[RD] Abortion, once again

[Farm Boy]

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

You think it'd be an easyish list then. Dig on it. But it's balk balk balk.

YOU are complaining about ME obfuscating ;P

Nah, I'm complaining that Illinois statutes intentionally obfuscate data collection.

Regarding who I was listening to regarding emerging sapience, El Mac was way more than hip deep in that exact issue, and he seemed to agree with the others in field regarding pain reception and aversion, the development of the complex structures of the brain being in place and functioning slightly after 20 weeks. I've no reason to doubt the "is" his(and others) expertise suggests.

 

[Samson]

Regarding who I was listening to regarding emerging sapience, El Mac was way more than hip deep in that exact issue, and he seemed to agree with the others in field regarding pain reception and aversion, the development of the complex structures of the brain being in place and functioning slightly after 20 weeks. I've no reason to doubt the "is" his(and others) expertise suggests.

My point is that we know much more about those sort of things about animals than we do about embryos, but we still cannot decide which are sapient or deserving of what rights. I do not see answering those questions get us very much closer to an objective threshold of sapience.

An thought experiment to explain my point would be to consider the significance of pain reception and aversion. Suppose we actually detected in single celled organisms a sensory, processing and response capability similar enough to our own to count as "pain reception and aversion". Then suppose we looked and found the same system in a single celled embryo. Would that have any practical effect on the correct age threshold for abortion? I would say no, and that demonstrates the age that this develops is not really relevant.

I am not debating that there is a lot happening around that time, and IF there is such an objective threshold of sapience waiting to be found I would not bet against it being around then. It is also getting closer to the age of viability all the time as treatment for premature babies improves.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, a single celled organism would not be in possession of the same neural structures that process sapience in fully grown humans whose lives we ostensibly protect with law. It's not some abstraction, it's literally the same biological equipment within species.

 

[Samson]

Well, a single celled organism would not be in possession of the same neural structures that process sapience in fully grown humans whose lives we ostensibly protect with law. It's not some abstraction, it's literally the same biological equipment within species.

The question is why is it that that is important? The brain does loads of stuff, from being the master regulator of most of the systems that keep us alive and start very early to abstract thought and language and all the other things that were used as thresholds in the consciousness thread.

I have an intention to at least skim to this bit of that book (that is available free as a pdf, legally I think), and I am sure someone has given reasons definitions for "mindedness" which does not sound a long way from what you are talking about. So I may have an answer, but no promises.

Spoiler Rants abut it :

[EDIT]It starts "IT IS COMMONLY ASSUMED that the abortion issue is binary; one is either for it or against it." and provided no reference. I dislike it already. [EDIT 2]Then he rubbishes that, but still find someone who claims that.

It continues: For the protection of society, we have laws against jaywalking and speeding, but few would think that jaywalking and going five miles over the speed limit are immoral. Jaywalking is an immoral law, and driving five miles an hour over the speed limit in a city or faster than everyone else is really dangerous.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why is it important that something has a developed, functional, living, human brain? Are we abstracting that away?

 

[Samson]

Why is it important that something has a developed, functional, living, human brain? Are we abstracting that away?

At two weeks it has a functional, living, human brain*. It is not doing much of what it is doing in the adult at that point, but it is a crucial structure in developing our body form. At some point it gains some ability we we define as pain and reaction. Why should that point be when it becomes illegal to abort a fetus?

There are kind of two points I am trying to get at. One is the whole messiness of biology, as soon as you think you can objectively draw a line somewhere we find an exception that does not really fit. I am certainly not criticising the study of these things, or denying that they are likely to be input to our "model" than we use to pick a threshold.

The other is a bit higher up. What are we trying to optimise when setting the threshold. We need to know what are we trying to do before we can figure out the best way to achieve it. Different answers you could give have real world consequences when you are trying to build a health system, so you need to be able to answer them.

*As usual, for some values of brain.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes, but at 22 weeks, it has eased gently into, minus tragedy, performing the functions we generally consider sapient. It feels pain, it's recording memories of its mother's voice, it's forming emotional bonds that will last a lifetime. If you're holding out for "fully developed" on the spectrum of these things, 24 year olds aren't fully human yet. (Big chonking satire follows)Why shouldn't I be able to blow away the 9 year old that trespasses on my yard and two weeks ago told my son, "nobody loves him?" I aim pretty well, and the target would be hypothetically pretty large, it wouldn't move very fast and would be unlikely to be wary, all told. I could get close. It'd be quick. Humane, even, by standards. I've done squirrels dirtier, for less. They certainly feel. As have any pigs you've ever eaten, they're clever on the level of dogs. And they aren't perfect in those processing plants.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocks woman from getting emergency abortion​

State's attorney general asked court to intervene after lower court allowed procedure​

The Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocked a pregnant woman from obtaining an emergency abortion on Friday, shortly after the state's attorney general requested the block.
The legal battle is a major test case since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the nationwide constitutional right to abortion last year, enabling states like Texas to pass near complete bans.
The Texas court halted a lower court ruling allowing the emergency abortion, responding to a petition from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton earlier in the day.
"Without regard to the merits, the Court administratively stays the district court's December 7, 2023 order," the late Friday ruling said.
The woman, Kate Cox, 31, of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, sought court authorization for the abortion because her fetus was diagnosed on Nov. 27 with trisomy 18, a genetic abnormality that usually results in miscarriage, stillbirth or death soon after birth.
Cox, who is about 20 weeks' pregnant, said in her lawsuit that she would need to undergo her third cesarean section if she continues the pregnancy. That could jeopardize her ability to have more children, which she said she and her husband want.
"While we still hope that the Court ultimately rejects the state's request and does so quickly, in this case we fear that justice delayed will be justice denied," said Molly Duane, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights.
District Court Judge Maya Guerra Gamble sided with Cox on Thursday, issuing an order that applied only to Cox and does not expand abortion access more broadly.

• Texas attorney general threatens doctors with prosecution after court rules woman can get emergency abortion
• In Texas, where abortion is already a crime, more roadblocks to access could be coming

But Paxton, who had previously warned that any doctors involved in providing the emergency abortion would not be safe from prosecution, asked the state's highest court to intervene.
"Nothing can restore the unborn child's life that will be lost as a result," the filing said.
The state's abortion ban includes only a narrow exception to save the mother's life or prevent substantial impairment of a major bodily function.
Cox said in her lawsuit that although her doctors believed abortion was medically necessary for her, they were unwilling to perform one without a court order in the face of potential penalties, including life in prison and loss of their licences.
"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," Guerra Gamble said on Thursday during a hearing in an Austin courtroom.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/texas-abortion-blocked-kate-cox-1.7054453

 

[Broken_Erika]

Kate Cox: Texas woman in court fight leaves state for abortion​

A woman who sued Texas to get an abortion for her high-risk pregnancy has left the state to have the procedure, her lawyers have said.

Kate Cox, 31, sought an abortion after her foetus was diagnosed with trisomy 18, a potentially fatal condition that doctors said threatened her fertility.

A lower court granted permission for an abortion, but the Texas Supreme Court put that decision on hold on Friday.

Texas has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country.

Abortions in the state are prohibited from the point of conception except in rare cases where the life of the expectant mother is under threat.

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

According to Ms Cox's court filings, doctors refused to perform an abortion on her, saying their "hands were tied" as long as her baby had a heartbeat.

Ms Cox's case was believed to be the first to seek a court-ordered abortion since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade last year, giving individual states power to control abortion access.

The 31-year-old from the Dallas area found out about her diagnosis shortly after thanksgiving. Trisomy 18 is a chromosomal disorder which in the majority of cases results in miscarriage, stillbirth or the death of the baby within the first year of life.

The mother of two was granted an exception by a Texas judge on Thursday. But the state's Attorney General Ken Paxton quickly threatened criminal prosecution against any doctors or healthcare providers who helped her obtain an abortion.

Mr Paxton also asked the state's Supreme Court to intervene. The court obliged, temporarily blocking Ms Cox from obtaining an abortion while it reviewed the case.

"This past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, the pro-choice group representing Ms Cox "Her health is on the line. She's been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn't wait any longer."

"She desperately wanted to be able to get care where she lives and recover at home surrounded by family," Ms Northup added. "While Kate had the ability to leave the state, most people do not, and a situation like this could be a death sentence."

The Center did not disclose where Ms Cox has travelled and said she was not available for comment. It is so far unclear how her decision to leave the state will affect her case.

There is no Texas-wide law prohibiting travel outside of the state for an abortion, but some counties have passed such restrictions in recent months. In October, Lubbock County became the largest county to enact such a measure, making it illegal for anyone to transport a pregnant woman through the county, or pay for her travel, for the purposes of obtaining an abortion.

The Texas Supreme Court is also weighing another abortion case related to the state's health exception.

Again led by the Center for Reproductive Rights, 22 plaintiffs - including doctors and women denied abortions in the state - have sued to clarify the existing state bans, saying the medical exception is dangerously unclear.

Molly Duane, a lawyer for the organisation, told the all-Republican 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.

A lawyer for the attorney general, Beth Klusmann, argued existing standards allowed physicians 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.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67687349

 

[Sommerswerd]

Kate Cox: Texas woman in court fight leaves state for abortion​

A woman who sued Texas to get an abortion for her high-risk pregnancy has left the state to have the procedure, her lawyers have said.

Kate Cox, 31, sought an abortion after her foetus was diagnosed with trisomy 18, a potentially fatal condition that doctors said threatened her fertility.

A lower court granted permission for an abortion, but the Texas Supreme Court put that decision on hold on Friday.

Texas has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country.

Abortions in the state are prohibited from the point of conception except in rare cases where the life of the expectant mother is under threat.

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

According to Ms Cox's court filings, doctors refused to perform an abortion on her, saying their "hands were tied" as long as her baby had a heartbeat.

Ms Cox's case was believed to be the first to seek a court-ordered abortion since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade last year, giving individual states power to control abortion access.

The 31-year-old from the Dallas area found out about her diagnosis shortly after thanksgiving. Trisomy 18 is a chromosomal disorder which in the majority of cases results in miscarriage, stillbirth or the death of the baby within the first year of life.

The mother of two was granted an exception by a Texas judge on Thursday. But the state's Attorney General Ken Paxton quickly threatened criminal prosecution against any doctors or healthcare providers who helped her obtain an abortion.

Mr Paxton also asked the state's Supreme Court to intervene. The court obliged, temporarily blocking Ms Cox from obtaining an abortion while it reviewed the case.

"This past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, the pro-choice group representing Ms Cox "Her health is on the line. She's been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn't wait any longer."

"She desperately wanted to be able to get care where she lives and recover at home surrounded by family," Ms Northup added. "While Kate had the ability to leave the state, most people do not, and a situation like this could be a death sentence."

The Center did not disclose where Ms Cox has travelled and said she was not available for comment. It is so far unclear how her decision to leave the state will affect her case.

There is no Texas-wide law prohibiting travel outside of the state for an abortion, but some counties have passed such restrictions in recent months. In October, Lubbock County became the largest county to enact such a measure, making it illegal for anyone to transport a pregnant woman through the county, or pay for her travel, for the purposes of obtaining an abortion.

The Texas Supreme Court is also weighing another abortion case related to the state's health exception.

Again led by the Center for Reproductive Rights, 22 plaintiffs - including doctors and women denied abortions in the state - have sued to clarify the existing state bans, saying the medical exception is dangerously unclear.

Molly Duane, a lawyer for the organisation, told the all-Republican 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.

A lawyer for the attorney general, Beth Klusmann, argued existing standards allowed physicians 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.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67687349

If she has already gotten the abortion at the time that the Court is deciding on the issue, they may just rule that the controversy is moot, since their decision can not have any impact on whether or not she gets an abortion.

 

[Farm Boy]

Seems like the labor saving move.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No pun intended of course...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Texas Supreme Court Rules Against Woman Who Sought Court-Approved Abortion​

Hours before the ruling, a group representing the woman, whose fetus received a fatal diagnosis, said she was leaving Texas for an abortion.

The Texas Supreme Court on Monday overturned a lower court order allowing an abortion for a pregnant woman whose fetus was diagnosed with a fatal condition, hours after her lawyers said she had decided to leave Texas for the procedure in the face of the state’s abortion bans.

The court ruled that the lower court made a mistake in ruling that the woman, Kate Cox, who is more than 20 weeks pregnant, was entitled to a medical exception.
In its seven-page ruling, the Supreme Court found that Ms. Cox’s doctor, Damla Karsan, “asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires.” Texas’ overlapping bans allow for abortions only when a pregnancy seriously threatens the health or life of the woman.
“These laws reflect the policy choice that the Legislature has made, and the courts must respect that choice,” the court wrote.

The ruling, which applied only to Ms. Cox’s current pregnancy, suggested that the court would not be open to readings of the law that would expand the medical exception in Texas beyond all but the most serious cases. The fact that Ms. Cox decided to leave the state rather than wait for a ruling underscored the difficulty of seeking court permission for an abortion in the midst of a pregnancy.

More here:

Texas Supreme Court Rules Against Woman Who Sought Court-Approved Abortion (Published 2023)

Hours before the ruling, a group representing the woman, whose fetus received a fatal diagnosis, said she was leaving Texas for an abortion.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Arwon]

God what a joke of a state/country

 

[danjuno]

Unlike fetuses, the fact that women are people with rights is beyond question. There need to be consequences for violating those rights.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

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?

Omitting the parenthetical parts doesn't actually clarify anything. It adds to confusion. I've been accused of being pro-abortion in the sense that I run around telling pregnant women and girls to have abortions. The truth is that I'm pro-choice. I firmly believe that other women's medical decisions are none of my business unless they affect me. Abortion is not something that would affect me.

Pro-choice is pro-CHOICE. Choice includes the choice to either terminate the fetus or carry it to term. There are so many instances where a woman or girl becomes pregnant and opts for abortion due to lack of family and financial support, not to mention society looking down on them if they're unmarried. If the supports were there, if there wasn't such a stigma against single mothers, if there was actually effective measures to make sure the male half of the couple took the responsibility he should take, if politicians didn't go out of their way to make life harder for single mothers, there would likely be fewer abortions that happen due to lack of resources.

Choice means choice. If the fetus is kept, society had damn well better make it possible for the mother to provide what that future child will need - food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care, and a safe environment. The mother will also need these things, plus access to childcare that doesn't mean paying so much for it that actually working is pointless because there's nothing left to live on.

If the fetus is not kept, then society needs to shut up and not judge. This choice should be between the woman/girl, her doctor, and her conscience. Nobody else need apply.

There is no Texas-wide law prohibiting travel outside of the state for an abortion, but some counties have passed such restrictions in recent months. In October, Lubbock County became the largest county to enact such a measure, making it illegal for anyone to transport a pregnant woman through the county, or pay for her travel, for the purposes of obtaining an abortion.

The U.S. has gone insane. There are regions of Canada where it's difficult to get an abortion, but at least it isn't illegal to travel for one.

 

[Crezth]

The U.S. has gone insane - foreigners

Those of us from the middle of the country have been warning about this for many decades.

But why listen to anyone from flyover? Trump can’t win. It’s literally impossible.

Another happy screw you to the Democrats for doing nothing to lock this down federally, by the way. And they easily could for all the excuses you all want to make for them but it’s just not a big priority for them. Most democrats live in democrat states. Who cares about Texan women? They’re probably racist anyway. This is literally how our current liberal tendency considers the issue.

 

[Lexicus]

Another happy screw you to the Democrats for doing nothing to lock this down federally, by the way. And they easily could for all the excuses you all want to make for them but it’s just not a big priority for them. Most democrats live in democrat states. Who cares about Texan women? They’re probably racist anyway. This is literally how our current liberal tendency considers the issue.

The House passed the Women's Health Protection Act in 2022 (with red-state conservative Democrat Henry Cuellar voting against it) and then it died in the Senate because Joe Manchin, conservative Democrat from a red state, voted against it there when it was 50-50.

"The Democrats" have no way to compel the Joe Manchins of the world to vote a particular way on anything, so the idea that the Dems could "easily" do this is also kinda false. Maybe they could have done it in the 2008-10 window but there were plenty of conservatives in the Dem majority then and no one really thought Roe v Wade would be overturned either.

 

[Crezth]

They can apply more pressure, it just isn’t worth it to them to do so. Votes are bought, not given. A party is made, forged; it doesn’t just happen because of good intentions. Indeed if the effort fails it’s because our side didn’t work hard enough to win it.

 

[Lexicus]

They can apply more pressure, it just isn’t worth it to them to do so. Votes are bought, not given. A party is made, forged; it doesn’t just happen because of good intentions. Indeed if the effort fails it’s because our side didn’t work hard enough to win it.

This is a good attitude to have in general and it may even be true in a cosmic sense for abortion rights. However it does not really address the issue of this specific vote. West Virginia is about the reddest state in the country; probably the biggest reason Manchin threw in the towel for Senate in 2024 is that his statewide approval ratings tanked absolutely after he voted for the watered-down crap that was the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. He was seen by the West Virginia voters as having capitulated to the radical left Democrats.

In light of this, what pressure could the Democrats possibly apply? Any public measure they would take that would signal displeasure with Manchin would probably just boost his approvals and in-state fundraising.

In countries with parliamentary systems where parties are based on a dues-paying mass membership and there is party discipline, you would be right, but the US parties are more like brands than like coherent political organizations.