[Abortion Thread] A Matter of Choice (NEW POLL!)

[Ineva]

Sticking to drugs and alcohol for now, an autopsy would likely stop any unwarranted breaches of privacy.

Medications are drugs. Its silly to assume that what you're proposing would stop at just hard drugs and alcohol once it reached the point where it's being legislated.

Indeed, drugs would include medications. If a medically unnecessary prescription drug is found in the deceased baby's system, and there was adequate labeling and/or warning from the mother's doctor that the drug would pose a significant threat to the baby, then I believe the mother should be prosecuted. Identifying a label is not nearly the biggest breach of privacy we should be concerning ourselves with, in truth.

[Ors Might]

Medications are drugs. Its silly to assume that what you're proposing would stop at just hard drugs and alcohol once it reached the point where it's being legislated.

Indeed, drugs would include medications. If a medically unnecessary prescription drug is found in the deceased baby's system, and there was adequate labeling and/or warning from the mother's doctor that the drug would pose a significant threat to the baby, then I believe the mother should be prosecuted. Identifying a label is not nearly the biggest breach of privacy we should be concerning ourselves with, in truth.

Define unnecessary in this context.

[Ineva]

Indeed, drugs would include medications. If a medically unnecessary prescription drug is found in the deceased baby's system, and there was adequate labeling and/or warning from the mother's doctor that the drug would pose a significant threat to the baby, then I believe the mother should be prosecuted. Identifying a label is not nearly the biggest breach of privacy we should be concerning ourselves with, in truth.

Define unnecessary in this context.

If there is no safe or viable alternative medication that fulfills a similar purpose as the medically necessary one.

[Ors Might]

Define unnecessary in this context.

If there is no safe or viable alternative medication that fulfills a similar purpose as the medically necessary one.

Would you consider affordability to be a factor?

[Ineva]

If there is no safe or viable alternative medication that fulfills a similar purpose as the medically necessary one.

Would you consider affordability to be a factor?

Unlikely, but not impossible. It just depends on how bad the situation is, I suppose.

[Cessarea]

Not really an issue when you consider how many humans are on this planet.

Murder isn't excusable just because there's over-population.

Can you murder a rock? Even if you know that a wizard will come around and eventually turn that rock into a rational golem, it's still a rock. Were you to smash it, you'd have smashed a rock, not slain a golem.

You seem to simply refuse to engage in discussions about the foetus' rational capabilities. They are non-existent in early months. The cerebral cortex (which is home to our "rational experience", so to speak) is the last part of the brain to mature. What value does the foetus have until then? Again, since souls don't exist, why should we treat foetuses with any special regard? Sure, they *may* become people, but only if we want them to. We have the means to stop that person from being formed, and they won't miss a thing, because they weren't even consciously "here" at all!

Expecting parents can choose to bond with their foetus, or not. The foetus certainly doesn't care - it can't care. For a few months it won't have the necessary brain activity to be able to care. Hell, most adult mammals may "care" more than foetuses care. At least they can feel pain, whereas a first trimester foetus doesn't even have the necessary cerebral development to feel it.

[Ineva]

Murder isn't excusable just because there's over-population.

Can you murder a rock? Even if you know that a wizard will come around and eventually turn that rock into a rational golem, it's still a rock. Were you to smash it, you'd have smashed a rock, not slain a golem.

You seem to simply refuse to engage in discussions about the foetus' rational capabilities. They are non-existent in early months. The cerebral cortex (which is home to our "rational experience", so to speak) is the last part of the brain to mature. What value does the foetus have until then? Again, since souls don't exist, why should we treat foetuses with any special regard? Sure, they *may* become people, but only if we want them to. We have the means to stop that person from being formed, and they won't miss a thing, because they weren't even consciously "here" at all!

Expecting parents can choose to bond with their foetus, or not. The foetus certainly doesn't care - it can't care. For a few months it won't have the necessary brain activity to be able to care. Hell, most adult mammals may "care" more than foetuses care. At least they can feel pain, whereas a first trimester foetus doesn't even have the necessary cerebral development to feel it.

If rocks were constantly being made into fully sentient, living beings by wizards on the regular, then I suppose yes, it would be murder. But comparing a rock--a non-developing, inanimate, lifeless object--to that of a fetus in the real world is a fallacious comparison.

What matters here is the potential for sentience and development, and yes, while it is not the case that every single fetus will grow into a fully sentient human, it is simple biology that many would. We don't murder new-borns or month-olds just because they also haven't gained all of the brain capacity of toddlers, tweens, and adults--at least, I don't hope we do. But the main reason why the death of a young child such as a month-old--or even a fetus in the case of a miscarriage--is because of that potential for it to grow into a fully formed, independent human being.

The death of a fetus is still the death of a human, and if that death is directly caused by another person's actions, then I reckon that's at least equivalent to manslaughter.

[Necroghastia]

Can you murder a rock? Even if you know that a wizard will come around and eventually turn that rock into a rational golem, it's still a rock. Were you to smash it, you'd have smashed a rock, not slain a golem.

You seem to simply refuse to engage in discussions about the foetus' rational capabilities. They are non-existent in early months. The cerebral cortex (which is home to our "rational experience", so to speak) is the last part of the brain to mature. What value does the foetus have until then? Again, since souls don't exist, why should we treat foetuses with any special regard? Sure, they *may* become people, but only if we want them to. We have the means to stop that person from being formed, and they won't miss a thing, because they weren't even consciously "here" at all!

Expecting parents can choose to bond with their foetus, or not. The foetus certainly doesn't care - it can't care. For a few months it won't have the necessary brain activity to be able to care. Hell, most adult mammals may "care" more than foetuses care. At least they can feel pain, whereas a first trimester foetus doesn't even have the necessary cerebral development to feel it.

If rocks were constantly being made into fully sentient, living beings by wizards on the regular, then I suppose yes, it would be murder. But comparing a rock--a non-developing, inanimate, lifeless object--to that of a fetus in the real world is a fallacious comparison.

What matters here is the potential for sentience and development, and yes, while it is not the case that every single fetus will grow into a fully sentient human, it is simple biology that many would. We don't murder new-borns or month-olds just because they also haven't gained all of the brain capacity of toddlers, tweens, and adults--at least, I don't hope we do. But the main reason why the death of a young child such as a month-old--or even a fetus in the case of a miscarriage--is because of that potential for it to grow into a fully formed, independent human being.

The death of a fetus is still the death of a human, and if that death is directly caused by another person's actions, then I reckon that's at least equivalent to manslaughter.

Toddlers haven't gained all the brain capacity of adults, sure, but the actual reason why there is such a crucial difference between them and embryos and fetuses is explained in that post. They have the brain capacity that matters. That allows for subjective experience and desire. You are, yet again, refusing to engage with the point.

[Ineva]

If rocks were constantly being made into fully sentient, living beings by wizards on the regular, then I suppose yes, it would be murder. But comparing a rock--a non-developing, inanimate, lifeless object--to that of a fetus in the real world is a fallacious comparison.

What matters here is the potential for sentience and development, and yes, while it is not the case that every single fetus will grow into a fully sentient human, it is simple biology that many would. We don't murder new-borns or month-olds just because they also haven't gained all of the brain capacity of toddlers, tweens, and adults--at least, I don't hope we do. But the main reason why the death of a young child such as a month-old--or even a fetus in the case of a miscarriage--is because of that potential for it to grow into a fully formed, independent human being.

The death of a fetus is still the death of a human, and if that death is directly caused by another person's actions, then I reckon that's at least equivalent to manslaughter.

Toddlers haven't gained all the brain capacity of adults, sure, but the actual reason why there is such a crucial difference between them and embryos and fetuses is explained in that post. They have the brain capacity that matters. That allows for subjective experience and desire. You are, yet again, refusing to engage with the point.

I'm pretty sure I've actively addressed that point, but to reiterate, the potential to develop the brain capacity to allow subjective experience and desire should also matter.

[Necroghastia]

Toddlers haven't gained all the brain capacity of adults, sure, but the actual reason why there is such a crucial difference between them and embryos and fetuses is explained in that post. They have the brain capacity that matters. That allows for subjective experience and desire. You are, yet again, refusing to engage with the point.

I'm pretty sure I've actively addressed that point, but to reiterate, the potential to develop the brain capacity to allow subjective experience and desire should also matter.

Nah. The stone cold fact of the matter is that it does not currently possess those traits.

You don't act as though people could build houses out of acorns, or like they are eating flowers and stems when they eat sunflower seeds - why is this any different?

[Ineva]

I'm pretty sure I've actively addressed that point, but to reiterate, the potential to develop the brain capacity to allow subjective experience and desire should also matter.

Nah. The stone cold fact of the matter is that it does not currently possess those traits.

You don't act as though people could build houses out of acorns, or like they are eating flowers and stems when they eat sunflower seeds - why is this any different?

Key word currently. They would, if they weren't killed before being able to.

Again, key word would. If the acorn or the sunflower seed were properly planted, then the wood or stems and flowers would emerge. Obviously, consuming a sunflower seed does not accomplish this, as you have stopped it from developing into a plant (mind you, I have nothing against eating sunflower seeds; comparing plant reproduction to human reproduction is quite difficult to do).

[Cessarea]

What matters here is the potential for sentience and development [...]

No it doesn't.

That's all I have to say. And this is the problem with the line of reasoning you've been pursuing in this thread. You have a preset belief: that foetuses are persons and must be protected as such. All else must conform to this truth. You are attributing value to this potential for sentience when it's simply not needed. There is no material reason to give a foetus in early stages of pregnancy any value. Its future doesn't matter, because it can't even know what time is. It doesn't "experience" anything.

I urge you to ask yourself why you need this potential to be special.

[The Black Forrest]

This would all require a fairly intrusive investigation to take place, would it not? There are instances where miscarriage can be caused, or at least partially caused, by things that the mother likely had no clue would increase the likelihood of miscarriage or had little choice but to take such substances for their health, such as the case of certain medications.

If we treat miscarriages as potential murders and investigate them as such, we'd be heaping misery upon an immense number of innocent people already going through one of the worst periods of their lives. All to catch what would likely be a small number of, in your view, murderers.

Sticking to drugs and alcohol for now, an autopsy would likely stop any unwarranted breaches of privacy.

No it would not. Conservative law making is rather simplistic at best. For drugs, it most likely would be a list of things the fetus should not have. The problem? There are chemicals used in drugs which are used for illegal drugs. For example, certain allergy meds. In the US, many drug stores have taken to locking them up.

Still that would not matter for the religious/conservative types. It’s about denial and punishment it seems.

[The Black Forrest]

Well now MTG is shooting her mouth off again. Shock I know.

It seems the next thing the republicans are after is repealing the FACE act. It was established in 1994 after a couple bombings, molitovs and bricks being thrown at clinics and windows of clinics. It also considered the “peaceful” protestors actions of chaining, human chaining at entrances against women trying to enter.

“We will repeal the FACE Act if we can get our opportunity,” referring to the 1994 law that protects health providers and patients from the intimidation and violence associated with the “pro-life” movement’s activism. The hearing, titled a “Investigating the Black Market of Baby Organ Harvesting”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/3 ... on-clinics

https://www.lee.senate.gov/2023/10/sen- ... facilities.

[Godular]

Well now MTG is shooting her mouth off again. Shock I know.

It seems the next thing the republicans are after is repealing the FACE act. It was established in 1994 after a couple bombings, molitovs and bricks being thrown at clinics and windows of clinics. It also considered the “peaceful” protestors actions of chaining, human chaining at entrances against women trying to enter.

“We will repeal the FACE Act if we can get our opportunity,” referring to the 1994 law that protects health providers and patients from the intimidation and violence associated with the “pro-life” movement’s activism. The hearing, titled a “Investigating the Black Market of Baby Organ Harvesting”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/3 ... on-clinics

https://www.lee.senate.gov/2023/10/sen- ... facilities.

Man, that is one loaded hearing name.

[Adharcaili]

The death of a fetus is still the death of a human, and if that death is directly caused by another person's actions, then I reckon that's at least equivalent to manslaughter.

So...hear me out. If the death of a foetus at the hands of the mother, we can charge the mother with manslaughter. So what if the mother dies due to the foetus? Can we charge the foetus?

[Floofybit]

The death of a fetus is still the death of a human, and if that death is directly caused by another person's actions, then I reckon that's at least equivalent to manslaughter.

So...hear me out. If the death of a foetus at the hands of the mother, we can charge the mother with manslaughter. So what if the mother dies due to the foetus? Can we charge the foetus?

If a mother, by her own choices and negligence, such as alcohol, kills a child, yes. If the foetus dies not by the mother's choice and negligence, but rather by natural causes in the formation of the foetus, no. A foetus cannot be charged because it cannot make its own choices.

[The Black Forrest]

So...hear me out. If the death of a foetus at the hands of the mother, we can charge the mother with manslaughter. So what if the mother dies due to the foetus? Can we charge the foetus?

If a mother, by her own choices and negligence, such as alcohol, kills a child, yes. If the foetus dies not by the mother's choice and negligence, but rather by natural causes in the formation of the foetus, no. A foetus cannot be charged because it cannot make its own choices.

How do you prove the consumption of alcohol killed the fetus?

It has been shown to increase the chances of miscarriage and yet how do you prove it trigged it?

Finally; do you want miscarriages reported to the police?

[Ineva]

If a mother, by her own choices and negligence, such as alcohol, kills a child, yes. If the foetus dies not by the mother's choice and negligence, but rather by natural causes in the formation of the foetus, no. A foetus cannot be charged because it cannot make its own choices.

How do you prove the consumption of alcohol killed the fetus?

It has been shown to increase the chances of miscarriage and yet how do you prove it trigged it?

Finally; do you want miscarriages reported to the police?

Is it really that much of a jump to say that alcohol is not healthy for developing fetuses?

[Adharcaili]

How do you prove the consumption of alcohol killed the fetus?

It has been shown to increase the chances of miscarriage and yet how do you prove it trigged it?

Finally; do you want miscarriages reported to the police?

Is it really that much of a jump to say that alcohol is not healthy for developing fetuses?

Debatable.

[Ineva]

Is it really that much of a jump to say that alcohol is not healthy for developing fetuses?

Debatable.

That is honestly disheartening to hear.

[The Black Forrest]

How do you prove the consumption of alcohol killed the fetus?

It has been shown to increase the chances of miscarriage and yet how do you prove it trigged it?

Finally; do you want miscarriages reported to the police?

Is it really that much of a jump to say that alcohol is not healthy for developing fetuses?

That wasn’t the discussion. Unless, you are suggesting drinking any alcohol will kill the fetus.

[The Black Forrest]

Debatable.

That is honestly disheartening to hear.

What’s disheartening? Eating buttered popcorn is not healthy for the fetus. Shall we arrest women for doing that and anybody for aiding(if somebody made it or bought it for her).

Eating or drinking something unhealthy is not life threatening.

[Ifreann]

How do you prove the consumption of alcohol killed the fetus?

It has been shown to increase the chances of miscarriage and yet how do you prove it trigged it?

Finally; do you want miscarriages reported to the police?

Is it really that much of a jump to say that alcohol is not healthy for developing fetuses?

Well the thing is, we don't really know when alcohol consumption does start to harm a developing foetus. We do know it's not an absolute thing, plenty of women have had small amounts of alcohol while pregnant and their baby was fine, but there's no ethical way to figure out exactly how many drinks during a pregnancy is too many.

[Tarsonis]

Is it really that much of a jump to say that alcohol is not healthy for developing fetuses?

Well the thing is, we don't really know when alcohol consumption does start to harm a developing foetus. We do know it's not an absolute thing, plenty of women have had small amounts of alcohol while pregnant and their baby was fine, but there's no ethical way to figure out exactly how many drinks during a pregnancy is too many.

My mom was actually prescribed shots of alcohol to make me sleep and not keep her up at night riverdancing