[RD] Abortion, once again

[Farm Boy]

"An order of sharks."

Might as well talk about "social parasites."

 

[EgonSpengler]

personally, the discrepancy present between moral doctrines and laissez-faire is pretty much solved by the fact that conservatives generally like hierarchy, at least by historical structure. yesyes there's plenty of libertarians that like freedom and whatever, that's not the kind of hierarchy i talk about. you note the apex predator; the idea that some people are better than others and should be allowed to naturally rise in power and to have influence over people that are inherently less competent, and therefore less valuable. og conservatives (like way back) recognized that the monarchy was going away, so they looked to the patrician class as a method to preserve an order of sharks. economic opportunity and disparity allows for sharks to rise to the top. for the zealots, they also appeal to a hierarchy, so there's not really a discrepancy there. it's not really about money. it's about what money can do in society; divide people after their competence. hierarchy is the base structure there, everything else is an asterisk.

Absolutely. We discarded one version of an aristocracy for another. Ours does allow more social mobility than the old social order did, but some of those same European countries that our Founding Fathers wanted to distance themselves from have since achieved a better system for social mobility than we have. Maybe we were special in 1780, but not anymore, and not for a while now.

Stuck on the ladder: Wealth mobility is low and decreases with age | Brookings

Ariel Gelrud Shiro, Christopher Pulliam and Ember Smith expand on their findings in our new report on intergenerational wealth mobility in the United States by examining when opportunities for wealth occur during working years, and when those opportunities decline.

www.brookings.edu

Of course the libertarians disagree.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/upward-mobility-alive-well-america#

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

... not really. it's brought up all the time outside the discussion of abortion.

...the "my body my choice" angle is brought up by people who are consistently libertarian but then quickly dropped by people who aren't. I point to various proposals to tax sugar and cigarettes in the US as being one little example. This is perceived as a "public health issue" in the US regardless of whether it's people consuming products of their own volition.

*tangent*
granted, I never really understood the abortion political dynamic in the US. I think people tell themselves they have to support one position or the other regardless of whether it lines up with the rest of their political views or not. I tend to waffle myself.
Had conservatives been consistent, they could just as easily support abortion because it tends to eliminate those who aren't in their socioeconomic group.
Had liberals been consistent, they could just as easily oppose abortion because of that very reason.
Or either could support it because from a pure eugenics angle.
Or oppose it for that reason.
Alas the classism angle isn't really discussed because this "women autonomy vs. biblical/religious sentiment" duopoly takes precedent. For some reason. *shrug*

 

[choiceone]

...the "my body my choice" angle is brought up by people who are consistently libertarian but then quickly dropped by people who aren't. I point to various proposals to tax sugar and cigarettes in the US as being one little example. This is perceived as a "public health issue" in the US regardless of whether it's people consuming products of their own volition.

*tangent*
granted, I never really understood the abortion political dynamic in the US. I think people tell themselves they have to support one position or the other regardless of whether it lines up with the rest of their political views or not. I tend to waffle myself.
Had conservatives been consistent, they could just as easily support abortion because it tends to eliminate those who aren't in their socioeconomic group.
Had liberals been consistent, they could just as easily oppose abortion because of that very reason.
Or either could support it because from a pure eugenics angle.
Or oppose it for that reason.
Alas the classism angle isn't really discussed because this "women autonomy vs. biblical/religious sentiment" duopoly takes precedent. For some reason. *shrug*

As an American into this issue since the 1960s, I think this political dynamic breaks down to the following.

1. To most pro-choice people, if a woman has a right to say "no" to sex, she would seem to have the right to say the same to pregnancy as a greater intimacy (no to kiss, deeper kiss, intimate touching, more intimate touching, sexual intercourse, pregnancy, childbirth as a series). Forced pregnancy is, ultimately, a form of rape.

To most "anti-abortion" people, if the zygote/embryo/fetus inside a woman's body is alive from the start, it seems irrelevant that it can't remain alive without implanting in the woman's body until fetal viability. For them, then, abortion is killing, and elective abortion is murder, while medically indicated abortion is self-defense.

Anti-abortion people pair an accusation of "murder" with a claim that abortion is elected for "convenience." If the life or health of the woman is brought up as an issue, they'll usually make an exception, but they do not accept economic reasons. They may make exceptions for rape, claiming that the woman who consented to sex took a risk and must accept the natural consequence. The driver who took a risk of breaking a leg can get it treated at a hospital because "killing" isn't involved.

Pro-choice people emphasize a legal stand that an embryo/fetus is not a person. They rarely counter "murder" with an accusation of "rape," but that is the extreme underlying the issue here. As rapists attempt to control women's sex organs, so do state or national anti-abortion laws.

This sexual sub-text is one reason the issue is so inflammatory in the US.

However, other reasons are:

2. Anti-choice people claim an embryo is a person, so a woman has to defer to its interests, as adults do to babies. Pro-choice people demand separation from the woman's body and demonstration of conscious mind for personhood. This harks back to 19th century/early 20th century concepts of wives' personhood merged into their husbands'.

3. Again, pro-choice people foresee dangers of the law forcing women to continue pregnancies because this harks back to slavery and involuntary servitude. In pregnancy, a woman donates her whole body and its organs to function in place of the ones that the embryo hasn't developed yet. If the government forces her to do this, her body is doing forced labor as in slavery/involuntary servitude.

4. At the same time, if the law forces this organ donation on women, it threatens to graduate to forcing other organ donations on anyone in the future, and this of course calls into question the right of all persons to their own bodies.
From there, arguments are likely to go to the concept of military draft and how pregnancy is like or unlike compelled military service.

Note: rape of women and girls, married women's personhood subject to coverture, slavery and involuntary servitude, and the issue of the military draft are all key problems in American history without even getting to the injustices of capitalist economics.

 

[The_J]

Satanic Temple opens online abortion clinic named after Samuel Alito’s mother

The “non-theistic religious organisation” has tried to use US religious laws to subvert abortion bans

www.independent.co.uk

Satanic Temple opens online abortion clinic named after Samuel Alito’s mother​

[...]
The Temple has named the initiative “The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic,” in reference to the conservative Justice who wrote the majority opinion that overturned the abortion rights case that had been the law of the land since 1973.

[...]
Based in Salem, Massachusetts, the Temple deploys irony-laced legal action and publicity stunts to highlight the intrusion of religion into public life, using religious laws in the United States to fight against restrictions on access to abortion.

Last year, it sued Indiana and Idaho in federal court, arguing that the state’s abortion bans infringe on the rights of members.

The lawsuit contends that a pregnant woman is entitled to terminate her pregnancy in accordance with the temple’s Tenet III — “One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone” — and its “Satanic Abortion Ritual,” which includes “a personal affirmation that is ceremoniously intertwined with the abortion,” it explains on its website.
[...]

This is glorious.

 

[tjs282]

The kind of people who are inclined to take Onion articles at face-value, however, will see this as confirmation of all their worst fears about where the USA is headed.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Texas woman with risky pregnancy granted abortion despite state ban​

A Texas judge has granted permission for an abortion to a woman whose foetus has a fatal abnormality, despite the state's ban on the procedure.

The ruling - which Texas may challenge - is thought to be one of the first attempts to seek a court-granted abortion.

Texas law prohibits pregnancy terminations except to save the life of the expectant mother.

Abortion advocates argue the exception is too vague and puts women at risk.

That is the argument of Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two from the Dallas area, who is currently 20 weeks pregnant.

Her foetus has been diagnosed with trisomy 18, a chromosomal disorder. In the majority of cases the condition results in miscarriage, stillbirth or the death of the baby within the first year of life. Notable trisomy 18 survivors include former US Senator Rick Santorum's 15-year-old daughter.

According to her lawsuit, Ms Cox's physicians told her their "hands are tied" as long as the baby had a heartbeat, because of the state abortion ban.

"It is not a matter of if I will have to say goodbye to my baby, but when," Ms Cox said in a statement. "I'm trying to do what is best for my baby and myself, but the state of Texas is making us both suffer."

Doctors have told her continuing with the pregnancy poses a risk to her health and, potentially, her ability to carry another child, says Ms Cox. She has already had to visit the emergency room four times because of pain and discharge, her lawyers said.

"Kate Cox needs an abortion, and she needs it now," her petition reads.

On Thursday, Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted that request, handing down a temporary restraining order allowing Ms Cox to terminate her pregnancy, and protecting her doctor from civil and criminal penalties if she performs the procedure.

"The idea that Ms Cox wants desperately to be a parent, and this law might actually cause her to lose that ability, is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice," Judge Gamble, a Democrat, said.

Lawyers for the state may ask a higher court to block the order.

After the court order was issued, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent a letter to three hospitals where Ms Cox's doctor has admitting privileges. In it, he threatened to prosecute anyone who is involved in providing an emergency abortion to Ms Cox, saying that he believes she failed to prove she qualifies for one.

Mr Paxton said that Judge Gamble's order "will not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas' abortion laws".

At the hearing, Jonathan Stone, with the Texas attorney general's office, argued that Ms Cox "does not meet all of the elements" to qualify for a medical exception.

Marc Hearron, a lawyer at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented Ms Fox, accused Mr Paxton of "fearmongering".

A ruling in Ms Cox's case could compel the state to define more clearly when abortions are allowed under the existing law.

Asked about the case later on Thursday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the Biden administration was "glad" Ms Cox could obtain an abortion and that "no woman should have to go to a court to get the healthcare that she needs".

"We should not detract from the fact that stories like hers are becoming all too common in states where Republican elected officials are enforcing dangerous extreme bills," Ms Jean-Pierre said.

Ms Cox's emergency appeal comes as the Texas Supreme Court weighs another effort to clarify the state's abortion ban. That one is led by the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Molly Duane, a lawyer for the organisation, told the conservative court late last month that the near-total ban had left physicians "terrified" to use their medical judgment over fear of harsh penalties.

Doctors who perform abortions in Texas could risk life in prison, loss of their medical licence and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

While there are medical exceptions to the Texas ban, "no-one knows what it means and the state won't tell us", Ms Duane said.

A lawyer for the attorney general, Beth Klusmann, said existing standards allowed doctors to use "reasonable" medical judgment.

That case - Zurawski v State of Texas - could be decided by the state's highest civil court in the coming weeks.

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in June 2022 - effectively rescinding a nationwide right to an abortion - decisions about the procedure have been left to individual states.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67653936

 

[Farm Boy]

From wiki on Trisomy 18:

About 95% of pregnancies that are affected do not result in a live birth.[13] Major causes of death include apnea and heart abnormalities. It is impossible to predict an exact prognosis during pregnancy or the neonatal period.[13] Half of the live infants do not survive beyond the first week of life.[17] The median lifespan is five to 15 days.[18][19] About 8–12% of infants survive longer than 1 year.[20][21][better source needed] One percent of children live to age 10.[13] However, these estimates may be pessimistic; a retrospective Canadian study of 254 children with trisomy 18 demonstrated ten-year survival of 9.8%, and another found that 68.6% of children with surgical intervention survived infancy.[21]

At ~1/5000 live births this one is going to come up again. Can't say I'm optimistic about our national standard of care, considering the survival prospects of humans with Downs in similar situations.

 

[Samson]

From wiki on Trisomy 18:

At ~1/5000 live births this one is going to come up again. Can't say I'm optimistic about our national standard of care, considering the survival prospects of humans with Downs in similar situations.

This certainly does highlight the problem. When there are probabilistic life and death decisions who decides on the thresholds, and if there sort of odds are enough to introduce doubt the must be a pretty significant percentages of pregnancies that will count. If the child has X% chance of making it to adulthood, and the pregnancy has Y% chance to kill or sterilise the woman what relationship between X and Y make it legal. In this case it seems undoubtable that X is less than Y, and it could result in long stretches of porridge for the participants. Sounds messed up to me.

 

[Farm Boy]

It is what law is.

 

[Arwon]

This certainly does highlight the problem. When there are probabilistic life and death decisions who decides on the thresholds, and if there sort of odds are enough to introduce doubt the must be a pretty significant percentages of pregnancies that will count. If the child has X% chance of making it to adulthood, and the pregnancy has Y% chance to kill or sterilise the woman what relationship between X and Y make it legal. In this case it seems undoubtable that X is less than Y, and it could result in long stretches of porridge for the participants. Sounds messed up to me.

The whole thing is barbaric, this shouldn't even be a question. Hopefully someone can get her to a decent part of Mexico or some place sensible in the US before it's too late.

 

[Samson]

It is what law is.

The whole thing is barbaric, this shouldn't even be a question. Hopefully someone can get her to a decent part of Mexico or some place sensible in the US before it's too late.

It seems to me that this is a very usual sort of question in medicine. Different options have different outcomes, each with there own probabilities, costs and benefits. The core difference is that is is usually a decision made through the medical system where here it is a decision made through the legal system. These are both decision making systems systems with multi millennia histories, and they are different for very good reasons.

In this particular case it is obvious, to me at least, that the wrong decision making system is being used. This should go to show that the legal system is always the wrong decision making system for medical decisions.

 

[Farm Boy]

Law is all over medicine. It's all over soybeans. Hell, it's all over me improving the inside of my own house, or parenting my kid. It's all over preventing treatment for kids, sometimes, seems usually over there on that one rather than here.

I call the distinction bumpkis. Your neighbors and social superiors have thier noses stuffed up your cheeks nonstop. But, I think, we're all keenly interested in who is stuffing thier business in... well. You know.

 

[Samson]

Law is all over medicine. It's all over soybeans. Hell, it's all over me improving the inside of my own house, or parenting my kid. It's all over preventing treatment for kids, sometimes, usually over there.

I call the distinction total bumpkis. Your neighbors and social superiors have thier bosses stuffed in your cheeks nonstop. But, I think, we're all keenly interested in who is stuffing thier business in... well. You know.

I am sure we are talking past each other. I will try and clarify, but please excuse me actually not understanding the US system, I learned most of it from the Simpsons.

There is a difference in the decision making process between the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and for good reason. You do not want judges deciding to go to war, you do not want the president deciding what the law is and you do not want the likes of MTG or AOC deciding who goes to prison.

The difference in medical decision making is a bit like that , but more so. All those have the same sort of base axiom that what is best for the state is good. With medical decision making it is somewhere between what is best for the patient and what the patient wants.

An example where the fundamental difference really matters is about privacy and consent. It is really bad for both the patient and the wider health service id the patient is not completely honest with the doctor. The rules have to be premised on their being no incentive for the patient to lie. You could not make a legal and judicial system with that premise, so you have to have different decision making systems.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ah, I don't think we are talking past each other.

Medical professionals are experts. They are to be deferred to on the issue of "is."

However, on limitations, once "is" has been determined to the best of ability, the doctors are out of scope. The law is about "ought." Now, in writing that law, not listening to doctors is stupid. Like when writing agriculture policy, not listening to agriculturalists is stupid. I get that John Stewarts exist on both issues, profiting from lies about is. And that causes damage when the oughts are determined by popular opinion.

 

[Lexicus]

Ah, I don't think we are talking past each other.

Medical professionals are experts. They are to be deferred to on the issue of "is."

However, on limitations, once "is" has been determined to the best of ability, the doctors are out of scope. The law is about "ought." Now, in writing that law, not listening to doctors is stupid. Like when writing agriculture policy, not listening to agriculturalists is stupid. I get that John Stewarts exist on both issues, profiting from lies about is. And that causes damage when the oughts are determined by popular opinion.

Lies like "late-term abortion"?

 

[amadeus]

I’m going to dispense with the euphemisms of “pro-life” and “pro-choice” and just call them anti-(legal) and pro-(legal) abortion, omitting the parenthetical parts, for the sake of brevity and clarity.

The law is about "ought." Now, in writing that law, not listening to doctors is stupid.

Do you think this would result in a law that you would want passed? I come down on the side that is pro-abortion, and I imagine many doctors would as well. Now that said, when many people view the abortion debate as a matter of personhood, is the word of the doctors’ more valued than a philosopher or a layperson?

 

[Farm Boy]

The law is frequently ****.

Lies like "late-term abortion"?

You know, I hear that "it never happens, or nearly so." Which makes it entirely manageable to start defining conditions and outcomes that warrant exceptions to late term bans after, say, the old RvW deadlines where most of the experts seem to agree sapience is either emerging or has emerged(which is the reason for late term bans in the first place, you know, not killing sapient humans that have committed no sin other than having been created in a position of at least temporary dependency). But that's never the political "ought" that seems to get tossed. At least around here, it's all obfuscation. Which, near as I can tell, serves no other goal other than expedience and simplicity of opinion pursuing the goal of reduced undesirables requiring inclusion in society. Sapience be damned.

 

[Lexicus]

You know, I hear that "it never happens, or nearly so."

Nah, straight out, the scenario of woman deciding to terminate pregnancy at 30-odd weeks for the lulz never happens.

 

[Samson]

You know, I hear that "it never happens, or nearly so." Which makes it entirely manageable

For some values of manageable. I posted earlier about how the strain the mere existence of such laws impacts the medical profession. I wonder what the numbers look like when this increased mortality is taken into account? I did a quick google looking for that, I failed but did find a paper that would seem to argue that late term abortion bans could cause some abortions that may not have happened otherwise:

Conclusion: One-third of late terminations of pregnancy could have been avoided by more efficient screening in the second trimester. However, because fetal prognosis is not always clear when a malformation is diagnosed, postponing the decision until fetal development allows more thorough evaluation and may avoid unnecessary termination of pregnancy in the second trimester. This could be the main beneficial aspect of not setting a limit to the gestational age for performing termination of pregnancy.​

to start defining conditions and outcomes that warrant exceptions to late term bans after, say, the old RvW deadlines where most of the experts seem to agree sapience is either emerging or has emerged(which is the reason for late term bans in the first place, you know, not killing sapient humans that have committed no sin other than having been created in a position of at least temporary dependency).

Are you referring to anything particular? I have looked at this a little in animals, though many years ago. I thought they could not really answer that for animals, let alone embryos.

What some people talk about here is personhood, which I have never understood from their definitions. The abstract of this book seems to say "experts" talk about that and "mindedness", but I have got no further.

But that's never the political "ought" that seems to get tossed. At least around here, it's all obfuscation. Which, near as I can tell, serves no other goal other than expedience and simplicity of opinion pursuing the goal of reduced undesirables requiring inclusion in society.

YOU are complaining about ME obfuscating ;P