SCOTUS - Oral Argument on Abortion Rights Case

[BRMC]

3 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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 
 

Sure.  I never said it was easy or that I don't have empathy.  I

If having another child would have killed her, I'm sorry to say she shouldn't have gotten pregnant.   Not having the mental fortitude to have a child shouldn't mean you can just kill it.  If you can't do it when he's 8, you shouldn't be able to do it just because you don't have to look at him when you take his life.  

[BRMC]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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

Funny.  I was thinking the same about you.  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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

I think he did do both. The standing-down part is what I meant when I said I would do likewise. 

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Funny.  I was thinking the same about you.  

I've been assuming you're male but I'm really hoping you're not.

Please don't be a man telling a woman who has given birth and had a miscarriage that you know more about maternal health than she does.   Don't be that guy.  No one guy looks good being that guy.

[BRMC]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've been assuming you're male but I'm really hoping you're not.

Please don't be a man telling a woman who has given birth and had a miscarriage that you know more about maternal health than she does.   Don't be that guy.  No one guy looks good being that guy.

Maybe I'm a male.  Maybe I'm a female.  Maybe I'm an OBGYN.  It's irrelevant.   Facts matter.  
 

When someone says their mental state means they should be able to kill their child, I question it. 

Edited December 3, 2021 by BRMC

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Maybe I'm a male.  Maybe I'm a female.  Maybe I'm an OBGYN.  It's irrelevant.   Facts matter.  
 

When someone says their mental state means they should be able to kill their child, I question it. 

I assume you spend a lot of time yelling at God then?

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Maybe I'm a male.  Maybe I'm a female.  Maybe I'm an OBGYN.  It's irrelevant.   Facts matter.  
 

When someone says their mental state means they should be able to kill their child, I question it. 

I'm going with male non-obgyn.  

 

 

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, BRMC said:

Sure.  I never said it was easy or that I don't have empathy.  I

If having another child would have killed her, I'm sorry to say she shouldn't have gotten pregnant.   Not having the mental fortitude to have a child shouldn't mean you can just kill it.  If you can't do it when he's 8, you shouldn't be able to do it just because you don't have to look at him when you take his life.  

 

45 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Maybe I'm a male.  Maybe I'm a female.  Maybe I'm an OBGYN.  It's irrelevant.   Facts matter.  
 

When someone says their mental state means they should be able to kill their child, I question it. 

Re-read my post. I didn't say her mental state was the sole (or even main) reason she needed to contemplate an abortion. It was primarily the physical reasons. The mental just made it that much more worse. 

And background when you're questioning my understanding of maternal health definitely does matter. It likely influences what "facts" we even have access to. And I don't see a lot of facts with what your posting...more so an unmovable position that filters out most other facts that don't align with your view. Which is why I'm questioning yours.

These facts still remain: pregnancy carries inherent risk for women, particularly if their bodies are already compromised. These risks include risk of death. There have been several anecdotal responses to your question pointing this out. There are several stats and figures pointing to the increased risk of death for women that can easily be googled. You can't perfectly plan to get pregnant only when you want to without major compromises that may not be sustainable (like never having sex with your spouse or having a hysterectomy...though fun fact, I know a woman who never had penetrative intercourse with her spouse due to an extreme phobia and still got pregnant).  And many of the real world factors mean that several variables around pregnancy are simply out of the control of women. 

You asked in varying ways the risk a baby in the uterus can have on a woman. The answer is several. That is a certifiable fact. Just about any one who's been pregnant could tell you that. Pregnancy inherently carries sometimes serious health risks. That is also a basic fact that is so rudimentary that if you were an OBGYN I'd seriously wonder how you ever made it through med school for your chosen field. An OB is specifically trained to manage high risk pregnancy situations. High risk = serious potential for life threatening complications for mother or the baby. 

 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

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. 

I definitely agree, though the one thing I probably differ is my willingness to allow a policy that allows wiggle space for others to make decisions about that who may view pregnancy differently. I may disagree, and will personally promote a more cautious and serious weighing....but I hesitate to restrict abortion (or have it be super open) a ton, particularly in the first trimester. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, BRMC said:

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.  

Um, the intent of the procedure is 100 percent to kill the fetus. That’s how you “clear” the tube. You kill the fetus. 

[BRMC]

7 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

Re-read my post. I didn't say her mental state was the sole (or even main) reason she needed to contemplate an abortion. It was primarily the physical reasons. The mental just made it that much more worse. 

And background when you're questioning my understanding of maternal health definitely does matter. It likely influences what "facts" we even have access to. And I don't see a lot of facts with what your posting...more so an unmovable position that filters out most other facts that don't align with your view. Which is why I'm questioning yours.

These facts still remain: pregnancy carries inherent risk for women, particularly if their bodies are already compromised. These risks include risk of death. There have been several anecdotal responses to your question pointing this out. There are several stats and figures pointing to the increased risk of death for women that can easily be googled. You can't perfectly plan to get pregnant only when you want to without major compromises that may not be sustainable (like never having sex with your spouse or having a hysterectomy...though fun fact, I know a woman who never had penetrative intercourse with her spouse due to an extreme phobia and still got pregnant).  And many of the real world factors mean that several variables around pregnancy are simply out of the control of women. 

You asked in varying ways the risk a baby in the uterus can have on a woman. The answer is several. That is a certifiable fact. Just about any one who's been pregnant could tell you that. Pregnancy inherently carries sometimes serious health risks. That is also a basic fact that is so rudimentary that if you were an OBGYN I'd seriously wonder how you ever made it through med school for your chosen field. An OB is specifically trained to manage high risk pregnancy situations. High risk = serious potential for life threatening complications for mother or the baby. 

 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

And I disagree.  Several marginal, blurred and broad examples have been given and I've provided several equally blurred and broad alternatives to killing the child.   Not the least of which is don't get pregnant to begin with if the risks are too great for you to accept.  

[BRMC]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Um, the intent of the procedure is 100 percent to kill the fetus. That’s how you “clear” the tube. You kill the fetus. 

Um, no it isn't.  It's to remove the danger to the mother.   If the technology existed, the child would be relocated, not removed.  

Edited December 3, 2021 by BRMC

[halconero]

3 hours ago, BRMC said:

Um, no it isn't.  It's to remove the danger to the mother.   If the technology existed, the child would be relocated, not removed.  

Okay, but the technology does not exist right now. So, without it, is termination of the pregnancy an essential component of the treatment? Am I understanding that correctly?

I guess I’m just not getting the argument. You seem to be saying that the current practice, which terminates the pregnancy, isn’t an abortion because it hypothetically won’t be in the future.

To me that seems to be arguing that current vehicles don’t burn fossil fuels because, if the technology existed, all cars could be converted to EVs, not combustion engines. It’s a possibility, sure, but it doesn’t remove the fact that current vehicles burn petrol, nor does the possibility of future relocation of the child remove the current practice of using an abortificant.

Edited December 3, 2021 by halconero

[Calm]

3 hours ago, BRMC said:

Um, no it isn't.  It's to remove the danger to the mother.   If the technology existed, the child would be relocated, not removed.  

If the technology existed, the child could be relocated from the uterus and it is anticipated that such technology will exist in the future.  Is such happens, will you condemn it?

[Calm]

9 hours ago, BRMC said:

Not the least of which is don't get pregnant to begin with if the risks are too great for you to accept.  

And if such risks weren’t discovered until after a woman was pregnant?  It is not that uncommon for a woman to find out she has cancer when she is pregnant, 1 in a 1000 iirc.  Late stage would be much rarer, but not unheard of.

A woman gets pregnant and during her first exam, the doctor finds she has an advanced stage of cancer, a form that involves or has spread to her reproductive organs. Treatment to save her life includes a hysterectomy.  Chemotherapy and hormone therapy is to be used as well.  Delay in treatment lowers her ability to survive already low (stage 4 ovarian cancer has a 14% survival rate, for example).

And to remove vagueness, this woman is a recently widowed mother of four minor children.  She lives in a country that has limited medical options for the poor and notorious state child care services.  As a recent example, that this is a reasonable possibility, when we lived in Russia in the mid90’s they had tons of doctors, but limited resources and the orphanages were often managed by highly corrupt individuals. My sister in law used to fundraise for an orphanage there, include collecting clothing, until she found out that the director pocketed most of the money and even sold the clothing instead of giving them to the children.
 

 If the mother dies, there is no extended family willing to take all her children, both she and her husband were only children (not uncommon at all in Russia, though her having four would have been while we were there unless one of the minority groups, though the government has promoted having more children at times) and her older aunts died or are dying of the cancer that took her mother (side story:  my roommate at hospital once was a 20 year old woman getting a radical mastectomy due to the early death of her mother and aunt and her older sister was just diagnosed. She opted to remove them as her sister had been careful, but still it wasn’t caught as early as they would have liked. We were the only two patients in that section of the hospital as it was shortly to be torn down and it killed me that I couldn’t have my own room given all the empty ones. She played the radio 24/7 and talked whenever she was awake while I just wanted to sleep or read, not having been given the right kind of painkiller and the nurses would not change it nor call the doctor or allow me to check out as they needed approval he was on a ski vacation (precell phones)…wouldn’t even give me ibuprofen. If I had been more knowledgeable at the time, I would have had my husband smuggle it in as they also wouldn’t release me until the doctor got back from his vacation…one experience of two in Canada that made me see that universal healthcare isn’t always that great.)

Edited December 3, 2021 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, BRMC said:

And I disagree.  Several marginal, blurred and broad examples have been given and I've provided several equally blurred and broad alternatives to killing the child.   Not the least of which is don't get pregnant to begin with if the risks are too great for you to accept.  

Your alternatives don’t work. It’s not because they’re “blurred and broad”…it’s because they’re callously unrealistic. It keeps putting responsibility on the woman in ways women can’t fully control. There can be no exceptions because in your world their shouldn’t be…which is not a world women reside in. At some point a person will be an exception.

I’ve already been one twice with pregnancy. Healthy woman, doing all the “right” nutritional things in pregnancy…then gets high blood pressure veering on pre-eclampsia at the end of pregnancy and needs to go on bed rest and a strict vegetarian diet to reverse it. Healthy woman chooses to get pregnant again after a long wait period.. has an early miscarriage due to a blighted ovum. Should pass it easily. Instead cervix won’t fully open and clots get stuck and woman loses a 1/3 of her blood trying to pass all the pieces of uterine tissue. Pregnancy is dangerous, bodies are faulty, women are not oracles able to predict and mitigate every potential scenario that could lead to abortive measures. I know these are exceptional, as in most women will avoid these experiences. But someone won’t. And someone out there will NEED an abortion to save their life. 
Here are several more examples from doctor cases that describe moments when abortion may become necessary: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/lila-rose-claim-that-abortion-is-never-medically-necessary-is-inaccurate-it-is-necessary-in-certain-cases-to-preserve-mothers-life-young-america-foundation/

If you’re wanting a super short summary it basically comes down to severe medical problems early in pregnancy, including pre-eclampsia, amniotic infections, severe HG (can’t keep nutrients or water down, as in the case of the woman I mentioned), and other life threatening conditions. You can pick them apart all you want, but these actually have scientific/medical consensus (ie facts). So doing so would again strongly put in question how much you actually care about facts v clinging to an inherently faulty position. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[BRMC]

3 hours ago, halconero said:

Okay, but the technology does not exist right now. So, without it, is termination of the pregnancy an essential component of the treatment? Am I understanding that correctly?

I guess I’m just not getting the argument. You seem to be saying that the current practice, which terminates the pregnancy, isn’t an abortion because it hypothetically won’t be in the future.

To me that seems to be arguing that current vehicles don’t burn fossil fuels because, if the technology existed, all cars could be converted to EVs, not combustion engines. It’s a possibility, sure, but it doesn’t remove the fact that current vehicles burn petrol, nor does the possibility of future relocation of the child remove the current practice of using an abortificant.

No, I'm saying intent matters. 

[BRMC]

I think I've made my position pretty clear by this point.  

[halconero]

1 hour ago, BRMC said:

No, I'm saying intent matters. 

Yes, and under current technology the medical professionals intent is to administer an abortificant to remove danger to the mother. A hypothesis contrary to current technological norms doesn’t negate current abortive measures or technologies that are used to clear the tube and save the mother.

I 100% agree with you that intent matters. In fact, I think most of us here in this thread would say intent matters. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but it seems to me that the intent to save the life of the mother using current methods that include the termination of pregnancy is applied much more narrowly than most here.

[provoman]

I am torn on this issue. 

Mostly, I have not experienced opposition to abortion outside of religion, that is it is my experience that all opposition to abortion is religiously based - this is my experience or how I perceive my experience.  As my experience is so involved with religion I do not support the legislation of religious beliefs.

Regarding Adoption, is that a option?  Currently there are roughly 122,000 individuals in the United States eligible and waiting to be adopted?  How many adoptions occur in a year? Is everyone eventually adopted? At what point do we say "X number of yearly adoptions is enough to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to birth".?

There is also individual autonomy - which is nearly sacrosanct in the United States, though we accept some degree of compulsion against our individual autonomy in the United States. However, in reference to unwanted pregnancy, I find it difficult to support forcing a person to act against their desire due to someone else's religious belief. I can understand viability being a measure and the State acting Ad Litem  for the viable unborn. (Though if we use viability, do we as a society provide that the unwanted can be "incubated" by other means than the person who does not want the pregnancy; that is some kind of surrogate system?)  Alternatively, should the State be responsible for 100% of all pregnancy related care to include birth and up and until adoption, for the unwanted pregnancy?

As for "well just don't get pregnant" - as respectfully as I can say it "Yeah right, that works".  I know a woman who became pregnant despite a IUD, this will be her 4th child with a 8 - 10 year age gap between the 3rd and 4th - the pregnancy was unplanned and unexpected (so "just don't get pregnant" did not work for her) .  Secondly, people act with limited understanding/comprehension of their actions. I knew teenagers who though they were engaging in "projected" sex, but they were not. So all in all "Just don't get pregnant", in my opinion, is in no way a viable reason to restrict abortion.

Edited December 3, 2021 by provoman

[kimpearson]

I would like to pose several questions on this topic. 

Does a woman have any rights at all once she is pregnant to determine the course of that pregnancy based on her circumstances, beliefs, mental and physical health or does she just become a vessel for the fetus (I use that term on purpose because there is no clear revelation on when a fetus becomes a baby with a spirit) and the fetus's rights overrule any concern of the mother?

Secondly how many of you have personally listened to the stories of women who have had abortions?  Not just read one but in person or in a video.  I have and the vast majority struggled mightily with the decision and it always seems to come down to either they weren't mentally ready and feared for their own sanity or the woman was in a terrible living situation that would likely be incredibly destructive to the mom and baby.   I believe there is much we as a society can do to give those with these concerns an alternative to abortion but those options just don't exist for many woman especially the means to carry a healthy pregnancy that ends in a well placed adoption.

I have also heard a smaller number whose stories indicate it was just for convenience which I would never condone.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Currently there are roughly 122,000 individuals in the United States eligible and waiting to be adopted? 

This needs to be narrowed down to infant potential adoptees to be relevant to the conversation though as many more families want babies as opposed to older kids.  And I would suggest rather than forcing women to carry pregnancies to full term and delivery, the better approach is to provide enough support and possibly benefits to make it desirable to do so, so they make the choice because they want to, not because they have to.

There will still be a significant number who won’t make realistic decisions and act on them because they are incapable of doing so at least for a time due to mental health limitations and/or lack of information (think teenagers mostly for the second category).

Quote

Alternatively, should the State be responsible for 100% of all pregnancy related care to include birth and up and until adoption, for the unwanted pregnancy?

If someone is invested in preventing abortion, they should be contributing in some fashion to the above, it should not be all on the State, though the State should be there to ensure there are no gaps, but a steady, dependable system (in an ideal world at least).

Quote

I believe there is much we as a society can do to give those with these concerns an alternative to abortion but those options just don't exist for many woman especially the means to carry a healthy pregnancy that ends in a well placed adoption.

Any alternative needs to be solidly in place first so mothers to be will trust support will be there when needed.  Promises made without concrete evidence (politicians who claim there are options but who don’t pass laws to create or support existing alternatives) won’t be convincing many to take the risk.

Edited December 3, 2021 by Calm

[provoman]

46 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I would like to pose several questions on this topic. 

Does a woman have any rights at all once she is pregnant to determine the course of that pregnancy based on her circumstances, beliefs, mental and physical health or does she just become a vessel for the fetus (I use that term on purpose because there is no clear revelation on when a fetus becomes a baby with a spirit) and the fetus's rights overrule any concern of the mother?

Secondly how many of you have personally listened to the stories of women who have had abortions?  Not just read one but in person or in a video.  I have and the vast majority struggled mightily with the decision and it always seems to come down to either they weren't mentally ready and feared for their own sanity or the woman was in a terrible living situation that would likely be incredibly destructive to the mom and baby.   I believe there is much we as a society can do to give those with these concerns an alternative to abortion but those options just don't exist for many woman especially the means to carry a healthy pregnancy that ends in a well placed adoption.

I have also heard a smaller number whose stories indicate it was just for convenience which I would never condone.

If we were to politically stereotype, I would think the stereotype is that those opposed to abortion are also those that are generally opposed to State funding of social systems that could help alleviate the despair that people feel.

[ttribe]

On 12/1/2021 at 4:36 PM, BRMC said:

I want them to be illegal in all cases.   While I feel horrible for rape victims and believe the criminals who commit rape should be punished far more harshly than they are now, I don't believe the innocent life created in an illegal and immoral act should be snuffed in another immoral act.

But your God is totally okay with killing children AFTER they're born, right? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/1-sam/15?lang=eng

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

I am torn on this issue. 

Mostly, I have not experienced opposition to abortion outside of religion, that is it is my experience that all opposition to abortion is religiously based - this is my experience or how I perceive my experience.  As my experience is so involved with religion I do not support the legislation of religious beliefs.

Regarding Adoption, is that a option?  Currently there are roughly 122,000 individuals in the United States eligible and waiting to be adopted?  How many adoptions occur in a year? Is everyone eventually adopted? At what point do we say "X number of yearly adoptions is enough to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to birth".?
 

On religion. There is definitely a large overlap between more religious people and desired abortion laws. But there are people who aren't religious who still want more restrictive abortions laws. https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/

Adoption is a complicated option and I think gets over simplified as an alternative to abortion. There are usually over 100K children waiting to be adopted, but most of these are older children/non-infants...these children are not all ultimately adopted, some age out, some return home, and some are also placed with non-parent relatives. The demand though for infants is high. But demand wouldn't necessarily be met by nixing abortion for several factors. For one, most women with unexpected pregnancies do not initially give their children up for adoption. At the peak when social pressures were super high and veering on coercive to get women to adopt out, only 9% of women did. Nowadays it's around 1%. Estimates put people waiting or wanting to adopt somewhere between 1-2 mill. The number of abortions happening yearly is around 620-630K depending the year in the US. So let's assume that more restrictive laws laws are implemented that still allow for health and rape oriented exception. And the miraculously lowered abortion numbers a ton (let's say half) and that adoption rates bumped up a little to say 3%. You'd have maybe 9-12k more babies up for adoption each year. Which sounds great, except those babies would not have equal chances of being adopted based on both race, the health circumstances of the mother (ex. drug use), and the health of the baby. AND this would also mean you'd have 300K new babies who are with mothers who likely would have aborted them and are likely in economically or socially compromising positions. The next rate to go up would be that number of 122K with children having stints in fostering..  Children raised in poverty would also raise. Obviously, not all, but there would still likely be significant bumps. That is more realistically what would happen (along with pro-life oriented groups cherry picking info on increased adoption rates as a sign of a win for getting rid of abortion laws).

It should also be pointed out that adoption is often still traumatic even when the desired result is met. Far more so than abortion....particularly early ones.

 

Quote

There is also individual autonomy - which is nearly sacrosanct in the United States, though we accept some degree of compulsion against our individual autonomy in the United States. However, in reference to unwanted pregnancy, I find it difficult to support forcing a person to act against their desire due to someone else's religious belief. I can understand viability being a measure and the State acting Ad Litem  for the viable unborn. (Though if we use viability, do we as a society provide that the unwanted can be "incubated" by other means than the person who does not want the pregnancy; that is some kind of surrogate system?)  Alternatively, should the State be responsible for 100% of all pregnancy related care to include birth and up and until adoption, for the unwanted pregnancy?

Yes. And it better have an amazing social welfare program in general that supports mothers to get an education/vocation, expanded medicare or affordable health care for poorer families, have readily available safe and subsidized daycare resources, access to therapy and resources to escaped abusive situations or treat drug problems. If you want to really up it, community investment in disadvantaged neighborhoods would also be a huge boon. Ideally it would also give more comprehensive sex ed and understanding of birth control options as well. Because if you don't have readily available abortion care, mothers, community, and families will likely become more strained by the added burden of a child in our current system. And it will be the child who likely ends up paying for it. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited December 3, 2021 by BlueDreams