Not trying to be controversial .... just a question

[Corraleno]

Regardless of whether someone believes that "life" begins at conception, the belief that full human rights equal to a born person begin at conception is absolutely an extreme minority view, throughout history and throughout the world.

And the fact that this extreme view is being espoused now as if it's some obvious, universal, moral truth has far more to do with advancing a specific social and political agenda, the cornerstone of which is controlling women and ensuring that men continue to hold the reins of power.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Corraleno

[AmandaVT]

2 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Well, ongoing access to free quality therapy to work through the trauma of being forced by the state to give birth, and then either raise a child or give a child away is one thing I'd put on the list. 

 

 

Definitely - for both mother and the child. Even the most well-loved, well-taken care of child may need lots of intense therapy post-adoption. That is something I'm very familiar with. 

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, AmandaVT said:

Definitely - for both mother and the child. Even the most well-loved, well-taken care of child may need lots of intense therapy post-adoption. That is something I'm very familiar with. 

I just find the hypotheticals so frustrating. This will never happen, even though we can both see it would need to. We have to live in the world as it is. 

I hope an anti-choice person answers you in detail about what they envision, because honestly, I've never heard anything that isn't a few nappies and washing of hands. 

 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, AmandaVT said:

Definitely - for both mother and the child. Even the most well-loved, well-taken care of child may need lots of intense therapy post-adoption. That is something I'm very familiar with. 

And I will say this again, and again…

Everyone who wants to parent a child through adoption isn’t well-equipped to do so, regardless of how stable their home and/or marriage.  Infants/children are not tabula rasa.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

I just find the hypotheticals so frustrating. This will never happen, even though we can both see it would need to. We have to live in the world as it is. 

I hope an anti-choice person answers you in detail about what they envision, because honestly, I've never heard anything that isn't a few nappies and washing of hands. 

 

Diapers, a stroller, some clothes and a couple months rent. MAX. 

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Regardless of whether someone believes that "life" begins at conception, the belief that full human rights equal to a born person begin at conception is absolutely an extreme minority view, throughout history and throughout the world.

I have never given that any thought since it is a political issue. 

[Scarlett]

6 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

To convert people. OK. 

 

Please don’t put words in my mouth.  And why are you so dismissive and rude?   We have different views.  I don’t talk to you this way.

Discussing one’s beliefs on a discussion board is not radical.  I don’t feel the need to ridicule and deride you and others who have beliefs different than mine. 

 

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, MercyA said:

I think we can and should care about more than one thing at a time. And, yes, I agree with you about the hypocrisy of many pro-lifers. 

I do think the insistence on talking about "breathing" human beings is a little odd. People don't become less human just because they are in an oxygen tent or on a ventilator. 

Breathing humans are autonomous, even those who artificially breathe. That’s the distinction I draw. I, personally, have no desire to be kept ‘alive’ if I cannot be autonomous and would make that same choice for DH and my kids too. They all feel the same. DS s t driving yet but ALL of us have DNRs, no artificial means.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Scarlett]

24 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

A minority view does not equal an extreme view.  
 

I mean I am ok with being in the minority.  I have been my entire life.  But it feels like the word extreme is being tossed around as a button pusher. 

Quoting myself to say I just realized why the word extremist is bugging me. The Russian government has classified my religion as extremist and banned it completely and seized all assets and put many on trial and in prison.  
 

Carry on.

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Scarlett said:

Please don’t put words in my mouth.  And why are you so dismissive and rude?   We have different views.  I don’t talk to you this way.

Discussing one’s beliefs on a discussion board is not radical.  I don’t feel the need to ridicule and deride you and others who have beliefs different than mine. 

 

Because your views lead to absolutely horrible outcomes for real people, and you don't seem to have the empathy to even acknowledge that. Maybe you do have the empathy, but you just don't express it.

 

 

 

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I have never given that any thought since it is a political issue. 

That is not a political issue. It’s a scientific/personal opinion one. Everything someone doesn’t like isn’t political.

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Here's the way it's going to go down in the USA. The squishy middle, who is glad abortion is there when they need it but don't like to think about it, will be horrified by the stories that are starting to come out. Criminalizing abortion is already unpopular in the USA and it will become even more unpopular. 

It won't matter but that's a political discussion so I won't go further. 

Anti-choicers will either experience some real life consequences and wake up or continue sticking their head in the sand. But they will have less influence on the general public that does not hold extreme views. People will hold churches responsible and attendance will continue declining. 

There isn't the beginning of some pro-life utopia. I've already begun to see some buyer's remorse in thoughtful Catholic circles. "I wanted the end of abortion but not like this..." Shrug, we tried to warn them. 

And in the meantime, a horrendous amount of suffering will be introduced into the world, not just for the 'guilty' woman or girl, but for the 'innocent' birthed baby and 'innocent' existing siblings. 

I don't understand how ppl with fundamentalist beliefs don't understand this. I don't understand why they would want this. Abortion truly is the lesser of two evils. 

[Scarlett]

10 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Because your views lead to absolutely horrible outcomes for real people, and you don't seem to have the empathy to even acknowledge that. Maybe you do have the empathy, but you just don't express it.

 

 

 

My views are irrelevant and they also lead to horrible outcomes. Which is it?

The fact is my views are my own and affect no one anywhere unless they think my line of reasoning makes sense and they change their own view.  

My views are not leading to horrible outcomes. Horrible outcomes happen every day everywhere. 

Edited to add…..I have empathy.  I have a lot of empathy.  This particular discussion was about abortion.   I can believe it is wrong without having all the answers and without itemizing all the people I have empathy for.  

Edited July 7, 2022 by Scarlett

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

And in the meantime, a horrendous amount of suffering will be introduced into the world, not just for the 'guilty' woman or girl, but for the 'innocent' birthed baby and 'innocent' existing siblings. 

I don't understand how ppl with fundamentalist beliefs don't understand this. I don't understand why they would want this. Abortion truly is the lesser of two evils. 

They don’t believe in lesser evils. All evils are evils.

[Melissa Louise]

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

My views are irrelevant and they also lead to horrible outcomes. Which is it?

The fact is my views are my own and affect no one anywhere unless they think my line of reasoning makes sense and they change their own view.  

My views are not leading to horrible outcomes. Horrible outcomes happen every day everywhere. 

Edited to add…..I have empathy.  I have a lot of empathy.  This particular discussion was about abortion.   I can believe it is wrong without having all the answers and without itemizing all the people I have empathy for.  

Your views are extreme, not irrelevant. 

It's helpful, when in mixed company, to actually express the empathy you claim to feel, for those impacted by the enacting in law of beliefs like yours. 

[Scarlett]

25 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I have never given that any thought since it is a political issue. 

 

30 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Regardless of whether someone believes that "life" begins at conception, the belief that full human rights equal to a born person begin at conception is absolutely an extreme minority view, throughout history and throughout the world.

And the fact that this extreme view is being espoused now as if it's some obvious, universal, moral truth has far more to do with advancing a specific social and political agenda, the cornerstone of which is controlling women and ensuring that men continue to hold the reins of power.

This is definitely political. And I don’t decide if something is political or not based on what I ‘like’.

16 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

That is not a political issue. It’s a scientific/personal opinion one. Everything someone doesn’t like isn’t political.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Scarlett

[Scarlett]

3 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Your views are extreme, not irrelevant. 

It's helpful, when in mixed company, to actually express the empathy you claim to feel, for those impacted by the enacting in law of beliefs like yours. 

I don’t even know what ‘mixed company’ means.  I also don’t think laws are being enacted based upon my beliefs. 
 

I have been focusing on relaying my feelings about life and why I believe abortion is wrong.  Oh and also defending myself against angry people who accuse me of terrible things.  
 

And honestly?  No one on this thread sounds empathetic.  They seem enraged.  

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I don’t even know what ‘mixed company’ means.  I also don’t think laws are being enacted based upon my beliefs. 
 

I have been focusing on relaying my feelings about life and why I believe abortion is wrong.  Oh and also defending myself against angry people who accuse me of terrible things.  
 

And honestly?  No one on this thread sounds empathetic.  They seem enraged.  

God forbid women should be enraged at being deprived by the state of their access to essential medical care. 

I'm enraged for them! You live there. Those women are your neighbours.  Why aren't you enraged? 

[Scarlett]

Just now, Melissa Louise said:

God forbid women should be enraged at being deprived by the state of their access to essential medical care. 

I'm enraged for them! You live there. Those women are your neighbours.  Why aren't you enraged? 

Why are you enraged at me is the question?

Abortion has always been sad to me.  My first experience was a young co worker who was on her 4 th abortion.  Several, of us BEGGED HER not to do it. We rallied and offered solutions and support and a family who could adopt and her reply was ‘ I could not live knowing a child of mine was out there somewhere’.  
 

I have had other experiences….comforting a co worker who was devastated by an abortion she had had when she was young.  
 

I could go on.  I did what little I could but I was not out protesting to change the laws because I do not get involved in politics.  
 

I also do not believe fewer abortions will take place now.  I won’t be advocating for stricter laws against abortion.  I will go on living my life and helping people who want it.  

So I am not angry now and I was not angry when it was legal. But I have the right to SAY how *I* believe. 
 

I will ask again …why are you angry at me?

[KSera]

3 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

Thanks for the link. Looking through, it provides a link to the actual survey questions and answers, which gives a lot more nuance than the summary: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2022/05/PF_05.06.22_abortion.views_.topline.pdf

In reading through answers, it does indeed support that most Americans support Abortion being legal, but with most also supporting some restrictions, mostly based on gestation (with allowances for exceptions after that point). By lumping "all or most cases" together in a single category is how they got the 60% number.

3 hours ago, MercyA said:

Yes. I'm sure the actual number is probably higher. But the information we have says that it is very rare compared to other reasons.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the fact that it's a minority of cases. Do you believe the women and girls affected in those (relatively rare) cases matter? I don't think they cease to matter because there are only a few thousand of them (or that they would not matter if there were just one of them). We have to take into account rare cases as well when we make laws like this.

3 hours ago, Idalou said:

They are anti-choice vs pro choice. You'd think after decades of this the pro-choice side could have moved it to these terms.

I think the more accurate terms would be pro-choice/anti-abortion. Each side wants to couch the other in their own terms (pro-choice/anti-choice and pro-abortion/anti-abortion), but neither opposing term is really accurate. Pro-choice/anti-abortion seems most accurate to me.

[AmandaVT]

46 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

And I will say this again, and again…

Everyone who wants to parent a child through adoption isn’t well-equipped to do so, regardless of how stable their home and/or marriage.  Infants/children are not tabula rasa.

They are definitely not - but when a family can't take care of their child, then what? Even adoption by relatives is so hard. Especially because frequently siblings are split up. I just got out of the shower and while in there, I tried to count the number of children that have been in foster care and either still are or have been adopted at my school. It's more than 10%. One of my close friends is a therapeutic foster parent and she gets SO many calls asking for additional children to be placed with her. The need is so high and the children need so much. And even for the most skilled people, it is an almost impossible ask. 

[Pam in CT]

re acts of commission (elective abortion, unplugging life support in end-of-life scenes, capital punishment, LE misconduct) vs acts of omission (declining to offer up a kidney or bone marrow to a patient who needs it, refusing medical treatment to incarcerated persons)

 

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Actually it has been controversial when there were public cases about ending life support, especially when the support was just tube feeding and bodily care...

Absolutely. In both directions --  when families wished to continue life support against the counsel of medical providers that brain function would not return; and also controversies when one/more family members wished to withdraw life support and other members wished to hold on.  My husband and I have been through this scene twice now, and It's terribly, horribly, difficult. It isn't one-size-fits-all, and I certainly wouldn't state or local government mandating a one-size-fits-all approach to the decisionmaking. 

Particularly acutely in our system, such difficult decisions do get extricated with money -- the point at which insurance will no longer cover care.

And relatedly...

3 hours ago, SKL said:

...However, there is still quite a contrast between caring for a comatose individual for potentially decades - which involves quite a bit of daily physical action and expense - vs. allowing an embryo/fetus to simply continue growing in a womb for some months until a safe birth can occur.

... there will be daily physical action and expense to SOMEONE to care for the forced birth baby long after the birth. 

Immensely more so if the baby has special needs or other challenges.  Despite Alito's enthusiasm to "increase the domestic supply of adoptable infants."

 

[Melissa Louise]

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Why are you enraged at me is the question?

Abortion has always been sad to me.  My first experience was a young co worker who was on her 4 th abortion.  Several, of us BEGGED HER not to do it. We rallied and offered solutions and support and a family who could adopt and her reply was ‘ I could not live knowing a child of mine was out there somewhere’.  
 

I have had other experiences….comforting a co worker who was devastated by an abortion she had had when she was young.  
 

I could go on.  I did what little I could but I was not out protesting to change the laws because I do not get involved in politics.  
 

I also do not believe fewer abortions will take place now.  I won’t be advocating for stricter laws against abortion.  I will go on living my life and helping people who want it.  

So I am not angry now and I was not angry when it was legal. But I have the right to SAY how *I* believe. 
 

I will ask again …why are you angry at me?

Good question.

You ( and other anti choice people) come across as really not caring very much about the effects of your beliefs, when enacted in law. I find that extremely triggering. People with your beliefs harassed me outside a clinic when I was seeking my first abortion. So I guess that's why.

Lack of understanding why it's a tragedy when your beliefs are legally ascendant. 

I don't know why you were begging someone not to get an abortion. If someone had done that to me I would have found it very manipulative. Adoption has it's own ethical issues and problematic outcomes, it's not a panacea. 

 

[Scarlett]

11 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Good question.

You ( and other anti choice people) come across as really not caring very much about the effects of your beliefs, when enacted in law. I find that extremely triggering. People with your beliefs harassed me outside a clinic when I was seeking my first abortion. So I guess that's why.

Lack of understanding why it's a tragedy when your beliefs are legally ascendant. 

I don't know why you were begging someone not to get an abortion. If someone had done that to me I would have found it very manipulative. Adoption has it's own ethical issues and problematic outcomes, it's not a panacea. 

 

I highly doubt anyone like me was outside of any clinic where abortions were taking place. 

We were begging her not to get an abortion because our belief was she was killing a child and we were willing to help her avoid that.  It did not work.  And I guess would not have worked with you.  But we did our best.  

Edited July 7, 2022 by Scarlett

[Melissa Louise]

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I highly doubt anyone like me was outside of any clinic where abortions were taking place. 

We were begging her not to get an abortion because our belief was she was killing a child and we were willing to help her avoid that.  It did. It work.  And I guess would not have worked with you.  But we did our best.  

See, I think this is gross. You successfully coerced a woman into not getting an abortion. 

Religious anti choice people were outside the clinic. Are you saying I'm lying? 

Actually, scrap that and just don't reply. This is painful, and I don't want to be in conversation about it anymore. 

[Melissa Louise]

Sorry all for derailing. Will zip it now. 

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

See, I think this is gross. You successfully coerced a woman into not getting an abortion. 

Religious anti choice people were outside the clinic. Are you saying I'm lying? 

Actually, scrap that and just don't reply. This is painful, and I don't want to be in conversation about it anymore. 

I edited my post…..it should have said it did not work.

I am a religious person but I am not anti choice.  That is political.  And I don’t protest. 

[Scarlett]

9 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

See, I think this is gross. You successfully coerced a woman into not getting an abortion. 

Religious anti choice people were outside the clinic. Are you saying I'm lying? 

Actually, scrap that and just don't reply. This is painful, and I don't want to be in conversation about it anymore. 

So you apparently believe empathy equals condoning abortion? We gave the girl a lot of empathy.  A lot of support.  She was not coerced. 

My coworker who regretted her choice?  She feels she was coerced to get an abortion by her parents. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Scarlett

[Sneezyone]

34 minutes ago, AmandaVT said:

They are definitely not - but when a family can't take care of their child, then what? Even adoption by relatives is so hard. Especially because frequently siblings are split up. I just got out of the shower and while in there, I tried to count the number of children that have been in foster care and either still are or have been adopted at my school. It's more than 10%. One of my close friends is a therapeutic foster parent and she gets SO many calls asking for additional children to be placed with her. The need is so high and the children need so much. And even for the most skilled people, it is an almost impossible ask. 

No, it’s not easy, neither family nor stranger placements but the need is about to increase and the baby scoop era denial and tabula rasa thinking isn’t something we should strive to emulate. Sadly, many of those first in line to ‘save’ babies/children are the Least well-equipped to actually parent those who are different from themselves (which is true of all adoptions). A different, more robust evaluation process should be in place too. It’s not. We have many states that only work with religious organizations with bigoted guidelines for parental suitability. I’d take a gay couple over a fundy one for a black kid any day and twice on Sundays. That’s not allowed in the same states restricting maternal care.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Scarlett]

16 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Good question.

You ( and other anti choice people) come across as really not caring very much about the effects of your beliefs, when enacted in law. I find that extremely triggering. People with your beliefs harassed me outside a clinic when I was seeking my first abortion. So I guess that's why.

Lack of understanding why it's a tragedy when your beliefs are legally ascendant. 

I don't know why you were begging someone not to get an abortion. If someone had done that to me I would have found it very manipulative. Adoption has it's own ethical issues and problematic outcomes, it's not a panacea. 

 

So it seems you are angry at me for not caring enough about the women…Yet when I explained I DO care you accuse me of being manipulative and gross.

[Corraleno]

50 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

 

This is definitely political. And I don’t decide if something is political or not based on what I ‘like’.

At what point a fertilized egg acquires a "soul" is a religious question. At what point a fetus becomes viable outside of a uterus is a scientific question. How "at risk" a mother's life may be due to a pregnancy is an ethical and medical question.

Whether a fertilized egg has the legal rights of a fully born human is, by definition, a political question, because there is no objective way to determine if and when a zygote/embryo/fetus should have the rights of a fully independent human being.

A person can believe that "life begins at conception," and still believe there is a fundamental difference between the life of an embryo and the life of born person. Believing that "life begins at conception" does not prevent someone from vehemently disagreeing that the fact that a fertilized cell is technically "alive" means it should be accorded all the same legal rights as a fully born human.

My whole point is that those are two completely separate issues, and it is an extreme minority view — throughout the world and throughout human history — that a fertilized egg should have the same legal rights as a born human, which is the basis for current US laws that strip women of their right to bodily autonomy in order to force them, against their will, to serve as a host for another "life." 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Corraleno

[Heartstrings]

I am curious how the people who believe that life begins at conception feel about that line being moved to fertilization recently?  

[KungFuPanda]

I think the saddest part is that we’ve been in this exact place before. We KNOW that outlawing abortion ends up causing more deaths than keeping abortion legal. It’s an absolute fact.  These laws were never enacted to save lives. They were only ever used to  collect votes and seize power. The real life consequence of pro-life voting is more actual death. There’s no way to fudge the math on this. 

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I am curious how the people who believe that life begins at conception feel about that line being moved to fertilization recently?  

I think most people use those terms interchangeably, and in fact the definition generally says that conception can refer to either fertilization or implantation, so in that sense specifying fertilization is just a clearer way of saying what they always meant — with the bonus of paving the way for outlawing any birth control methods that might have even the slimmest possibility of preventing implantation of a fertilized egg,

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

Complex medical decisions that can only be made on a case-by-case basis, by experienced medical professionals, should never be left to politicians who are painfully ignorant of basic biology, or insurance companies who prioritize profits over lives. 

If the mother's life is at risk, it is indeed the purview of her doctors to decide on the treatment with the best outcome possible for both patients. This authority for doctors should be written into state laws. And of course when it comes to complex treatment decisions there will never be absolute certainty. 
 

Again I maintain that rare cases like these should not prevent the other 99% of unborn humans from receiving protection under the law. 

[Scarlett]

9 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Your form of caring isn't really useful. It's like when anti-choicers say that it's a tragedy about the 10 YO girl but she should still give birth. It really doesn't sound to me like they care that much about the 10 YO girl. 

And frankly, the fact that people always say, "it's a tragedy but..." says a lot. It says that they don't think it's that much of a tragedy and they know it doesn't make them look good. 

It might not be useful to you.  It would be very useful for that baby if we had convinced her to not abort.  
 

You don’t speak for the entire world or even this entire board as to what is useful help or not.  
 

Also I did not say ‘it is a tragedy, but’.   Don’t presume to know what I believe is a tragedy.  Or more to the point don’t accuse me of being a liar.  

[Sneezyone]

Just now, MercyA said:

If the mother's life is at risk, it is indeed the purview of her doctors to decide on the treatment with the best outcome possible for both patients. This authority for doctors should be written into state laws. And of course when it comes to complex treatment decisions there will never be absolute certainty. 
 

Again I maintain that rare cases like these should not prevent the other 99% of unborn humans from receiving protection under the law. 

You keep saying this stuff with no evidence to back it up. PROVE that when a woman’s life is at risk, she, her doctors, and her family can decide whether she lives or dies and what care is provided. Provide ANY evidence that the care you say she should receive is provided in affected states. Do you have any links? At all?

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

You keep saying this stuff with no evidence to back it up. PROVE that when a woman’s life is at risk, she, her doctors, and her family can decide whether she lives or dies and what care is provided. Provide ANY evidence that the care you say she should receive is provided in affected states. Do you have any links? At all?

I understood her to be saying she believes the law should be written that way. 

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, MercyA said:

If the mother's life is at risk, it is indeed the purview of her doctors to decide on the treatment with the best outcome possible for both patients. This authority for doctors should be written into state laws. And of course when it comes to complex treatment decisions there will never be absolute certainty. 
 

Again I maintain that rare cases like these should not prevent the other 99% of unborn humans from receiving protection under the law. 

You really don’t know how rare or unusual these situations are, none of us do,  because most women/girls view intrusive questions like this as none of your damned business and don’t answer. The ONLY data we have is self-reported. I’ve shared my own personal experience with underage pregnancy as a result of abuse/incest and that was dismissed. We’re about to see just how ‘rare’ all of this is. Pro-tip: it’s not.

 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Scarlett said:

I understood her to be saying she believes the law should be written that way. 

Write laws based on her opinion? Then we’re all going to hell in a hand basket.

[wathe]

1 hour ago, AmandaVT said:

 

If an embryo was issued a ss # as soon as their existence was determined, could the mother collect SSI funds to use to help with prenatal care, daycare, etc? If the country had a VT like Dr. Dynasaur program (Howard Dean ran on that as part of his platform in 2004) - mothers would have great medical coverage during the pregnancy and the baby would have coverage from birth through 19. Also WIC for everyone, regardless of income and it should be expanded to cover all necessities for raising a small creature.

 

I've mulling through the idea of documented personhood from the time of conception.  SS# etc.  And what some of the practical medical-legal consequences might be.  

Right now, in my jursidiction, all births >20 weeks or >500g are registered.  And stillbirths >20weeks or 500 grams need death certificates.  And As per provincial vital statistics act.  They are treated as any other death - need a proper funeral/burial/cremation etc.

So, if legal, documented personhood starts at conception, then all miscarriages would have to be registered?  And counted as deaths, like any other death?  And the products of conception would need a death certificate? And need a funerals/burial/cremation for products of conception?  (which in early MC, to be blunt, currently often go down the toilet if the woman miscarries at home - what if they accidentally get flushed?).  Criteria for which cases become coroner's cases? 

Hard to wrap my mind around this, really.  I can't imagine filling out a death certificate for products of conception of a 6 week MC.  It seems absurd.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, wathe said:

I've mulling through the idea of documented personhood from the time of conception.  SS# etc.  And what some of the practical medical-legal consequences might be.  

Right now, in my jursidiction, all births >20 weeks or >500g are registered.  And stillbirths >20weeks or 500 grams need death certificates.  And As per provincial vital statistics act.  They are treated as any other death - need a proper funeral/burial/cremation etc.

So, if legal, documented personhood starts at conception, then all miscarriages would have to be registered?  And counted as deaths, like any other death?  And the products of conception would need a death certificate? And need a funerals/burial/cremation for products of conception?  (which in early MC, to be blunt, currently often go down the toilet if the woman miscarries at home - what if they accidentally get flushed?).  Criteria for which cases become coroner's cases? 

Hard to wrap my mind around this, really.  I can't imagine filling out a death certificate for products of conception of a 6 week MC.  It seems absurd.

It is absurd but that’s where we are. SMH.

[Scarlett]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Write laws based on her opinion? Then we’re all going to hell in a hand basket.

That was unkind.  

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Scarlett said:

That was unkind.  

So is forcing a 10 kid to give birth. Not sorry.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Sneezyone

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

So is forcing a 10 kid to give birth. Not sorry.

I can see that you are not.  

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

If the mother's life is at risk, it is indeed the purview of her doctors to decide on the treatment with the best outcome possible for both patients. This authority for doctors should be written into state laws. And of course when it comes to complex treatment decisions there will never be absolute certainty. 
 

Again I maintain that rare cases like these should not prevent the other 99% of unborn humans from receiving protection under the law. 

There is rarely any way to prove beyond any doubt that the death of a pregnant woman was a certainty had the pregnancy not been terminated AND that there was no possible chance that the fetus could have survived to viability if the woman had been left untreated. And none of the state legislatures that are passing these draconian laws are going to include a clause that leaves that decision entirely up to the doctor and the pregnant woman, and provides the doctor with immunity from prosecution as long as he acted in good faith. That is never going to happen.

And as long as the laws are vague, and provide an exception for "saving the life of the mother" without defining what parameters are acceptable, and without providing doctors with the right to make those decisions without being imprisoned for murder if someone else disagrees, women are going to die from lack of treatment.

That is the REAL WORLD that we live in. Saying that at least these laws will result in the forced birth of 99% of unwanted pregnancies (which is not remotely accurate anyway), means you consider all those dead women, and all the motherless children they may leave behind, as acceptable collateral damage in order to save the fetuses that you want to be born.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Corraleno

[Sneezyone]

15 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

You keep saying this stuff with no evidence to back it up. PROVE that when a woman’s life is at risk, she, her doctors, and her family can decide whether she lives or dies and what care is provided. Provide ANY evidence that the care you say she should receive is provided in affected states. Do you have any links? At all?

I feel like I should keep bumping this because there is fact and there is fiction. We have ZERO facts to support the claim that women aren’t endangered by these extremist policies. Buehler….

[MercyA]

9 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I am curious how the people who believe that life begins at conception feel about that line being moved to fertilization recently?  

Actually, I've always read that the opposite is true; that is, that life had generally been understood to begin when the sperm and egg meet until about the time the birth control pill started to be prescribed.

In 1965 ACOG published a paper that redefined the term "conception" to mean the implantation of a egg rather than the fertilization of the egg by the sperm. Interesting timing, considering that the birth control pill had just been approved by the FDA several years prior. Many women wouldn't want to take a pill that might potentially interfere with conception, so the redefined term was very convenient. 

In spite of ACOG's efforts, there is still not universal agreement on the term. I did a quick google search on "conception" and the first several results including WedMD and Cleveland Clinic used the word conception to mean fertilization. 

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Actually, I've always read that the opposite is true; that is, that life had generally been understood to begin when the sperm and egg meet until about the time the birth control pill started to be prescribed.

In 1965 ACOG published a paper that redefined the term "conception" to mean the implantation of a egg rather than the fertilization of the egg by the sperm. Interesting timing, considering that the birth control pill had just been approved by the FDA several years prior. Many women wouldn't want to take a pill that might potentially interfere with conception, so the redefined term was very convenient. 

In spite of ACOG's efforts, there is still not universal agreement on the term. I did a quick google search on "conception" and the first several results including WedMD and Cleveland Clinic used the word conception to mean fertilization. 

Links? Documentation that this reflects current medical consensus?

[Sneezyone]

We really have to stop equating/normalizing/humoring extremist opinion with real life. It’s not backed by fact, clinical consensus, or even common sense.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Sneezyone