Texas bans abortion.

[catsmate]

No, I am saying that it's right to live exceeds the right of the mother to end pregnancy that won't kill her..

And how, precisely, will this be determined?

 

[catsmate]

If you want to make abortion illegal, vote Republican.

If you want to actually reduce the number of abortions performed, vote Democrat.

And also if you'd like to see the USA's horrifically high maternal mortality rates reduced.

 

[catsmate]

unfortunately voting Republican these days means voting for Trump or Trump allies. I can't stand Trump.

I also don't like the extreme left wing Dems.

Like?

 

[Aridas]

while biology is messy, I find it difficult to believe that the embryo is an actual part of the mother and not its own separate lifeform. I mean just when I change from being a part of my Mom and into being me?

Rather, it's more like development within a womb is a case where attempts to clearly delineate between the mother and potential offspring are fundamentally off base. It's not really an either/or thing. At best, it's a gradual change as the potential offspring gradually develops, but even then, it should be remembered that the mother's state and actions affect the potential offspring's long term development, which helps shape who they end up as in the long term. It's not just as simple as the potential offspring's DNA shaping what it becomes on its own. To poke at that a little more, hormonal imbalances and nutrition issues are pretty obvious things that affect development, but even things like the mother's mental state affect the developing brain of the potential offspring while it's developing in the womb.

 

[Aridas]

And also if you'd like to see the USA's horrifically high maternal mortality rates reduced.

And infant mortality rates, too. Most of those actually seriously pushing the "pro-life" agenda politically also work to prevent and gut measures to deal with things after birth, after all.

 

[acbytesla]

I simply cannot fathom the GOP at all anymore. All their rhetoric is about freedom. Especially freedom from the government. Yet they want the government to restrict people's freedoms at the most basic and without any compelling interest for society as a whole.

The government shouldn't be able to regulate their businesses or tell them what they should be able to do with their land but the government should be able to regulate their sexual behavior and reproduction?

And there really isn't a compelling interest. It doesn't make individuals or the nation more productive, more prosperous, healthier or happier. It has the opposite effect.

 

[Aridas]

I simply cannot fathom the GOP at all anymore. All their rhetoric is about freedom. Especially freedom from the government. Yet they want the government to restrict people's freedoms at the most basic and without any compelling interest for society as a whole.

The government shouldn't be able to regulate their businesses or tell them what they should be able to do with their land but the government should be able to regulate their sexual behavior and reproduction?

And there really isn't a compelling interest. It doesn't make individuals or the nation more productive, more prosperous, healthier or happie. It has the opposite effect.

What's not to fathom about what they've become? They've just become too wrapped up the effects of a bunch of cynical and harmful to the country narratives that they propagated in efforts to solidify their grasp on power as they boxed themselves into shrinking demographics.

 

[acbytesla]

What's not to fathom about what they've become? They've just become too wrapped up the effects of a bunch of cynical and harmful to the country narratives that they propagated in efforts to solidify their grasp on power as they boxed themselves into shrinking demographics.

Of course you're right. It's part of their unholy alliance with religious zealotry.

 

[Warp12]

And also if you'd like to see the USA's horrifically high maternal mortality rates reduced.

Let's keep this in perspective with real numbers: in 2018 the overall death rate was 17.4 per 100,000 live births.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...0/dec/maternal-mortality-united-states-primer

I keep seeing people screech about a risk of death to the mother. But, even considering if 800,000 potential abortions were carried to term, you would only be looking at 139 additional deaths. Now, that is not an exact science but even if you double that number it is nothing in comparison to the life extinguished by abortion.

This doesn't really impact my position on abortion, as I don't favor outlawing it. But, there are probably better arguments to be made than "risk of death to the mother".

 

[acbytesla]

Let's keep this in perspective with real numbers: in 2018 the overall death rate was 17.4 per 100,000 live births.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...0/dec/maternal-mortality-united-states-primer

I keep seeing people screech about a risk of death to the mother. But, even considering if 800,000 potential abortions were carried to term, you would only be looking at 139 additional deaths. Now, that is not an exact science but even if you double that number it is nothing in comparison to the life extinguished by abortion.

This doesn't really impact my position on abortion, as I don't favor outlawing it. But, there are probably better arguments to be made than "risk of death to the mother".

Increased deaths are only part of it. There is the lifetime toll that pregnancy takes on the body.

 

[catsmate]

And infant mortality rates, too. Most of those actually seriously pushing the "pro-life" agenda politically also work to prevent and gut measures to deal with things after birth, after all.

True, though the US infant mortality rate is only about double the norm.

 

[catsmate]

Increased deaths are only part of it. There is the lifetime toll that pregnancy takes on the body.

And that many of those abortions were for high-risk conditions, but then Warpie doesn't actually care about women.

 

[smartcooky]

Let's keep this in perspective with real numbers: in 2018 the overall death rate was 17.4 per 100,000 live births.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...0/dec/maternal-mortality-united-states-primer

I keep seeing people screech about a risk of death to the mother. But, even considering if 800,000 potential abortions were carried to term, you would only be looking at 139 additional deaths. Now, that is not an exact science but even if you double that number it is nothing in comparison to the life extinguished by abortion.

This doesn't really impact my position on abortion, as I don't favor outlawing it. But, there are probably better arguments to be made than "risk of death to the mother".

How about we keep this in even better perspective, with facts

https://www.ajmc.com/view/us-ranks-...lity-compared-with-10-other-developed-nations

"Among 11 developed countries, the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate, a relative undersupply of maternity care providers, and no guaranteed access to provider home visits or paid parental leave in the postpartum period, a recent report from The Commonwealth Fund concluded.​

The other 10 counties, in order from best to worst are

New Zealand
Norway
Netherlands
Germany
Sweden
Switzerland
Australia
United Kingdom
Canada
France

The US is more than 10 times worse than the highest ranked country, and more twice as bad that the next to worst. Frankly, the situation on the US is a disgrace given their resources, they ought to have a lower rate than New Zealand. IMO, the poor performance of the US is directly attributable to the fact that it is the only country on that list where universal health care is a political football.

NOTE 1: You need to take your blinkers off and widen both your field of view and your perspective!

NOTE 2: The first thing I expect you to jump on will be "why those countries?". Because those 10 other countries have similar GDP/capita to the US, ranking 9 (US$66K) to 32 (US$41K) - the US ranks 13 (US$59K). There is not a lot of use in comparing the US with poor counties like Kenya, Haiti or Gambia.


.
.

 

[Warp12]

How about we keep this in even better perspective, with facts

Your source cites the same death rate as mine. Yes, it is a fact. But otherwise your post is not relevant to my statement about how it might relate to abortion in the US.

Nobody is disputing the US ranking. The point is, the overall risk of death is still very, very low. It is a weak pro-abortion argument and one that is being blown out of proportion, even in this thread.

 

[Stacyhs]

Sounds like you’re saying cats and dogs aren’t sentient.

Can I assume you didn’t mean to say that?

Yes, you can assume that. Of course cats and dogs are sentient. But my original question to Warbler was this:

Would you agree that a non-sentient 'being" has less rights that a sentient one? In other words, a 'living being' that is not able to perceive or feel things has less rights than one that does.

I would agree a cat or dog has less rights than a human. I agree that living things that aren't sentient will never be sentient have less rights than a sentient being. But a fetus is slow developing into a sentient being.

I think Warbler knew what I meant and danced around it with "living things that aren't sentient will never be sentient have less rights than a sentient being". And then he capped off the evasion dance with a fetus is slowly developing into a sentient being, which has zero to do with my question.

Actually, under Roe v Wade, dogs and cats actually do have more rights than a first trimester zygote, embryo.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm not so sure this DNA/separate/unique entity argument is the slam dunk some here think it is. If it's a unique/separate individual then it has no right to invade the body of another unique/separate individual.

 

[Warp12]

I'm not so sure this DNA/separate/unique entity argument is the slam dunk some here think it is. If it's a unique/separate individual then it has no right to invade the body of another unique/separate individual.

Just when I thought we had reached a plateau with the ridiculous arguments...

 

[ZiprHead]

Just when I thought we had reached a plateau with the ridiculous arguments...

Why do you think it's ridiculous? Because it disputes your argument?

 

[smartcooky]

Your source cites the same death rate as mine. Yes, it is a fact. But otherwise your post is not relevant to my statement about how it might relate to abortion in the US.

Nobody is disputing the US ranking. The point is, the overall risk of death is still very, very low. It is a weak pro-abortion argument and one that is being blown out of proportion, even in this thread.

Oh no you don't. You brought the numbers into it expecting it would support your narrative... I've shown you it doesn't; you don't get to just hand-wave the responses because they work against you.. This issue is highly relevant, in fact it is probably the most relevant thing of all. The fact that the US maternal mortality rate is as high as it is in such a prosperous country, is an indicator of far deeper, more troubling problems.

This whole issue of abortion is about health care and in the US, health care, especially for pregnant women and mothers with newborns, sucks. Its a lemon, and among the worst overall in the developed world.

You can start with paid parental leave... Switzerland has 14 weeks all the way up to Norway with 91 weeks... the US has.... ZERO.

Then there is health providers... the US have 15 per 1000 live births (one provider for every 67 births). Only Canada is worse, 12/1000. Sweden has 78/1000 (one provider for every 12 births)

Then there is the cost. Women often have to skip doctor visits, and/or having subscriptions filled because they could not afford them. The percentages of women falling into this category are higher in the US than in the other countries.

A: Had a medical problem but did not visit the doctor because of cost
B: Skipped a medical test, treatment, or follow-up that was recommended by a doctor because of cost
C: Did not fill a prescription or skipped doses because of cost in the past year

Country | A: No visit | B: Skip visit | C: No scrip
Australia|12|10 |8
Canada| 6| 7| 15
France |7| 9| 2
Germany |2 |5 |3
Netherlands |4| 4| 6
New Zealand |8 |6 |6
Norway |20| 16| 9
Sweden |5 |5 |10
Switzerland |19| 12| 10
United Kingdom |3 |1 |3
United States | 24 | 24 | 22

Then there are women who do not skip the doctor visits, but then have trouble paying for their medical bills, or have to dispute the bills or are denied insurance claims.

A: Had serious problems paying or were unable to pay your medical bills
B: Spent a lot of time on paperwork or disputes related to medical bills
C: Insurance denied payment for medical care or did not pay as much as expected

Country | A: Unable | B: Disputes | C: Denied Insurance
Australia| 7 |6| 12
Canada |7 |5 |16
France | 23 | 26 |23
Germany |5 |6 |8
Netherlands |9 |8| 9
New Zealand |10 |6 |2
Norway |6 4| |2
Sweden |8 3| |2
Switzerland| 13| 15| 16
United Kingdom| 1| <1| 1
United States| 23 | 19 | 32

The US ought to have a much better level of health care (and so should France actually) for women.

These issues are all directly relevant to the abortion issue. They are ALL about healthcare for women.

 

[Stacyhs]

You said "Would you agree that a non-sentient 'being' has less rights that a sentient one?" You did not specify if the non-sentient being was or was not developing into a sentient being, and I believe there is a difference between the two.

I did not specify that because it has nothing to do with my question. I said non-sentient and I meant non-sentient. Something either is sentient or it is not and it matters not if it will or will not eventually develop into one for the purpose of my question. You are trying to endow the non-sentient being with "personhood".

maybe not as many rights, but I think it has more than a non-sentient being that will never become sentient. For example I think an embryo may have more rights than an amoeba. Also while you may believe the sentience only comes at birth, I think it possible that sentience comes before birth.

An amoeba is not sentient as it does not 'feel' or 'think'. It merely reacts to stimuli.
Even a third trimester fetus does not "think" or "feel" emotions, it has no self-awareness. It doesn't even have the ability to feel pain until the beginning of the third trimester. These are scientific facts, not "I think it's possible" opinion.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

while biology is messy, I find it difficult to believe that the embryo is an actual part of the mother and not its own separate lifeform. I mean just when I change from being a part of my Mom and into being me?

You seem to be stuck on that. It's not a 'separate' lifeform because it cannot survive without the mother's giving it nutrition and oxygen through the placenta. By the very definition of 'separate', it is not 'by itself', 'apart from' or 'independent of' the mother. I think what you mean is that you view it as a "life" distinct from any other life. And it eventually will be. But you were a connected, physical part of your mother until birth. And, technically, you will always be part of your mother as you have about half her DNA. We see children as a way to continue on after we die because we see them as part of us. Why do you think people almost always want to have "their own baby" instead of just any baby? People usually only adopt when they can't have biological children or want to add to the family after having had a biological child or more. It's a natural trait to want our own biological children as it is with almost all mammals. Many will not 'adopt' another animal's offspring for any reason and some will only do so if they are tricked into believing it's their own.