• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are too many angry dictionary bashers here for me to have a sensible discussion about individual or separate "personhood".
While I think it is sometimes crucial to be clear about what words mean, I will do my best not to bash a dictionary, much less be angry while doing it. ; )
Suffice to say that even if identical twins have identical DNA, their DNA is still human, unique and different from that of either their mother or father. Exactly what makes them separate individuals is probably beyond my level of biological knowledge.
I specifically brought up a separate personhood (or whatever you want to call it) from each other - that is, why aren't they considered to be the same person? My answer is that it's not really unique DNA, it's being literally separate physical entities.

As I understand it, the unbiblical cord transports nourishment to the growing zygote/embryo/foetus. Whether that means that it is still just a part of the mother or something different (remember it still has its own DNA and chromosomes) is something for the battle of the dictionaries to resolve.
I wasn't saying whether it was part of the mother, merely whether it was *separate* from the mother (separate, by the way, is the term you used originally).

Oooooh!!!! What happens with conjoined twins, then?!

There are difficulties **all around** so we might want to give up the notion that we can make clear, clean judgments. Reality doesn't seem to be cooperating.
 
It's also badly out of date and (I suspect) deliberately cherry-picked. The most recent maternal death rate in the USA is 20.1 (per 100k) which is shockingly high for the "developed" world. We're concerned when it gets over 2.
It's all bad but how bad it is also varies considerably between the states (and TX is not one of the good ones —for that matter, worse outcomes would seem to be correlated with being a "red state"). Also, it is definitely not an unchangeable attribute of a given state; rather, it seems to be something affected by policy such that when state governments have chosen to get serious about changing this, improvements have followed.
 
Who cares about the percentage increase? The total number is what is important. With the 2018 number of 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births, is it really significant?

I mean, hey there is a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of an asteroid hitting the earth on a Wednesday, but it is 800x that on a Sunday. Who cares?

The chance of asteroid impacts worthy of consideration because it is a global risk (with a large enough asteroid, everyone dies —making prevention of such an impact, if possible, a very large payoff).

However, that's a little bit hyperbolic and (without looking it up) is probably even a gross underestimate of asteroid impact risk.

17.4 deaths per 100000 expressed as a percentage (probably a strange way of expressing things, but it seems to be common) is actually 0.017%. The number you gave is 68 orders of magnitude smaller from that. That's a difference in scaling so large that human minds do not readily comprehend it. To give how small a fraction you are giving as an example some context, 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the total mass of the earth would still be orders of magnitude smaller than the mass of an electron (also, it appears to be a long enough sequence of zeroes to mess up the formatting by the forum software).

I do understand that it is difficult to think in very small or very large numbers (discussions around Covid-19 demonstrate this well) but your number is meaningless whereas 17.4 deaths per 100000 (or whatever the real number is) is not anything approaching meaninglessness.
 
We've been having the Risk:Reward debate for 2-3 pages now only because one side is pretending "More Restrictive Abortions Laws Make Abortions Go UP" isn't one of those "facts" things they don't get to "Buh mah opinions!" their way out of.

So all of this is a goddamn pointless red herring, just like 99% of this debate.

Giving women access to abortions, birth control, pre and post natal care, and overall better standards of living is the only thing that actually makes abortions go down in the actual real world.

You want to be the Blastocyst Hype Man? Then fight for that.

Until then this, all of this, is dishonest nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Completely incorrect. The whining from liberals in this thread is about the increased chance of death from carrying a baby to term. It is obviously very, very small in real numbers of dead people.

I don't care about your diabetic leukemia patient who got pregnant after a wild night on the town. That is the outlier, not the norm.

And what if its a condition that makes the risk of death 1 in 1000, 1 in 100, 1 in 10 when carrying the fetus to term? Its for the person exposed to the risk to make a choice, not for me, you, or a politician to decide whats too risky and what isn't. Its their life.
 
Last edited:
There are too many angry dictionary bashers here for me to have a sensible discussion about individual or separate "personhood". Suffice to say that even if identical twins have identical DNA, their DNA is still human,
Again with the deliberate equivocation. With absolute certainty, you know no one is here is disputing that human DNA is human.

Do you dispute that spermatozoa and ova are human?

unique and different from that of either their mother or father. Exactly what makes them separate individuals is probably beyond my level of biological knowledge.

It's not that hard, really.

At early stages of development, you can take this mass of cells, separate it into two separate masses and end up with two separate developing organisms. You might intuitively think that this would kill (or at least damage & result in abnormality) but early enough it isn't so —as the developmental "program" seems to be flexible enough to handle this in early enough stages of development. Sometimes this can happen spontaneously. I doubt that anyone knows why (if anyone knows of any clues, I'd love to see some references to explanations).
 
contraceptives are readily available, at least in my area, I don't think I need be out on a street corner giving them away.

I mean, you are willing to limit the rights of women to control their bodies, but you are not willing to provide easy free access to contraceptives.

That makes it hard to tell if you just don’t think women should have control of their bodies or if you really want to reduce the number of abortions.
 
but this is unlike every other medical decision: another life is at stake.

That’s not true. I had a vasectomy where lots of lives were at stake. I took antibiotics that killed millions of lives. You are trying to create a distinction that you can’t support.

See my posts on fertility clinics or victims of rape. It is not the potential of human life that you are protecting, it is the autonomy of women that you are attacking.


I will repeat myself:


If we had a law banning abortion under normal circumstances, but wanted to provide a exception for when the risk to the life of the mother was too great, I don't know who but medical experts you would go to, to figure out when the risk to the mother was too great.

please read the bold.

I agree that such a law would create severe problems of who is best to make that choice. That is why I am against such a law. Medical doctors never make such choices for patients. It is not how they function. It is not what they do.
 
do all of what? search for appropriate adoptive parents? I agree she should get help with that. Resources and agencies should be available to her to help her find appropriate parents.

Apologies for being unclear. To care for the developing fetus in utero. Do you really not realize that it takes time, energy, money and physical and psychological wellness to adequately nurture a developing fetus? It's not like the egg is fertilized and then a baby magically pops out 9 months later. This was your statement:

I was talking about a situation where the sole concern was that the mother lacked finances, a good home, ability to raise a child and a stable environment. "

What do you think that means in reality? Lack of finances makes me think of a woman who may be working multiple jobs or who may be struggling to feed and care for herself and/or any existing children. Lack of a good home and lack of stable environment again makes me think of poverty, maybe homeless, maybe periods of time without electricity or running water. Poverty means food insecurity, which means lack of adequate nutrition. Lack of a stable home environment could also include being in an abusive relationship. Do you think none of that will have an impact on the developing fetus?

The actual act of putting the child up for adoption after it's born is the (superficially) easy part. It's so very difficult in so many ways, but the actual physical act? Sign a paper and turn the child over to an adoption agency. If you really think the difficult part about carrying a child to term and putting it up for adoption for the biological mother is finding appropriate parents, you have a lot more research to do.

A woman who is considering abortion due to lack of finances, lack of a stable home environment, lack of ability to care for the child when born, etc. may not have the time or money or ability to go to necessary medical appointments, or the resources to buy nutritious food or vitamins to supplement poor nutrition, or the stamina and psychological wellness to deal with one more stress and struggle in her life. The stress of the pregnancy alone will cause the developing fetus stress and can negatively impact its development. There's interesting research about how children who are adopted have higher rates of being born premature, and of having learning disabilities, ADHD, psychological and metabolic disorders, with the evidence being that the stress of carrying an unwanted pregnancy potentially under less than ideal circumstances plays a large role.

N=1 (well 2) and all, but my brother and I, both adopted and both with different biological parents, have learning disabilities, ADHD and metabolic disorders (childhood high cholesterol for him and PCOS for me).
because it might not just impact her life but also that of the fetus.
I believe the fetus' life comes secondary to that of people who are already alive - the pregnant woman and any existing family who may also be negatively impacted and are therefore factored into her decision. In short, a potential person is less important than an existing person.

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.
Obviously, I have done exactly this. My biological mother could very easily have had an abortion and then I wouldn't be here. As an embryo or fetus, though, I wouldn't have any thoughts or opinions. Her life (and not just her physical life, but her psychological welfare as well), takes priority over the existence of a clump of cells. I am very strongly still pro choice despite the fact that I'm alive specifically because my biological mother opted not to abort me when she could very easily have done exactly that.

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's a normal pregnancy and how do you know in advance whether or not the pregnancy is going to be normal? As I said, that's not something that can be known in advance and it's all well and good to say that you're okay with the pregnant woman getting an abortion if her physical life is at risk, and to say that the risk is minimal enough that it shouldn't be a concern, but circumstances aren't always that black and white. The risk to the woman's life may not be apparent until it's too late. It should be up to the woman to decide whether or not that's a risk she's willing to take since, you know, it's her body and her life. Here's another hypothetical. For a pregnant woman considering abortion due to the reasons you mention above, what happens to any existing children if she dies? Why should the fetus take priority over them? After all, they'll definitely be traumatized if they lose their mother.

but is that not what you mother would have done to you if she had aborted you?

Not in the way you mean. It's her body so it's her choice. I'd support her right to get an abortion the way I would support any woman who made the same choice. Again, the life and rights of the pregnant woman trump the that of a non-viable fetus. The fetus may be alive, but it doesn't have a life in the sense of living independently and having external responsibilities.

like I said, I want to learn more. Let me ask you something what would have been worse, the trauma that your mother went through, or you being aborted?

Obviously, the trauma my biological mother went through. Were I aborted, I wouldn't be aware of it to be traumatized by it. Wait, I may be misreading your question. I can't speak for what would have been more traumatizing for my biological mother, having an abortion or carrying me full term. I don't know the factors that she considered when she made the decision that she did. My answer is regarding the trauma to my biological mother of putting me up for adoption vs the trauma I'd experience were I aborted.

You didn't answer my question about how you'd feel if someone made comparable permanent, life altering decisions on your behalf.

Please, seriously, try to put yourself in that hypothetical woman's shoes and think about whether or not you'd want someone making that kind of decision on your behalf without any thought to your wishes or circumstances.

You've said before that you don't have kids because of your life circumstances at this time. What if someone decided that you needed to spend the next 9 months of your life nurturing a living creature that you knew you couldn't adequately care for and wouldn't be keeping, and that doing so would have long lasting physical and psychological ramifications, and which has a small chance of actually putting your life at risk? Please keep in mind that you making that decision for yourself isn't the same as someone else making it for you even if the outcome would be the same.
 
Doctors like that seem few and far between.

Most of the doctors I have seen appear to believe that what they do to a patient's body is none of the patient's business (patients are too stupid to understand medical issues anyway).

Get better doctors and report the ones you have seen. Seriously.
 
Get better doctors and report the ones you have seen. Seriously.
Doctors like that seem few and far between.

Most of the doctors I have seen appear to believe that what they do to a patient's body is none of the patient's business (patients are too stupid to understand medical issues anyway).

To be fair, medicine used to be more like he says. However, medical ethics has progressed so that such would be considered grossly unethical today. The 'doctor knows best so the patient just needs to shut up and do what they are told' school of medical ethics has not been a thing for decades & decades.

Maybe he should stop going to doctors who are decades past retirement age?
 
We've been having the Risk:Reward debate for 2-3 pages now only because one side is pretending "More Restrictive Abortions Laws Make Abortions Go UP" isn't one of those "facts" things they don't get to "Buh mah opinions!" their way out of.

So all of this is a goddamn pointless red herring, just like 99% of this debate.

Giving women access to abortions, birth control, pre and post natal care, and overall better standards of living is the only thing that actually makes abortions go down in the actual real world.

You want to be the Blastocyst Hype Man? Then fight for that.

Until then this, all of this, is dishonest nonsense.

Agreed. And adding Blastocyst Hype Man to the sock drawer. Thanks.
 
To be fair, medicine used to be more like he says. However, medical ethics has progressed so that such would be considered grossly unethical today. The 'doctor knows best so the patient just needs to shut up and do what they are told' school of medical ethics has not been a thing for decades & decades.

Maybe he should stop going to doctors who are decades past retirement age?

Yeah, old doctors scare me a bit.
 
I’m not sure it is going to sway anyone, but back when our pregnancy related mortality rate in the US was a bit better, the abortion mortality rate was still much better.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/

From that time period: 8.8 vs 0.6 per 100k

“Conclusion: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.”
 
To be fair, medicine used to be more like he says. However, medical ethics has progressed so that such would be considered grossly unethical today. The 'doctor knows best so the patient just needs to shut up and do what they are told' school of medical ethics has not been a thing for decades & decades.

Maybe he should stop going to doctors who are decades past retirement age?

Ohh there are youngers ones out there like that. I had to switch doctors after I diagnosed myself with a chronic condition but my doctor wouldn't hear it, according to her I was mentally ill. A new doctor and a couple of diagnostic tests, and yuuuuuup I was right. In the days before webmd etc I was probably looking at a life on anti-depressants and a weekly visit to a shrink.
 
I’m not sure it is going to sway anyone, but back when our pregnancy related mortality rate in the US was a bit better, the abortion mortality rate was still much better.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/

From that time period: 8.8 vs 0.6 per 100k

“Conclusion: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.”

I mean, really.

When they wrote about the health of the mother in Roe they were talking about it not being done with a rusty clothes hanger.
 
I’m not sure it is going to sway anyone, but back when our pregnancy related mortality rate in the US was a bit better, the abortion mortality rate was still much better.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/

From that time period: 8.8 vs 0.6 per 100k

“Conclusion: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.”

Egads the maternal mortality rate has more than doubled since 1998-2005 :jaw-dropp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom