Why people are afraid of universal health care

[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.

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.

Thank you for demonstrating your inability to read at a second grade level.

Health of the mother and whether or not the fetus is even going to stay alive or thrive as an allowable reason to terminate in the last trimester is LITERALLY ACCEPTING THE DOCTOR'S OPINION AUTOMATICALLY.

 

[Elixir]

Health of the mother and whether or not the fetus is even going to stay alive or thrive as an allowable reason to terminate in the last trimester is LITERALLY ACCEPTING THE DOCTOR'S OPINION AUTOMATICALLY.

Then WHY HAVE LAWS THAT CAN BE ABUSED AND KILL PEOPLE?
I read better than you do when I was in kinderfucking garten. Seriously.
You are still advocating legal consequences for not "saving" some ARGUABLY viable FETUS, which is what causes the DEATHS of PEOPLE.
Still nobody benefiting from those useless, stupid laws.

 

[Elixir]

Emily gets very busy when the question above is asked or re-asked.
Such a coincidence.

 

[Emily Lake]

Health of the mother and whether or not the fetus is even going to stay alive or thrive as an allowable reason to terminate in the last trimester is LITERALLY ACCEPTING THE DOCTOR'S OPINION AUTOMATICALLY.

Then WHY HAVE LAWS THAT CAN BE ABUSED AND KILL PEOPLE?
I read better than you do when I was in kinderfucking garten. Seriously.
You are still advocating legal consequences for not "saving" some ARGUABLY viable FETUS, which is what causes the DEATHS of PEOPLE.
Still nobody benefiting from those useless, stupid laws.

You're advocating for an approach that allows for the literally and intentional KILLING of babies. I get that you don't think it's a baby two days before delivery, but I do. I get that you feel that the collateral damage of killing those near-term babies when there's not a risk to the mother is a sacrifice that you're willing to make... but I don't.

And you're either being dishonest or incredibly dense. An approach that allows for termination in order to SAVE THE MOTHER'S LIFE isn't going to cause the death of those mothers that it's intentionally designed to save.

You can believe whatever you want. If you want to believe that a fetus a week before due date isn't a person, isn't a baby, and doesn't matter, that's on you. You can view those infants as unimportant if you want to. I don't.

Emily gets very busy when the question above is asked or re-asked.
Such a coincidence.

Emily has a job. I'm sorry to inconvenience you by being a productive member of society.

 

[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.

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.

The other damage is likely due to the lungs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You can't have a law against killing innocent people without having a definition of "person". Consider: Legally, slaves have generally not been people.

 

[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.

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.

Except this is very different than what you're arguing for.

To get to the point of survival pretty much being guaranteed you're looking at 28 weeks.

To get to the point of survival without serious damage pretty much being guaranteed you're looking at 32 weeks.

To get to the point of survival without substantial medical intervention you're looking at 36 weeks.

So your answer actually is somewhere in the 32 to 36 week point.

 

[Elixir]

You can't have a law against killing innocent people without having a definition of "person".

And?
Fetuses are not persons. Case closed.

 

[laughing dog]

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...

Amputees have been recognized as persons for centuries. The same cannot be said of fetuses.

 

[laughing dog]

Emily has a job. I'm sorry to inconvenience you by being a productive member of society.

I am sure you are a productive member of society but having a job is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for being a productive member of society.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

And you still see "viability" as a binary. It's not. It's a probability. And if the probability of survival is meaningfully less than 100% the probability of severe damage is high. At the edge of viability severe damage is approximately 100%.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

At 24 weeks it's a severely damaged baby. At 28 weeks it's about a 1 in 3 chance of being severely damaged.

 

[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.

At 24 weeks it's a severely damaged baby. At 28 weeks it's about a 1 in 3 chance of being severely damaged.

At 10-55 years, it probably has had friends, relatives, classmates, co-workers, maybe kids … but hey, no prob if it is denied lifesaving care and dies because a doc or hospital fears litigation due to some ignorant fucks who think a fetus is more valuable than a PERSON.
Abortion laws KILL PEOPLE. Even laws that are well intended toward fetuses.
EVEN ONES REGARDING THIRD TRIMESTER BANS.

See, it’s really simple. Abortion bans kill people and don’t benefit anyone.
Laws that kill people and don’t benefit anyone, are BAD laws, IMHO.
Convince me otherwise. List the benefits that are worth killing innocent women.
Or show me how a third trimester restriction cannot be leveraged to prevent a patient (PERSON) from receiving life saving care.
Repeating that such laws are well intended doesn’t save that poor woman from dying a horrible, needless death.
The road to hell and all that.

Emily’s personal insults are ample evidence of her Intellectual bankruptcy when it comes to this “question”. My reading comprehension is not on trial here and her insistence that it was “all fine with Roe” doesn’t feed the donkey. It ain’t all fine now, and it won’t be fine as long as we have zealous religious morons and laws they can use to leverage power over women.

 

[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.

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

It addresses the born.

 

[Elixir]

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...

It addresses the born.

You’re supposed to take “anyone who is born on US soil” seriously but not literally. I mean, They probably meant “anyone born or who might be about to be born on US soil”

 

[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...

Amputees have been recognized as persons for centuries. The same cannot be said of fetuses.

Ummm... the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

And you still see "viability" as a binary. It's not. It's a probability. And if the probability of survival is meaningfully less than 100% the probability of severe damage is high. At the edge of viability severe damage is approximately 100%.

I don't see it as binary

On the other hand, I DO see it as falling into the heap fallacy. Prior to some number of items, the collection isn't a heap. Beyond some other, greater number of items, the collection is clearly a heap. We can't specify the exact number of items that makes it a heap, but that doesn't mean that it's never a heap. Same thing here. Before some particular length of development, it's an embryo and not a baby. After some other longer length of development, it's a baby. Just because we can't put an explicit number of days to it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We can pick a threshold somewhere toward the bottom end of that "It's a baby" range and stick with it, because it's a reasonable and caring thing to do - PROVIDED WE ALLOW FOR EXCEPTIONS WHEN THEY'RE NEEDED.

 

[laughing dog]

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...

Amputees have been recognized as persons for centuries. The same cannot be said of fetuses.

Ummm... the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

Abortion throughout the US became illegal in 1910s.

In world history, abortion was not illegal in ancient Greece, or India. In Rome, it was illegal if against the wishes of the father. In Europe, abortion was well into the 1800s in many countries.

So I believe you are mistaken

 

[bilby]

Ummm... the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

Ummm... the argument that infants are people, and are therefore not disposable on demand (and are likely to survive even if you really, really, want them to) is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

During the Early Middle Ages in Europe, the History of European Morals (1869) by Irish historian William Lecky mentions that infant exposure was not punishable by law and was practiced on a large scale and was considered a pardonable offense. In the 8th century, foundling hospitals were opened in Milan, Florence and Rome, among others, to help reduce the deaths of newborns who were subjected to exposure. Church authorities were in charge of these hospitals until the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_exposure

 

[Elixir]

disposable on demand

is definitely a newfangled invention of the religious right.

Whose demand are you referring to?
The rich guy with several mistresses can probably demand whatever abortions are required for his convenience or preference, regardless of laws, as has ever been the case in ‘Murka.
But the lady bleeding out in the parking lot might get the whole hospital shut down, so she can fucking die before we let her in.

^ until you can get doctors and medical establishments beyond the threat of having to retroactively prove level of life-threat to the mother, point of fetal viability etc. in terms better than a jury’s or some third party “expert” opinion, in court, abortion laws will keep on killing.

Why not at least try to estimate the “cost” of those mythical elective abortions of viable fetuses? And let’s see how many people die from abortion laws. Then we can see exactly what a woman is worth.