Texas bans abortion.

[Stacyhs]

No paternal mitochondria
No placenta
No umbilical


You need to repeat biology 101

I agree the father should have equal rights over the unborn provided he is supplying the womb, providing the nutrition and oxygen to the unborn, vomiting every day for a month or two or even developing hyperemesis gravidarum (severe nausea and vomiting that can last the entire pregnancy), dealing with possible gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, preeclampsia, and/or anemia. And of course, labor and delivery with a possibility of caesarian section. When he can do all that, then he can have equal rights over the unborn, no problem.

 

[catsmate]

huh? I was talking about making sure that babies put up for adoption (to avoid abortion) go to good homes where they will be loved and provided for.

Yes, I saw that. But why only for adoptions? Why not apply the same standard for all births?

 

[catsmate]

Its not a cop out, I am merely for letting medical experts assess the risk of carrying a baby to term. They know more than I do.

No it's a cop out.
What criteria should be used to base such a decision on? How much risk are you planning to force women to endure?

 

[catsmate]

ha ha. That is not what I or the founding fathers meant by natural rights, and I think you know that.

So you accept that there is no such thing as an "inalienable" right in the real world. A good start.

 

[catsmate]

On the flipside, the damage done to pregnant people who no longer have access to abortion is very uncomplicated and easy to understand.

Especially given the generally poor state of US healthcare and the fact that the maternal death rate is actually increasing unlike the rest of the developed world. Currently it's ten times that of Norway or Italy.

 

[Warp12]

I agree the father should have equal rights over the unborn provided he is supplying the womb, providing the nutrition and oxygen to the unborn, vomiting every day for a month or two or even developing hyperemesis gravidarum (severe nausea and vomiting that can last the entire pregnancy), dealing with possible gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, preeclampsia, and/or anemia. And of course, labor and delivery with a possibility of caesarian section. When he can do all that, then he can have equal rights over the unborn, no problem.

This brings me back to a point I made weeks ago. It would seem that with so much more responsibility after conception, we might naturally consider that the woman has a greater responsibility prior to conception. But I don't see anyone around here floating that notion; in fact, most seem to be totally against it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Ok this is pretty funny:

In a new court filing, Texas argues DOJ can't sue over SB8 in part because the law is "stimulating rather than obstructing interstate travel" as women have to leave the state to obtain abortions.

https://twitter.com/jacq_thomsen/status/1443225502941130774

 

[Fast Eddie B]

And it is genetically closer to her than anything else in the world, including the father.

I thought the genetic contributions of the parents were 50/50.

Is your statement considering mitochondrial DNA in the mix?

Just asking out of curiosity, not to make a point.

 

[cosmicaug]

true, but most normal pregnancies don't end with woman dying. Like I've said if the risk of the mother's life is too high, I don't oppose abortion.

What is too high? Is it based on risk of death? Is twice as high as the risk of terminating the pregnancy? Is it 10 times? You said the doctor gets to decide. Why does someone who does not bear the additional risk get to decide?

put yourself in the hypothetical fetus' shoes. Think about whether or not you'd want someone deciding whether you live or die, without any thought to the possibility that you may have rights.

Put yourself in the hypothetical sperm's shoes. Think about whether or not you'd want someone deciding whether you live & develop into a human or die, without any thought to the possibility that you may have rights.

 

[psionl0]

Put yourself in the hypothetical sperm's shoes.

You no longer care that this analogy has been shot to ribbons. This is your analogy and you are sticking to it.

 

[lobosrul5]

Well there is this:

This sort of thing would definitely result in less access to medical care for lots of people considering how many hospitals have religious affiliations.

If the hospital is funded by local taxes then the people there who pay said taxes should get to decide what procedures the hospital does or does not perform. If the hospital doesn't like it, because its board is full of Catholics for example, then a portion of the taxes can be setup to open a clinic next door. There now, everyone is happy.

I've also run across folks arguing for it in the past. Along lines of if you aren't willing to perform and abortion you shouldn't be a doctor. I've also seen that pharmacists who don't want to fill particular prescription should not be allowed to be pharmacists. I mostly brought it up on account of when I was looking into international laws regarding abortion, there are a small number of european countries that do not allow medical providers to opt out of performing abortions.

The notion that if you are a doctor you have to be willing to perform an abortion is fairly bizarre, is there any other medical procedure where that would be the case. Doc, I need you to amputate my arm! Well I really don't want to, but I guess I have to.

No, pharmacists should not get to pick and choose which medicines they dispense based on morality. Period. The. End. Pull his/her license, ba bye. How horrible it is the idea that you need medicine and you go to the pharmacist and he says, "no I don't believe in that so too bad". Your job is to dispense medicine that a doctor prescribed and make sure they didn't miss a counterindication. If your in a rural part of my state (New Mexico) that could mean an hour drive to the next town with a pharmacy where you better hope they don't pull the same ****.

Doctors: no they should not get to pick what procedure to perform... in an emergency. If I go to the ER with trauma and my arm needs to be amputated yes the trauma surgeon doesn't get to say no (well sure he can, and then be struck off). If I walk into my GP's office and demand she takes my arm off, thats a different issue. Same with abortion, an OB/GYN should be required to do it in an emergency. Otherwise, like I said, provide a clinic next door and everyones happy. Thats not the same as saying every single doctor must be trained to perform every single procedure, thats nuts.

 

[cosmicaug]

From the moment of conception, a separate living thing complete with its own unique DNA is created.

To say that this living thing is no different to sperm or ova (or cancer cells) is false and if this is the main argument for saying abortion doesn't matter at that stage then the argument is on shaky grounds.

From the moment of meiosis, a separate living thing with its own unique DNA is created.

To say that this living thing is no different than somatic cells is false & if this is the main argument for denying gametes personhood then the argument is flawed.

 

[cosmicaug]

But I don't see anyone around here floating that notion; in fact, most seem to be totally against it.

Alleged fact not in evidence. People in thread about abortion talking about abortion is all you are seeing here.

 

[catsmate]

So the doctor both elucidates the risk and decides (for someone else) whether that level of risk is acceptable?

Awesome!

Warbler, like the others trying to restrict access to safe and legal abortions, is strangely reluctant to actually say what level of risk to the mother is acceptable.

 

[cosmicaug]

You no longer care that this analogy has been shot to ribbons. This is your analogy and you are sticking to it.

You haven't shot anything to ribbons. You have made assertions.

 

[catsmate]

um, it does if it in womb.

Indeed. Parasiting off the host and risking her life and health.

 

[Warp12]

Alleged fact not in evidence. People in thread about abortion talking about abortion is all you are seeing here.

If you go back you will see that any mention of even personal accountability is generally scoffed at, much less responsibility. The idea of proactive vs reactive measures is also ridiculed. Instead, people say things like, "you want to punish women for having sex". It is ridiculous.

 

[cosmicaug]

Warbler, like the others trying to restrict access to safe and legal abortions, is strangely reluctant to actually say what level of risk to the mother is acceptable.

I proposed in a recent comment risks of twice or ten times the risk of death of terminating the pregnancy as options for him to choose from. To be fair, it's totally a "trap" since that falls well below the estimated increase in risk of death if choosing to go to term.

 

[sackett]

Not just you, Eddie

Let me stipulate that some people have earned mockery.

A fellow forum member who has, to date, attempted to post his feelings on a contentious topic in a generally dispassionate way is not one of them.
In fact I respect him for making his feelings on the matter known in a forum/thread where he’s in a decided minority.

But That’s Just Me!

The poster in question has been working hard and conscientiously to participate, and deserves some respect for that.

His arguments are hampered, I think, by a religious approach to law and history -- and to physiology and medicine; perhaps to almost everything. But he's said that he now needs to think about these matters rather than hammer keys replying to every tomtit or canary whom* comes along. For that, he deserves more and higher respect.



* If he'd quit doing that, I'd move a vote of thanks for him.

 

[Paul2]

From the moment of meiosis, a separate living thing with its own unique DNA is created.

To say that this living thing is no different than somatic cells is false & if this is the main argument for denying gametes personhood then the argument is flawed.

Perhaps there is a rejoinder to my point below, I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here.

So why do identical twins have their own individual personhood? They are lacking the attribute you propose for personhood - unique DNA - compared to each other. By that rationale, we should consider them the same person. What is the rationale that gives them separate personhood compared to each other?

Rather than unique DNA, isn't it the physical separateness that defines personhood? When you said it's a separate living thing, you really meant unique, I suppose, because a fetus is literally not separate - it is physically attached to the mother, until birth.