|
McAlister posted:Go read the study. Don't act like some climate change denier refusing to look at sea level data. The study is not relevant or necessary to holding a pro-choice position.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Another reason why abortion must be legal during all stages of pregnancy is that if a woman miscarries during that phase of pregnancy, if she lives in one of those awful places where it is illegal (el salvador, mississippi, etc) it's likely that fetuses are afforded the legal protections of actual people and she is then a suspect in a murder investigation and can possibly be jailed. This is abhorrent from multiple angles. The emotional angle - it is awful to subject someone who just had a possibly traumatic medical event (or heartbreaking loss of desired pregnancy) to a criminal investigation. The social angle - as it stands now the investigations are used to jail "undesirables" for having lifestyles the prosecutor does not approve of, such as "drinking sometimes," "taking prescription medicine," or "being black." The economic angle - the jailed woman is now a drain on the state's coffers and can make no contributions to society, not even more babies, unless she gets raped by a prison guard  . Her already born children are now also missing a parent with all the disadvantages that implies.In these states there is no equivalent circumstance in which a man could have some spontaneous medical event and then go to jail for years. It is absolutely a sexist policy. Of course, if that doesn't move you, let me describe a hypothetical in terms you may understand. Let's say you meet a woman and fall in love. The two of you have an awesome relationship and you feel like you've met your soulmate. Then she feels abdominal pain and starts bleeding. Upon a visit to the doctor, it's discovered that she was actually 7 months pregnant but had one of those wacky pregnancies we discussed on the other page where they don't show until really far in for some reason - but she has now miscarried. Because abortion is illegal in the third trimester, an investigation is started to see if she killed her baby. They find that she was taking lexapro daily on the recommendation of a medical professional. Despite a doctor testifying in court that lexapro, while associated with fetal abnormalities and not recommended in pregnancy, is not known to cause miscarriage, your significant other is charged with manslaughter and thrown in jail. How do you feel about that. The state came and took your girlfriend away! Does that make you sad? The one thing I've heard from people irl who don't like this argument is "when a drunk guy hits a pregnant woman and he causes her to miscarry, he faces a manslaughter charge, so if he can face that it's only fair the pregnant woman face the charge as well." I see the aggravating charge on the DUI as indicating the degree of bodily harm incurred by the victim. Also why do we need to level the playing field between drunk drivers and non drunk non driving random women?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:Let's say you meet a woman and fall in love. The two of you have an awesome relationship and you feel like you've met your soulmate. Then she feels abdominal pain and starts bleeding. Upon a visit to the doctor, it's discovered that she was actually 7 months pregnant but had one of those wacky pregnancies we discussed on the other page where they don't show until really far in for some reason - but she has now miscarried. Because abortion is illegal in the third trimester, an investigation is started to see if she killed her baby. They find that she was taking lexapro daily on the recommendation of a medical professional. Despite a doctor testifying in court that lexapro, while associated with fetal abnormalities and not recommended in pregnancy, is not known to cause miscarriage, your significant other is charged with manslaughter and thrown in jail. How do you feel about that. The state came and took your girlfriend away! Does that make you sad? "Stuff like that happens to other people" - all opponents of any restrictions whatsoever on safe and legal abortion
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The study is not relevant or necessary to holding a pro-choice position. Minimizing fetal suffering is a topic every pro-choicer I've ever met supports so this information is relevant to pro choice policy. The research is about animal welfare and how to slaughter a pregnant animal humanely. The discoveries are surprising, they challenge many basic assumptions, and they are applicable to humane abortion practices. There are no gross pictures or pseudo-science in that link. I will tox on that. For your convenience: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/94.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
McAlister posted:
According to this, there is no consciousness until birth, or even days later. In fact, it suggests that so long as breathing is prevented, the fetal emergency response will keep the fetus from feeling anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Minimizing fetal suffering is a topic every pro-choicer I've ever met supports so this information is relevant to pro choice policy. The research is about animal welfare and how to slaughter a pregnant animal humanely. The discoveries are surprising, they challenge many basic assumptions, and they are applicable to humane abortion practices. You seem interested in persuading anti-choice people, but you've now said "slaughter a pregnant animal humanely." How do you think that's going to pan out?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You seem interested in persuading anti-choice people, but you've now said "slaughter a pregnant animal humanely." How do you think that's going to pan out? Quite well, considering that slaughtering pregnant animals happen all the time. The change in circumstances around how the pregnancies were terminated does not change that they were terminated with zero pain and discomfort for the fetus. The lack of painful sensations in the fetus during abortion (however it came about) is what is being argued as being proven fact, I'm pretty sure. Does your doubt lie with the capacity for those who are anti-choice to be objective and rational when reading the phrase "slaughter a pregnant animal humanely"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:Another reason why abortion must be legal during all stages of pregnancy is that if a woman miscarries during that phase of pregnancy, if she lives in one of those awful places where it is illegal (el salvador, mississippi, etc) it's likely that fetuses are afforded the legal protections of actual people and she is then a suspect in a murder investigation and can possibly be jailed. This is abhorrent from multiple angles. The emotional angle - it is awful to subject someone who just had a possibly traumatic medical event (or heartbreaking loss of desired pregnancy) to a criminal investigation. The social angle - as it stands now the investigations are used to jail "undesirables" for having lifestyles the prosecutor does not approve of, such as "drinking sometimes," "taking prescription medicine," or "being black." The economic angle - the jailed woman is now a drain on the state's coffers and can make no contributions to society, not even more babies, unless she gets raped by a prison guard
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't think this last bit is true. If you are caring for a sickly relative/friend, they could spontaneously die. A vindictive prosecutor could try to unjustly prosecute you for murder, but we generally trust our prosecutors to not be assholes instead of re-writing legislation. I definitely think abortions should be safe and accessible, but it's not because prosecutors would conduct inappropriate investigations if they weren't. I meant a spontaneous medical event to his own body. Both men and women could care for a sick relative - and the event is something happening in the body of the person they are caring for, not their own body. Only women can miscarry. Laws that persecute people who miscarry only target women. There is no law that persecutes men who have something happen in their own body. And if you think women haven't gone to jail for miscarriages, I have a long list of examples that will make you really depressed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:I meant a spontaneous medical event to his own body. Both men and women could care for a sick relative - and the event is something happening in the body of the person they are caring for, not their own body. Only women can miscarry. Laws that persecute people who miscarry only target women. There is no law that persecutes men who have something happen in their own body. It's not all miscarriages, but the recent New York Times article "Pregnant and No Civil Rights" has a long (but very incomplete) litany of women going to jail or being held against their will for stillbirths and to prevent miscarriages, and links to a peer-reviewed study of 417 such cases in the US since 1973. A sampling from the Times article: quote:Based on the belief that he had an obligation to give a fetus a chance for life, a judge in Washington, D.C., ordered a critically ill 27-year-old woman who was 26 weeks pregnant to undergo a cesarean section, which he understood might kill her. Neither the woman nor her baby survived.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Xibanya posted:I meant a spontaneous medical event to his own body. Both men and women could care for a sick relative - and the event is something happening in the body of the person they are caring for, not their own body. Only women can miscarry. Laws that persecute people who miscarry only target women. There is no law that persecutes men who have something happen in their own body. edit: Come to think about it, if someone miscarries, it could just as easily be the fault of the person who miscarried or someone else. There might exist a bias to prosecute the people who miscarry versus the people around them, but again, that's a problem with your prosecutors and not with the law. twodot fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
As a side note, parents of newborns who were found dead without a bruise on them have been locked up over "shaken baby syndrome" diagnoses, to later have those charges dropped.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Minimizing fetal suffering is a topic every pro-choicer I've ever met supports so this information is relevant to pro choice policy. The research is about animal welfare and how to slaughter a pregnant animal humanely. The discoveries are surprising, they challenge many basic assumptions, and they are applicable to humane abortion practices. You need to read it again - it applies to fetuses whose dam has been slaughtered, not live animals that have a pregnancy terminated. For those animals the fetus remains unconscious until shortly after birth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:As a side note, parents of newborns who were found dead without a bruise on them have been locked up over "shaken baby syndrome" diagnoses, to later have those charges dropped. Yeah, this is another interesting angle to talk about. If you look at birth among other mammals, the newborns require far less care. The reason the human gestation period is around 10 months is because of the mismatch between the size of the baby's head and the average female pelvis. Left any longer than that, and the baby will almost certainly not be able to be born or will kill the mother on its way out. So human evolution settled on a kind of uneasy compromise between the development of the fetus and the risks to the fetus/mother. This point is important for pointing out that sometimes babies die, and in some cases it can't really be prevented. We have picked terms to call this phenomenon like we know what it is, but really it's just that some babies stop breathing the same way that some babies spontaneously abort. A baby is a complicated thing that can have subtle complicated problems. Newborns don't even have a skull that can actually protect their brain adequately. I think the period where a cesarean can be done with a decent certainty of surviving well outside the womb is a good dividing line. I think current law sets this period way too early, though. That poster with the "throws the baby out the window" hypothetical wants to act like there's this big bright line between a fetus in a womb and a newborn. Really, the biological evidence doesn't support that, though. We're not even certain how conscious, if at all, newborns actually are(we're pretty sure they're not very). So no, there's not a whole ton of difference between the woman getting a late term abortion and the woman tossing her baby out the window. That doesn't mean the fetus being aborted is somehow a special snowflake thing. That analogy is actually much better at demonstrating how undeveloped newborns actually are. ErIog fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
Pro-life claims a life again:quote:An unbelievably courageous mom, Ashley Caughey. Ashley’s bravery in the face of suffering is simply awe-inspiring. https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/mom-diagnosed-with-cancer-while-pregnant-im-not-going-to-kill-a-healthy-bab
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You seem interested in persuading anti-choice people, but you've now said "slaughter a pregnant animal humanely." How do you think that's going to pan out? I have learned that if I summarize it no one reads it and if I imply the discoveries support one side more than the other only that side reads it. Its dense medical text. Not an easy read. People need to be motivated to read it. Curiosity is one motivator. Belief that it will confirm your stance is another. I generally find the left more motivated by the former and the right by the latter and position myself accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Ardlen posted:According to this, there is no consciousness until birth, or even days later. In fact, it suggests that so long as breathing is prevented, the fetal emergency response will keep the fetus from feeling anything. Precisely. It also notes that sedatives ( edit - that we use on adults ) have an unexpected reaction with fetal biology. Stimulating rather than sedating. Prior to reading it my answer to "but what about pain?" was that this has nothing to do with the mothers right to bodily autonomy but if it worries you then sedate the fetus first. I didn't think it would do anything but I figured no harm done and if it made people feel better why not? Post reading this I think that's bad policy. I'm not sure how stimulated the fetus gets, but see no reason to risk it when we know its completely unnecessary. Also, when you know about this study you can respond to "pain!?!?!?" Heart string tugging by demonstrating that the fetus is already sedated by the womb environment ( both lack of air and chemicals secreted by the placenta ) so can no more perceive pain than a person on an operating table. I usually follow up with a common sense truthy question of some kind illustrating the trouble a sentient fetus could get into in the womb. What if it got bored and tugged its umbilical out of the wall? What it it started trying to see where the Fallopian tubes go? The birth canal is so tight that the neonates head is deformed severely by passage through it. If the fetus is awake why doesn't it fight back instead of letting its head get squeezed like a tube of toothpaste? So combine scientific proof that the unborn don't feel or think with a common sense explanation of why not. For their own and their mothers protection. That's why not. Imagine what happened to that poor sheep mom when they inserted an oxygen tube into her womb and clamped the umbilical to cut off the sedative flow and her fetus woke up inside her. We are not designed to contain conscious fetuses. They would kill us. Full stop. McAlister fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't think this last bit is true. If you are caring for a sickly relative/friend, they could spontaneously die. A vindictive prosecutor could try to unjustly prosecute you for murder, but we generally trust our prosecutors to not be assholes instead of re-writing legislation. I definitely think abortions should be safe and accessible, but it's not because prosecutors would conduct inappropriate investigations if they weren't. Over 300 pregnant women ( and one man ) have already been prosecuted for miscarriage since 2004 in the American south. Google Bei Bei Shui, Rennie Gibbs, and Amanda Kimbourough for examples. Rennie got sentenced to life for the crime if becoming pregnant while addicted then mis carrying. She was 15 years old. Amanda and Bei Bei got ten years each. The wife beater was acquitted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
McAlister posted:I usually follow up with a common sense truthy question of some kind illustrating the trouble a sentient fetus could get into in the womb. What if it got bored and tugged its umbilical out of the wall? What it it started trying to see where the Fallopian tubes go? The birth canal is so tight that the neonates head is deformed severely by passage through it. If the fetus is awake why doesn't it fight back instead of letting its head get squeezed like a tube of toothpaste? Although, for this question, it simply isn't strong enough. Fetuses do flail around a lot and grasp with their hands before birth. The article seems to suggest that they do this in some sort of sleep state where their motor and sensory systems aren't interacting much with the cerebrum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Over 300 pregnant women ( and one man ) have already been prosecuted for miscarriage since 2004 in the American south. Google Bei Bei Shui, Rennie Gibbs, and Amanda Kimbourough for examples. Rennie got sentenced to life for the crime if becoming pregnant while addicted then mis carrying. She was 15 years old. Amanda and Bei Bei got ten years each. excuse me while i go cry This is awful. EDIT: I loving love my state. Alabama, oh you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Over 300 pregnant women ( and one man ) have already been prosecuted for miscarriage since 2004 in the American south. Google Bei Bei Shui, Rennie Gibbs, and Amanda Kimbourough for examples. Rennie got sentenced to life for the crime if becoming pregnant while addicted then mis carrying. She was 15 years old. Amanda and Bei Bei got ten years each.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't understand why you quoted my post with this. Probably because it shows that we shouldn't trust prosecutors not to be assholes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
McAlister posted:I usually follow up with a common sense truthy question of some kind illustrating the trouble a sentient fetus could get into in the womb. What if it got bored and tugged its umbilical out of the wall? What it it started trying to see where the Fallopian tubes go? The birth canal is so tight that the neonates head is deformed severely by passage through it. If the fetus is awake why doesn't it fight back instead of letting its head get squeezed like a tube of toothpaste? Phyzzle posted:Although, for this question, it simply isn't strong enough. Fetuses do flail around a lot and grasp with their hands before birth. The article seems to suggest that they do this in some sort of sleep state where their motor and sensory systems aren't interacting much with the cerebrum. The part about their heads being 'squeezed like a tube of toothpaste' does raise a valid counterargument for people that use the "what about the pain?" argument though. You never hear that being used against natural childbirth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Probably because it shows that we shouldn't trust prosecutors not to be assholes. McAlister posted:Over 300 pregnant women ( and one man ) have already been prosecuted for miscarriage since 2004 in the American south. quote:Google Bei Bei Shui, quote:Rennie Gibbs quote:, and Amanda Kimbourough None of the people they bothered to specifically mention suffered any sort of spontaneous medical event. quote:The wife beater was acquitted. twodot fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
twodot posted:That would make sense, but their post in no way does that (and does not claim to), which is why I was confused. Let's take a look: So putting a person in prison for attempting to commit suicide is a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:So putting a person in prison for attempting to commit suicide is a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:So, you're saying you are an idiot who can't follow an argument? No, putting people into prison for attempting to commit suicide is a bad idea. The fact that someone might attempt to commit suicide, and then fail in a manner which kills a fetus (and they could reasonably foresee that event) is not a reason to oppose laws against killing fetuses. No, actually it is. Its laughable that you'd think they won't abuse these laws, even more so that you think the prosecution for miscarriages is going to be anything more than a circus act for the pro-life crowd. They've also made it so drug addicts can be prosecuted for the death of a fetus they might be carrying during their drug use, whether they know or not. This is not going to end well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, actually it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:Killing people is illegal. You're right! It is! Guess what a fetus isn't? Guess who just outed himself as a person supporting the absurd Personhood movement, which seeks to define a fetus as a 'person' even at the day of conception.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:Killing people is illegal. It's conceivable that I might attempt to commit suicide and fail in a way that kills a person. Is that a reason to oppose laws against killing people? Assuming it is not, why does this reasoning apply to fetuses and not people? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You're right! It is! Guess what a fetus isn't? twodot posted:I definitely think abortions should be safe and accessible, but it's not because prosecutors would conduct inappropriate investigations if they weren't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
twodot posted:Look D&D, I'm not trying to troll you. I directly stated that I support abortions being accessible. Oh? twodot posted:So, you are an idiot who can't follow an argument? No, putting people into prison for attempting to commit suicide is a bad idea. The fact that someone might attempt to commit suicide, and then fail in a manner which kills a fetus (and they could reasonably foresee that event) is not a reason to oppose laws against killing fetuses. Then either you are directly contradicting yourself and support the idea of defining fetuses as 'Persons' for the sake of prosecution, or you support access to abortion. You can't have both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh? edit: I'm trying to be clear here, but I seem to be failing. Being concerned about someone who attempted to commit suicide and killed a fetus who is then prosecuted for killing a fetus only makes sense if you are already opposed to fetus-killing-prosecution. If you are in favor of fetus-killing-prosecution, prosecuting that person makes perfect sense. Your position on whether this is a good or bad thing is predicated on that actual reason whether you support such laws. And this matters, because I was talking to someone concerned about spontaneous miscarriages. Presumably even anti-abortion people are not in favor of prosecuting spontaneous miscarriages, if we had reason to believe that abortion laws led to prosecutions for such miscarriages, that would be a serious issue, but the examples presented are not that. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
twodot posted:Much like there are reasons to support laws against killing people other than being concerned about the results of failed suicide attempts. Amazingly, we already have laws against murder and killing a child post delivery counts a murder, so we don't need these extra laws that are just end run attempts to get around Roe Vs. Wade and prosecute women who either miscarry or who have stillbirths. All these laws do is create undue suffering by turning the real victim into a strawman for the Pro-Life crowd to legally crucify. twodot posted:If you are in favor of fetus-killing-prosecution, prosecuting that person makes perfect sense. Your position on whether this is a good or bad thing is predicated on that actual reason whether you support such laws. You are pro-abortion, but support the idea of prosecuting women for killing their fetus. Tell me more. You either need to unmuddy your position or explain why you are trying to justify these prosecutions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
twodot posted:That would make sense, but their post in no way does that (and does not claim to), which is why I was confused. Let's take a look: Yeah it's what is called "implied." You'll probably never understand it so take my word for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You are pro-abortion, but support the idea of prosecuting women for killing their fetus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:Do you understand it's possible to be opposed to something, but not be opposed to it for literally every reason? Like I think 2+2=4, but not because dogs are hairy. You understand that I still believe that 2+2=4. right? Then you are not pro-choice. Sorry. How do you know she wasn't committing suicide because she was pregnant, got jilted by the father, and couldn't get an abortion? You cannot support laws that attempt to re-define what a fetus is for the purpose of prosecuting abortion while at the same time claiming you are pro-choice. 2+2=4 unless its 2+(-2)=0
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:Do you understand it's possible to be opposed to something, but not be opposed to it for literally every reason? Like I think 2+2=4, but not because dogs are hairy, the fact that dogs are hairy is a bad reason to believe 2+2=4. You understand that I still believe that 2+2=4. right? 2+2=4 unless the dog was asking for it, in which case it's five.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Then you are not pro-choice. Sorry. While it is difficult to follow, I believe the point being made is that the specific example of attempted-suicide-induced-miscarriage being prosecutable, is not the deciding factor in the legitimacy of that law. As in, you are pro or anti abortion for other reasons, and your general stance of being pro or anti abortion (or specifically, the idea of whether it is OK to intentionally kill fetuses) would dictate whether or not you support that law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:While it is difficult to follow, I believe the point being made is that the specific example of attempted-suicide-induced-miscarriage being prosecutable, is not the deciding factor in the legitimacy of that law. The bill specifically required women to 'demonstrate that their miscarriage was natural or face felony charges'
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 19:39
|
|