Jump to content

Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I have a question. I read that a baby 12 weeks old from conception can feel pain. Is this true or not?


Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. …

“Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429#

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

It's not actually that difficult to define what potential risks to life might be for the mother.  They are all well documented in the literature.  It is not likely that some novel way to die during pregnancy from carrying the fetus is going to arise anytime soon.  The CDC could offer the guidelines very easily.  There is no need for wiggle room.  We know the risks, and anything outside of those risks should not be justification for abortion.  They don't need room to end-life unnecessarily. 
 

yeah, no. Definitely don’t agree. Pregnancy by it’s nature is it’s own form of risk. To be pregnant is to be at increased risk of morbidity, period. And though it’s more risky if you have certain risk factors, being low-risk is not a garuntee you’ll come away from the experience Scott free of complications. But honestly this paragraph I’m also having a hard time following your reasoning in general. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I use the word "vague" in the sense that it is an uncertain, non-objective, or indefinite term.  The lack of consensus also attests to the lack of clarity on the definition.  It is arbitrary and unlikely that science, philosophy, and or law will agree to its meaning and parameters.    
 

Ok

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have no clue as to what you mean be "completed human being".  Please define that in objective terms and identify the stage of development this "completeness" happens.  I didn't know that an embryo was considered anything other than completely Homo sapiens (Human being).  
 

Without question a living individuated life. Individuated meaning, not completely reliant on another being to exist. In less flowery terms: the bread’s out of the oven. The kid’s been baked.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't find anything "pithy" about that quote.  I find it quite sloppy and silly.  The only way there could not be inherent consent to the potential for pregnancy is in the case of rape.  This life didn't come out of nowhere.  It is like complaining to a casino after loosing your money that you never consented to this.  

No, its about the arbitrary nature of the term.  There is nothing inherently complex about an arbitrary term.  Neither is there is no authoritative definition for this arbitrary term that we can rely on.

That’s from your POV. Pithy was from mine. And note I said “direct consent” for a reason. Having sex is not a form of direct consent to having a baby. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Only if yo continue to use the term in your philosophical and arbitrary sense, while knowing that I am using it in the objective biological sense.  If this continues to happen, we are going to continue to speak past each other.   It is actually quite straightforward in the biological sense - Human being is the common name for Homo sapiens - which is pretty straightforward,  I thought we were understood on this point.  I guess not.  No need to rehash.  We are just going to have to agree to disagree on what biology accepts as the common name for Homo sapiens. 

We understood that a human embryo is  human life. I consistently stated that whether that fits the colloquial use of the term “human being” is one of ethical and philosophical debate. NOT science. 
 

with luv,

BD 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

yeah, no. Definitely don’t agree. Pregnancy by it’s nature is it’s own form of risk. To be pregnant is to be at increased risk of morbidity, period. And though it’s more risky if you have certain risk factors, being low-risk is not a garuntee you’ll come away from the experience Scott free of complications. But honestly this paragraph I’m also having a hard time following your reasoning in general. 

I am not talking about morbidity in general, but serious risk for mortality.  If we are going to end the life of a viable fetus, there must be justification for doing so, and risk for morbidity is not equal to the weight of the life of a viable fetus.  There must be "serious" risk to the life of the mother to consider abortion post viability.  Those "serious risks" to life for the mother are already well defined and understood.  I can't think of a scenario where we would need any wiggle room beyond what is already understood to be serious risk.

49 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Without question a living individuated life. Individuated meaning, not completely reliant on another being to exist. In less flowery terms: the bread’s out of the oven. The kid’s been baked.

That'g fine if you want to personally define "complete Human Being" in that way, but that is in no way objective, like I asked, or definitive, or authoritative, and suspect there is no consensus either.  I am aware of several people who are completely dependent upon other humans to survive and exist (including all new-borns and many with congenital defects), are they not "complete Human beings"?  Should we have the right to terminate their life because they are dependents?  

Again, you are making up arbitrary definitions.  None of this is objective or authoritative. 

49 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

We understood that a human embryo is  human life. I consistently stated that whether that fits the colloquial use of the term “human being” is one of ethical and philosophical debate. NOT science. 
 

That is not how I perceived that discussion ending.   To recap:

On 5/13/2022 at 9:05 AM, pogi said:

Maybe according to your personal philosophy (not mine, or many others), but I am talking about biological categorizations. 

Your next comment disagrees:

Exactly!!! You just proved my point.  Not just processes though, but categorizing types of life as well.  

 This seems to be where the disconnect is.  Despite every attempt to clarify that I am not applying philosophy or morality or value, or meaning beyond biological categorization of types of life, etc. to the word.  I have made it abundantly clear that I am speaking in biological, not  philosophical, or any other ways that some people might use or think of the word, but I am speaking in the biological terminology and labeling types of life, such as is the case in the "common name" for Homo sapiens.  This is something that science can and does answer.  It is not beyond the realm of science.   In the eyes of biology (again, not philosophy etc.) the zygote is classified as a human being - a living human being.  That is beyond dispute.   "Personhood", which is a scientifically arbitrary term, has nothing to do with biology or science.  In science and biology, "person" and "human being" are not synonymous terms.  You are trying to make them synonymous - and perhaps they are for some people, but not for me, and not in the eyes of biology.  That is the point I have been trying to make this whole time. 

To which you responded:

On 5/13/2022 at 10:12 AM, BlueDreams said:

Okay. We’re clear then. 

If this still is not settled, so be it - lets definitely not rehash it.  But surely you can understand why I thought we might have reached a common understanding of the biological terms I was using, while you were using the terms in a more philosophical sense (which is fine, but not how I was using it). 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am not talking about morbidity in general, but serious risk for mortality.  If we are going to end the life of a viable fetus, there must be justification for doing so, and risk for morbidity is not equal to the weight of the life of a viable fetus.  There must be "serious" risk to the life of the mother to consider abortion post viability.  Those "serious risks" to life for the mother are already well defined and understood.  I can't think of a scenario where we would need any wiggle room beyond what is already understood to be serious risk.

Ok, I disagree. The wiggle room (which to me is fairly limited) is namely the problem of actually legislating and who decides one's risk to life is high enough. A small example. Hyperemesis Gravadarum can be higher risk in pregnancy without being extremely life threatening. But in an individual situation it could be. I knew a woman who went through a series of difficult pregnancies. The first was ectopic and caused her complex grief/trauma (she had fertility issues on top of this), the second came almost right after the first and included serious HG. She was eating almost nothing. The docs were f-ing up essential treatment and she was risking early labor. Each added weak was a miracle. The prolonged trauma was messing with her capacity to connect with her current pregnancy and her family supports were dropping balls. She was a mess...but she made it and she had her baby. Then she had a pregnancy scare and believed for a hot minute she got pregnant while still having a newborn. If she was pregnant, her life would have seriously been at risk. But HG would not make it on a generic list for viable risk to life. The general causes for high risk are fairly well known, but the individual circumstances that make pregnancy down right frightening would likely be missed at some point. This is why I would prefer a general guiding principle and leave it in the hands of doctors and patients to decide. It wouldn't be perfect, but IMHO it would be better than a following a more rigid set of parameters.      

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That'g fine if you want to personally define "complete Human Being" in that way, but that is in no way objective, like I asked, or definitive, or authoritative, and suspect there is no consensus either.  I am aware of several people who are completely dependent upon other humans to survive and exist (including all new-borns and many with congenital defects), are they not "complete Human beings"?  Should we have the right to terminate their life because they are dependents?  

Again, you are making up arbitrary definitions.  None of this is objective or authoritative. 

That is not how I perceived that discussion ending.   To recap:

To which you responded:

If this still is not settled, so be it - lets definitely not rehash it.  But surely you can understand why I thought we might have reached a common understanding of the biological terms I was using, while you were using the terms in a more philosophical sense (which is fine, but not how I was using it). 

Soon after writing my last post, I ended up listening to a podcast episode that encapsulated some of the problems in communication we're having with this. The basic gist of the podcast is giving a brief summary on just about every common argument around this and the problems with each of them as well. What I see you inferring is a "species membership" orientation. Or in other words that embyros are a part of the human species and thus should have human rights to at least life...and we should strive for equality as much as possible in treatment when it comes to protecting said life (they talk about this argument around 20 minutes in). Or that the humanness of an embryo is objective and thus the best/most reliable imperative to measure how we determine a right to life. I don't. Agreeing on the science is not the same as agreeing on the moral framework of this, and that's the problem we're having. I agree that an embryo is a human being when the term human being is used in the scientific term of homo sapien sapien. When I use the term human being though, I'm not talking about a scientific stance, but a social one. And the fact that an embryo is human is nowhere near sufficient for me to assume personhood or equity in treatment to born humans. Not morally, not socially, not legally, not emotionally/psychologically. When I'm talking around the issues of abortion, IVF, miscarriage, pregnancy, etc...unless I'm specifically talking about something related to technical function of an embryo/fetus, I'm using human being in a colloquial sense and in the terms of social/moral orientation that ties more to the practical implications not just the technical ones. In short I use it more in line with personhood concepts, not scientific ones. I prefer different scientific terms to more clearly differentiate this and thus don't generally use the term "human being" in these forms of discussion.

Because I don't tie nearly as much weight to the construct of having unique human DNA = human being beyond the parameters of scientific cateloguing, a lot after this fact falls apart really fast with some of your arguments for me. Proving that an embryo has unique human DNA doesn't tell me that there is a solid reason I should treat this nigh equal to the adult woman gestating the fetus. That is a moral/social position. One of many. All of which at some point, point at science to bolster their ideas.   

On the dependence thing, no one born is as dependent on a single human for existence like a fetus is. No one. "Complete" in this use is simply to note that the period of sole dependence is done. Not that dependence as a whole is. In one way or another we all are dependent on others. It's the point of being social creatures. But none of us born are at the same degree of dependence to the point that we literally can't exist without another human's body to support us.  No non-viable fetus can live longer than a couple minutes without the use of a woman's body to maintain their existence. 

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Thank you. It seems the science is not settled. 

Sorta. It should be noted that this is again an ethic journal paper...not a scientific research one. It also should be noted that the paper relies heavily on the unknowability of fetal experience compared to that of an adult. That is technically true. Of course that's true of just about all scientific inquiry...very little is ever fully settled. One can't be fully certain about something that at least to some degree is perceived...but it also runs into the limitation of subjective interpretation on what is defined as pain in the first place, among other things. 

If you're wanting an amorphous discourse about the potential of pain different from that experienced in newborns or at least later pregnancy, than this works. 

If you're wanting current scientific consensus, I found this

Quote

Scientists' knowledge of the fetal nervous system was summed up in a 2005 review in the journal JAMA. The authors of that review outlined in detail the evidence on how this system develops, based on a number of previous studies on the anatomy of the fetus at various stages of development.

Davis, who was not involved with that review, noted that though it was published in 2005, the research is still valid, because the scientific community's understanding of fetal development is "pretty much stable." Indeed, since the publication of the review, "no research has contradicted its findings," said a recent statement from ACOG.

In the review, the researchers highlighted several key points in fetal development that are required in order for a fetus to perceive pain. One is that the receptors in the skin that sense an injury must be developed. Research has shown that this happens between 7.5 and 15 weeks of pregnancy, depending on the location of the receptors on the body, according to the review. For example, receptors in the skin around the mouth develop at around 7.5 weeks, whereas receptors in the skin on the abdomen develop at around 15 weeks, according to the review.

Second, the neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must be developed. Researchers who looked at fetal tissues reported that this happens at around 19 weeks, the review said.

Third, the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks, according to the review.

Moreover, the nerves' existence isn't enough to produce the experience of pain, the authors wrote in their review. Rather, "These anatomical structures must also be functional," the authors wrote. It's not until around 30 weeks that there is evidence of brain activity that suggests the fetus is "awake."

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
10 hours ago, CV75 said:

What did it mean to you at that time?

You lost me here with this assertion:

Quote

reducing the relative weight of “Posterity” in the primary aims of our Constitution.

I think more detailed quoting and outlining of “Posterity” in context of the Constitution would have been helpful so everyone started knowing what you were talking about rather than having to guess.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

You lost me here with this assertion:

I think more detailed quoting and outlining of “Posterity” in context of the Constitution would have been helpful so everyone started knowing what you were talking about rather than having to guess.

Reasons 2 and 3 in my last summary address this idea of giving balanced weight or consideration to ourselves, Posterity and government interests. I think a similar principle of balance applies to the checks and balances between the three branches of government.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know if this is helpful or adding more mud in the mix, but I think I kinda know where @CV75is going. I haven't read as thoroughly and i still think it would be good for him specifically to clarify where he's going with this, but I've seen this mentioned briefly in a couple of places. 

The first is actually not about abortion at all, but climate change. There's a theoretical view that points to the idea that decisions around the environment should be weighed on not just immediate effect (like profit, or access to resources) but likely long term effects on coming generations. There's also been several law suits in a number of developed nations expecially from younger people that's basically suing governments and such for basically selling their future for immediate reward. Some of these have been successful. 

This second was when I was reading up on the act @pogireferenced in a post to me. The journal article touches on this law and the point about posterity mentioned int he constitution. Here is at least one part that relates

And in a related footnote:

Basically the state holds interest in potential human life. But that said what this means or should signify would really be dependent on one's world view. One could assume that having a greater quantity of children would be in the interest of the state and would be a version of maintaining posterity. But one could also say the increasing quality of life by reducing the numbers born into poor circumstances and increasing sustainable living both in families and things like the environment is also constitutionally appropriate by protecting and assuring a healthy future for posterity. Just pointing to posterity in the constitution doesn't say much without legal interpretation. 

 

With luv,

BD 

I think this pretty much captures the spirit of what I was getting at, and as included in Reasons 2 and 3 in my summary above.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Ok, I disagree. The wiggle room (which to me is fairly limited) is namely the problem of actually legislating and who decides one's risk to life is high enough. A small example. Hyperemesis Gravadarum can be higher risk in pregnancy without being extremely life threatening. But in an individual situation it could be. I knew a woman who went through a series of difficult pregnancies. The first was ectopic and caused her complex grief/trauma (she had fertility issues on top of this), the second came almost right after the first and included serious HG. She was eating almost nothing. The docs were f-ing up essential treatment and she was risking early labor. Each added weak was a miracle. The prolonged trauma was messing with her capacity to connect with her current pregnancy and her family supports were dropping balls. She was a mess...but she made it and she had her baby. Then she had a pregnancy scare and believed for a hot minute she got pregnant while still having a newborn. If she was pregnant, her life would have seriously been at risk. But HG would not make it on a generic list for viable risk to life. The general causes for high risk are fairly well known, but the individual circumstances that make pregnancy down right frightening would likely be missed at some point. This is why I would prefer a general guiding principle and leave it in the hands of doctors and patients to decide. It wouldn't be perfect, but IMHO it would be better than a following a more rigid set of parameters.      

I would be ok with the general guidelines which allow for any condition which requires hospitalization and termination of pregnancy to preserve the life of the mother.  A list of known high risk conditions would give some guidance to doctors, and any abortion performed outside of those guidelines would be subject to review by a medical review board.  This is not uncommon practice. 

9 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Because I don't tie nearly as much weight to the construct of having unique human DNA = human being beyond the parameters of scientific cateloguing, a lot after this fact falls apart really fast with some of your arguments for me. Proving that an embryo has unique human DNA doesn't tell me that there is a solid reason I should treat this nigh equal to the adult woman gestating the fetus. That is a moral/social position. One of many. All of which at some point, point at science to bolster their ideas.   

I have never used the word DNA, but you like to bring it up a lot.  While DNA is critically important to humans, is it itself is not a living human being.  An embryo, on the other hand, is a living human being.   Of course science is not going to answer the moral questions for us, but it is going to frame and define exactly what it is we are talking about.  For me, I do place incredible moral value and worth on the life of all human beings, despite their stage of development or living conditions, or level of dependency.  Everything else is arbitrary.  The moment you place value on a human life "only if" it possess characteristics similar to you, then problems arise in that not all humans possess those characteristics.  Not all living human beings have consciousness.  Not all human beings can reason.  Not all human beings have sight.  Not all human beings have fingers or hands, etc. etc. etc.  Then you have the problem of describing why each of these attributes are of more moral value.  That gets all too arbitrary and morally problematic for me.  That we are the same kind, with the same potentials, is enough for me.  

9 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

On the dependence thing, no one born is as dependent on a single human for existence like a fetus is. No one. "Complete" in this use is simply to note that the period of sole dependence is done. Not that dependence as a whole is. In one way or another we all are dependent on others. It's the point of being social creatures. But none of us born are at the same degree of dependence to the point that we literally can't exist without another human's body to support us.  No non-viable fetus can live longer than a couple minutes without the use of a woman's body to maintain their existence. 

I guess I am confused as this seems to fly in the face of your own position.  If the bread must be out of the oven before it is a person with rights, then on what basis should a viable baby that is still in the uterus be protected?  Apparently it is not a person worthy of rights for protecting under your current argument.  Which I find highly morally problematic. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, pogi said:

An embryo, on the other hand, is a living human being.   Of course science is not going to answer the moral questions for us, but it is going to frame and define exactly what it is we are talking about.  For me, I do place incredible moral value and worth on the life of all human beings, despite their stage of development or living conditions, or level of dependency.  Everything else is arbitrary.

How far does this extend for you? A forty year old women in a coma, brain dead for years with no expectation of recovery of brain function but otherwise her body is perfectly healthy and could live for decades. Her husband and family decides to pull plug and kill her donating her organs in the process to give life and hope to others. Do you support his decision? What if she was alive and well with full use of her faculties, would you support that decision? What is the difference between the scenarios?

 

My understanding is that you are also in favor of legalized physician assisted suicide for people with terminal illness and very low quality of life. No?

Further, I would say that everyone here respects the human life that an embryo represents, but those that favor abortion rights, place a much much higher value on the life (I am speaking broadly here - like health, education opportunities, quality of life etc) on the mother than the embryo. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
21 hours ago, mtomm said:
22 hours ago, longview said:

Yes, everyone has the free agency to marry or not marry, to abstain or engage in relations within the bonds of matrimony or outside, to have children or not, or even how many BUT all of us will ultimately answer to the Most High God's eminent commandment:  Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Are you suggesting that we base our laws concerning procreation around this scripture?

Looks like you are not comprehending my assertion of "free agency" during mortality.  My point for quoting this scripture was to let @jkwilliams know the judgment in the next world will be based on the principles outlined in the Proclamation on the Family.  Those that do not care about God's ultimate purpose (Eternal Nature of Families) will naturally gravitate to the Telestial Kingdom.

21 hours ago, mtomm said:

Because I'm thinking those of us who are advocating  pro-choice regulation of abortion don't expect everyone in the United States to follow the commandments in the Bible.

You are correct.  There are those that don't believe in the Bible or even bother with reading it.  However, the Bible and other scriptures stand as a warning to the world.  And be used as the basis in the next world for separating the "wheat from the tares".

21 hours ago, mtomm said:

It's kind of the point of having religious freedom. We can't compel people to follow our religious tenets. 

Correct.  But many laws are based on morality taught in the scriptures.  At least in the early years of the Republic.

21 hours ago, mtomm said:

So those in here who keep quoting scripture or sharing the words of the prophets are preaching to choir. 

Choir?  There are plenty of members that fall prey to the temptations of mortality.  Especially the youth in adhering to the Law of Chastity, dating standards, keeping the Word of Wisdom, etc.  I am NOT so pristine myself!  I am so dependent on my Savior and very grateful for the awesome gift of repentance.  Thus we can ALL progress.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How far does this extend for you? A forty year old women in a coma, brain dead for years with no expectation of recovery of brain function but otherwise her body is perfectly healthy and could live for decades. Her husband and family decides to pull plug and kill her donating her organs in the process to give life and hope to others. Do you support his decision? What if she was alive and well with full use of her faculties, would you support that decision? What is the difference between the scenarios?

If there is no expectations of recovery and the individual is on full life support, of course the family can choose to end life support.   If there is almost certain full recovery in a matter of a few months (as is more parallel to the case of a viable fetus), then the individual wouldn't even qualify for hospice care and no, I don't think there is any moral justification for pulling the plug.  Medical ethics does not support that. 

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

My understanding is that you are also in favor of legalized physician assisted suicide for people with terminal illness and very low quality of life. No?

I believe an individual with a terminal condition and who has untreatable suffering should be able to forfeit their right to life.  In this case, they actually have a voice in the matter - not so with a fetus.  No one else should be able to make that choice for them.  The fetus in general is neither terminal nor suffering, nor can it consent.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Further, I would say that everyone here respects the human life that an embryo represents, but those that favor abortion rights, place a much much higher value on the life (I am speaking broadly here - like health, education opportunities, quality of life etc) on the mother than the embryo. 

I simply don't think that it is fair to speak of life in the broad sense with the mother and the extremely narrow sense with the fetus.  These matters need to be weighted.  I think everyone here attributes a higher value on the life of the mother, and in a condition where the life (not in the broad sense) of the mother is at risk, we always choose the life of the mother over the fetus.  I don't think the general quality of life of a mother has higher moral value than the actual life (in the broad and narrow sense) of the Downs syndrome person, for example.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Sorta. It should be noted that this is again an ethic journal paper...not a scientific research one.

Well, we can't dismiss it that easily.  It is medical ethics based on scientific research/papers.  I think it is reasonable to conclude based on studies that we don't understand the function of the brain and neuro perception as well as we pretend.  Individuals who have damaged and non-functioning parts of the brain that is claimed to be responsible for pain perception, still claim to feel pain.  That is hard to ignore.

 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, pogi said:

I wouldn't accept that as definitive.

https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3

 

Frankly I'm appalled. 56 million times a year we rip a baby out of its mother's womb and kill it with potassium chloride? And we think God's going to save us from nuclear annihilation? This whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. Thank you for opening my eyes further.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:

If there is no expectations of recovery and the individual is on full life support, of course the family can choose to end life support.   If there is almost certain full recovery in a matter of a few months (as is more parallel to the case of a viable fetus), then the individual wouldn't even qualify for hospice care and no, I don't think there is any moral justification for pulling the plug.  Medical ethics does not support that. 

Not full life support. Think simply a feeding tube. She can’t eat for herself. Think Terri Schiavo. A fully functioning human being (minus certain types of brain activity) that only requires someone to feed her. She was in a persistent vegetative state though and not expected to recover mentally. Are you saying that that kind of human life isn’t worth protection by the federal government?

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not full life support. Think simply a feeding tube. She can’t eat for herself. Think Terri Schiavo. A fully functioning human being (minus certain types of brain activity) that only requires someone to feed her. She was in a persistent vegetative state though and not expected to recover mentally. Are you saying that that kind of human life isn’t worth protection by the federal government?

That is a moral dilemma to be sure, especially where the patient has not made their wishes known in advance.  
I’m not sure what this has to do with a healthy and viable fetus with full expectations of a healthy birth/life in a few months time.  I think prognosis must be taken into moral account. 

But there are some parallels with pro choice arguments.  Let’s say the prognosis was favorable and doctors expected a full recovery in a few months time.  By all the definitions of personhood I am hearing, this vegetative body is not a person and can be killed without legal/moral consequence despite a beautiful prognosis and expected full recovery.
 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is a moral dilemma to be sure, especially where the patient has not made their wishes known in advance.  
I’m not sure what this has to do with a healthy and viable fetus

You were saying “For me, I do place incredible moral value and worth on the life of all human beings, despite their stage of development or living conditions, or level of dependency.” 

 

It sounds like in certain conditions you are okay with killing a human being? 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Sorta. It should be noted that this is again an ethic journal paper...not a scientific research one. It also should be noted that the paper relies heavily on the unknowability of fetal experience compared to that of an adult. That is technically true. Of course that's true of just about all scientific inquiry...very little is ever fully settled. One can't be fully certain about something that at least to some degree is perceived...but it also runs into the limitation of subjective interpretation on what is defined as pain in the first place, among other things. 

If you're wanting an amorphous discourse about the potential of pain different from that experienced in newborns or at least later pregnancy, than this works. 

If you're wanting current scientific consensus, I found this

 

With luv,

BD

Yeah, the article cited was comparing fetuses to adults (actually just one adult in one of the studies). Seems wishful thinking to believe this puts things in serious doubt. 

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You were saying “For me, I do place incredible moral value and worth on the life of all human beings, despite their stage of development or living conditions, or level of dependency.” 

 

It sounds like in certain conditions you are okay with killing a human being? 

You are trying to make a legal/moral absolutist out of me. “Incredible moral value and worth” is not the same as absolute protection under the law with no exceptions.   Yes, there are conditions when I think killing a human is a serious moral dilemma but justifiable.  I am not sure why that is not clear by now in our discussions on abortion.  

As I posited, I think pro-choicers  are stuck with the larger  dilemmas in regards to their arguments of justification based on personhood in the scenario I mentioned.  Care to address it?

Link to comment
17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Ok, I disagree. The wiggle room (which to me is fairly limited) is namely the problem of actually legislating and who decides one's risk to life is high enough.

 

7 hours ago, pogi said:

I would be ok with the general guidelines which allow for any condition which requires hospitalization and termination of pregnancy to preserve the life of the mother.  A list of known high risk conditions would give some guidance to doctors, and any abortion performed outside of those guidelines would be subject to review by a medical review board.

I agree with @BlueDreams that the hardest part of this is figuring out exactly how to write the legislation. How vague or specific does one need to be. And this leads me to recall this old essay about how vague statutory laws get modified and interpreted by the courts: http://www.greenbag.org/v12n3/v12n3_levin.pdf

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

 

I agree with @BlueDreams that the hardest part of this is figuring out exactly how to write the legislation. How vague or specific does one need to be. And this leads me to recall this old essay about how vague statutory laws get modified and interpreted by the courts: http://www.greenbag.org/v12n3/v12n3_levin.pdf

I thought my proposal covered all the bases pretty well.  It is clear in that it specifies only in cases of serious threat of life to mother.  It offers objective guidelines, and is loose enough to rely on the best judgment of the medical provider.  It also offers checks and balances with potential review of medical board in cases that lie outside the standardized guidelines.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...