Why people are afraid of universal health care

[Loren Pechtel]

Since the only operative definition of personhood is a legal one, why not call it a person when it takes its first breath?

So an en caul birth is not a person until the sac is opened?? How can removing the sac confer personhood??

Or even just an ordinary water birth. The baby will not drown even if not promptly removed from the water. Once again we are in a position with an action that clearly can't confer personhood meeting the definition?

And it AFIAK hasn't happened yet but what about ECMO? The viability limit is based on the lungs, if the ECMO setup were able to work on an extreme preemie you could have a baby that hasn't taken a breath. It's still very expensive and only used on a short term basis (which causes a hell of an ethical problem at times--what do you do with a patient who was saved by ECMO but whose lungs aren't going to recover?) but new technologies tend to drop in price over time.

 

[Toni]

You didn't say human, you said person.

What difference does that make? Pretty sure the constitution is silent on when a baby becomes a person too, so I'm standing by my prior comment.

Cancer cells removed from a human with Stage 3 lung cancer are human cells but they are not a person and never can be a person.
Human blood cells are human but cannot become a person.
Human remains are human but are no longer a person.
And so on.

Yup, this is a standard deception by the pro-life community that has clouded the waters sufficiently to cause confusion between "human" and "person".

"Human" refers to things of human origin. Even when you modify it with "living" you still have the problem because things like the cells in human blood are clearly alive. (And without the modifier--there are human artifacts on the moon.)

So far, "person" refers only to members of the species homo sapiens. However, it really should be interpreted more broadly--just because we don't know of any other types of person doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere. If an ET were to show up tomorrow are they a person or an animal??

We don’t even truly understand the society or even language, much les the relationships within and between species on our own planets. Whales communicate across vast distances. So do trees, which share nutrients and help heal one another. Octopi are clearly extremely intelligent, able to solve puzzles humans set for them and to escape enclosures and return to the oceans from whence they came across long distances. Just a few examples.

We don’t know or understand enough about other living organisms to consider them to be persons so we consider them non-persons. Which, conveniently allows us to live in this world, consuming our fellow inhabitants we consider unintelligent and lesser creatures.

 

[Toni]

Since the only operative definition of personhood is a legal one, why not call it a person when it takes its first breath?

So an en caul birth is not a person until the sac is opened?? How can removing the sac confer personhood??

Or even just an ordinary water birth. The baby will not drown even if not promptly removed from the water. Once again we are in a position with an action that clearly can't confer personhood meeting the definition?

And it AFIAK hasn't happened yet but what about ECMO? The viability limit is based on the lungs, if the ECMO setup were able to work on an extreme preemie you could have a baby that hasn't taken a breath. It's still very expensive and only used on a short term basis (which causes a hell of an ethical problem at times--what do you do with a patient who was saved by ECMO but whose lungs aren't going to recover?) but new technologies tend to drop in price over time.

Lungs are only part of the issue. How much physical and cognitive damage are we willing to allow/inflict in the name of ‘saving babies?’

It really is extremely complex and difficult.

 

[Elixir]

How can removing the sac confer personhood??

That’s your idea. look at it as respiration “causes” personhood if you like. But I don’t really care how you or I or anyone else defines personhood. I just don’t like laws that kill innocent people and don’t benefit anyone.

 

[Emily Lake]

According to the constitution you have to be born to become a citizen. You are nothing to the constitution prior to birth.

That's a very special pleading sort of reading.

The constitution grants citizenship to anyone who is born on US soil. I see what you're doing, and it's clearly rubbing some smoke and mirrors on the clear intention of the constitution.

 

[Emily Lake]

Since the only operative definition of personhood is a legal one, why not call it a person when it takes its first breath?

So an en caul birth is not a person until the sac is opened?? How can removing the sac confer personhood??

Or even just an ordinary water birth. The baby will not drown even if not promptly removed from the water. Once again we are in a position with an action that clearly can't confer personhood meeting the definition?

And it AFIAK hasn't happened yet but what about ECMO? The viability limit is based on the lungs, if the ECMO setup were able to work on an extreme preemie you could have a baby that hasn't taken a breath. It's still very expensive and only used on a short term basis (which causes a hell of an ethical problem at times--what do you do with a patient who was saved by ECMO but whose lungs aren't going to recover?) but new technologies tend to drop in price over time.

Lungs are only part of the issue. How much physical and cognitive damage are we willing to allow/inflict in the name of ‘saving babies?’

It really is extremely complex and difficult.

There might be a bit of fuzziness that needs to be considered, but seriously, is the concept of viability such a mystery to so many of you?

It's not even that hard to address the fuzziness.
If, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant will not survive outside of the womb regardless of the degree of medical intervention, then there are no limitations at all.
If, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant will survive outside of the womb without any material medical intervention, then there needs to be a risk to the health of the mother or profound disability/risk/injury to the infant.
f, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant might survive but only with significant medical intervention, and survivability isn't guaranteed... then it defaults to the mother's choice.

Seriously, this isn't so difficult a concept.

 

[Emily Lake]

How can removing the sac confer personhood??

That’s your idea. look at it as respiration “causes” personhood if you like. But I don’t really care how you or I or anyone else defines personhood. I just don’t like laws that kill innocent people and don’t benefit anyone.

Neither do I, dor does anyone else who supports the bog-standard viability based limitations. That's why those limitation allow for risk to the mother's health to override any expectation of continuation!

 

[Toni]

Since the only operative definition of personhood is a legal one, why not call it a person when it takes its first breath?

So an en caul birth is not a person until the sac is opened?? How can removing the sac confer personhood??

Or even just an ordinary water birth. The baby will not drown even if not promptly removed from the water. Once again we are in a position with an action that clearly can't confer personhood meeting the definition?

And it AFIAK hasn't happened yet but what about ECMO? The viability limit is based on the lungs, if the ECMO setup were able to work on an extreme preemie you could have a baby that hasn't taken a breath. It's still very expensive and only used on a short term basis (which causes a hell of an ethical problem at times--what do you do with a patient who was saved by ECMO but whose lungs aren't going to recover?) but new technologies tend to drop in price over time.

Lungs are only part of the issue. How much physical and cognitive damage are we willing to allow/inflict in the name of ‘saving babies?’

It really is extremely complex and difficult.

There might be a bit of fuzziness that needs to be considered, but seriously, is the concept of viability such a mystery to so many of you?

It's not even that hard to address the fuzziness.
If, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant will not survive outside of the womb regardless of the degree of medical intervention, then there are no limitations at all.
If, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant will survive outside of the womb without any material medical intervention, then there needs to be a risk to the health of the mother or profound disability/risk/injury to the infant.
f, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant might survive but only with significant medical intervention, and survivability isn't guaranteed... then it defaults to the mother's choice.

Seriously, this isn't so difficult a concept.

Sure. Unless it is you, hemorrhaging badly because the placenta is over the cervix and this badly wanted pregnancy may kill you and leave your other child(ren) without a mother.

Unless your blood pressure keeps spiking despite repeated adjustments to meds and complete bed rest/ hospitalization,

Sure, unless your tumor has started growing again and is pressing badly on your kidneys which are failing and you have to decide whether to continue the pregnancy or to live long enough to deliver a healthy baby which will become motherless within days or weeks of birth.

Sure, unless your kidneys are failing or you have developed serious strain to your heart or your lungs or you are struggling to stay alive without the medications that control your severe mental illness because the ones deemed 'safe enough' for a developing fetus are inadequate to stop the demons inside your head.

Sure, unless you are afraid your ex who beat you badly and raped you when you told him you were breaking up with him will find you in the hospital and remove all future choices from your control.

And a dozen other things that I don't personally know women who have had to struggle with while pregnant.

I don't know how often you have had to make immediate literal life and death decisions for yourself or for others, but it's not nearly as easy as typing out letters on a keyboard that only strangers will read. Especially if it is not you bleeding out, struggling to keep from stroking out or to keep your demons quiet enough to allow you to rest and not go searching for sharp objects or windows in rooms on high floors.

Seriously: sometimes there are only seconds to minutes to make these decisions---under the best circumstances.

 

[TomC]

Since the only operative definition of personhood is a legal one, why not call it a person when it takes its first breath?

So an en caul birth is not a person until the sac is opened?? How can removing the sac confer personhood??

Or even just an ordinary water birth. The baby will not drown even if not promptly removed from the water. Once again we are in a position with an action that clearly can't confer personhood meeting the definition?

And it AFIAK hasn't happened yet but what about ECMO? The viability limit is based on the lungs, if the ECMO setup were able to work on an extreme preemie you could have a baby that hasn't taken a breath. It's still very expensive and only used on a short term basis (which causes a hell of an ethical problem at times--what do you do with a patient who was saved by ECMO but whose lungs aren't going to recover?) but new technologies tend to drop in price over time.

Lungs are only part of the issue. How much physical and cognitive damage are we willing to allow/inflict in the name of ‘saving babies?’

It really is extremely complex and difficult.

There might be a bit of fuzziness that needs to be considered, but seriously, is the concept of viability such a mystery to so many of you?

It's not even that hard to address the fuzziness.
If, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant will not survive outside of the womb regardless of the degree of medical intervention, then there are no limitations at all.
If, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant will survive outside of the womb without any material medical intervention, then there needs to be a risk to the health of the mother or profound disability/risk/injury to the infant.
f, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant might survive but only with significant medical intervention, and survivability isn't guaranteed... then it defaults to the mother's choice.

Seriously, this isn't so difficult a concept.

Sure. Unless it is you, hemorrhaging badly because the placenta is over the cervix and this badly wanted pregnancy may kill you and leave your other child(ren) without a mother.

Unless your blood pressure keeps spiking despite repeated adjustments to meds and complete bed rest/ hospitalization,

Sure, unless your tumor has started growing again and is pressing badly on your kidneys which are failing and you have to decide whether to continue the pregnancy or to live long enough to deliver a healthy baby which will become motherless within days or weeks of birth.

Sure, unless your kidneys are failing or you have developed serious strain to your heart or your lungs or you are struggling to stay alive without the medications that control your severe mental illness because the ones deemed 'safe enough' for a developing fetus are inadequate to stop the demons inside your head.

Sure, unless you are afraid your ex who beat you badly and raped you when you told him you were breaking up with him will find you in the hospital and remove all future choices from your control.

And a dozen other things that I don't personally know women who have had to struggle with while pregnant.

I don't know how often you have had to make immediate literal life and death decisions for yourself or for others, but it's not nearly as easy as typing out letters on a keyboard that only strangers will read. Especially if it is not you bleeding out, struggling to keep from stroking out or to keep your demons quiet enough to allow you to rest and not go searching for sharp objects or windows in rooms on high floors.

Seriously: sometimes there are only seconds to minutes to make these decisions---under the best circumstances.

I'm glad that I, as a gay male nonparent, didn't have to explain the many huge complexities in this situation to a mother.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Since the only operative definition of personhood is a legal one, why not call it a person when it takes its first breath?

So an en caul birth is not a person until the sac is opened?? How can removing the sac confer personhood??

Or even just an ordinary water birth. The baby will not drown even if not promptly removed from the water. Once again we are in a position with an action that clearly can't confer personhood meeting the definition?

And it AFIAK hasn't happened yet but what about ECMO? The viability limit is based on the lungs, if the ECMO setup were able to work on an extreme preemie you could have a baby that hasn't taken a breath. It's still very expensive and only used on a short term basis (which causes a hell of an ethical problem at times--what do you do with a patient who was saved by ECMO but whose lungs aren't going to recover?) but new technologies tend to drop in price over time.

Lungs are only part of the issue. How much physical and cognitive damage are we willing to allow/inflict in the name of ‘saving babies?’

It really is extremely complex and difficult.

There might be a bit of fuzziness that needs to be considered, but seriously, is the concept of viability such a mystery to so many of you?

It's not even that hard to address the fuzziness.
If, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant will not survive outside of the womb regardless of the degree of medical intervention, then there are no limitations at all.
If, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant will survive outside of the womb without any material medical intervention, then there needs to be a risk to the health of the mother or profound disability/risk/injury to the infant.
f, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant might survive but only with significant medical intervention, and survivability isn't guaranteed... then it defaults to the mother's choice.

Seriously, this isn't so difficult a concept.

Indeed, there is a LOT of fuzziness. A premature baby might do well and not live with serious life long disabilities. Or might not. The greater the prematurity, the greater the risk of serious life long disabilities that are incompatible with life without lifelong expensive painful interventions that never allow the child to grow into an independent adult. What about a child who will remain bed bound, unable to communicate their needs, or to respond meaningfully with their caretakers? Does it matter if this child will drain the family's resources and keep them in poverty, stunting the ability of the parents to parent their other children, to provide for their care and education? Because I knew someone in that situation as well. The marriage did not survive. The other children had serious struggles, despite being exceptionally bright and creative. The child died anyway.

I've known parents who struggled mightily with repeated surgeries to correct a birth defect and to allow their child--their beloved, longed for child--to live as close to a normal life as possible. And I know marriages that have ended because of it, leaving a single parent to deal with all of the decisions for this child plus raise the other child(ren) on her own. Yes, I typed her because usually, it's the him who books it.

I know someone--or did, until she passed away--who continued her pregnancy against all of her doctor's best advice because her type 1 diabetes was so difficult to control during pregnancy and labor and delivery and who ultimately lost both of her legs to the disease. No she did not regret her son's birth but wasn't that HER decision to make?

 

[ZiprHead]

According to the constitution you have to be born to become a citizen. You are nothing to the constitution prior to birth.

That's a very special pleading sort of reading.

The constitution grants citizenship to anyone who is born on US soil. I see what you're doing, and it's clearly rubbing some smoke and mirrors on the clear intention of the constitution.

Okay. So quote the parts of the Constitution that addresses the preborn. I'll wait.

 

[Elixir]

is the concept of viability such a mystery to so many of you?

No. in a world where they wouldn’t cause the death of women, I would not oppose laws regulating the treatment of viable fetuses. Laws endangering medical professionals and killing people are what I oppose. There has yet to be invented a law restricting abortion that has not been weaponized against women. They have been killing many of them, especially lately. Probably outnumbering viable fetuses being aborted. And I don’t value any fetus as much as any mother of a fetus. Is that hard to understand?

So quote the parts of the Constitution that addresses the preborn. I'll wait.

It’s a “personhood” argument in sheep’s clothing AFAICT. No constitutional basis.

 

[laughing dog]

How can removing the sac confer personhood??

That’s your idea. look at it as respiration “causes” personhood if you like. But I don’t really care how you or I or anyone else defines personhood. I just don’t like laws that kill innocent people and don’t benefit anyone.

Why insist a "viable" fetus is a person? That is the real stumbling block. Viability will change with medical technology. Would still insist on the viability criterion when an one week old fetus becomes viable?

And aborting a fetus in the 8th month does benefit someone - the mother. But yet you oppose that.

 

[Elixir]

Would still insist on the viability criterion when an one week old fetus becomes viable?

^ What I was wondering. Fingernail clippings could become “viable”.
But again, I believe that favoring the lives of fetuses over those of undisputed actual people, is a travesty, viability notwithstanding.

I am still waiting for Emily to express the implication; fetuses are people.
Back in the day it was widely medically deemed that mother’s life took precedence over that of a fetus because the mother could just go make another one. I feel like the foundational assumption there is flawed, that the fetus is a person and the decision is about populating, rather than weighing the outright values of mothers vs their fetuses.

When society loses a fetus maybe Jesus weeps, but not many other people besides the mother typically do. When the mother dies horribly, it is a shock to society. There’s just no equivocation possible that I can see.

How can removing the sac confer personhood??

That’s your idea. look at it as respiration “causes” personhood if you like. But I don’t really care how you or I or anyone else defines personhood. I just don’t like laws that kill innocent people and don’t benefit anyone.

Neither do I, dor does anyone else who supports the bog-standard viability based limitations. That's why those limitation allow for risk to the mother's health to override any expectation of continuation!

When the determinative basis is not precisely bounded, abuse is inevitable. Viability cannot always be reliably determined and is often expressed in terms of survival odds. Why risk mothers’ lives?
How many people do you know who were about to be aborted after viability, but were saved by laws that tied thaphysicisns’ hands? ‘Cuz I can get you names of actual people killed by those hands being tied.

 

[Emily Lake]

Since the only operative definition of personhood is a legal one, why not call it a person when it takes its first breath?

So an en caul birth is not a person until the sac is opened?? How can removing the sac confer personhood??

Or even just an ordinary water birth. The baby will not drown even if not promptly removed from the water. Once again we are in a position with an action that clearly can't confer personhood meeting the definition?

And it AFIAK hasn't happened yet but what about ECMO? The viability limit is based on the lungs, if the ECMO setup were able to work on an extreme preemie you could have a baby that hasn't taken a breath. It's still very expensive and only used on a short term basis (which causes a hell of an ethical problem at times--what do you do with a patient who was saved by ECMO but whose lungs aren't going to recover?) but new technologies tend to drop in price over time.

Lungs are only part of the issue. How much physical and cognitive damage are we willing to allow/inflict in the name of ‘saving babies?’

It really is extremely complex and difficult.

There might be a bit of fuzziness that needs to be considered, but seriously, is the concept of viability such a mystery to so many of you?

It's not even that hard to address the fuzziness.
If, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant will not survive outside of the womb regardless of the degree of medical intervention, then there are no limitations at all.
If, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant will survive outside of the womb without any material medical intervention, then there needs to be a risk to the health of the mother or profound disability/risk/injury to the infant.
f, in the opinion of the doctor, the infant might survive but only with significant medical intervention, and survivability isn't guaranteed... then it defaults to the mother's choice.

Seriously, this isn't so difficult a concept.

Sure. Unless it is you, hemorrhaging badly because the placenta is over the cervix and this badly wanted pregnancy may kill you and leave your other child(ren) without a mother.

Unless your blood pressure keeps spiking despite repeated adjustments to meds and complete bed rest/ hospitalization,

Sure, unless your tumor has started growing again and is pressing badly on your kidneys which are failing and you have to decide whether to continue the pregnancy or to live long enough to deliver a healthy baby which will become motherless within days or weeks of birth.

Sure, unless your kidneys are failing or you have developed serious strain to your heart or your lungs or you are struggling to stay alive without the medications that control your severe mental illness because the ones deemed 'safe enough' for a developing fetus are inadequate to stop the demons inside your head.

Sure, unless you are afraid your ex who beat you badly and raped you when you told him you were breaking up with him will find you in the hospital and remove all future choices from your control.

And a dozen other things that I don't personally know women who have had to struggle with while pregnant.

I don't know how often you have had to make immediate literal life and death decisions for yourself or for others, but it's not nearly as easy as typing out letters on a keyboard that only strangers will read. Especially if it is not you bleeding out, struggling to keep from stroking out or to keep your demons quiet enough to allow you to rest and not go searching for sharp objects or windows in rooms on high floors.

Seriously: sometimes there are only seconds to minutes to make these decisions---under the best circumstances.

You know, you're ignoring what I've said over and over and over until I'm blue in the face... and focusing on this bit of conversation that was related to only one element of my position.

Be honest Toni - do you genuinely think that because I am discussing what does and does not constitute viability for an infant in this specific interaction where the context is that the mother's life is not at risk, that I have entirely abandoned my repeated call for risk to the mother's health to be an element of consideration?

 

[Emily Lake]

No she did not regret her son's birth but wasn't that HER decision to make?

Show me where I have even remotely suggested that this is NOT her decision to make.

 

[Emily Lake]

According to the constitution you have to be born to become a citizen. You are nothing to the constitution prior to birth.

That's a very special pleading sort of reading.

The constitution grants citizenship to anyone who is born on US soil. I see what you're doing, and it's clearly rubbing some smoke and mirrors on the clear intention of the constitution.

Okay. So quote the parts of the Constitution that addresses the preborn. I'll wait.

The constitution doesn't address amputees, so they must not be persons...

 

[Elixir]

Is it worth it?
Trading the lives of relatives loved ones and friends for the outside chance that you might save a fetus?

Sad that this is a question.

 

[Emily Lake]

No. in a world where they wouldn’t cause the death of women, I would not oppose laws regulating the treatment of viable fetuses.

Holy christ on a cracker... Are you incapable of second grade reading comprehension?

I support the exact same abortion policy that was in place prior to RvW being overturned: Fully elective terminations within the first two trimesters; terminations on the basis of medical need in the last trimester, based on the health of the mother or the viability of the fetus. I think that's an entirely reasonable position to take, because in that last trimester infants are generally viable outside the womb with medical assistance. At that point, it's no longer a blob of cells, it actually is a baby.

 

[Elixir]

No. in a world where they wouldn’t cause the death of women, I would not oppose laws regulating the treatment of viable fetuses.

Holy christ on a cracker... Are you incapable of second grade reading comprehension?

I support the exact same abortion policy that was in place prior to RvW being overturned: Fully elective terminations within the first two trimesters; terminations on the basis of medical need in the last trimester, based on the health of the mother or the viability of the fetus. I think that's an entirely reasonable position to take, because in that last trimester infants are generally viable outside the womb with medical assistance. At that point, it's no longer a blob of cells, it actually is a baby.

No need to insult. One might almost think you failed to comprehend the question.

Is it worth it?
Trading the lives of relatives loved ones and friends for the outside chance that you might save a fetus?

Sad that this is even a question.
I understand how you’d LIKE it to be, though why you prefer to litigate fuzzy stuff like doctors’ opinions about viability rather than actually ACCEPT the doctor’s opinion automatically, I have no idea. Perhaps you are suffering from the delusion that if it’s illegal it won’t be leveraged to scare doctors into not providing healthcare, despite the fact that it’s happening every day wherever these laws exist.