Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[Lowpro]

In the present case, Texas has drawn the line at 20 weeks. The rationale is that the fetus can feel pain at this point. Of course, this is a controversial claim. However, there is no doubt that at 20 weeks, fetal neural development is well underway; in fact, by embryonic day 108 (approximately 17 weeks), cortical neurogenesis is complete. Brain development is rapid after this point. So while there really isn't any empirical evidence that the fetus feels pain, it remains eminently possible due to the advanced development of the nervous system at this point. I think 20 weeks is a reasonable estimate for a different reason: It's on the cusp of viability, which is SCOTUS' legal line. We'll see if it holds up.

And again I'm here to say that, with regards to the bolded, that is COMPLETE BULLCRAP. 20 weeks is viable?! Dude at <39 weeks a preemie baby, without the aid of medical instruments, WILL DIE or develop abnormally. Hell a 24-28 weeks their lungs aren't even developed well enough to BREATH THE GODDAMN AIR. Viable my ass; the reason that viability distinction is made is because at 24-28 weeks the statistics of survival are at 50% and that DOES NOT INCLUDE post-natal development such as neurological, physiological, or mental disabilities which will probably occur. This is the dumbest thing I've heard people ever attempt at an argument, this ridiculous viability thing.

Seriously xjx, if you REALLY believe in that, would you be willing to cut your child out at 24 weeks and let test viability here?!

That may have been Roe V. Wade's biggest failure and one O'Conner, THE ONLY WOMAN who had the actual where withall to look at the other Justices like the morons they were, to realize that this trimester 50% survival thing...was the dumbest. thing. ever. mentioned. If survival is the issue then it would fluctuate based on the ability to promote survival. If we were to make an artificial womb then fetal transplanting would be legitimate for the State. But would you REALLY promote that?

Face it, women are in a unique and tremendous position; Their biology, their life supports a fetus and nothing can mimic that for the time being. But while that fetus is hooked up to them, it's UP TO THEM to decide whether to carry on the pregnancy or not and that goes for ANY time it's hooked up to them. They can kill it early, they can kill it late BUT THEY CAN, it's their choice, it's their body. Unless we can feasibly provide a surrogate option that promotes THEIR decision while also protecting the fetus then everyone would be pleased. And that option SORT OF exists, but you've got 50% developmental viability (post-natal morbidity).

And the fetal pain thing is beyond retarded. All we would need to do is drug the fetus with pain killers or kill the nerve, no pain then. People feel pain ALL THE TIME, that's why we've made multiple anesthetic variants to mitigate these during procedures.

Going back to Texas the most they've done is said to all those who want reproductive health access "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" as they took away the boots all while giving the finger to them.

 

[xjx388]

So these are photos of the nighttime sky to you, then?

Yes.

"We present the results of resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging performed in 25 healthy human fetuses in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy (24 to 38 weeks of gestation)."

How does this support your arguments when it comes to the Texas bill moving the cutoff date for abortions from 24 weeks to 20 weeks?

Because the neural system is well developed earlier than that - 17 weeks more or less. Do you imagine that neural/brain activity isn't present before 20 weeks simply because this paper studied only that time period?

Fetal arm movements, but not leg or trunk movements, change in response to the mother's emotions (and only in fetuses between 28 and 36 weeks, according to the study). And, as the study notes, this is nothing to do with the fetus itself feeling any kind of emotions, but reacting in response to the physiological changes of the mother's body in response to her own emotional states.

How does this support your arguments when it comes to the Texas bill moving the cutoff date for abortions from 24 weeks to 20 weeks?

That's the time period when the study was done. Do you imagine that there is no response before 28 weeks? Surely we can postulate that at 20 weeks, there is fetal response to maternal emotions, they just may not be measurable due to limitations in our technology.

Again, the study focuses on fetuses with a gestational age of 28 to 41 weeks for acoustical stimulation, and during labor for cutaneous stimulation.

How does this support your arguments when it comes to the Texas bill moving the cutoff date for abortions from 24 weeks to 20 weeks?

Do you imagine that there is no response before the time frame of the study? It is perfectly reasonable to hypothesize that, since the fetus has a well developed (though far from fully developed) neural system at 17 weeks, that there is some response to maternal emotions and external stimuli between 17 weeks and 24 weeks.

"Reissland pointed out that these facial movements don't mean the fetuses were experiencing emotion. 'We can see the expressions which we can recognize; we can't say whether the fetus has emotion,' she said. 'They [don't] have yet the cognition necessary to have the emotions.' [Smiles Are Innate, Not Learned]".

So fetuses having facial expressions doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.

It does mean that they are recognizably human.

None of the above links suggest in any way that fetuses are thinking and feeling in the womb.

That is ridiculous. A smile is very suggestive of thinking and feeling. You can postulate that it's just a reflex, but you don't know for sure.

A 2 year old is also not reliant on its mothers physiology for survival. That's why comparing a child that has been born to a fetus still in the womb is illegitimate for the purposes of the abortion debate.

So, theoretically, a woman should be able to abort, no questions asked at 35 weeks? I just want to be clear where you are drawing the line; better yet, why don't you just tell me exactly where you draw the line.

24 weeks is the cusp of viability. 20 weeks is before SCOTUS' legal line, and so runs afoul of their ruling that states cannot ban abortion before viability. NPR had a segment about this very thing this morning.

In 2011, a baby was born at 21 weeks and 5 days and survived. As our technology improves, that line may move ever lower. Texas' rule anticipates that day. Thus, I see no problem with it. It fits in with my conception of when a fetus begins to be deserving of legal protection -and with a majority of people in the US believing that abortion should be illegal in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, Texas' line is actually into the 2nd trimester and thus, perfectly reasonable.

 

[RandFan]

Well, day becomes night when the sun dips below the horizon.

You are being coy. What does a child, scientifically, become and adult?

The scientific community is not interested in drawing a line at the point at which a being becomes fully human.

Then don't ask the question:

Now, according to developmental biologists, when does the fetus become a human being?

Science simply observes and describes. Developmental biologists understand that human development continues throughout the lifespan from zygote through puberty through the reproductive years until death. You won't find labels from them because there is no point ever when the organism stops being human. They may have opinions, like you and I, but their opinion holds no more weight because that opinion is philosophical in nature.

Nothing about what science observes and describes makes a blastocyst a human.

A donor, obviously. But let's switch it up a little. Let's say two former fetuses have their brains surreptitiously switched immediately after birth. The parents will never know, since the newborns had no memories up to that point. So, does this make the newborns less of a human being than myself, the brain donor?

I sincerely don't see how that informs the discussion. It does not appear to be to the point.

OK. There's no doubt that fetuses have brain activity in the womb. They react to maternal emotions. They react to external stimuli. They make facial expressions. So they are thinking and feeling in the womb, maybe not like you and I, but definitively nonetheless.

The question is WHEN.

As for self-awareness, neonates are not self-aware. Self-awareness doesn't fully develop until age 4 or 5. So, is a 2 year old not a full human being?

I alluded to this. I don't know. If a fetus is likely to have some appreciation for pain and the ability to think and it can survive outside of the womb then don't kill it. It has to be removed from the mother. Remove it alive and make it a ward of the state.

More germane to the topic at hand, at what point in the continuum of development is a human being worthy of protection by society? This is not something we get to decide individually. What if a woman decides that her two-month old is too much of a burden and she suffocates it? Obviously, at some point, we have to decide as a society at what point we will protect that human.

Why kill it? Why not have the state take custody?

In the present case, Texas has drawn the line at 20 weeks. The rationale is that the fetus can feel pain at this point. Of course, this is a controversial claim. However, there is no doubt that at 20 weeks, fetal neural development is well underway; in fact, by embryonic day 108 (approximately 17 weeks), cortical neurogenesis is complete. Brain development is rapid after this point. So while there really isn't any empirical evidence that the fetus feels pain, it remains eminently possible due to the advanced development of the nervous system at this point. I think 20 weeks is a reasonable estimate for a different reason: It's on the cusp of viability, which is SCOTUS' legal line. We'll see if it holds up.

Far less developed than animals who have no rights.

This implies, then, that very young infants are not individuals. Yet, I'm quite sure you don't advocate that they can be killed.

(see above) A very young infant can be given to the state.

As I pointed out earlier, the nervous system is highly developed by week 17. The paper I linked to points out that by week 26, the sensory and motor pathways are completely formed. It also points out that neural development continues postnatally. Also, infants can't hope for the future or appreciate their existences, as the other paper on the development of self-awareness I linked to explains. So are infants not human beings?

It's not a question that needs to be answered. There is no compelling need to kill infants. As for the rest, wrong.

Scientific research generally indicates that the fetus is incapable of feeling pain until at least the 24th week

Feeling pain is much more than the ability to detect pain. There needs to be an emotional component that does not arise until later.

 

[RandFan]

Yes.

What day does a child, scientifically, become an adult.

Because the neural system is well developed earlier than that - 17 weeks more or less. Do you imagine that neural/brain activity isn't present before 20 weeks simply because this paper studied only that time period?

Neural activity does not mean that an organism can appreciate pain. Many organisms can feel pain but cannot appreciate it. There exists humans who have no emotional component for pain. They sense it but it doesn't bother them. They often harm themselves.

Show me a scientific paper that says a fetus can suffer. I realize that I'm the one that said "feel pain". I apologize for seemingly moving the goal posts. I thought you and I had discussed this prior. Sensing pain is not what I meant by "feeling pain". I'm talking about suffering. An emotional component to pain. Did you read the Temple Grandin article?

 

[12AX7]

"Need" is a word. It has an accepted definition. The definition is not dependent on the gender of the speaker.

Ah, OK.

Maybe the ladies of JREF (or a group of female legislators) can take a vote on whether or not you need to should have a vasectomy or the frequency of needed, mandatory monthly prostate exams.

Deal?

 

[xjx388]

Ah, OK.

Maybe the ladies of JREF (or a group of female legislators) can take a vote on whether or not you need to should have a vasectomy or the frequency of needed, mandatory monthly prostate exams.

Deal?

If they think they can make a compelling case that men must be forced to have monthly prostate exams, then I would love to see the arguments.

The point remains that "need," implies there is no other choice. Unless not having an abortion would definitely result in serious harm or death, there are always choices.

 

[RandFan]

If they think they can make a compelling case that men must be forced to have monthly prostate exams, then I would love to see the arguments.

The point remains that "need," implies there is no other choice. Unless not having an abortion would definitely result in serious harm or death, there are always choices.

In order to restrict freedom the state has the burden to demonstrate a compelling interest or reasonable basis.

 

[A'isha]

Yes.

So "nighttime" to you is "still enough sunlight to read by"? Okay.

Because the neural system is well developed earlier than that - 17 weeks more or less. Do you imagine that neural/brain activity isn't present before 20 weeks simply because this paper studied only that time period?

No, because at 20 weeks (and before), the neural system isn't developed enough (it's not "well developed" by 17 weeks). Cortical neurogenesis is complete by then, but the neural connections are just getting started because all those neurons so generated have to travel to the correct places and start forming connections with each other. To use an analogy, all the lumber has been delivered to the building site, yes, but it's just sitting in a pile in the corner, and the workers still have to carry the right amount of lumber to the right spot at the construction site, to say nothing of actually nailing the lumber together into a house.

The sprouting of axons and dendrites (the things that actually allow individual neurons to transmit signals to each other) and myelination (the formation of the coating of neurons that allows for rapid nervous signal transmission) don't even start until the 24th week - before that point, the fetus' brain doesn't really have "brain activity" because it doesn't have synapses. It can only have localized, inefficient reflex responses, because only a few peripheral nerve endings are connected to the spinal cord and the cortex cannot actually receive or process signals from the rest of the body.

That's the time period when the study was done. Do you imagine that there is no response before 28 weeks? Surely we can postulate that at 20 weeks, there is fetal response to maternal emotions, they just may not be measurable due to limitations in our technology.

Cite a paper about the 20 week response, then. And, again, they aren't responding to the mother's emotions, but to the changes in the mother's own physiology caused by her emotional state.

Do you imagine that there is no response before the time frame of the study? It is perfectly reasonable to hypothesize that, since the fetus has a well developed (though far from fully developed) neural system at 17 weeks, that there is some response to maternal emotions and external stimuli between 17 weeks and 24 weeks.

In his paper, Timor-Tritsch describes earlier response to stimuli as a reflex action. In other words, it's not a cognitive response, but an autonomic one, similar to how your leg jerks when the doctor taps it at a certain spot.

The fetal nervous system is, quite simply, incapable of any more than that.

That is ridiculous. A smile is very suggestive of thinking and feeling. You can postulate that it's just a reflex, but you don't know for sure.

That's merely your assertion, completely unsupported (and, in fact, contradicted) by your own link.

So, theoretically, a woman should be able to abort, no questions asked at 35 weeks?

No.

I just want to be clear where you are drawing the line; better yet, why don't you just tell me exactly where you draw the line.

28 weeks, the point where the fetus is more likely to survive than not, and the point at which the neural system is complete enough to allow for full brain activity and the transmission of neural impulses from the rest of the body to the brain.

In 2011, a baby was born at 21 weeks and 5 days and survived.

The article points out that such a thing is extremely rare, because the fetus' organs are not developed enough to really allow it to survive. You'll note that her twin died (ie, he was non-viable). Making laws that treat all fetuses as if these extreme cases were standard cases is idiotic.

As our technology improves, that line may move ever lower. Texas' rule anticipates that day.

It's usually a bad idea to make laws based on a technology that does not exist yet and may never exist, especially when it results in the punishment of women right now.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Conservatives are all about freedom, except for women.. women need regulations on what they can do with their vaginas.

 

[xjx388]

And again I'm here to say that, with regards to the bolded, that is COMPLETE BULLCRAP. 20 weeks is viable?! Dude at <39 weeks a preemie baby, without the aid of medical instruments, WILL DIE or develop abnormally.

So, are you asserting that a baby born at 38 weeks WILL DIE or not develop normally if not put on life-support? Heck, that's not even considered premature.

Hell a 24-28 weeks their lungs aren't even developed well enough to BREATH THE GODDAMN AIR. Viable my ass; the reason that viability distinction is made is because at 24-28 weeks the statistics of survival are at 50% and that DOES NOT INCLUDE post-natal development such as neurological, physiological, or mental disabilities which will probably occur. This is the dumbest thing I've heard people ever attempt at an argument, this ridiculous viability thing.

A fetus at 28 weeks has an excellent chance at converting into a human beingsurvival. 24 weeks is roughly 50-50.

Seriously xjx, if you REALLY believe in that, would you be willing to cut your child out at 24 weeks and let test viability here?!

No. But that's not the point. The point is to figure out at what point the fetus deserves protection. As this thread has demonstrated, that's an answer science can really give us. So it's reasonable for the States to set their own lines based on what any given legislature passes. Of course, ultimately, any law has to pass constitutional muster. We'll see about this one.

That may have been Roe V. Wade's biggest failure and one O'Conner, THE ONLY WOMAN who had the actual where withall to look at the other Justices like the morons they were, to realize that this trimester 50% survival thing...was the dumbest. thing. ever. mentioned.

Well, to be fair to Justice O'Conner, she wasn't even on the Court at the time of Roe v Wade. She did play a role later on in Webster. Also, the Court never talked about 50% viability; in Webster, it intentionally left the viability point as vague.

If survival is the issue then it would fluctuate based on the ability to promote survival. If we were to make an artificial womb then fetal transplanting would be legitimate for the State. But would you REALLY promote that?

Viability is a function of the size of the fetus and the gestational age. Forcibly removing a fetus in a condition that would survive at that age is not feasible; there is no medical condition to do so. Not to mention the ethics of such a situation.

Face it, women are in a unique and tremendous position; Their biology, their life supports a fetus and nothing can mimic that for the time being. But while that fetus is hooked up to them, it's UP TO THEM to decide whether to carry on the pregnancy or not and that goes for ANY time it's hooked up to them. They can kill it early, they can kill it late BUT THEY CAN, it's their choice, it's their body. Unless we can feasibly provide a surrogate option that promotes THEIR decision while also protecting the fetus then everyone would be pleased. And that option SORT OF exists, but you've got 50% developmental viability (post-natal morbidity).

Wow. So you think that at 40 weeks, if the baby hasn't delivered yet, she can kill it -it's her choice? I don't think you will find many to agree with that.

And the fetal pain thing is beyond retarded. All we would need to do is drug the fetus with pain killers or kill the nerve, no pain then.

We can do this with 2 year olds -hell, adults- too. Why isn't that acceptable but it is with, say a 40 week fetus?[/quote] People feel pain ALL THE TIME, that's why we've made multiple anesthetic variants to mitigate these during procedures.[/quote]This makes no sense.

Going back to Texas the most they've done is said to all those who want reproductive health access "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" as they took away the boots all while giving the finger to them.

OK, that's your opinion. I accept that.

 

[xjx388]

So "nighttime" to you is "still enough sunlight to read by"? Okay.

Well, we can quibble but the sun going below the horizon is a good enough place to start. Maybe 18 degrees below the horizon? Still, if we needed to come up with a legal time, those points can be calculated exactly. Sunset is a well-used reference point. Kinda like fetal viability, but not really. So why are we talking about this again?

No, because at 20 weeks (and before), the neural system isn't developed enough (it's not "well developed" by 17 weeks). Cortical neurogenesis is complete by then, but the neural connections are just getting started because all those neurons so generated have to travel to the correct places and start forming connections with each other. To use an analogy, all the lumber has been delivered to the building site, yes, but it's just sitting in a pile in the corner, and the workers still have to carry the right amount of lumber to the right spot at the construction site, to say nothing of actually nailing the lumber together into a house.

The sprouting of axons and dendrites (the things that actually allow individual neurons to transmit signals to each other) and myelination (the formation of the coating of neurons that allows for rapid nervous signal transmission) don't even start until the 24th week - before that point, the fetus' brain doesn't really have "brain activity" because it doesn't have synapses. It can only have localized, inefficient reflex responses, because only a few peripheral nerve endings are connected to the spinal cord and the cortex cannot actually receive or process signals from the rest of the body.

So then is your line of when a person is a human being at the point when all the axons and dendrites are formed and the myelination process is complete? What I wanted to illustrate more than anything is that science cannot give us that answer. It is purely philosophical. And for most US residents, abortion after the first trimester is philosophically unacceptable enough that they believe it should be illegal. Why are all those millions of people wrong -and you really can't run to science for the answer,as we have found.

Cite a paper about the 20 week response, then. And, again, they aren't responding to the mother's emotions, but to the changes in the mother's own physiology caused by her emotional state.

In his paper, Timor-Tritsch describes earlier response to stimuli as a reflex action. In other words, it's not a cognitive response, but an autonomic one, similar to how your leg jerks when the doctor taps it at a certain spot.

OK, then cite the paper about the threshold for becoming a human who deserves to be protected.

<snip>
No.

28 weeks, the point where the fetus is more likely to survive than not, and the point at which the neural system is complete enough to allow for full brain activity and the transmission of neural impulses from the rest of the body to the brain.

Fair enough. However, most Americans do not agree with abortions after the first trimester -mostly for philosophical reasons. So, if Texas, which is more conservative than many States, wants to draw the line at 20 weeks (which is still well beyond what most people think is acceptable) then what's the problem? Do you think that your interpretation of science is superior to the will of most of the people?

The article points out that such a thing is extremely rare, because the fetus' organs are not developed enough to really allow it to survive. You'll note that her twin died (ie, he was non-viable). Making laws that treat all fetuses as if these extreme cases were standard cases is idiotic.

In your opinion. But people who highly value the life of the fetus may disagree with you. Why are they idiots?

It's usually a bad idea to make laws based on a technology that does not exist yet and may never exist, especially when it results in the punishment of women right now.

I agree. But I'm not so much interested in the motivation behind the laws as much as the justification. There is a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn from conception (see Roe v Wade) and Texas thinks that interest overwhelms the women's rights to make decisions about her own body at 20 weeks. That seems justified enough to me and probably the majority of Texans. Our system is based on majority rule. So, again, where is the problem exactly?

 

[A'isha]

Sunset is a well-used reference point. Kinda like fetal viability, but not really. So why are we talking about this again?

To show you that there are no hard-and-fast dividing lines when it comes to either of these things.

So then is your line of when a person is a human being at the point when all the axons and dendrites are formed and the myelination process is complete?

Not precisely, as (again) there are no hard and fast dividing lines. However, a fetus that has not had its cortex developed like that is pretty far away from any potential line.

Why are all those millions of people wrong -and you really can't run to science for the answer,as we have found.

We can turn to science to help us see where the answer isn't.

OK, then cite the paper about the threshold for becoming a human who deserves to be protected.

I'm not the one making an argument about that threshold (and I'm certainly not making an argument about that threshold as a justification for attacking abortion rights).

Fair enough. However, most Americans do not agree with abortions after the first trimester -mostly for philosophical reasons. So, if Texas, which is more conservative than many States, wants to draw the line at 20 weeks (which is still well beyond what most people think is acceptable) then what's the problem? Do you think that your interpretation of science is superior to the will of most of the people?

Abso-***********-lutely it is, yes.

In your opinion. But people who highly value the life of the fetus may disagree with you. Why are they idiots?

Because they tend to also be the same sort of people who think evolution is a Satanic lie and that the universe is 6,000 years old. So I tend to distrust them on other matters of science as a general principle.

That seems justified enough to me and probably the majority of Texans. Our system is based on majority rule. So, again, where is the problem exactly?

Subjecting women's rights to majority rule is the problem.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm so happy that xjx is in the minority opinion on this.

 

[xjx388]

To show you that there are no hard-and-fast dividing lines when it comes to either of these things.

Right, I accept that. There is no scientifically accepted point at which a fetus deserves protection.

Not precisely, as (again) there are no hard and fast dividing lines. However, a fetus that has not had its cortex developed like that is pretty far away from any potential line.

There will never be a generally accepted scientific line. There are scientists with religious beliefs. There are scientists who believe the line begins at conception even absent religious views.

We can turn to science to help us see where the answer isn't.

Science can inform our philosophy; but, it can't make the decision.

I'm not the one making an argument about that threshold (and I'm certainly not making an argument about that threshold as a justification for attacking abortion rights).

But you do have a threshold where you think the State has an interest in protecting the unborn, right? 28 weeks?

Abso-***********-lutely it is, yes.

Why?

[/Quote]Because they tend to also be the same sort of people who think evolution is a Satanic lie and that the universe is 6,000 years old. So I tend to distrust them on other matters of science as a general principle.[/quote]Ok, but people are allowed to vote based on whatever belief system they want to. So it's irrelevant why they believe what they believe; it doesn't make you more right than they are.

Subjecting women's rights to majority rule is the problem.

But rights have no basis in reality. Society determines what rights exist on a purely philosophical basis. In the present case, Texas is subjugating the rights of the woman to the need to protect the life of the fetus.

 

[xjx388]

I'm so happy that xjx is in the minority opinion on this.

Perhaps on this forum.

 

[A'isha]

There will never be a generally accepted scientific line. There are scientists with religious beliefs.

And their religious beliefs have nothing to do with science or the scientific line (pretty much by definition), meaning that their views on the matter are entirely nonscientific, rendering their status as scientists when expressing that opinion irrelevant.

There are scientists who believe the line begins at conception even absent religious views.

Such as?

But you do have a threshold where you think the State has an interest in protecting the unborn, right? 28 weeks?

That's not my threshold for where I believe the State actually has any kind of compelling interest in or duty to protecting the unborn, that's just my threshold for where the debate actually becomes a valid one.

Ok, but people are allowed to vote based on whatever belief system they want to. So it's irrelevant why they believe what they believe; it doesn't make you more right than they are.

You're conflating two separate things (them being allowed to vote based on their beliefs, and their beliefs being just as valid and "right" as actual science). People are certainly entitled to vote based on whatever backwards religiously-motivated anti-science ******** they want to believe. It doesn't stop making it backwards religiously-motivated anti-science ********, however.

Society determines what rights exist on a purely philosophical basis.

Which is extremely problematic, and is the reason we've had to fight tooth and nail for things like the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the end of Jim Crow, and same sex marriage. Treating rights as merely privileges that can only be granted to you if the majority agrees with them is nothing but a recipe for continued oppression, and none of the above progress would ever have been made had we just meekly accepted that notion.

In the present case, Texas is subjugating the rights of the woman to the need to protect the life of the fetus.

Yes. And, as I said, that's the problem.

 

[RandFan]

There will never be a generally accepted scientific line. There are scientists with religious beliefs. There are scientists who believe the line begins at conception even absent religious views.

There are scientists who believe in ID absent religious views.

Science can inform our philosophy; but, it can't make the decision.

But the decisions ought not be made contrary to the consensus of science. Society can choose to teach creation in classrooms but it would A.) be to the detriment of society. B.) Unconstitutional.

But rights have no basis in reality. Society determines what rights exist on a purely philosophical basis. In the present case, Texas is subjugating the rights of the woman to the need to protect the life of the fetus.

Without any scientific basis and contrary to Roe v Wade.

 

[Lowpro]

So, are you asserting that a baby born at 38 weeks WILL DIE or not develop normally if not put on life-support? Heck, that's not even considered premature.

Oops I did mean <37. But actually...the survival at <37 weeks (or hell I'm fine with <39 weeks now that I think about it) is directly contingent on the support. A lot of premature births well...die. There'a lot to the cause and mortality of premature births (they don't often happen on whimsy). But, as far as viability goes would you consider them viable with no support of any kind earlier than 37 weeks? Of course not. Earlier, say 24-28 weeks? Yea no, they are NOT viable. At such a premature birth they need weeks of support to continue their development. Do you think that at 24 weeks if we exised 100 fetuses and set them on the ground, 50 will survive?

No. But that's not the point. The point is to figure out at what point the fetus deserves protection. As this thread has demonstrated, that's an answer science can really give us. So it's reasonable for the States to set their own lines based on what any given legislature passes. Of course, ultimately, any law has to pass constitutional muster. We'll see about this one.

And I don't think it's reasonable for any state to supercede the heuristics of the healthcare infrastructure on that one. Again viability by gestational age is a proxy, not the rule. A developing fetus doesn't obey the rotation of the Earth. Their development is correlated to the mother's own physiology, their own physiology etc. Off the top of my head the congenital defects that influence fetal development shoves a huge wrench into "viability" and because of that the gestational age heuristic does not provide for equal justice among the fetus and their mother so the State should not use it. I trust the healthcare network and the mother to decide this, not the State. They don't have the capacity they need to be fair on this. For the same reason they cannot dictate organ donation or recipients, their heuristics do not compare to the heuristics of doctors. The due process provided by the States should be determined and guaranteed by healthcare practitioners. Otherwise the gestational age heuristic provides undue burden because it's, say it with me, the proxy and not the rule. We can't legislate cancer, we can't legislate fetal development.

Well, to be fair to Justice O'Conner, she wasn't even on the Court at the time of Roe v Wade. She did play a role later on in Webster. Also, the Court never talked about 50% viability; in Webster, it intentionally left the viability point as vague.Viability is a function of the size of the fetus and the gestational age. Forcibly removing a fetus in a condition that would survive at that age is not feasible; there is no medical condition to do so. Not to mention the ethics of such a situation.

Actually I guess that was my point (opinion in Webster reflects on Roe) was that it's not "vague" but rather dictated by the services that defines viability; it is NOT an intrinsic value of the fetus.

And yes forcibly removing a fetus in ANY condition other than birth is very feasible. Ever heard of a C-section? They do them early if they need to. And if we're arguing the right for a woman to terminate her pregnancy versus the right of the "viable" fetus to remain so then put your money where your mouth is. Cut the fetus out and let viability reign. That values the autonomy of the mother to dictate her pregnancy. Honestly I see this as a win-win from your side of the argument if you're really going to dryhump viability. Or instead you can, you know, trust the doctors.

Wow. So you think that at 40 weeks, if the baby hasn't delivered yet, she can kill it -it's her choice? I don't think you will find many to agree with that.

I absolutely think at 40 weeks the mother can choose to terminate her pregnancy, survival of the unborn nonwithstanding. I don't view women as a fetal incubator by any legal mandate. There's also not a single doctor who would actually do this. It's dangerous to both the woman and the unborn and unnecessary. The state doesn't even need to be involved in this though. She doesn't have to kill the child, but all things considered going back to your viability bullcrap, it will probably die. Again, thankfully there are doctors who are very good preventing that as much as they can. I honestly would not have a problem if all doctors across the nation developed a common core of heuristics in this rather than the State. If doctors don't want to perform abortions after 24 weeks that is fine, the mother can take a coathanger and make scrambled eggs and the doctors can deal with that. That's quite dangerous, I wouldn't suggest it, but then doctors already figured that out.

We can do this with 2 year olds -hell, adults- too. Why isn't that acceptable but it is with, say a 40 week fetus? *edited out misquote thingy*

And I guess that was my point. Using the fetal pain argument is a Chewbacca defense, a distraction. It does NOT have anything to do with abortion rights. Trying to bring it us as an argument is dishonest emotional appeal in order to garner sympathy. This is not related to abortion rights.

OK, that's your opinion. I accept that.

It's a shame you're more readily capable of accepting opinions like that rather than objective ethical distinctions.

Sorry but women are not de facto fetal incubators mandated without representation by the State. That's a sick and twisted, sadistic abuse of circumstance and biology. The State at most should instead offer surrogate options, not outright restrict options. I would rather allow abortion but, with strong reproductive health infrastructure, make it an outmoded procedure. But we are a LOOOONG way from that, and Texas is making sure to draw it out. Every State that has allowed abortions has seen its utilization followed by an increase in total reproductive health and DECREASE in abortion utilization.

 

[xjx388]

And their religious beliefs have nothing to do with science or the scientific line (pretty much by definition), meaning that their views on the matter are entirely nonscientific, rendering their status as scientists when expressing that opinion irrelevant.

True. But that opinion is entirely valid when they hit the voting booth.

That's not my threshold for where I believe the State actually has any kind of compelling interest in or duty to protecting the unborn, that's just my threshold for where the debate actually becomes a valid one.

Ok, what's your threshold then?

You're conflating two separate things (them being allowed to vote based on their beliefs, and their beliefs being just as valid and "right" as actual science). People are certainly entitled to vote based on whatever backwards religiously-motivated anti-science ******** they want to believe. It doesn't stop making it backwards religiously-motivated anti-science ********, however.

Again, true. But so what? I don't see any requirements anywhere that voting be completely science based. The law should reflect the will of the people -nothing more, nothing less.

Or do you think we should appoint a committee of scientists to make all our laws?

Which is extremely problematic, and is the reason we've had to fight tooth and nail for things like the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the end of Jim Crow, and same sex marriage. Treating rights as merely privileges that can only be granted to you if the majority agrees with them is nothing but a recipe for continued oppression, and none of the above progress would ever have been made had we just meekly accepted that notion.

Yes. And, as I said, that's the problem.

Slavery was made illegal because of a growing movement that recognized that all men were created equal, even black men. Women rights grew out of the growing recognition that women were equal to men. Ditto, Jim Crow laws.

In all cases, it was a change in the zeitgeist that led to societal change. In the case of abortion, American society hasn't changed much at all. Making abortion illegal after the 1st trimester is the majority view and has been for decades. Maybe that will change in the decades to come.

 

[Kestrel]

In all cases, it was a change in the zeitgeist that led to societal change. In the case of abortion, American society hasn't changed much at all. Making abortion illegal after the 1st trimester is the majority view and has been for decades. Maybe that will change in the decades to come.

The more nuanced version is that people are uncomfortable with the idea of late term abortions as birth control. But in reality, that is seldom the case. Women choose to have a late abortion to protect their health or to avoid bringing a horribly defective child into this world.

The so called Christian Right doesn't care. Their moral rules are all black and white, good vs. evil. Anyone that doesn't buy into their entire package is a tool of Satan. So they stand outside clinics and scream at women who had to make a horrible choice. Casting virtual stones at sinners in the name of Jesus.