Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think we should do more to counter Satan’s lies on this topic.

 

Do you really have to remind me that I am on the same side with Marge Greene on this issue!

It's ok, I am in other good company too. 

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you really have to remind me that I am on the same side with Marge Greene on this issue!

It's ok, I am in other good company too. 

what about deaf women? Does Satan know sign?

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you really have to remind me that I am on the same side with Marge Greene on this issue!

It's ok, I am in other good company too. 

Sorry. If it makes you feel better I am ashamed of almost everyone who sides with me on everything…..often including myself.

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

what about deaf women? Does Satan know sign?

No, Satan already owns deaf women, so he doesn’t need to bother trying to tempt them any more.  I thought that was obvious by their curse.

Edited May 5, 2022 by pogi

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Duncan said:

what about deaf women? Does Satan know sign?

Know it? HE INVENTED IT!!!!!!!!

 

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

The same god who drowned babies in the flood? The same god who killed Bathsheba's newborn? The same god who killed all the firstborn sons in Egypt? The same god who sent bears to kill children who mocked a prophet? The same god who commanded Joshua to kill all the children in Jericho? That's the god you're talking about?

No, that’s not the God I’m talking about. That’s the god that people bring up whenever they need a good straw man to prop up their justifications.

Few, incredibly few, believe in that god. I certainly don’t, so he’s irrelevant to the discussion.

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, that’s not the God I’m talking about. That’s the god that people bring up whenever they need a good straw man to prop up their justifications.

Few, incredibly few, believe in that god. I certainly don’t, so he’s irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm not sure how you can reasonably reach that conclusion, but I don't abuse the whole CFR thing, so I'll let it pass. Nevertheless, your response does raise all manner of questions regarding the degree to which you consider the Old Testament to actually be scripture. Back before I quit attending, and when I was still a Gospel Doctrine teacher, I vividly recall the lesson manual teaching the literal interpretations of at least the stories surrounding Bathsheba's son, the firstborn in Egypt and the slaughter of Jericho. I recall them vividly because I was very troubled with having to teach them.

ETA: I also disagree with your strawman assertion; I think it is an irreconcilable difference between the God of the Bible and the God envisioned by Christianity, generally, and LDS culture and doctrine, more specifically.

Edited May 6, 2022 by ttribe

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, that’s not the God I’m talking about. That’s the god that people bring up whenever they need a good straw man to prop up their justifications.

Few, incredibly few, believe in that god. I certainly don’t, so he’s irrelevant to the discussion.

It's not necessarily a strawman. Mankind has been trying to puzzle out why God allows suffering and death for all of history. Mormonism has come to the belief that essentially mortality is for our ultimate good and that all will be made whole. So in that light, we can say that God is trusted to make whole despite the temporary terrors of life. And I would say that by the same token, women should be trusted to do the best they can with the domain that is their wombs. And if there is a merciful God, He will make whole what we cannot for whatever reason.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, mtomm said:

I've read many, many similar articles over my lifetime. They always lack an interview with the men who chose to have sex with a woman knowing she could get pregnant.  What are men thinking when they have unprotected sex? It always women are bad for having unprotected sex. Women make bad choices. Women are bad for getting pregnant. Women are bad for having sex even if they can get pregnant. I would love it see one man in this discussion thread calling men to suffer consequences for having unprotected sex. It never happens.  Father is mentioned three times in the article. Once is refers to the man who had unprotected sex.  The word men is never mentioned. 
How are all of these women making all of these bad decision and getting pregnant without a MAN making the exact same bad decision?

I agree. It completely sucks that the men aren’t held accountable. It’s not fair.

But what I said doesn’t have anything to do with women being bad. Good people who make bad choices still have to deal with the consequence.  Staying pregnant rather than having an abortion isn’t about punishment.

And that men can create children and escape accountability doesn’t change the culpability of the women in consensual sexual relationships.

They aren’t culpable alone, but they are still culpable.

By making the abortion argument completely about women’s rights I think we accidentally cement the idea in society that unwanted pregnancies are a woman’s problem.

From my perspective, if we really believed that men should be equally accountable we would instead spend our energy on legislation that worked to hold them accountable.  By focusing completely on women’s right to abort we are essentially saying that we acknowledge the status quo and are ok with it.

 

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, if we really believed that men should be equally accountable we would instead spend our energy on legislation that worked to hold them accountable. 

 

We can’t even collectively shame men out of politics for not paying child support. Actively punish them? Yeah………LOL

   

[Kenngo1969]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree. It completely sucks that the men aren’t held accountable. It’s not fair.

But what I said doesn’t have anything to do with women being bad. Good people who make bad choices still have to deal with the consequence.  Staying pregnant rather than having an abortion isn’t about punishment.

And that men can create children and escape accountability doesn’t change the culpability of the women in consensual sexual relationships.

They aren’t culpable alone, but they are still culpable.

By making the abortion argument completely about women’s rights I think we accidentally cement the idea in society that unwanted pregnancies are a woman’s problem.

From my perspective, if we really believed that men should be equally accountable we would instead spend our energy on legislation that worked to hold them accountable.  By focusing completely on women’s right to abort we are essentially saying that we acknowledge the status quo and are ok with it.

 

This deserves more than the single rep point I was able to give it.  I hope it gets the love it deserves.  

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree. It completely sucks that the men aren’t held accountable. It’s not fair.

But what I said doesn’t have anything to do with women being bad. Good people who make bad choices still have to deal with the consequence.  Staying pregnant rather than having an abortion isn’t about punishment.

And that men can create children and escape accountability doesn’t change the culpability of the women in consensual sexual relationships.

They aren’t culpable alone, but they are still culpable.

By making the abortion argument completely about women’s rights I think we accidentally cement the idea in society that unwanted pregnancies are a woman’s problem.

From my perspective, if we really believed that men should be equally accountable we would instead spend our energy on legislation that worked to hold them accountable.  By focusing completely on women’s right to abort we are essentially saying that we acknowledge the status quo and are ok with it.

 

I don't think women's rights upholds a status quo--they're definitely not that-- but even if men are accountable as the father, and even if society agrees to help, the mother is still in a position unique from them as the person carrying the child. The pregnancy itself can generate direct or indirect risk to her safety and health and that of her family. In other words, she still needs the autonomy to decide what she and her body can manage.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Meadowchik

[pogi]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Unnoticed very early miscarriages are probably the most common kind of miscarriage. This is the biggest killer of babies. Yes for some reason no one is calling for medical funding to come up with a way to mitigate this much vaster infanticide. Does no one care about the babies dying at rates orders of magnitude above abortion rates. If life does begin at conception is God pleased with this indifference? Shouldn’t we be throwing funding at this problem to find a way to prevent this genocide?

I know this is intended to show that pro-lifer's are actually insincere in caring about the life of the un-born child, but it really just shows a lack of understanding about miscarriage and the conditions within the womb.  The leading cause of miscarriage (especially in the early stages you are talking about) is chromosome problems.  Treating that problem is equivalent to treating/curing down-syndrome.  It ain't happening.  We know a lot about the more preventable problems, such as those related to diet - alcohol, smoking, illegal drugs, etc.  There is vast funding and advocacy for these issues in pregnancy.  We know that other conditions like diabetes increases the risk and other diseases increases the risk.  There is also extensive funding and research in each of those areas.   The complicating factor is the environment of the fetus and placenta (which also can be an issue).  Introducing any object into the sterile conditions of the amniotic fluid and potentially rupturing the amniotic sac increases the risk of miscarriage significantly.   So direct physical intervention is impossible.  Even the least invasive procedure of amniocentesis increases the risk significantly.   Intervention via medication is also nearly impossible as there are very few safe drugs that actually cross the placental barrier.  It is created by design to be an untouched environment by the outside world.  There are several other variables that make this a task equivalent to curing down syndrome.  

Because there is not a lot of investment in curing current untreatable congenital diseases that kill children at young ages, it is only because there is little to no hope for a cure.  It is not due to insincerity about caring. 

So, comparing the untreatable natural death of natural causes of a human to intentional killing of a human is an unfair comparison.  Accidental, and unintentional deaths happen all the time, we do our best to prevent them, but it makes sense to me why intentional killings trigger a stronger response.  

Edited May 6, 2022 by pogi

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

I know this is intended to show that pro-lifer's are actually insincere in caring about the life of the un-born child, but it really just shows a lack of understanding about miscarriage and the conditions within the womb.  The leading cause of miscarriage (especially in the early stages you are talking about) is chromosome problems.  Treating that problem is equivalent to treating/curing down-syndrome.  It ain't happening.  We know a lot about the more preventable problems, such as those related to diet - alcohol, smoking, illegal drugs, etc.  There is vast funding and advocacy for these issues in pregnancy.  We know that other conditions like diabetes increases the risk and other diseases increases the risk.  There is also extensive funding and research in each of those areas.   The complicating factor is the environment of the fetus and placenta (which also can be an issue).  Introducing any object into the sterile conditions of the amniotic fluid and potentially rupturing the amniotic sac increases the risk of miscarriage significantly.   So direct physical intervention is impossible.  Even the least invasive procedure of amniocentesis increases the risk significantly.   Intervention via medication is also nearly impossible as there are very few safe drugs that actually cross the placental barrier.  It is created by design to be an untouched environment by the outside world.  There are several other variables that make this a task equivalent to curing down syndrome.  

Because there is not a lot of investment in curing current untreatable congenital diseases that kill children at young ages, it is only because there is little to no hope for a cure.  It is not due to insincerity about caring. 

So, comparing the untreatable natural death of natural causes of a human to intentional killing of a human is an unfair comparison.  Accidental, and unintentional deaths happen all the time, we do our best to prevent them, but it makes sense to me why intentional killings trigger a stronger response.  

I get that it would be difficult. I know it would be difficult but no one is doing much of anything about it and we don’t lament this holocaust. If 20% of children dropped dead at age 5 and we determined that nothing could be done about it we would still do a lot of mourning. We don’t. We do not collectively agree that a new human life begins at conception because no one treats it like one until the pregnancy is detected.

i get that the embryo isn’t viable but a lot of abortion laws we are throwing out now don’t care either and treat a non-viable fetus as a child. Attempts to put a line down have universally failed at some level.

Edited May 6, 2022 by The Nehor

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

We can’t even collectively shame men out of politics for not paying child support. Actively punish them? Yeah………LOL

   

Not punish them. Hold them accountable. 

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't think women's rights upholds a status quo--they're definitely not that-- but even if men are accountable as the father, and even if society agrees to help, the mother is still in a position unique from then as the person carrying the child. The pregnancy itself can generate direct or indirect risk to her safety and health and that if her family. In other words, she still needs to autonomy to decide what she and her body can manage.

She is. For many women, it is a position she placed herself in through the use of her personal agency.  That should have some bearing on her choices going forward.  

If she could exercise autonomy without impacting another living being—a being that only exists because of her choices—I would agree with you. But she can’t so I don’t believe abortion-for-any-reason is moral.  

[Raingirl]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Unnoticed very early miscarriages are probably the most common kind of miscarriage. This is the biggest killer of babies. Yes for some reason no one is calling for medical funding to come up with a way to mitigate this much vaster infanticide. Does no one care about the babies dying at rates orders of magnitude above abortion rates. If life does begin at conception is God pleased with this indifference? Shouldn’t we be throwing funding at this problem to find a way to prevent this genocide?

Can you provide your source for this statement regarding miscarriage- “babies dying at rates orders of magnitude above abortion rates”?  I’m not finding numbers that support this statement. 

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

Can you provide your source for this statement regarding miscarriage- “babies dying at rates orders of magnitude above abortion rates”?  I’m not finding numbers that support this statement. 

From the mayo clinic 

"About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. But the actual number is likely higher because many miscarriages occur very early in pregnancy — before you might even know about a pregnancy." https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pregnancy-loss-miscarriage/symptoms-causes/syc-20354298#:~:text=About 10 to 20 percent,even know about a pregnancy.

 

And compared to abortions, from the CDC:

In 2019, 629,898 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. Among 48 reporting areas with data each year during 2010–2019, in 2019, a total of 625,346 abortions were reported, the abortion rate was 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 195 abortions per 1,000 live births.https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

 

 

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

Can you provide your source for this statement regarding miscarriage- “babies dying at rates orders of magnitude above abortion rates”?  I’m not finding numbers that support this statement. 

“Human beings suffer very high pregnancy failure rates after conception (1-6). Losses prior to biochemical pregnancy confirmation, using maternal serum markers, such as beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin (ß-hCG) and maternal alpha fetoprotein (AFP), are referred to as “preclinical” (2,7). It has been suggested that one third to one half of zygotes do not mature into blastocysts, and of those that form blastocysts, at least 40% will not implant (8,9). Opitz [1987] (3) estimated that 45% of all conceptions fail. Of these, 80% were pre-clinical losses.”

https://tp.amegroups.com/article/view/6176/7081

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

and how do you know he doesn't re-send those spirits to another body? Might solve a lot of problems if God would answer some questions about these issues

Yeah, He might. "Sorry but they didn't want you, I'll find you a new body". What if the spirit is already in the body? Straight to the Celestial Kingdom?

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah, He might. "Sorry but they didn't want you, I'll find you a new body". What if the spirit is already in the body? Straight to the Celestial Kingdom?

Unless God says anything we'll never know and we'll be still in the total dark like we are now.

[BlueDreams]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I didn't present it as an absolute.  I presented it as scientific consensus which is pretty well regarded as a biological fact of life by almost all.  That should carry significant weight here.  This is not the only source, it was just a good and thorough explanation of what the consensus is, so I picked that one.  Go ahead and google "when does human life begin?'  It is pretty universally accepted among biologists that human life begins at conception - The first stage of human development is the zygote.   To come to any other conclusion...well, that would require "cherry picking".   As one Pediatrician of the American College of Pediatricians noted

Life isn't in question for most. It's personhood or at the very least the rights and protections afforded a specific developmental stage of life that is. The interpretation of something being human life  deserving equivalent/near equivalent treatment is an ethicist interpretation of select data.  

It doesn't take long to find a plethora of scientists/bioethicists with very different opinions about this. Which is likely why 800 and several scientific institution gave a letter to the SC supporting abortion rights as important for reproductive health care. Among other articles that support similar. THis article from another biologist/philosopher specifically talked about potentially 5 points where human life begins. Here are two highlights that apply:

Quote

Abortion rights opponents... seek to use science as an absolute standard in any discussion of abortion’s constitutionality, setting a definition of human life that they hope will be immune to any counterargument.

While possibly well-intentioned, this appeal to scientific authority and evidence over discussions of people’s values is based on faulty reasoning. Philosophers such as the late Bernard Williams have long pointed out that understanding what it is to be human requires a lot more than biology. And scientists can’t establish when a fertilized cell or embryo or fetus becomes a human being.

 

Quote

Scott Gilbert, the Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology emeritus at Swarthmore College, is the author of the standard textbook of developmental biology. He has identified as many as five developmental stages that, from a biological perspective, are all plausible beginning points for human life. Biology, as science knows it now, can tell these stages apart, but cannot determine at which one of these stages life begins.

The first of these stages is fertilization in the egg duct, when a zygote is
formed with the full human genetic material. But almost every cell in everyone’s body contains that person’s complete DNA sequence. If genetic material alone makes a potential human being, then when we shed skin cells – as we do all the time – we are severing potential human beings.

The second plausible stage is called gastrulation, which happens about two weeks after fertilization. At that point, the embryo loses the ability to form identical twins – or triplets or more. The embryo therefore becomes a biological individual but not necessarily a human individual.

The third possible stage is at 24 to 27 weeks of pregnancy, when the characteristic human-specific brain-wave pattern emerges in the fetus’s brain. Disappearance of this pattern is part of the legal standard for human death; by symmetry, perhaps its appearance could be taken to mark the beginning of human life.

The fourth possible stage, which is the one endorsed in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the United States, is viability, when a fetus typically becomes viable outside the uterus with the help of available medical technology. With the technology that we have today, that stage is reached at about 24 weeks.

The final possibility is birth itself.

As you can probably tell from our conversation I find 3rd possible stage the most compelling. 

Quote

There is a lot packed into your whole response, and I am going to just focus on this point...for now...to simplify things.   I don't like addressing more than one or two points at a time or it gets to overwhelming.  The rest of your post is worthy of consideration and response, so I hope to be able to address it too.   

Take your time. It usually takes me time to respond anyways and I haven't read the last couple pages. 

Quote

I am going to restate your argument as I understand it.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  For you, when the spirit enters the human is of importance in making legislative decisions regarding abortion.  Because we can't prove when the spirit enters the human life, you argue that the decision should be left up to the individual.  

The fact that we can't prove when (or even if) the spirit enters human life, or if there is a spirit at all, needs to be addressed.  This fact should dissuade us from using this as a factor in decision making as to when it is justifiable to kill another human life.  For me, and probably all atheists, this is a non-factor.   If being able to prove when the spirit enters human life is a critical factor in deciding when abortion is appropriate or not, what prompts you to draw the line around 23-24 weeks gestation? I fail to see any proof for this as the stage when the spirit enters human life.   My understanding of your argument however is that being able to prove when the spirit enters is not a deciding factor for you in suggesting that gestation period as a cut off.  So, if it is not a deciding factor for you, why are you requiring that it be a factor for me?

No,  I'm looking for any solid indicator for the start of a human being on the 2 main fronts i've seen it talked from. If personally, I saw solid spiritual or scientific evidence that a complete human being is found at conception, or with a heart rhythm in the 6-week embryo's proto-heart tissue, I would likely lean a little more pro-life.  I don't though, it's either moreso emotional reasoning (killing a baby arguments) on the spiritual end and cherry picking data (there's life at conception among soooo many others) on the scientific end. I'm a stickler for accuracy and gravitate to fuller pictures, so the latter turns me off. And my own personal spiritual experiences/beliefs around this matter also don't lend me to being super pro-life in potential policy. EDIT: I would also say there's some psychology around grief that also informs this distinction.

On the other end, I don't think absolutist pro-choice arguments are super convincing either. In part because I choose stage 3/4 as the cut off where it's looking more and more questionable that what it takes to make a human being is most likely adequately there. In which case the parameter to human potential must differ from that of human being and abortion should be restricted to only the more extreme circumstances for an abortion. 

I'm weighing two concerns: the health and life of the pregnant woman, potential partner and her existing children....neither of which are questionably human beings. All indicators point that without abortion services, these are far more likely to become strained and seriously suffer. They may also be at a greater risk for severe pregnancy outcomes, including premature death. On the other is what is likely a proto-human being. One in which early on may be 2-3 individuals wrapped in one entity the other where tissue has not moved through its code enough to give it any distinguishing characteristics beyond genetic function wrapped in a singular semi-formed body. I'm weighing the lives/unquestioned rights of fully formed people to that of a proto-human. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited May 6, 2022 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Can you provide your source for this statement regarding miscarriage- “babies dying at rates orders of magnitude above abortion rates”?  I’m not finding numbers that support this statement. 

Meadowchik’s answer is good. I ran the numbers once a few year back and even in conservative estimates the number of natural miscarriages dwarfs abortions.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Not punish them. Hold them accountable. 

The distinction will probably be lost on those it effects. I know attempts to hold women accountable often impact in a way that feels punitive and humiliating.

I think of the 2016 law in Indiana which required cremation or burial of fetal remains with penalties for evading the law. This was for abortions, stillbirths, and miscarriages. Those non-viable unnoticed miscarriages I mentioned earlier. Basically any sexually active woman not on birth control could be violating the law just by menstruating. Criminalizing female sexuality is not new and is just disgusting and punitive and stupid. It is a power play done out of ignorance or malice or (more likely) both. We will see a lot more laws like these so strap in.

Here we go!

Edit:

Here is a particularly fun part: “The legislation also directs the state’s attorney general to ‘direct a state agency to enforce those laws, regardless of any contrary federal statute, regulation, treaty, order, or court decision,’”

So just ignore the federal supremacy clause and disempower the courts from performing their constitutional functions. Not an outlier either. This kind of blatantly and explicitly illegal legislation is cropping up in a few states.

Edited May 6, 2022 by The Nehor

[BlueDreams]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I am no fatalist.  We can intervene medically, and in other ways, with nature to prevent, comfort, and even cure diseases that the course of nature put in place.  We don't have to accept fate of nature.  But when we intervene with nature for the good of one, we have to consider the consequences on the good of others.   There should be ethical standards that we should follow.  One medical standard I follow in regards to human life is this - "first do no harm".   When we are dealing with other human lives, our choices matter.  They have moral and ethical weight.  It is not an arbitrary decision.  This is not a decision that includes the consideration of only one human life - the mother - to frame it as such misses the holistic picture of consequences on human life.  The homeostasis of all need to be considered. 

You talk a lot about risk of childbirth with mothers.  But you failed to compare the risks of childbirth on the health of the mother to the risks of abortion on the health of the other human life in this equation. 

That's because their personhood isn't equivalent to me. The risk for an embryo, is that it never fulfills its code and becomes a human being. Though that's sad, and though I would prefer women choose what I would, I also prefer a full human enter the world with the best shot to thrive. I understand when a woman decides it wouldn't be a good thing...even if I may personally disagree.  

13 hours ago, pogi said:

Lets place the stage of development points that are entangled in your argument aside and isolate this argument of burden.  If I understand your argument, the amount of burden a child has on a mother, and the ability to divert that burden to another, are legitimate factors to consider when it is justifiable to kill our offspring.   

Should the inability to place a child in another's care be a legitimate reason to kill offspring?  Again, lets isolate this argument of burden from anything else so that we can boil this down to the legitimate core issues. 

 

Those can't really be separated. It's a main crux to my concern. I'm not weighing the burden of a child, I'm weighing the burden of a child in formation. A proto-child. 

To your question I could think of very extreme scenarios where the answer is yes. For example you are in the bottom of the titanic and the gates have been locked. There's no escape. You could a) watch your children drown or b) give them a medication you have on hand that in large doses would likely kill them. I could see a legit reason to kill your child to avoid unnecessary suffering. I could also see accepting a faster death by refusing certain medications for say terminal cancer that would have their last days be painful and full of prolonged suffering. Not exactly killing, but the decision still dramatically shortens their life. Life is filled with hard and painful decisions. There will always be an exception to something that would ideally would never be a thing. 

 

With luv,

BD