SCOTUS - Oral Argument on Abortion Rights Case

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think Smac’s perception of Duncan’s commentary is reasonable. If arguing from the margins is not what Duncan was doing, then he needs to clarify first, that he understands the meaning of the expression, and second, the distinction between arguing from the margins and what he was doing. 

It's not Duncan's fault that Smac inserted himself into a discussion between Duncan and BRMC.  Why does Duncan need to clarify anything first?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's not Duncan's fault that Smac inserted himself into a discussion between Duncan and BRMC.  Why does Duncan need to clarify anything first?

Apparently Smac is standing down. I’ll do likewise. 

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is that even at issue in this thread? I don’t know anyone who would dispute that. 
 

I thought the matter under discussion here was elective abortions, not medically necessary ones. 

It's one of the issues that has been brought up. 

In my first post in the thread I stated how abortions needed to remain legal for cases of rape or health of the mother.  BRMC replied " I want them to be illegal in all cases."  Over the course of BRMC's and my discussion, BRMC asked for examples of when an abortion might be medically necessary.  Duncan provided the example of the mother with twins.  It was that example that Smac called an argument from the margins.

Which Smac has since recognized to not be an accurate understanding of Duncan's post and apologized for the label, which I appreciate.

[bluebell]

duplicate post.

Edited December 2, 2021 by bluebell

[webbles]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

CFR....I'm really curious about this and have tried 3-4 differently worded searches to find info on this and can't find anything. I admit I'm a little skeptical.

My gut notes that the us is one of only a very few wealthy countries that have the viability clause...which means this would only apply to research in the US and other countries would likely not have the same problem with this. 

My other response is that much of the problem is just how big of a leap it would take technologically to have a fetus live outside a woman at this point without something like an artificial womb. The younger you go in development the more likely you're going to run into serious problems that comes when you pull out an unfinished human. For example, before 18 weeks, baby doesn't have fully formed skin and after that the skin is so thin that it's translucent. Even within the accepted window of viability, it's still a gamble that an infant will survive and then also survive without health issues. There's nothing hindering research in the 22-24 week range, but there are still big chances a baby will not survive in this window.

My last point of skepticism  is that several states have laws that allow abortion well past viability...so there's nothing really hindering them since their laws don't hinge on viability anyways. 

But if you've read something specifically tying the two subjects, I'd be interested in seeing it. 

With luv,

BD

The article was talking about the Dobbs case and in one paragraph said (https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/will-the-supreme-court-overrule-roe-and-casey/):

Quote

A third problem created by drawing the line at viability is that the Supreme Court obviously created a conflict of interest for some of the researchers and scientists — and the governments and private businesses who fund them — pursuing moon-shot technologies that would move the viability line much closer to conception. Work on artificial wombs that may aid the lives of babies born as early as 23 weeks has continued since Casey, but doesn’t it stand to reason that so long as the Supreme Court’s viability line remains intact, some in the medical establishment will be reluctant to develop any technology in the coming decades that could move the viability line to, say, twelve weeks? Just imagine if the Supreme Court made any other fiercely contested right contingent on a life-saving technological innovation not happening.

It looks like the person is speculating that it might happen and I misremembered it as something that is actually happening.

They did source two articles about the conflict between abortion rights and life-saving devices: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1495&context=wmjowl and https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/23/16186468/artificial-wombs-radically-transform-abortion-debate.  Skimming those two articles, it looks like their premise is that the viability standard is unworkable with the advent of these new life-saving devices.  But instead of arguing against life-saving devices, they try and come up with a new standard other than the viability standard.

[strappinglad]

Nature seems to have made a statement about when a fetus is likely viable or not.

It is estimated that as many as 26% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, with nearly 80% of early miscarriages occurring in the first 12 weeks, or first trimester, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Nature seems to have made a statement about when a fetus is likely viable or not.

It is estimated that as many as 26% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, with nearly 80% of early miscarriages occurring in the first 12 weeks, or first trimester, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

This is one of the reasons that I don't believe life begins at conception.  If 26% of the spirits that Heavenly Father is trying to send to earth don't ever actually get a body because their body was miscarried, that's a problem that is hard to solve.

[BlueDreams]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

I will be very interested to see how this case turns out.  I'm not holding my breath on Roe and/or Casey being overturned, though.

I'm hoping it's not entirely overturned, but I'm concerned by the potential of a "death by papercuts" model to slowly gut roe v wade without dramatically overturning it.

Quote

 

I think this is a pretty good answer (though whether it is accurate and/or sufficient in the eyes of a majority of SCOTUS remains to be seen).  In a sense, it jibes with the (very limited) exceptions that the Church recognizes as pertaining to abortion:

(Emphasis added.)

Where pregnancy is not the result of volitional behavior, such as from sexual assault, then the "liberty interest" of the mother is, I think, implicated.  She did not consent to the sexual activity.

 

I was going to respond but don't have a legit work around to not make it too political.  But I agree it's a strong argument with lots of precedence surrounding it. 

Quote

 

The personhood of the child needs to be addressed, I think.

Back to the article:

There was also a "tradition under the common law for centuries" that allowed slavery.  But then William Wilberforce and others came along and challenged that legal tradition.  And central to that challenge was . . . the personhood of the slaves.

Very good reasoning here.  But I am not sure that tying personhood to "viability" is workable in the long run.

 

Personhood is probably the hardest part of the abortion debate because there is no consensus on when that should apply....even the church policy doesn't really address personhood and the fact that it can note any exceptions infers to me at least that fetuses are to some degree not fully persons. The exceptions they mentioned don't fully translate to moral exceptions to killing of persons outside the woman's womb, if you think about it. For example, rape doesn't allow you to kill said rapist after the crime. Nor is it okay for me to kill a child If I'm under severe distress (ex. post partum psychosis) from said relationship with child. The unique nature of the fetus that is living within and cannot be fully individuated from a woman (who's personhood isn't debated) leaves space for these exceptions. To me, however pliable viability may become in the future, it's probably the closest you can get to a solid distinction based off of whether or not it can be individuated and thus deemed to have real distinction from the mother*. 

This blurry personhood is also one of the real differences between slavery, specifically as it was practiced in the US, and abortion. Slavery entailed consistently denying rights and participation to a whole group of people for nothing they did or their actual functionality as persons, but where they came from and (not much later) who birthed them. It created a system of justifications to maintain a racial hierarchy and separation. They were persons that could be individuated from the slave owner, sure, but they were people deemed unworthy to be seen as equal, even when free. Abortion debates a question of personhood period, not simply access to equal rights/protections under the law. 

 

*I get that people may point to a different genetic makeup from the body of the mom. I'm pointing out that functionally there isn't individuation. If the woman dies, the fetus will die with her, pre-viability, 100% of the time. The only way the fetus/embryo can live is by the continual accommodation and adaptation of the woman's body to allow for it to grow.  

 

With luv,

BD

[rongo]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is one of the reasons that I don't believe life begins at conception.  If 26% of the spirits that Heavenly Father is trying to send to earth don't ever actually get a body because their body was miscarried, that's a problem that is hard to solve.

Unless that large of a number only need a body (accomplished via the fetal body), based on the pre-existence. Ditto for the billions more who have died before the age of accountability throughout history. How many need the earth probation is an unknown for us. Then again, maybe it doesn't "count" as "getting a body" unless and until one is born. That is also unknown to us. 

I agree with you about conception. I agree with Brigham Young that it's at quickening. Interestingly, B.H. Roberts believed the spirit enters at birth. Now that's a real outlier view!  

[BlueDreams]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is one of the reasons that I don't believe life begins at conception.  If 26% of the spirits that Heavenly Father is trying to send to earth don't ever actually get a body because their body was miscarried, that's a problem that is hard to solve.

When I miscarried I kept picturing the difference while gardening....of seeds that never germinate even though they were legit seeds and seed that germinate but have obvious deficiencies that will lead to their inevitable demise (like having no leaves). I also can't believe a soul is fully created via conception. It's a potential life. Like something being stitched together but that hasn't been completed. Or like how Adam wasn't really Adam till God breathed life into him and became a "living soul" 

[OGHoosier]

25 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I also can't believe a soul is fully created via conception. It's a potential life. Like something being stitched together but that hasn't been completed. Or like how Adam wasn't really Adam till God breathed life into him and became a "living soul" 

I substantially agree with this. I think that a fetus is most certainly "potential human life", and thus I think the Church's approach to it mostly makes sense. Abortion isn't equivalent to murder, but it is equivalent to discarding the potential and cheapening the sanctity of life. It is not murder but, as an extreme truncation of potential of life it is "something like unto it." 

I can't help but feel that if we had a more clear revelation of when "ensoulment" occurs, the question would be easier to answer, but I also see no particular reason to believe that ensoulment happens at the same time in every pregnancy. It may be for this reason that we have no categorical revelation on the subject, and thus the Church's approach to abortion is a cautious general policy based on limited knowledge. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by OGHoosier

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Personhood is probably the hardest part of the abortion debate because there is no consensus on when that should apply....even the church policy doesn't really address personhood and the fact that it can note any exceptions infers to me at least that fetuses are to some degree not fully persons. The exceptions they mentioned don't fully translate to moral exceptions to killing of persons outside the woman's womb, if you think about it. For example, rape doesn't allow you to kill said rapist after the crime. Nor is it okay for me to kill a child If I'm under severe distress (ex. post partum psychosis) from said relationship with child.

 

With luv,

BD

I agree.  I don't think that abortion is wrong because of the personhood of the embryo or fetus in most cases and I think that's a hard argument to make work, given what we know about miscarriage numbers.  I think it's wrong because it's a misuse of God's ultimate authority over creation and death (especially when the creation of the baby came from breaking commandments in the first place).  I see it as a usurpation of His authority, which the scriptures seem to show God takes very seriously.  To the point of sometimes classifying such usurpation as the most wicked sins we can commit and still be forgiven for. 

The existence of allowances for abortion in certain situations says the same thing to me that it says to you.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Unless that large of a number only need a body (accomplished via the fetal body), based on the pre-existence. Ditto for the billions more who have died before the age of accountability throughout history. How many need the earth probation is an unknown for us. Then again, maybe it doesn't "count" as "getting a body" unless and until one is born. That is also unknown to us. 

I agree with you about conception. I agree with Brigham Young that it's at quickening. Interestingly, B.H. Roberts believed the spirit enters at birth. Now that's a real outlier view!  

Yeah, it's hard to argue that a 6 week embryo constitutes a body, as our teachings on the subjection declare that children are resurrected as children and their parents are allowed to raise them in the millenium.  Miscarried embryos wouldn't have a body to be resurrected into, unless we are suggesting that they will be resurrected into their mother's wombs.  That would be interesting for women who have had multiple miscarriages.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, BRMC said:

That wasn't exactly my position.   My position was that I can't think of an example where the only means of saving the mother's life is the killing of the baby.  I asked for examples. 

Do you mean anything past conception or do you mean once it is into the viable  stage?

And are you requiring as a condition that it is a normal pregnancy to begin with, no deformities, etc where the baby would normally survive until something went wrong (unlike certain conditions that are known to be fatal from the beginning even if the baby develops for many weeks) or are you talking about any condition where the baby is living, even if doctors anticipate death?

Edited December 2, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently Smac is standing down. I’ll do likewise. 

Smac apologized (well done), not the same thing as standing down, though he may be doing that as well. 

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, BRMC said:

That wasn't exactly my position.   My position was that I can't think of an example where the only means of saving the mother's life is the killing of the baby.  I asked for examples. 

Ectopic pregnancy?

[BRMC]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you mean anything past conception or do you mean once it is into the viable  stage?

And are you requiring as a condition that it is a normal pregnancy to begin with, no deformities, etc where the baby would normally survive until something went wrong (unlike certain conditions that are known to be fatal from the beginning even if the baby develops for many weeks) or are you talking about any condition where the baby is living, even if doctors anticipate death?

For the sake of my argument, I'm saying anything past conception, end stop.  

[BRMC]

24 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Ectopic pregnancy?

An ectopic pregnancy doesn't end in abortion, using my argument.  The purpose of the procedure is to clear a Fallopian tube or cervix because the child can't develop successfully there.  Given today's technology, we are unable to move the baby without killing it.  The intent of the procedure is not to kill the child.  That is an unfortunate consequence.  

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, BRMC said:

The purpose of the procedure is to clear a Fallopian tube or cervix because the child can't develop successfully there.

What difference is that to when a child can’t develop successfully in the uterus?  

[BRMC]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

What difference is that to when a child can’t develop successfully in the uterus?  

What about the child in the uterus is endangering the mother's life?

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  I don't think that abortion is wrong because of the personhood of the embryo or fetus in most cases and I think that's a hard argument to make work, given what we know about miscarriage numbers.  I think it's wrong because it's a misuse of God's ultimate authority over creation and death (especially when the creation of the baby came from breaking commandments in the first place).  I see it as a usurpation of His authority, which the scriptures seem to show God takes very seriously.  To the point of sometimes classifying such usurpation as the most wicked sins we can commit and still be forgiven for. 

The existence of allowances for abortion in certain situations says the same thing to me that it says to you.  

I don’t know if I’ve ever viewed it that way. My wrongness factor is moreso the general lack of sacredness and sense of stewardship to life in general. Not just human, but all life. We’re culturally often unwilling to sacrifice for the better good. And cases where there is absolute carelessness and thoughtlessness to their sexual actions and subsequent abortion do bother me. Though I do wonder if I’d want these people to mother anyways for any length of time (and pregnancy is a form of mothering IMHO). So in a sense an abortion just symbolizes a lot of their own moral and personal lost state as a whole. 
 

But I have empathy with many others where their stories may not directly fit into the general exceptions laid out in church policy, but still point to tough points in life that aren’t conducive to a flourishing new life. 

 

with luv,

bd

Edited December 3, 2021 by BlueDreams

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, BRMC said:

What about the child in the uterus is endangering the mother's life?

What about in my wife's case? The child would literally have killed her in delivery, or during pregnancy if she stopped the blood thinners --- or the child would have been killed or severely harmed by the blood thinners for 7-8 months.

These are admittedly rare, but they do happen. After demanding examples, all you said in response to mine was that you would need to give it "further consideration." It appears that you will never admit and concede that there are bona fide cases where the pregnancy will be fatal to the mother. 

That said, the vast majority of "endangering the mother's life" examples have to do with the mother not wanting the baby (and carrying the baby to term threatening mental or psychological harm). I know others here differ on that, but I don't consider these to rise to the same level as actual, physical threat to the mother's life. And, I also think the cases where the baby is partially delivered and killed are all abhorrent. If you can mostly deliver the baby, you can fully deliver the baby without harming mother or child. This barbarism is solely to give a veneer of it not being infanticide. 

[BRMC]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

What about in my wife's case? The child would literally have killed her in delivery, or during pregnancy if she stopped the blood thinners --- or the child would have been killed or severely harmed by the blood thinners for 7-8 months.

These are admittedly rare, but they do happen. After demanding examples, all you said in response to mine was that you would need to give it "further consideration." It appears that you will never admit and concede that there are bona fide cases where the pregnancy will be fatal to the mother. 

That said, the vast majority of "endangering the mother's life" examples have to do with the mother not wanting the baby (and carrying the baby to term threatening mental or psychological harm). I know others here differ on that, but I don't consider these to rise to the same level as actual, physical threat to the mother's life. And, I also think the cases where the baby is partially delivered and killed are all abhorrent. If you can mostly deliver the baby, you can fully deliver the baby without harming mother or child. This barbarism is solely to give a veneer of it not being infanticide. 

I don't particularly agree with either of those possibilities as stated.  Women at-risk for bleeding frequently have, and survive, surgery.  You may be 100% correct, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't an option that didn't result in your wife's death.

[BlueDreams]

21 minutes ago, BRMC said:

What about the child in the uterus is endangering the mother's life?

I knew a woman once who had serious health problems. The type that it was questionable whether she would ever get pregnant. She had an ectopic pregnancy and very soon after got pregnant again unexpectedly while she was still grieving the loss of the first pregnancy. She was an emotional mess…but on top of that she couldn’t eat. At points she was only eating 400 calories a day. Much of that came from pretty empty calories. The doctor was messing up and for probably over a month she was struggling to maintain a semblance of health as they procrastinated giving her a feeding tube, putting her and her growing child at serious risk. By the time of labor her body was spent from malnutrition and pushing for every added week of pregnancy. She needed a c-section at an earlier time than her due date (it felt like a miracle she made it that far). She also miraculously had a healthy baby that only needed a short stint in the nicu.

But not long after birth, she had a pregnancy scare. She knew her body, mind, and spirit couldn’t handle it. It would have entailed being unable to care for her newborn child for months as she wasted away again physically and put her life at risk for a potential life that had a strong chance of not making it. Luckily she wasn’t pregnant, but if she had been, abortion was seriously on the table. Another baby may have literally killed her. 
 

There’s another anectdote on the list of anectdotes already given in this thread. Pregnancy for women inherently carries risk. Many of these risks have been negated by better nutrition, better care, and longer intervals between pregnancies.  But that doesn’t mean the risk isn’t there. A child isn’t just complacently floating in a glorified flesh balloon. It’s putting pressures on the women’s entire body to carry a life. Usually these lead to mild issues (joint pain, some nausea, indigestion, etc). But sometimes the woman’s body simply can’t handle it or struggles to manage the changes and pressures. So each pregnancy in these circumstances becomes a serious health risk.
There are cases in countries with extremely strict abortion standards where women have died from medical emergencies that wouldn’t allow medical teams to end the life of a baby to save the woman. It’s not unheard of. 
 

with luv,

BD 
 

[BlueDreams]

12 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I don't particularly agree with either of those possibilities as stated.  Women at-risk for bleeding frequently have, and survive, surgery.  You may be 100% correct, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't an option that didn't result in your wife's death.

I’m not going to lie, I’m seriously questioning your knowledge Base on maternal health.