And then you have the gall to call yourself 'pro-life').

As usual, your dogma has robbed you of humanity and compassion, and left you incapable of understanding the reality of the situations you envisage. This is why dogma needs to be abandoned. Reality isn't as simple as you want it to be, and legislation is NOT a suitable substitute for decision making by the people who are actually present in a given situation.

 

[ruby sparks]

How late is too late?

I don't know of a good case to not allow abortion (I don't mind calling it killing) of one of these:



And I don't know of a good case (although there are probably exceptions) to allow the abortion of a fetus that is close to term (or baby if you like, by then).

So it seems to me that saying the line should be drawn somewhere between the too is arguably the most sensible solution.

 

[RavenSky]

I assume you support abortion. How late is too late? What's the difference between a baby the day before it's born and the day it's born? Someone born today on May 23, should it be legal to kill them on May 22? If not, why not?

I support you keeping your fucking nose out my private medical decisions. Whatever choice I make is 100% up to me and my doctor for medically related reasons that are none of your fucking business.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nah, the question of personhood is answerable only by biology. Someone isn't able to be denied personhood based on another person's opinion, and so nor can a non-person be granted personhood in that way.

I love my dogs; But I can't decide that they are people just because I am angry that someone hurt them. A fetus is even less qualified than a dog for personhood - a fetus doesn't even have a brain, at least for the first couple of trimesters.

Personhood is more of a social category, not really a biological one.

I think that view is accurate, but out of date. We fought a series of wars about it between 1861 and 1945. The result was that personhood is granted to all humans with functional brains. There are no 'subhumans', or 'potential humans'; Humans with functioning brains are considered persons (even if they are dark skinned, or Jewish); all others are not.

It's a socially ratified definition, but we have settled, after much bloodshed, on a socially ratified definition based only on simple biology.

The criteria for personhood are:

1) Has functioning brain
and
2) Is human

If you have 1 but not 2, you are an animal but not a person.

If you have 2 but not 1, you may be a corpse, or a fetus, or a tumour, or even a body part; but you are not a person.

If anyone wants to expand or contract this definition today, they're going to need a formidable armed force.

Someone in a permanent vegetative state does not meet #1, yet we consider them a person.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I assume you support abortion. How late is too late? What's the difference between a baby the day before it's born and the day it's born? Someone born today on May 23, should it be legal to kill them on May 22? If not, why not?

See anyone on here support elective third-trimester abortions?

(Note, however, that in doctor-speak fetal defect abortions are "elective"--in the medical community anything that can be scheduled is elective even if it's a matter of life and death.)

 

[bilby]

I think that view is accurate, but out of date. We fought a series of wars about it between 1861 and 1945. The result was that personhood is granted to all humans with functional brains. There are no 'subhumans', or 'potential humans'; Humans with functioning brains are considered persons (even if they are dark skinned, or Jewish); all others are not.

It's a socially ratified definition, but we have settled, after much bloodshed, on a socially ratified definition based only on simple biology.

The criteria for personhood are:

1) Has functioning brain
and
2) Is human

If you have 1 but not 2, you are an animal but not a person.

If you have 2 but not 1, you may be a corpse, or a fetus, or a tumour, or even a body part; but you are not a person.

If anyone wants to expand or contract this definition today, they're going to need a formidable armed force.

Someone in a permanent vegetative state does not meet #1, yet we consider them a person.

Yes, they do. A permanent vegetative state is not brain death.