SedRate Posted March 24, 2023 Share Posted March 24, 2023 On 3/22/2023 at 11:24 PM, rev ronin said: One of the few things that has been an unquestionably positive medical development has been improvements in childbirth safety. No one complained about sex and pregnancy before contraception, even though it killed more women, because they knew that intercourse necessarily involved procreation or the potential of procreation: It's the only way we make new baby humans, and if the average woman in a particular society doesn't have ~2.1-2.2 live children, population in that context is either going to expand or contract. That replacement value number has itself dropped based on decreases in infant mortality. However, introduce reasonably effective contraception, and we find people unhappy with the possibility of general but imperfect separation between sex and procreation. The most disappointing thing about improvements in maternal mortality is that they are so unequally distributed. Not sure what was going on in the incident you reference, but perimortem C-section is supposed to help mom first, baby second. Just because they appear to have tried to save the twins, doesn't mean that they split the difference or prioritized fetal life inappropriately: "Perimortem Caesarean section (PMCS) is a rare surgical procedure that is potentially lifesaving for mother and child [1]. During resuscitation for cardiac arrest, the gravid uterus over 20 weeks’ gestation can impair chest compressions and ventilation, and reduce venous return to the heart through compression of the aorta and vena cava. Therefore, the primary aim of PMCS is to empty the uterus to aid maternal resuscitation [2, 3]. PMCS is recommended to improve resuscitation efforts primarily with the mother’s well-being in mind, in contrast to the past practice when it was performed on women after they died in childbirth [2, 3]. Current resuscitation and obstetrics guidelines recommend consideration of PMCS at 4 min of failed resuscitation with the aim of delivering the fetus within 1–2min [2, 4]." Cerovac A, Hudić I, Softić D, Habek D. Perimortem Caesarean section because of a live fetus: case report and literature review. Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift. May 2021:1-4. doi:10.1007/s10354-021-00847-5 Sorry, but I do get tired of "whataboutism" that seems to ask a shotgun of difficult and trivial questions all at once, which is how I reacted to your post. I was a bit exasperated, but condescension wasn't my goal and I'm sorry that it came across that way. Why not? Sex is also innately pleasurable, and appears to help pair bonding through oxytocin production. That is, even if sex is not procreative, and much is not, it can serve as adaptive in keeping a mated pair together to cooperatively raise offspring, and this extends to many mammalian species. Don't make the Augustinian mistake of assuming that just because sex has procreation as its natural end, that that is the only appropriate use for it. Augustine went from fornicator to monk and became the Western church's authoritative voice on sex, never once having engaged in married intercourse... but apologies for discussing both theology and science together. "... We also reflect on Harris's observations on vasopressin secretion, on the effects of stress, and on oxytocin secretion during sexual activity." Leng G, Pineda R, Sabatier N, Ludwig M. The posterior pituitary, from Geoffrey Harris to our present understanding. Journal of Endocrinology. 2015;226(2):T173-T185. doi:10.1530/JOE-15-0087 Not all effects of pregnancy are negative. For example, a woman whose first pregnancy ends in a term birth has a significant reduction in lifetime breast cancer incidence. Both abortion and miscarriage forfeit this advantage, so to the extent that elective abortion is commonly used (that is, when there is no specific risk to the life of the mother), it ends up causing avoidable cancers and hence avoidable maternal morbidity and mortality. Brind J, Condly SJ, Lanfranchi A, Rooney B. Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies on South Asian Women. Issues in Law & Medicine. 2018;33(1):33-54. Accessed March 23, 2023 The effects of prenatal substance exposure are unfortunate and unpredictable. There was some correlation between maternal tylenol use and autism spectrum disorder, but causality is impossible to assess without prospective randomized controlled trials, which no one is going to do. FAS or drug addicted kids can become problematic adults. If they end up being such, why not kill them later rather than aborting them in utero? If there is no difference between the born and unborn from a utilitarian perspective, why not wait until the person's fitness and societal value has been properly assessed? And, less tongue in cheek, if you're unwilling to have them killed after birth, why advocate they be killed beforehand? Brain dead individuals are indeed an interesting case. Bringing questions of care care back to the antenatal realm, survival of extremely premature babies matters in significant part based on how aggressive hospitals are about deploying best care for them. Bottom line? Centers that use most current evidence, believe good outcomes are possible, and have a culture supporting a belief in a positive potential for exceptionally premature babies do a better job of saving such babies and having them leave the hospital neurologically intact than do similar extremely premature babies born at centers that don't. Shukla A, Beshers C, Worley S, Chowdhary V, Collin M. In the grey zone-survival and morbidities of periviable births. J Perinatol. 2022 Aug;42(8):1001-1007. doi: 10.1038/s41372-022-01355-z. Epub 2022 Mar 10. PMID: 35273353. So what do we think about how that might translate to how "brain dead" humans might fare? Obviously no direct conclusions can be drawn, but do you think that attitude towards potential outcome--say, human being with worth and dignity vs. source of potential spare parts--matters? I appreciate your insights, thorough responses, and references to all my "what ifs," lol. I don't mean to be exasperating, trolling, or contrarian. I hear you about the reduction in morbidity with certain conditions after pregnancy. However, there is also increased morbidity with other conditions, as you know, as well as with increased maternal age. Alternatively, there is increased and decreased morbidity with certain forms of contraception, as well. But that's just what I remember from PA school and those data may have changed. I don't remember the exact details of the twins scenario as I wasn't directly involved and I could be getting the details wrong. Regardless, it was a very unfortunate scenario, obviously, and made even more difficult given the emergent, tenuous circumstance. To your last question, it's a good one and a reason I brought it up as well. As for an answer, I don't have one. If someone can help others live by donating their body after "death," I think there's dignity in that (aside from obviously being harvested/mutilated). However, the notion of innate "human being ness" is why I brought it up. If a human being starts at conception and an embryo being aborted is murder, when is someone no longer a human being and therefore not able to be murdered? Is it at brain death, cardiac death, some other end point, or never meaning a human being will forever remain a human being after conception even when deceased? And if never, would organ donors need to be protected and organ harvesting be reexamined as murder? Ultimately, why is aborting an embryo murder while organ procurement is not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted March 25, 2023 Administrator Share Posted March 25, 2023 2 hours ago, SedRate said: To your last question, it's a good one and a reason I brought it up as well. As for an answer, I don't have one. If someone can help others live by donating their body after "death," I think there's dignity in that (aside from obviously being harvested/mutilated). However, the notion of innate "human being ness" is why I brought it up. If a human being starts at conception and an embryo being aborted is murder, when is someone no longer a human being and therefore not able to be murdered? Is it at brain death, cardiac death, some other end point, or never meaning a human being will forever remain a human being after conception even when deceased? And if never, would organ donors need to be protected and organ harvesting be reexamined as murder? Ultimately, why is aborting an embryo murder while organ procurement is not? While not exhaustive, one of the differences between an embryo and a neurologically compromised adult is developmental trajectory. This is also the reason no one objects to a D&C for a missed abortion: Where is this life, supported unmolested, going? In the case of severe neurological compromise, nowhere good, hence the notion of "brain death". But that itself is problematic, in that in some cases, pregnant women rendered brain dead have continued to carry their children to term while on life support. Some Catholic bioethicists have made the point that "dead" mothers cannot logically birth "live" infants, so a pregnant woman whose "brain dead" body nourishes its own intrauterine child to grow and develop must be alive in some very real sense. Obviously, that's true in the cellular sense. In the case of an embryo or fetus, demise is measured by the lack of growth and circulation, just like it is in an already born human. Unlike those already born, however, there's no realistic way to get the fetal heart restarted. Cardiac death is not the end of an organism, but it surely is the end of one absent heroic interventions like defibrillation, post-cardiac arrest hypothermia, etc. Leave a fetus alone in its supportive intrauterine context and the vast majority develop to viability and then term, eventually something even Peter Singer would recognize as unquestionably human. The ethical issue that eagerness to harvest human tissue was noted in context of physician assisted suicide in Canada in a Letter published in NEJM in 2020 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc1915485, and is becoming an even more pressing issue: https://www.thehastingscenter.org/medical-aid-in-dying-and-organ-donation-canadas-autonomy-gap/https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canada-performing-more-organ-transplants-from-maid-donors-than-any-country-in-the-world-1.6234133 Wouldn't it be great when prisoners can be incentivized to donate their organs? Pretty quick, we can accomplish through payments or social credit what the PRC has through imprisonment and liquidation of religious minorities: Lee C. Medical Papers and Official Publications from China Show Mass Murder for Organ Transplants. Chinascope. 2016;(82):19-23. So even if there's a wonderful possibility of gifting life to the dying from others dying, there are clearly ethical abuses that are more than academic possibilities. I'm a registered organ donor myself, but maybe poor people shouldn't be allowed to be. I have the freedom and agency that being financially self-sufficient and well educated brings, but don't have the means to pay for an organ on the open market. Sadly, the vast majority of the world will fall into one of the other two camps: either too poor to be only donors, or sufficiently rich to buy an organ from someone who was still using it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeTheBabe Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 On 3/22/2023 at 12:29 PM, rev ronin said: Doctors don't leave practice because laws prohibit killing unborn babies: murderers do. Remember, folks, the PA Oath is scientifically explicit and particular on this matter: "I pledge to perform the following duties with honesty, integrity, and dedication, remembering always that my primary responsibility is to the health, safety, welfare, and dignity of all human beings:" (emphasis mine) They could have said "persons" which would have been equivocal, or "legal persons" which would have clearly excluded the unborn, but the PA Oath applies to every human being, including the aged, dying, helpless, suffering, incarcerated, differently abled, or unborn. Well that's just a load of crap. So apparently we are calling fellow healthcare professionals murderers now on this forum and that's okay? Do you really not understand the difference between murdering a living, breathing human being and aborting a fetus? Can you not come up with any scenario in which one would need to perform an abortion that is just and should be legal? The problem is that these laws are intentionally vague and can open you up to lawsuits. Here are a couple of real life examples. My friend in Florida (15 week abortion ban) had a girl with PPROM at 17 week in the ED. Well they wouldn't touch her until she was sick/septic even though that fetus has a 0% chance of survival because no one wants to be made an example of in court. There are lawmakers who think you can reimplant an ectopic pregnancy and they are making up the rules. My friend in Ohio (cardiac activity ~6 week abortion ban) was trying for a 2nd baby after having a healthy baby boy, but ended up begin diagnosed with a severe cranial fetal abnormality at 20 week fetal ultrasound. Devastated, she made the extremely difficult and personal choice to have an abortion which was the lesser evil of two shitty choices. Well, she had to fly to another state to get it done without her family there for support (luckily she is a PA and has the funds to do so). Was her doctor a murderer? If a 15 year old is raped, should she not be allowed to take a plan B or have an abortion like many lawmakers are trying to prevent? There is so much nuance and gray areas in medicine, it's not black and white as you make it out to be. Don't convince yourself that personal/religious views should be applied to the population as a whole. I don't consider a fertilized egg a human being, and there is no clear cut time in which the dividing of cells becomes a human being. Sure it could eventually be a human being, but so can an unfertilized egg. The major turn of events in the equation is the act of birth. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, even with Roe v Wade there was limits on elective abortion such as in my state (CA) elective abortion was restricted after fetal viability (24 weeks) which is a reasonable decision. I think most people, even women who have had or will have an abortion, given the vast majority of elective abortions are done in the first trimester (within 13 weeks). Anything after goes into life of mother and fetal abnormality situations, which are the nuanced areas and personal choices that a woman and her physician should make together without government interference. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted March 25, 2023 Administrator Share Posted March 25, 2023 2 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said: Well that's just a load of crap. So apparently we are calling fellow healthcare professionals murderers now on this forum and that's okay? Do you really not understand the difference between murdering a living, breathing human being and aborting a fetus? Can you not come up with any scenario in which one would need to perform an abortion that is just and should be legal? What fellow healthcare professionals? If we're talking about those licensed as physicians who feel their commitment to the unlimited destruction of fetal human life is such that they will choose to leave rather than deliver live babies in a state that places restrictions on such destruction of unborn lives, I stand by my characterization of such persons as murderers. No matter how much healthcare you may think abortion is, surely you agree that delivering live babies is a higher calling than killing unwanted ones before birth? It's not strictly patient abandonment to let one's warped priorities prompt the abandonment of a population, but it's certainly in no way commendable. Also: see Hippocratic Oath for the boundaries of medicine. You can call things prohibited by the oath medicine, but that fundamentally changes the expected role of a physician in a way that had been stable (if chronically imperfectly executed) for ~2500 years. Look, I didn't write the PA Oath, but the scientific reality is that human zygotes, fetuses, and embryos are human beings, just like human infants, toddlers, and children are, and since the PA oath we subscribe to states "my primary responsibility is to the health, safety, welfare, and dignity of all human beings" there's no way to perform or refer for elective abortion consistent with the PA Oath. The developmental difference between pre-born humans and humans is simply one of dependency upon his or her mother for survival... only that's simply not black and white, either, as viability is at 21 weeks in some cases. Unborn humans are humans--that's the scientific reality. If you want to plead that being wanted somehow changes the moral (as opposed to legal) status of an unborn human being, do feel free to explain how that works. The obvious case for direct killing of an embryo is ectopic pregnancy threatening the life of the mother. That's not ethically problematic until and unless we someday develop the capability of reimplanting a misplaced embryo in a proper uterine location. Since that's still science fiction, there's no way to save the life of mom and baby, and so mom's life is saved. The killing of the hapless embryonic human who had no conscious choice of implantation location is regrettable but unavoidable: like a justifiable homicide (shoot the crook before he shoots you) it's a tragedy, but the least bad outcome under the circumstances. Do you think that Abraham Lincoln should have kept his personal views to himself? If he had, we could possibly have avoided a war over whether or not people could be held as property. This is something I really don't think the pro-abortion side is intellectually honest about: If a person is convinced that helpless, innocent people are being harmed, it is incumbent on that person to act to defend the defenseless, and to fail to do so is unethical if not reprehensible. In this case, the status of "alive" and "human being" are both categories very easily assessed by scientific methodology, so the only question left is legal personhood. Why is it intellectually consistent to allow an elective abortion and yet charge someone criminally for causing the death of a wanted fetus? I realize several states have attempted to resolve this paradox by decriminalizing the latter, but that flies in the face of the history of such law. Is abortion ever healthcare, other than ectopic pregnancy removal? Let's carefully define terms here: by abortion, I mean the intended killing of a pre-born human being (fetus, embryo, etc.) prior to delivery. That is, baby dies in utero and is then extracted, whether via suction, dismemberment, or postmortem delivery. I'm not aware of any medical situation which requires this option. There are several (e.g. pre-eclampsia) which may be addressed through (potentially pre-viability) delivery, that may indeed result in the unavoidable demise of the insufficiently mature newborn. One can argue that still kills the baby either way, but unlike an abortion, the death of the fetus is not the goal, and resuscitation efforts can and should proceed if possible, and comfort care if it is not. A premature delivery yields a tiny corpse that can be held, mourned, then buried, not an assemblage of pieces. Why the sentiment? Because the entire context of medically necessary pre-viability delivery expects that mom cannot physically carry baby to term without risking her own life--else why do it? Thus, a delivery, even a doomed one, that helps mom and others who joyfully anticipated the baby's arrival find closure and begin healing is preferable to an alternative that does not. You mentioned reasonable restrictions on abortion, such as viability. I don't want to presume your belief system, but as I read your response, I didn't see any opposition to that. Would you support a ban on post-viability elective abortions? If so, should age of viability be updated based on technology, and what should the penalty be for "mistakes" that result in the death of a viable fetus? Would you support a ban on sex-selective abortions? While these are overwhelmingly done to females, it's entirely possible that one could be done to a male ("we already have two boys, if it's a girl, remove it and we'll try again"). Would you support a ban on abortions based on detectable but non-lethal fetal genetic anomalies? If so, which ones: Trisomy 21? Sickle Cell? Huntington's chorea? Colorblindness? Hairy ears (just kidding, that's Y-linked, so boys just plain get it from dad) Finally, as you point out, the vast majority of elective abortions are prior to 13 weeks--well before most structural abnormalities could be reliably identified. They're not done because of rape, but because of a failure to use, or failure of, birth control. Is that really a good reason to end a human life, even if we granted for the sake of argument that a baby conceived in rape should be eliminated? ... and you'll note that I've not referenced religion even once in any of these arguments. Well, unless you consider discussing a cultural propensity for sons an oblique reference to some Asian religions, I guess. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeTheBabe Posted March 25, 2023 Share Posted March 25, 2023 8 hours ago, rev ronin said: What fellow healthcare professionals? If we're talking about those licensed as physicians who feel their commitment to the unlimited destruction of fetal human life is such that they will choose to leave rather than deliver live babies in a state that places restrictions on such destruction of unborn lives, I stand by my characterization of such persons as murderers. No matter how much healthcare you may think abortion is, surely you agree that delivering live babies is a higher calling than killing unwanted ones before birth? It's not strictly patient abandonment to let one's warped priorities prompt the abandonment of a population, but it's certainly in no way commendable. Also: see Hippocratic Oath for the boundaries of medicine. You can call things prohibited by the oath medicine, but that fundamentally changes the expected role of a physician in a way that had been stable (if chronically imperfectly executed) for ~2500 years. Look, I didn't write the PA Oath, but the scientific reality is that human zygotes, fetuses, and embryos are human beings, just like human infants, toddlers, and children are, and since the PA oath we subscribe to states "my primary responsibility is to the health, safety, welfare, and dignity of all human beings" there's no way to perform or refer for elective abortion consistent with the PA Oath. The developmental difference between pre-born humans and humans is simply one of dependency upon his or her mother for survival... only that's simply not black and white, either, as viability is at 21 weeks in some cases. Unborn humans are humans--that's the scientific reality. If you want to plead that being wanted somehow changes the moral (as opposed to legal) status of an unborn human being, do feel free to explain how that works. The obvious case for direct killing of an embryo is ectopic pregnancy threatening the life of the mother. That's not ethically problematic until and unless we someday develop the capability of reimplanting a misplaced embryo in a proper uterine location. Since that's still science fiction, there's no way to save the life of mom and baby, and so mom's life is saved. The killing of the hapless embryonic human who had no conscious choice of implantation location is regrettable but unavoidable: like a justifiable homicide (shoot the crook before he shoots you) it's a tragedy, but the least bad outcome under the circumstances. Do you think that Abraham Lincoln should have kept his personal views to himself? If he had, we could possibly have avoided a war over whether or not people could be held as property. This is something I really don't think the pro-abortion side is intellectually honest about: If a person is convinced that helpless, innocent people are being harmed, it is incumbent on that person to act to defend the defenseless, and to fail to do so is unethical if not reprehensible. In this case, the status of "alive" and "human being" are both categories very easily assessed by scientific methodology, so the only question left is legal personhood. Why is it intellectually consistent to allow an elective abortion and yet charge someone criminally for causing the death of a wanted fetus? I realize several states have attempted to resolve this paradox by decriminalizing the latter, but that flies in the face of the history of such law. Is abortion ever healthcare, other than ectopic pregnancy removal? Let's carefully define terms here: by abortion, I mean the intended killing of a pre-born human being (fetus, embryo, etc.) prior to delivery. That is, baby dies in utero and is then extracted, whether via suction, dismemberment, or postmortem delivery. I'm not aware of any medical situation which requires this option. There are several (e.g. pre-eclampsia) which may be addressed through (potentially pre-viability) delivery, that may indeed result in the unavoidable demise of the insufficiently mature newborn. One can argue that still kills the baby either way, but unlike an abortion, the death of the fetus is not the goal, and resuscitation efforts can and should proceed if possible, and comfort care if it is not. A premature delivery yields a tiny corpse that can be held, mourned, then buried, not an assemblage of pieces. Why the sentiment? Because the entire context of medically necessary pre-viability delivery expects that mom cannot physically carry baby to term without risking her own life--else why do it? Thus, a delivery, even a doomed one, that helps mom and others who joyfully anticipated the baby's arrival find closure and begin healing is preferable to an alternative that does not. You mentioned reasonable restrictions on abortion, such as viability. I don't want to presume your belief system, but as I read your response, I didn't see any opposition to that. Would you support a ban on post-viability elective abortions? If so, should age of viability be updated based on technology, and what should the penalty be for "mistakes" that result in the death of a viable fetus? Would you support a ban on sex-selective abortions? While these are overwhelmingly done to females, it's entirely possible that one could be done to a male ("we already have two boys, if it's a girl, remove it and we'll try again"). Would you support a ban on abortions based on detectable but non-lethal fetal genetic anomalies? If so, which ones: Trisomy 21? Sickle Cell? Huntington's chorea? Colorblindness? Hairy ears (just kidding, that's Y-linked, so boys just plain get it from dad) Finally, as you point out, the vast majority of elective abortions are prior to 13 weeks--well before most structural abnormalities could be reliably identified. They're not done because of rape, but because of a failure to use, or failure of, birth control. Is that really a good reason to end a human life, even if we granted for the sake of argument that a baby conceived in rape should be eliminated? ... and you'll note that I've not referenced religion even once in any of these arguments. Well, unless you consider discussing a cultural propensity for sons an oblique reference to some Asian religions, I guess. You have conveniently not mentioned the very real examples I gave you of how these laws are hurting women in these situations. Laws putting limits don't take into account all scenarios and nuances. Some of them don't even allow abortion even when it comes to the life of the mother. My personal beliefs don't matter. Neither my wife or anyone close to me (to my knowledge) have had an elective abortion, but I don't believe my personal beliefs should be applied to everyone. I would support a ban on 20 week elective abortion ban because that's a reasonable middle ground. The problem is the law is too restrictive, made by people who don't understand medicine, and meant to punish women and providers who perform abortion. Some of these same people who are trying to make abortions illegal scoff at the idea of giving free lunches to kids at school, go figure. Look, the bottom line is that we don't live in a fairy tale world where banning abortions stops them. It only increases the risk of unsafe, amateur abortions of desperate women like before Roe v Wade. Abortions have been steadily decreasing in the USA since the 80s, despite our population growing. It isn't because abortions were banned. Things that actually decrease abortions are sex education, improved contraception, and free/accessible contraception. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted March 25, 2023 Administrator Share Posted March 25, 2023 3 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said: You have conveniently not mentioned the very real examples I gave you of how these laws are hurting women in these situations. Laws putting limits don't take into account all scenarios and nuances. Some of them don't even allow abortion even when it comes to the life of the mother. Your examples weren't particularly compelling, and don't reflect anything I was disputing, so I didn't respond. Let's review: 16 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said: My friend in Florida (15 week abortion ban) had a girl with PPROM at 17 week in the ED. Well they wouldn't touch her until she was sick/septic even though that fetus has a 0% chance of survival because no one wants to be made an example of in court. [...] My friend in Ohio (cardiac activity ~6 week abortion ban) was trying for a 2nd baby after having a healthy baby boy, but ended up begin diagnosed with a severe cranial fetal abnormality at 20 week fetal ultrasound. Devastated, she made the extremely difficult and personal choice to have an abortion which was the lesser evil of two shitty choices. Well, she had to fly to another state to get it done without her family there for support (luckily she is a PA and has the funds to do so). Case 1: Follow outpatient with serial u/s, D&C once fetal demise is noted. Any clinician who waits for sepsis before acting in such a situation should be disciplined by his/her licensing authority. Interestingly enough, I know of a case in Idaho very much like this case, where the woman in question not only became septic, but ended up having a hysterectomy. Case 2: Baby is likely going to die, mom decides to speed things along. If she had not had that option available to her, how, precisely, is the risk different than carrying a non-disabled baby to term? Regardless of whether or not she wanted them, was the abortion facility your friend went to able to provide fetal remains for burial? In no case was the life of the mother legitimately at risk, based on the information you provided. In the first case, there was at the very least a failure of an ethics committee to explain to the clinician how to apply the law correctly. Hard to say if that's intentional intransigence or genuine clueless incompetence, but in neither case did the mother in the first case get appropriate care consistent with the legal options. As far as abortion being illegal despite a mother's life being in imminent danger? Prove it. No such law in any of the 50 states exists, to the best of my knowledge. Please prove me wrong or retract your assertion. 3 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said: My personal beliefs don't matter. Neither my wife or anyone close to me (to my knowledge) have had an elective abortion, but I don't believe my personal beliefs should be applied to everyone. I would support a ban on 20 week elective abortion ban because that's a reasonable middle ground. The problem is the law is too restrictive, made by people who don't understand medicine, and meant to punish women and providers who perform abortion. Some of these same people who are trying to make abortions illegal scoff at the idea of giving free lunches to kids at school, go figure. Your beliefs absolutely do matter: Whose life will you stand up to defend? How do you have beliefs about personhood and value but don't think they apply to everyone? Justice is one of the four fundamental ethical principles; even if you're not harming someone through action or inaction, as a medical professional you are obligated to seek medical justice, are you not? I asked you several specific questions, none of which you answered. You want to have a conversation and assert that handling edge cases is tough? Fine, let's discuss the edge cases. 3 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said: Look, the bottom line is that we don't live in a fairy tale world where banning abortions stops them. It only increases the risk of unsafe, amateur abortions of desperate women like before Roe v Wade. Abortions have been steadily decreasing in the USA since the 80s, despite our population growing. It isn't because abortions were banned. Things that actually decrease abortions are sex education, improved contraception, and free/accessible contraception. Crime happens all the time despite laws. Shall we erase law? Oh, wait, that's happening in large cities across the U.S. How's that working out for your nearest large city? My closest two are both terrible compared to a decade ago. I agree that if there are to be abortions, we should make it as likely as possible that only one human being dies. Are you in favor of limiting mifepristone to patients seen by a clinician with an ultrasound to confirm an intrauterine pregnancy? Or do you think the convenience is worth the risk of missing an ectopic pregnancy and placing mom's life in danger from rupture? You do know that the numbers of deaths from back-alley abortions cited in Roe were never based on hard data, right? They were estimates provided by proponents, never substantiated, and flew in the face of later evidence that the "back alley" abortions were actually being done by doctors out of clinics despite laws against them. I'd like to see the peer reviewed studies that underlie your assertion about decreasing abortion trends. Your statements certainly reflect common thinking, but cause and effect are very different from correlation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted March 25, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2023 5 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said: Look, the bottom line is that we don't live in a fairy tale world where banning abortions stops them. It only increases the risk of unsafe, amateur abortions of desperate women like before Roe v Wade. Abortions have been steadily decreasing in the USA since the 80s, despite our population growing. It isn't because abortions were banned. Things that actually decrease abortions are sex education, improved contraception, and free/accessible contraception. Yup. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator ventana Posted March 25, 2023 Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2023 Rev you gotta tone it down Calling people murders for following the law is not civil 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted March 26, 2023 Administrator Share Posted March 26, 2023 2 hours ago, ventana said: Rev you gotta tone it down Calling people murders for following the law is not civil If that's what I'd said, it would indeed be incivil, even if not necessarily untrue. But I didn't say that. If an OB/GYN leaves their state, such that a hospital can't maintain a labor and delivery service, with their primary motivation being the state's laws limiting abortion and protecting unborn life, that's a betrayal of their responsibilities as physicians, placing the killing of unwanted unborn humans ahead of the safe delivery of their peer but wanted unborn humans. There's simply no ethical justification for that prioritization. Now, if it turns out that the headlines and news stories misconstrued the facts, then that contingent criticism doesn't apply--but I wasn't the one who introduced the argument, and the poster who did hasn't seen fit to withdraw or clarify that assertion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAAdmission Posted March 26, 2023 Share Posted March 26, 2023 12 hours ago, ventana said: Rev you gotta tone it down Calling people murders for following the law is not civil Quite the contrary. There's none of the emotional screwball invective that usually surrounds this issue in general society. I'm very happy that people on both sides of the issue are able to present points thoughtfully. It's a vanishing skill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeTheBabe Posted March 26, 2023 Share Posted March 26, 2023 20 hours ago, rev ronin said: Case 1: Follow outpatient with serial u/s, D&C once fetal demise is noted. Any clinician who waits for sepsis before acting in such a situation should be disciplined by his/her licensing authority. Interestingly enough, I know of a case in Idaho very much like this case, where the woman in question not only became septic, but ended up having a hysterectomy. That's exactly the problem I'm mentioning. The law is vague. Medicine is nuanced. No one wants to be the first to go to court with an overzealous AG. Would you be okay with it if it was your wife or daughter who had a hysterectomy? Look at the case of the doctor who provided the abortion of the 10 year old rape victim that had to travel from Ohio to Indiana. A TEN year old. 20 hours ago, rev ronin said: Case 2: Baby is likely going to die, mom decides to speed things along. If she had not had that option available to her, how, precisely, is the risk different than carrying a non-disabled baby to term? Regardless of whether or not she wanted them, was the abortion facility your friend went to able to provide fetal remains for burial? She was induced and delivered. She spent 8 hours with the baby grieving. Did not ask details regarding remains, that's what she shared online. I'm not talking risk to the mother in this situation, I'm talking about her having a right to bodily autonomy and being able to make a choice for herself, not having to travel to another state to do so. 20 hours ago, rev ronin said: As far as abortion being illegal despite a mother's life being in imminent danger? Prove it. No such law in any of the 50 states exists, to the best of my knowledge. Please prove me wrong or retract your assertion. As far as I know they all have an exception for "life of the mother". Who decides how close someone has to be to death to have an abortion? Pregnancy is not harmless, and could result in death. You can't put all medical scenarios into a bill. 20 hours ago, rev ronin said: Your beliefs absolutely do matter: Whose life will you stand up to defend? How do you have beliefs about personhood and value but don't think they apply to everyone? Justice is one of the four fundamental ethical principles; even if you're not harming someone through action or inaction, as a medical professional you are obligated to seek medical justice, are you not? I asked you several specific questions, none of which you answered. You want to have a conversation and assert that handling edge cases is tough? Fine, let's discuss the edge cases. My belief is that a fetus should not have a right to continue to develop that supersedes the right to bodily autonomy of a woman. My belief is that you are not a human being until you are born. A 20 week abortion ban is reasonable to me and after that it should be allowed for risk to mother or fetal abnormality. Genetic testing for major things like you mentioned is well before the 20 week mark. 20 hours ago, rev ronin said: You do know that the numbers of deaths from back-alley abortions cited in Roe were never based on hard data, right? They were estimates provided by proponents, never substantiated, and flew in the face of later evidence that the "back alley" abortions were actually being done by doctors out of clinics despite laws against them. I'd like to see the peer reviewed studies that underlie your assertion about decreasing abortion trends. Your statements certainly reflect common thinking, but cause and effect are very different from correlation. I'm not talking about numbers of abortions before Roe v Wade. That passed in 1973. I'm talking about the number of legal abortions in the USA since the 80s. These numbers are easily accessible. Hard data. The number of abortions per year has decreased from about 1.5 million a year to under 1 million a year, despite our population growing from 230 million to 330 million in the same time frame. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted March 26, 2023 Administrator Share Posted March 26, 2023 3 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said: That's exactly the problem I'm mentioning. The law is vague. Medicine is nuanced. No one wants to be the first to go to court with an overzealous AG. Would you be okay with it if it was your wife or daughter who had a hysterectomy? Look at the case of the doctor who provided the abortion of the 10 year old rape victim that had to travel from Ohio to Indiana. A TEN year old. It's really not as nuanced as some partisans want to make it out to be. The only DA who would try to prosecute in such a case is someone who wanted to make a test case, either to enforce or upend the law. Remember Dr. Pou, the critical care doc who was tried for murder after euthanizing her patients during Hurricane Katrina? Jury would not convict. She made a tough call without having any way of knowing that help would have arrived in time, believing that she could neither care for their suffering nor evacuate them. The jury provided the wisdom of the crowd: "that was a terrible situation, we would never want to be in it, we believe she did what she thought was right, and even if we disagree we will not convict her of any crime for what she did." Getting sued for doing what is right may be a big, fat, hairy, negative deal, but it is still absolutely the right thing to do. I'm afraid that we have become a nation of "well, let someone else be the test case" rather than courage. I thought I was pretty clear that the care rendered, both in your case and in the one I had heard related to me, was completely unacceptable. Let me be clear: based on the facts as I understand them, the doctors should be sanctioned, fined, and remediated before being returned to practice. The answer isn't hard, nor is finding someone who knows it if one doesn't personally know it. And while thankfully our outcome wasn't that negative, yes, my wife did suffer a uterine perf after a botched D&C after our first pregnancy ended with first trimester fetal demise. This was almost 15 years before I went to PA school, and yet I still vividly remember being asked to consent for the laparoscopy necessary to repair that damage to my anesthetized wife. So in context to this entire topic, yes, I know about loss and risk and bad outcomes... in our case, it was the only chance for my late father-in-law to have met a grandchild of his before he died of cancer. Failed pregnancies ripple disappointment and loss through families. 3 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said: She was induced and delivered. She spent 8 hours with the baby grieving. Did not ask details regarding remains, that's what she shared online. I'm not talking risk to the mother in this situation, I'm talking about her having a right to bodily autonomy and being able to make a choice for herself, not having to travel to another state to do so. I'm glad that her grief was facilitated. While I may disagree about the necessity of terminating, I'm so glad that the event was done in a way to reflect that this was a loss of human life--congenital issues are no less losses than external causes. We are agreed that the loss was an unqualified tragedy. As far as a right to bodily autonomy, the baby's body is not her body. It's enclosed within and dependent on her body, but it's just a temporary resident, normally destined to independence and eventually autonomy, which was interrupted by the congenital issue. The real issue is that a mom is a substitute decision maker for an unborn child--in this case, a child who would apparently never have developed into a viable adult. 3 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said: As far as I know they all have an exception for "life of the mother". Who decides how close someone has to be to death to have an abortion? Pregnancy is not harmless, and could result in death. You can't put all medical scenarios into a bill. Ok, yes, that's what I understand as well. Who decides? I think you'll find that courts will grant a great deal of deference to a hospital ethics committee. I mean, that's what they're there for, so one clinician doesn't have to make a complicated life-and-death decision with only one opinion and perspective. No part of pregnancy, labor, and delivery is harmless. From ruptured ectopic to amniotic fluid embolus, making new baby humans still kills a lot of women. At the same time, risk is inherent in life, and the unchosen risk is really a big factor in cases of rape: in consensual sex, the risk of pregnancy and its attendant harms is implicitly accepted. 3 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said: My belief is that a fetus should not have a right to continue to develop that supersedes the right to bodily autonomy of a woman. My belief is that you are not a human being until you are born. A 20 week abortion ban is reasonable to me and after that it should be allowed for risk to mother or fetal abnormality. Genetic testing for major things like you mentioned is well before the 20 week mark. Thanks for taking a stand. I agree that post-viability abortions are particularly ethically problematic: the developing human still benefits from mom's intrauterine nurturing, but it ceases to be 100% necessary, and less so as term approaches. But what if viability were significantly pushed back? How would that change your equation? And again, what about sex-selection abortions? Those can be done well before 20 weeks. Are they appropriate, absent any other reason than preferred biological makeup of a child? Downs'? Are we to go the way of Iceland and eliminate 'defective' humans before birth? What if we can statistically predict who is likely to grow up and commit crimes? Are they fair game to eliminate before 20 weeks? Does your answer change if we determine those slated for elimination would be disproportionately from one historically oppressed ethnic group? Is it OK for those upon whom other dependent humans depend to "pull the plug" when they believe care to be too burdensome? I've mentioned Michael Hickson before. His case differs markedly from Terri Schiavo, because it wasn't one group of family against another, it was doctors against family. Doctors won; Hickson died. Obviously not in abortion, but end-of-life and beginning-of-life are inexorably intertwined as how we think about the worth and value of human beings necessarily affects both. 3 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said: I'm not talking about numbers of abortions before Roe v Wade. That passed in 1973. I'm talking about the number of legal abortions in the USA since the 80s. These numbers are easily accessible. Hard data. The number of abortions per year has decreased from about 1.5 million a year to under 1 million a year, despite our population growing from 230 million to 330 million in the same time frame. Yep. They're going down. Maternal mortality secondary to surgical abortion would decline if abortion clinics were forced to meet the same standards as other ambulatory surgical centers. You would favor that, right? Sterilization, emergency procedures, etc. in an outpatient abortion clinic should be equivalent to those in, say, a derm center to ensure that women undergoing abortions are kept as safe as possible throughout the procedure, shouldn't they? Again, the risk of chemical abortion is that of a missed, then ruptured, ectopic pregnancy resulting in maternal morbidity and possible mortality, because a definitive ultrasound confirmation of intrauterine pregnancy, currently standard of care for both surgical and chemical clinic-facilitated abortion, is now made optional for remotely dispensed mifepristone+misoprostol. Do you favor requiring a definitive confirmation of IUP via ultrasound before dispensing mifepristone? Is the convenience worth the mortality trade-off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SedRate Posted March 27, 2023 Share Posted March 27, 2023 23 hours ago, rev ronin said: As far as a right to bodily autonomy, the baby's body is not her body. It's enclosed within and dependent on her body, but it's just a temporary resident, normally destined to independence and eventually autonomy, which was interrupted by the congenital issue. The real issue is that a mom is a substitute decision maker for an unborn child--in this case, a child who would apparently never have developed into a viable adult. Do I understand you correctly that you see pregnant women as temporary vessels for the baby they helped create? That sounds to me like uteruses and the women they belong to are seen as "things" to house and nuture embryos without agency of their own body, organs, and pregnancy they took part in creating, which is dehumanizing. Do I understand you correctly? Do eggs belong to the woman that created them? If so, why does the fertilized egg no longer belong to her? Is that because it's now arbitrarily called a human? Are you implying that the law (government) should be the MPOA for all fertilized embryos? Further, at what point should the parents be allowed to make decisions for the human being? Why at birth? Why not let the law (government) retain MPOA from conception until the human can makes its own decisions at 18? I'm having a hard time understanding why a human made by two humans should have a third party, temporary MPOA by the law (government) that had no part in its creation nor support during its growth. Perhaps if the government paid for time off to procreate and provided financial and medical support during gestation and delivery, then I could see your point about the law having a say in protecting the life it supported to create. But that sounds like a breeding program. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality Check 2 Posted March 27, 2023 Share Posted March 27, 2023 Moving the needle a bit - THIS story is what I am referencing for the most part when I consider a state I might want to live and practice in. States that are using political divide, the religious right wing and general lunacy to deny basics to people - mostly women at this point - THIS is what would move my decision. Idaho Republicans reject free menstrual products in schools | Idaho Statesman The lunacy of some laws or edicts coming down the pike just floors me. EVERY.SINGLE.THING is now "woke" or "liberal/conservative" and nothing is about common sense or common decency. Florida now wants to make it illegal for a dog to hang its head out of a window. WTH? We have poverty, poor health, low education rates, financial gloom and doom and these are the things making headlines. So, back to my original intent - making a decision about where to live and work and raise a family is multifactorial and involves how the state treats people - maybe you or your kids and particularly women at this point - we are moving backwards - at an alarming rate. THIS was my original point - KNOW where you are living and how it might affect you, your family, your ability to practice and live. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeddyRucpin Posted March 27, 2023 Share Posted March 27, 2023 (edited) Getting this back to the practice environment in these places...Montana has been successfully advancing a bill through their house/senate for graduated independent practice. Great to see it moving successfully here and similar in other states in 2023. There are a number of legislative wins this year and hoping New York's being finalized by EOM. Edited March 27, 2023 by TeddyRucpin 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted March 27, 2023 Administrator Share Posted March 27, 2023 2 hours ago, SedRate said: Do I understand you correctly that you see pregnant women as temporary vessels for the baby they helped create? That sounds to me like uteruses and the women they belong to are seen as "things" to house and nuture embryos without agency of their own body, organs, and pregnancy they took part in creating, which is dehumanizing. Do I understand you correctly? Not in the least. That's the most crass, dehumanizing, and mechanistic view of reproduction possible. I find it difficult to believe that you are asserting this as a reasonable interpretation of what I've said here or elsewhere. 2 hours ago, SedRate said: Do eggs belong to the woman that created them? Sure, gametes "belong" to the adult from whom they originated, although "contain half the DNA from their originating adult, suitable for reproduction" would be more accurate. Haploid cells aren't useful per se to the creating organism. 2 hours ago, SedRate said: If so, why does the fertilized egg no longer belong to her? Is that because it's now arbitrarily called a human? Let's see, what happens at fertilization? Prior to fertilization, egg has half mom's DNA, sperm has half dad's DNA. After fertilization, new human has mom's mitochondrial DNA as well as nuclear DNA that doesn't match mom's but is closely related to hers and doesn't match dad's but is also closely related to his. Humanity is defined by chromosomes. Egg and sperm are haploid; zygote is diploid. Nothing is arbitrarily called a human correctly: either something is definitionally human, or it is not. You now have asked for and received a remedial biology lesson. This reality isn't limited to humans, or even mammals, but applies to pretty much any species that reproduces sexually. I could be wrong about that--I'm just a practicing PA like you, not a biologist by trade--but I'm pretty sure that's substantially correct. 2 hours ago, SedRate said: Are you implying that the law (government) should be the MPOA for all fertilized embryos? Further, at what point should the parents be allowed to make decisions for the human being? Why at birth? Why not let the law (government) retain MPOA from conception until the human can makes its own decisions at 18? I'm having a hard time understanding why a human made by two humans should have a third party, temporary MPOA by the law (government) that had no part in its creation nor support during its growth. Perhaps if the government paid for time off to procreate and provided financial and medical support during gestation and delivery, then I could see your point about the law having a say in protecting the life it supported to create. But that sounds like a breeding program. ... and now we go off into the weeds. You brought up frozen embryos. And the government. So YOU tell me how and why you think these should interact, and why the rest of this post isn't a straw man. Parents make medical decisions in the best interests of their children all the time, even when they're wrong. They don't get to kill born children, who are both human beings and recognized as legal persons. Why should they get to kill unborn children, who are just as much human as born children, just because they aren't recognized as legal persons? What do you think about parents killing their children--assuming for the sake of argument that "child" status begins at fertilization? In what timeframe, if any, should that be allowed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SedRate Posted March 28, 2023 Share Posted March 28, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, rev ronin said: Not in the least. That's the most crass, dehumanizing, and mechanistic view of reproduction possible. I find it difficult to believe that you are asserting this as a reasonable interpretation of what I've said here or elsewhere. Ok, clearly we're both not understanding one another. You called a child a "temporary resident" of a woman. Do women really think of their unborn children as temporary residents? I feel like there's so much more to it, both for those women who embrace their pregnancy and those who don't. 1 hour ago, rev ronin said: You now have asked for and received a remedial biology lesson. I didn't ask for one. I asked who the eggs belong to after fertilization if they were hers to begin with. 1 hour ago, rev ronin said: You brought up frozen embryos I did? I don't recall doing so. 1 hour ago, rev ronin said: So YOU tell me how and why you think these should interact, and why the rest of this post isn't a straw man. I will withhold my personal opinions so as to not be judged and spoken down to but I will say I want agency over my own body just as I think anyone else does. What's a straw man? 1 hour ago, rev ronin said: They don't get to kill born children, who are both human beings and recognized as legal persons. Why should they get to kill unborn children, who are just as much human as born children, just because they aren't recognized as legal persons? What do you think about parents killing their children--assuming for the sake of argument that "child" status begins at fertilization? In what timeframe, if any, should that be allowed? Once again, I'll withhold my person beliefs and opinions as I don't want to be judged or spoken down to as that seems to be pretty common on this forum, but I think the real issue is what defines a human being? If something is unconscious and pre-viable, I just don't see why that's considered a "human" yet. Not sure if I'm sharing that in the way I mean... I think consciousness and if an unborn child can "survive" in the outside world, then that would probably be the "cut off" of viability and thus abortion. Perhaps much sooner given medical advances. I will say that I'm not as invested in this topic as some and thus don't have as heavily developed of opinions and beliefs as some. But I guess I should probably start as this topic is something that could very much affect me. Edited March 28, 2023 by SedRate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeTheBabe Posted March 28, 2023 Share Posted March 28, 2023 Have not heard of Dr. Pou, will look into it, seems interesting. 21 hours ago, rev ronin said: Getting sued for doing what is right may be a big, fat, hairy, negative deal, but it is still absolutely the right thing to do. I'm afraid that we have become a nation of "well, let someone else be the test case" rather than courage. I don't think it's a lack of courage, given workers at some "abortion clinics" are harassed daily, some have been murdered and clinics have been bombed many times and targets of arson. They are still courageous enough to continue to do their job. Small town ob/gyn though? They don't deal with that stuff. Doing what's right is easier said than done when you have your own family who depends on you. I put abortion clinic in quotes because the vast majority of visits to those clinics are for routine ob/gyn care. 23 hours ago, rev ronin said: As far as a right to bodily autonomy, the baby's body is not her body. It's enclosed within and dependent on her body, but it's just a temporary resident, normally destined to independence and eventually autonomy, which was interrupted by the congenital issue. The real issue is that a mom is a substitute decision maker for an unborn child--in this case, a child who would apparently never have developed into a viable adult. Right, but the mom's body is not "hers" as well when there is a fetus growing. Her body has to go through the strain of pregnancy. Her body needs to avoid certain activities/foods. Her body needs to take time off of work for labor and delivery and postpartum healing, etc. If a woman has a miscarriage, should they be put on trial for not taking care of their body well enough? 23 hours ago, rev ronin said: Thanks for taking a stand. I agree that post-viability abortions are particularly ethically problematic: the developing human still benefits from mom's intrauterine nurturing, but it ceases to be 100% necessary, and less so as term approaches. But what if viability were significantly pushed back? How would that change your equation? And again, what about sex-selection abortions? Those can be done well before 20 weeks. Are they appropriate, absent any other reason than preferred biological makeup of a child? Downs'? Are we to go the way of Iceland and eliminate 'defective' humans before birth? What if we can statistically predict who is likely to grow up and commit crimes? Are they fair game to eliminate before 20 weeks? Does your answer change if we determine those slated for elimination would be disproportionately from one historically oppressed ethnic group? Is it OK for those upon whom other dependent humans depend to "pull the plug" when they believe care to be too burdensome? I've mentioned Michael Hickson before. His case differs markedly from Terri Schiavo, because it wasn't one group of family against another, it was doctors against family. Doctors won; Hickson died. Obviously not in abortion, but end-of-life and beginning-of-life are inexorably intertwined as how we think about the worth and value of human beings necessarily affects both. If viability went from 24 weeks to under 20 I don't think that changes anything. We have to put a number somewhere, and halfway is as good as any. Even then, I don't think the law would be necessary, it's just to meet halfway. The vast majority of elective abortions occur in the first trimester. Anything after that is generally due to fetal health, mothers health, sex trafficking, incest, etc. No one is having a baby shower at 30 weeks then deciding to have an abortion. I believe people can make a decision with their healthcare providers without government interference. Same goes for genetic conditions and fetal abnormalities. Not every parent can handle a child with special needs. It takes a huge time commitment, it takes a lot of money, it takes emotional stability, it takes mental fortitude. Some parents don't care and would be happy to raise that special needs child. Other parents can't, and that baby shouldn't be born to that home. I myself have a child with special needs. His genetic mutation is extremely rare (de novo, not inherited) and affects neurodevelopment. Only a few documented cases in the US. That means global development delay with speech, fine motor skills, gross motor skills, intellectual ability, etc. He might seem like a pretty normal 3 year old that is so cute, playful and loving, but it took SO much work for him to get to this point. As he gets more older it will likely be more obvious. He was getting speech therapy twice a week, child development therapy twice a week, occupational therapy once a week, and physical therapy once a week for over a year. Luckily it was all provided through Los Angeles county. Luckily my wife could cram her full time WFH position into 5 hours to be able to handle all that. We now pay out of pocket for speech therapy (hundreds of dollars a month) but hopefully it will be covered by insurance soon. We are able to support him every way we can and just trying to get him to be the best he can be, which is hopefully to be self sufficient one day. There's enough kids with no home, starving kids, neglected kids, abused kids, etc. If someone isn't fit to be a parent, they shouldn't be forced to be. If parents can't give the child a good home, I don't have much hope that the government or a charity can step in and do so. Luckily we live in a country where there is no major preference to sex. On 3/26/2023 at 1:53 PM, rev ronin said: Yep. They're going down. Maternal mortality secondary to surgical abortion would decline if abortion clinics were forced to meet the same standards as other ambulatory surgical centers. You would favor that, right? Sterilization, emergency procedures, etc. in an outpatient abortion clinic should be equivalent to those in, say, a derm center to ensure that women undergoing abortions are kept as safe as possible throughout the procedure, shouldn't they? Again, the risk of chemical abortion is that of a missed, then ruptured, ectopic pregnancy resulting in maternal morbidity and possible mortality, because a definitive ultrasound confirmation of intrauterine pregnancy, currently standard of care for both surgical and chemical clinic-facilitated abortion, is now made optional for remotely dispensed mifepristone+misoprostol. Do you favor requiring a definitive confirmation of IUP via ultrasound before dispensing mifepristone? Is the convenience worth the mortality trade-off? Just like any medical procedure, safety should be considered. From a quick Google search it seems like the mortality rate from an abortion is 1 in 200,000. A healthy person undergoing anesthesia is 1 in 100,000. Seems pretty safe to me already, but I'm no expert. The bottom line for me is that in a perfect world, abortion wouldn't be necessary. But making abortion illegal is an awful solution. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted March 28, 2023 Administrator Share Posted March 28, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said: Right, but the mom's body is not "hers" as well when there is a fetus growing. Her body has to go through the strain of pregnancy. Her body needs to avoid certain activities/foods. Her body needs to take time off of work for labor and delivery and postpartum healing, etc. If a woman has a miscarriage, should they be put on trial for not taking care of their body well enough? Sure it is. Her body is hers, and her child is hers. One is not in conflict with the other. The question of whether a mother has the legal right to kill her child should be unthinkable, and it reflects a very impoverished view of the value of children. 1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said: If viability went from 24 weeks to under 20 I don't think that changes anything. We have to put a number somewhere, and halfway is as good as any. Even then, I don't think the law would be necessary, it's just to meet halfway. The vast majority of elective abortions occur in the first trimester. Anything after that is generally due to fetal health, mothers health, sex trafficking, incest, etc. No one is having a baby shower at 30 weeks then deciding to have an abortion. I believe people can make a decision with their healthcare providers without government interference. In a conflict of rights scenario, why is it ever acceptable to kill vs. deliver a viable baby? Fetal health never requires termination; in the worst case scenarios, the baby dies shortly after delivery, with fetal demise prior to delivery being a close second. Terminations after 20 weeks are not generally due to the mother's health--in most cases (e.g., pre-eclampsia) delivery, not abortion, is the most straightforward way to resolve maternal health concerns that are a direct result of ongoing pregnancy. Sex trafficking or incest, as a source of pregnancy, do not represent a present threat to the health or well being of the mother: there is no high quality evidence that shows that an abortion will improve mother's health, to include mental health, secondary to such victimization resulting in pregnancy. The government is chartered to protect the helpless. Pre-born humans are pretty helpless. If I decide with a physician to kill my born children, the government would very much call that unacceptable. What is the fundamental difference, the magical transformation, that passing through a birth canal (oops, or through a C-section, too) turns a viable human being into a legal person? 1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said: Same goes for genetic conditions and fetal abnormalities. Not every parent can handle a child with special needs. It takes a huge time commitment, it takes a lot of money, it takes emotional stability, it takes mental fortitude. Some parents don't care and would be happy to raise that special needs child. Other parents can't, and that baby shouldn't be born to that home. I myself have a child with special needs. His genetic mutation is extremely rare (de novo, not inherited) and affects neurodevelopment. Only a few documented cases in the US. That means global development delay with speech, fine motor skills, gross motor skills, intellectual ability, etc. He might seem like a pretty normal 3 year old that is so cute, playful and loving, but it took SO much work for him to get to this point. As he gets more older it will likely be more obvious. He was getting speech therapy twice a week, child development therapy twice a week, occupational therapy once a week, and physical therapy once a week for over a year. Luckily it was all provided through Los Angeles county. Luckily my wife could cram her full time WFH position into 5 hours to be able to handle all that. We now pay out of pocket for speech therapy (hundreds of dollars a month) but hopefully it will be covered by insurance soon. We are able to support him every way we can and just trying to get him to be the best he can be, which is hopefully to be self sufficient one day. There's enough kids with no home, starving kids, neglected kids, abused kids, etc. If someone isn't fit to be a parent, they shouldn't be forced to be. If parents can't give the child a good home, I don't have much hope that the government or a charity can step in and do so. Luckily we live in a country where there is no major preference to sex. I am SO glad that you chose to invest love and care into your son. That's the way it's supposed to work: adults sacrifice to give their kids the best in life, for they are our future, even if a disability may mean they never have families of their own. The best part of humanity is investing in others, and it sounds like you embodied that in your actions. Bravo. But on what basis do you assert we don't have major sex preferences. I mean, I guess it's true on the surface, but Immigrants who come from more misogynistic countries bring their preferences with them. c.f. FGM. How many unborn girls killed because they are female is too many? 1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said: Just like any medical procedure, safety should be considered. From a quick Google search it seems like the mortality rate from an abortion is 1 in 200,000. A healthy person undergoing anesthesia is 1 in 100,000. Seems pretty safe to me already, but I'm no expert. The bottom line for me is that in a perfect world, abortion wouldn't be necessary. But making abortion illegal is an awful solution. The problem with your safety estimate is 1) Abortion stats aren't tracked in all states, so your denominator is a guesstimate, and 2) the medical record in the United States does not accurately report abortion-linked morbidity. Studnicki J, Harrison DJ, Longbons T, et al. A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, 1999-2015. Health services research and managerial epidemiology. 2021;8:23333928211053964. doi:10.1177/23333928211053965 "The incidence and per-abortion rate of ER visits following any induced abortion are growing, but chemical abortion is consistently and progressively associated with more postabortion ER visit morbidity than surgical abortion. There is also a distinct trend of a growing number of women miscoded as receiving treatment for spontaneous abortion in the ER following a chemical abortion." I agree that in a perfect world, abortion would not be necessary. What is also clear to me is that elective abortion is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. If any of this seems terse, my apologies; I lost much of the second half of the response due to undoing one-too-many times, and opted to shorten some of my latter response. Edited March 28, 2023 by rev ronin tweak phrasing "human being" -> legal person Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted March 28, 2023 Administrator Share Posted March 28, 2023 2 hours ago, SedRate said: I asked who the eggs belong to after fertilization if they were hers to begin with. The scientific term for "eggs ... after fertilization" is zygotes. Again with the remedial biology: a zygote is neither its mother (large gamete contributor) or father (small gamete contributor) but a unique individual of the same species. I thought we settled this "who owns other humans" thing 150+ years ago. 3 hours ago, SedRate said: Once again, I'll withhold my person beliefs and opinions as I don't want to be judged or spoken down to as that seems to be pretty common on this forum, but I think the real issue is what defines a human being? If something is unconscious and pre-viable, I just don't see why that's considered a "human" yet. Not sure if I'm sharing that in the way I mean... I think consciousness and if an unborn child can "survive" in the outside world, then that would probably be the "cut off" of viability and thus abortion. Perhaps much sooner given medical advances. Is an unconscious cat still a cat? If not, what is it? How about a fetal cat with anencephaly... what species is it? While you say you'll withhold your personal beliefs and opinions--which is reasonable, even if unnecessary in a discussion where others are freely and respectfully discussing theirs--you've stated a religious or philosophical preference for an other-than-scientific view of what constitutes a human being. There exist many different ways of designating human beings relevant to this discussion: human beings before viability, human beings with fatal congenital developmental defects, human beings without detectable brain activity... All of these are possible and valid ways to express subsets or specific instances of human beings (H. sapiens) who will (or may) not experience what most of us would consider self actualization. The challenge for elective abortion isn't that any of these subtypes of human beings are widely considered. No, the primary target of elective abortion is "unwanted pre-born human being" It's entirely reasonable to say "I don't think human beings prior to detectable brain waive activity (or heartbeat, or viability, or...) should be accorded the protections of legal personhood." But to deny the humanity of a human being isn't scientifically reasonable, in that it shifts the debate from science to religion or philosophy prematurely. Once we've assented to the scientific definition that zygotes and further developed human beings are human beings, we can start discussing which human beings deserve positive or negative rights, and how to coordinate rights among human beings when they come into conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SedRate Posted March 28, 2023 Share Posted March 28, 2023 18 hours ago, rev ronin said: a zygote is neither its mother (large gamete contributor) or father (small gamete contributor) but a unique individual of the same species. Sure, but who makes decisions on behalf of said zygote that lives within its mother if not the mother nor father. Are you suggesting the government? 18 hours ago, rev ronin said: How about a fetal cat with anencephaly... what species is it? I knew I would be misunderstood. I'm not implying they're different species. 18 hours ago, rev ronin said: While you say you'll withhold your personal beliefs and opinions--which is reasonable, even if unnecessary in a discussion where others are freely and respectfully discussing theirs Unfortunately, nearly all threads get random replies that are often judgmental and sometimes even attacking so please don't tell me what is unnecessary for me to say. If you're saying that to be reassuring that I won't be judged or spoken down to, then I appreciate it. 18 hours ago, rev ronin said: you've stated a religious or philosophical preference for an other-than-scientific view of what constitutes a human being. There exist many different ways of designating human beings relevant to this discussion: human beings before viability, human beings with fatal congenital developmental defects, human beings without detectable brain activity... All of these are possible and valid ways to express subsets or specific instances of human beings (H. sapiens) who will (or may) not experience what most of us would consider self actualization. 18 hours ago, rev ronin said: Once we've assented to the scientific definition that zygotes and further developed human beings are human beings, we can start discussing which human beings deserve positive or negative rights, and how to coordinate rights among human beings when they come into conflict. I see what you're saying although I disagree with your perception of my preference, although not to your fault as I've withheld outlining my beliefs explicitly and therefore can't expect you to perceive them entirely. Imagine another's point of view: if one were to agree with the scientific statement that an embryo is a human and that embryotic humans are ok to be aborted before Week 20, you can imagine the uproar and social onslaught of labeling those people as murderers. So, to avoid being judged and labeled, some instead call an embryo "a ball of cells," "not a human yet," which unfortunately further confounds the discussion. Statements like those on both sides are counterproductive, and I agree there needs to be a consensus on what defines a human so we're all speaking the same language. Hence why I asked what your definition of human being was several posts ago. And unless folks on all sides of the abortion discussion are willing to be open, curious, and refrain from judging, critiquing, labeling, and keeping up their metaphorical walls, I just don't see a productive way to do that. And isn't this what people have been saying in so many ways? Those who support elective abortion say embryos deserve "negative" rights whereas those who don't support abortions say embryos deserve "positive"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted March 29, 2023 Administrator Share Posted March 29, 2023 7 hours ago, SedRate said: And isn't this what people have been saying in so many ways? Those who support elective abortion say embryos deserve "negative" rights whereas those who don't support abortions say embryos deserve "positive"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights That's a horribly written Wikipedia article, but I think you've got those backwards. Pro-life people would generally maintain that the embryo has a negative right to life and health--that is, no one, not even that embryo's mother, has a right to kill or harm that embryo. A negative right requires people to not do something: my free speech doesn't require you to hand me a megaphone, but certainly requires that you not gag me. Positive rights, like a right to food, shelter, or clothing require that a second party (e.g., the government or society) provide something to the person with a positive right. I'm not sure how embryos would have positive rights--those that compel someone else to DO something--other than an expectation that the mother will nourish herself sufficiently well so the embryo grows to a full term fetus and is then delivered. Many (but not enough...) mothers will continue to feed their neonates through lactation, but choosing to feed via formula is not an abrogation of a newborn's positive right to sustenance. 7 hours ago, SedRate said: Unfortunately, nearly all threads get random replies that are often judgmental and sometimes even attacking so please don't tell me what is unnecessary for me to say. If you're saying that to be reassuring that I won't be judged or spoken down to, then I appreciate it. That was indeed my intent, but you are right--my assurance is limited to how I will dialogue with you. 35 years of being in networked conversations have thoroughly demonstrated that I have no control over others' online behavior. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeTheBabe Posted March 31, 2023 Share Posted March 31, 2023 On 3/27/2023 at 8:28 PM, rev ronin said: Sure it is. Her body is hers, and her child is hers. One is not in conflict with the other. The question of whether a mother has the legal right to kill her child should be unthinkable, and it reflects a very impoverished view of the value of children. It's not that simple at all. One body affects the other and vice versa. They are not completely separate entities. Your posts all full of appeal to emotion fallacies, where you consistently use words like child instead of fetus, kill instead of abortion/terminate, etc. On 3/27/2023 at 8:28 PM, rev ronin said: In a conflict of rights scenario, why is it ever acceptable to kill vs. deliver a viable baby? Fetal health never requires termination; in the worst case scenarios, the baby dies shortly after delivery, with fetal demise prior to delivery being a close second. Terminations after 20 weeks are not generally due to the mother's health--in most cases (e.g., pre-eclampsia) delivery, not abortion, is the most straightforward way to resolve maternal health concerns that are a direct result of ongoing pregnancy. Sex trafficking or incest, as a source of pregnancy, do not represent a present threat to the health or well being of the mother: there is no high quality evidence that shows that an abortion will improve mother's health, to include mental health, secondary to such victimization resulting in pregnancy. I don't pretend to know all scenarios that can arise in pregnancy. When it comes to fetal health, well sometimes not allowing a pregnancy to continue is the humane thing to do. In any case, abortions after 20 weeks are less than 1% of abortions and we don't need to focus on this as many states (including liberal states as I discussed before) have laws that don't allow elective abortions after 20 weeks and no one is complaining about those restrictions. On 3/27/2023 at 8:28 PM, rev ronin said: The government is chartered to protect the helpless. Pre-born humans are pretty helpless. If I decide with a physician to kill my born children, the government would very much call that unacceptable. What is the fundamental difference, the magical transformation, that passing through a birth canal (oops, or through a C-section, too) turns a viable human being into a legal person? That is exactly the major life event that turns a human being into a legal person. I don't consider a fertilized egg to be a human being or a legal person, it would be ridiculous to consider a single cell to be considered equal to a living breathing person. After an egg is fertilized, there is no major event that takes place. The fetus development is gradual. The only major life event after that, and the only one that matters, is birth. To consider a fertilized egg a legal person would have interesting ramifications. Wasn't there a pregnant woman who tried to get out of a traffic ticket by saying there are 2 persons in the car while driving in the carpool lane? Not sure where that went. Should every fetus be sent a social security card? Should child support start at conception? Should a pregnant woman be charged extra for her flight? I mean the list goes on. On 3/27/2023 at 8:28 PM, rev ronin said: But on what basis do you assert we don't have major sex preferences. I mean, I guess it's true on the surface, but Immigrants who come from more misogynistic countries bring their preferences with them. c.f. FGM. How many unborn girls killed because they are female is too many? If someone is willing to have an abortion due to sex preference, they will do so whether or not it's legal. Doesn't legal abortion is the problem and everyone else who needs one should be punished for it. On 3/27/2023 at 8:28 PM, rev ronin said: "The incidence and per-abortion rate of ER visits following any induced abortion are growing, but chemical abortion is consistently and progressively associated with more postabortion ER visit morbidity than surgical abortion. There is also a distinct trend of a growing number of women miscoded as receiving treatment for spontaneous abortion in the ER following a chemical abortion." You can't really pretend to care about maternal health s/p abortion if you're advocating against abortion rights. A legalized abortion with a medical provider is going to be exponentially safer than an illegal one and I hope we can both agree on that. On 3/27/2023 at 8:28 PM, rev ronin said: I agree that in a perfect world, abortion would not be necessary. What is also clear to me is that elective abortion is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. I didn't say abortion was a solution. I said making abortion ILLEGAL is not a solution. Abortions will continue whether or not they are legal. That's the reality. If we want to truly decrease abortion rates (like we have been) we need to focus on other aspects of society like I discussed before such as free/accessible contraception, legitimate sex education in schools (not abstinence only fairytales), and even addressing things like poverty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator rev ronin Posted March 31, 2023 Administrator Share Posted March 31, 2023 4 minutes ago, AbeTheBabe said: Your posts all full of appeal to emotion fallacies, where you consistently use words like child instead of fetus, kill instead of abortion/terminate, etc. My posts are neither an appeal to emotion nor are the terms used incorrectly: multiple terms apply to unborn humans, and to suggest that the term "baby" is outside how a typical English speaker would refer to such is simply not supportable. The fact that I choose words to highlight that unborn humans are human beings doesn't make it inaccurate or an appeal to emotion. 7 minutes ago, AbeTheBabe said: I don't pretend to know all scenarios that can arise in pregnancy. When it comes to fetal health, well sometimes not allowing a pregnancy to continue is the humane thing to do. In any case, abortions after 20 weeks are less than 1% of abortions and we don't need to focus on this as many states (including liberal states as I discussed before) have laws that don't allow elective abortions after 20 weeks and no one is complaining about those restrictions. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment involved fewer than 400 men and lasted for decades. 1% of abortions would be 8,000 a year, assuming an estimate of 800,000 abortions annually in the United States. But that 20x difference isn't really important when we're talking human rights, is it? Or was Maya Angelou wrong when she said "The truth is, no one of us can be free until everybody is free"? 11 minutes ago, AbeTheBabe said: That is exactly the major life event that turns a human being into a legal person. I don't consider a fertilized egg to be a human being or a legal person, it would be ridiculous to consider a single cell to be considered equal to a living breathing person. After an egg is fertilized, there is no major event that takes place. The fetus development is gradual. The only major life event after that, and the only one that matters, is birth. So, in your view, partuition is the dividing line? While I agree that there really isn't one singular change between fertilization and birth where one can say "this is clearly a legal person on one side, and clearly not a legal person on the other side" your choice is untenable. A viable preborn human being at 40 weeks gestation, with its own DNA, organs, and blood... its own brain waves, taste preferences, and pain reflexes... its own, albeit limited, auditory experience catalogue that registers its mother's voice as calming... You are presumably OK with it being legal that such a human being (but not yet legal person) could be delivered feet first, the head remaining within the birth canal, and then scissors being used against the central nervous system to sever the spinal cord or otherwise render the brain non-functional such that a deceased human is delivered through the birth canal, not recorded as ever having been a live birth and hence a legal person. Either you're OK with that, or you've misspoken. I really hope it's the latter. The frequency of that possibility doesn't really matter--again, we've established 8,000ish late term abortions, and even if this procedure is yet a single percent of all late term births, that's still 80 thinking, experiencing, pain-capable, viable human beings "eliminated" in such a manner in a typical year. Fact is, there is no medical reason to ever deliver any baby in such a manner. As Chris Rock (note: linked video has commentary) put it recently, the point of an abortion to produce a dead baby. 23 minutes ago, AbeTheBabe said: To consider a fertilized egg a legal person would have interesting ramifications. Wasn't there a pregnant woman who tried to get out of a traffic ticket by saying there are 2 persons in the car while driving in the carpool lane? Not sure where that went. Should every fetus be sent a social security card? Should child support start at conception? Should a pregnant woman be charged extra for her flight? I mean the list goes on. Human beings are discriminated by age in laws all the time. Car seats, driver's licenses, alcohol purchases... The idea that to assert a right to not be killed before birth somehow upends all of jurisprudence is easily dismissed. I'll note that child support from conception has been proposed since at least 2020, so if you were thinking that were hyperbole... it's not. 30 minutes ago, AbeTheBabe said: If someone is willing to have an abortion due to sex preference, they will do so whether or not it's legal. Doesn't legal abortion is the problem and everyone else who needs one should be punished for it. [...] I didn't say abortion was a solution. I said making abortion ILLEGAL is not a solution. Abortions will continue whether or not they are legal. That's the reality. If we want to truly decrease abortion rates (like we have been) we need to focus on other aspects of society like I discussed before such as free/accessible contraception, legitimate sex education in schools (not abstinence only fairytales), and even addressing things like poverty. Dealing with these paragraphs together because it's the same poor argument. Murders still happen; should they be decriminalized? Rapes still happen; should they? This is a basic is-ought fallacy: we cannot determine from how things are (or will be) whether that status is ethical. By banning things society communicates what it tolerates or does not tolerate. Finally, as per an earlier post, there is no good evidence that 1) pre-Roe abortions were all that dangerous, 2) current abortions are particularly more safe, or 3) changing the legal status of abortion would necessarily make abortions significantly less safe than they are now. Pre-Roe abortions appear to have largely been done by legal clinics acting in a then-illegal manner, not Gosnell-like houses of horror. If abortions were studied as a public health issue, some reasonable nationwide conclusions could be drawn. As is, due to data collection issues we only have data from Medicaid-funded abortions in the states which funded them, which show that chemical abortions are under reported and result in far more ED visits than proponents would imply by the "safe as Tylenol" rhetoric. And, like anything else, decisions on the legal status of abortion carry a risk/benefit profile which is essentially upended by the presumption of fetal personhood. Changing that answer changes the whole equation. 41 minutes ago, AbeTheBabe said: You can't really pretend to care about maternal health s/p abortion if you're advocating against abortion rights. A legalized abortion with a medical provider is going to be exponentially safer than an illegal one and I hope we can both agree on that. I grant no such "exponentially safer" status, even if we're only considering risk to the mother's health. I grant that there would likely a modest decrease in safety, but of uncertain amplitude, since, per above, licensed physicians willing to perform illegal terminations using the full facilities of legal OB/GYN clinics seemed to have been available enough prior to Roe, there are clear efforts to circumvent recently enacted or enforced state laws against abortion, and interstate travel to a state where abortion remains legal continues to be an option. You have not engaged with studies that show maternal health (e.g., mental health, the loss of the reduced risk of breast cancer seen in women not carrying first pregnancy to term) can be negatively affected by abortions. Would the overall picture, just for mothers (that is, disregarding fetal life), favor improved morbidity or mortality with or without legal abortion? That's an open question, and there's simply no good evidence for what you assert. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeTheBabe Posted April 4, 2023 Share Posted April 4, 2023 On 3/30/2023 at 10:48 PM, rev ronin said: My posts are neither an appeal to emotion nor are the terms used incorrectly: multiple terms apply to unborn humans, and to suggest that the term "baby" is outside how a typical English speaker would refer to such is simply not supportable. The fact that I choose words to highlight that unborn humans are human beings doesn't make it inaccurate or an appeal to emotion. A fertilized egg isn't a human being, no matter how many times you say it is. It's a single cell. If I cut off my fingertip it has all 23 pairs of chromosomes, does it qualify as a human being as well? I think we both know we are both native English speakers and this is a medical forum. On 3/30/2023 at 10:48 PM, rev ronin said: My posts are neither an appeal to emotion nor are the terms used incorrectly: multiple terms apply to unborn humans, and to suggest that the term "baby" is outside how a typical English speaker would refer to such is simply not supportable. The fact that I choose words to highlight that unborn humans are human beings doesn't make it inaccurate or an appeal to emotion. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment involved fewer than 400 men and lasted for decades. 1% of abortions would be 8,000 a year, assuming an estimate of 800,000 abortions annually in the United States. But that 20x difference isn't really important when we're talking human rights, is it? Or was Maya Angelou wrong when she said "The truth is, no one of us can be free until everybody is free"? So, in your view, partuition is the dividing line? While I agree that there really isn't one singular change between fertilization and birth where one can say "this is clearly a legal person on one side, and clearly not a legal person on the other side" your choice is untenable. A viable preborn human being at 40 weeks gestation, with its own DNA, organs, and blood... its own brain waves, taste preferences, and pain reflexes... its own, albeit limited, auditory experience catalogue that registers its mother's voice as calming... You are presumably OK with it being legal that such a human being (but not yet legal person) could be delivered feet first, the head remaining within the birth canal, and then scissors being used against the central nervous system to sever the spinal cord or otherwise render the brain non-functional such that a deceased human is delivered through the birth canal, not recorded as ever having been a live birth and hence a legal person. Either you're OK with that, or you've misspoken. I really hope it's the latter. The frequency of that possibility doesn't really matter--again, we've established 8,000ish late term abortions, and even if this procedure is yet a single percent of all late term births, that's still 80 thinking, experiencing, pain-capable, viable human beings "eliminated" in such a manner in a typical year. Fact is, there is no medical reason to ever deliver any baby in such a manner. As Chris Rock (note: linked video has commentary) put it recently, the point of an abortion to produce a dead baby. I'm not sure where you are misunderstanding me here. I said we don't have to focus on that because most people agree with it. It's not an issue not because it's less than 1% of abortions, it's not an issue because even before Roe v Wade was overturned, even liberal states had a 20 week abortion ban except to life of mother. I don't pretend to know every single possible pregnancy complication so I don't think it's unreasonable to have that exception. There is/was no issue with the 20 week ban, I even said so in an earlier post. It's not at all because it's 8,000 a year. On 3/30/2023 at 10:48 PM, rev ronin said: Dealing with these paragraphs together because it's the same poor argument. Murders still happen; should they be decriminalized? Rapes still happen; should they? This is a basic is-ought fallacy: we cannot determine from how things are (or will be) whether that status is ethical. By banning things society communicates what it tolerates or does not tolerate. I don't want to go back to the starting argument that rape and murder of living breathing person is not the same as abortion. I'm glad you brought up society though. Percentage of people in the USA who think abortion should be legal in all circumstances has ranges from about 20-30% for decades. Legal in certain circumstances? 50-55%. Illegal in all circumstances? 10-20%. That's means the vast majority of the country agrees that abortion should at least be legal under certain circumstances. 2/3 of the country believes the overturn of Roe v Wade was a bad thing and only 1/3 saw it as a good thing. 2/3 of the country also believe abortion should be legal in the first trimester. What percentage of society thinks murder/rape should be legal? On 3/30/2023 at 10:48 PM, rev ronin said: Finally, as per an earlier post, there is no good evidence that 1) pre-Roe abortions were all that dangerous, 2) current abortions are particularly more safe, or 3) changing the legal status of abortion would necessarily make abortions significantly less safe than they are now. Pre-Roe abortions appear to have largely been done by legal clinics acting in a then-illegal manner, not Gosnell-like houses of horror. If abortions were studied as a public health issue, some reasonable nationwide conclusions could be drawn. As is, due to data collection issues we only have data from Medicaid-funded abortions in the states which funded them, which show that chemical abortions are under reported and result in far more ED visits than proponents would imply by the "safe as Tylenol" rhetoric. And, like anything else, decisions on the legal status of abortion carry a risk/benefit profile which is essentially upended by the presumption of fetal personhood. Changing that answer changes the whole equation. I grant no such "exponentially safer" status, even if we're only considering risk to the mother's health. I grant that there would likely a modest decrease in safety, but of uncertain amplitude, since, per above, licensed physicians willing to perform illegal terminations using the full facilities of legal OB/GYN clinics seemed to have been available enough prior to Roe, there are clear efforts to circumvent recently enacted or enforced state laws against abortion, and interstate travel to a state where abortion remains legal continues to be an option. You have not engaged with studies that show maternal health (e.g., mental health, the loss of the reduced risk of breast cancer seen in women not carrying first pregnancy to term) can be negatively affected by abortions. Would the overall picture, just for mothers (that is, disregarding fetal life), favor improved morbidity or mortality with or without legal abortion? That's an open question, and there's simply no good evidence for what you assert. ED visits don't mean much. People go to the ED for a hangnail, doesn't mean anything is wrong with them. It would be totally reasonable for someone who is worried to make a uneventful visit to the ED. So you're saying the data I have provided is skewed due to reporting, but apparently the data you'll believe pre Roe v Wade is totally legit when there was no reporting? Is there any medical procedure that has not improved in safety over the past 50+ years? Let's not delve into mental health and other arbitrary statistics please. Should we ban pregnancy so women don't get postpartum depression? Should we perform bilateral mastectomies on every woman once they are done having kids so they don't get breast cancer? Should we ban pregnancy to reduce the risk of maternal mortality? You don't have to answer these ridiculous questions, it's just to prove a point that we don't ban things because they carry certain risks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.