[XogGyux]

And yet as you see several states are willing to consider pregnancy after rape as an injury, despite the prevailing positive cultural view on pregnancy.

Whether or not a state/country considers something legal/or fair does not actually ensure that said something is in fact fair. For instance, there are countries that have sharia law... is this right?

I think I already addressed all the other ideas.

Certainly. Not satisfactory though.

So if the mother told the doctor to repeatedly stab the fetus to death right before cutting the cord (because she doesn't want to be a mother) then it's not butchery anymore?

You can play dumb all you want. If the mother does not want to be mother, she can just give the newborn for adoption.
Stabbing the fetus once it is outside of her does absolutely nothing to safeguard the mother's body autonomy and it is harming the creature for no reason whatsoever. This "stabbing frenzy" is not compatible with what I have presented in the past few weeks.

It seems to me you'd be okay with one if the woman wanted to, regardless of risk, as long as she gives informed consent. Am I correct here? Why would this be ethical?

If the two options are abortion vs no abortion, then yes, she should have the right to stop the pregnancy.
But at this stage in pregnancy, it is not an abortion, it is a delivery. You either deliver a stillborn (aka baby is dying due to health issues and this is what is triggering the consideration for abortion) or has severe malformations that will likely lead to its demise during labor or shortly after. The patient will come to her doctor, and have a discussion regarding the options for treatment, etc and the decision should vary depending on the values of the patient, what is medically feasible and what the doctor's expertise w/ consideration of general medical society guidelines.

Please elaborate. If the woman says she wants an abortion no matter what, do you perform it? It's her bodily autonomy after all. You said she, as a consenting adult, has every right to do as she wishes as long as she's informed. OK. She chose to do that.

Again, an abortion is to terminate the pregnancy, the goal is never and has never been to kill a fetus. You want to terminate the pregnancy? By all means, we will help you deliver the baby.
She has body autonomy to request the fetus to come out, she does not have the say as to also kill the fetus on purpose for the sake of killing it. At 37 weeks, she delivers, and this does not come into conflict with body autonomy at all, she can, in fact, have it out.

Then giving a straight up answer should not be too hard. Would you perform an abortion to a 37-week pregnant woman who wanted one, after learning of the risks? Why or why not?

What you are suggesting is not really a thing. Abortion is a pregnancy termination procedure, not a fetus killing one. That they are related early on in the pregnancy does not mean that later in the pregnancy they must also come together.

Oh, it is definitely possible, it just doesn't happen because I'm sure the majority of doctors would refuse to perform the abortion in that case. Am I correct?

No you are not correct. At 37 weeks you are actually dealing with a term pregnancy (early term), assuming everything else is OK, this is a newborn that would not be expected to need any sort of heroic medical interventions.

But the interests of both conflict with each other both pre- and post- birth. That's the point.

Even of post-birth the interests were in direct conflict, it does not matter because each individual is a different entity with their individual bodily autonomy. Before birth, this is not the case, there is only 1 body capable of sustaining life for both, therefore, the mother is the one that can make the choices.

Why not? You can terminate the pregnancy without killing the fetus, yet you chose to kill it instead.

Who is choosing to kill the fetus? seems to me you are just making shit up now.

Then what you are saying is that 20-weeks old fetuses are not viable in your view. Am I correct?

Viability is an spectrum and depends heavily on resources available and technology. What we consider viable today is a farcry compared to what was possible 50 years ago and in turn, what will be possible in 2070 will put to shame our best NICU today. "My definition of viable" is at best subjective and personal and that is going to vary significantly from people to people depending on their values. The short answer, no 20 weeks is not a viable fetus.

Use the following definition of viability if you want: The probability the fetus will survive the induced birth is greater than or equal the probability of surviving a non-induced birth.

You mean induced labour? That is not a meaningful endpoint. A better endpoint would be survival to hospital discharge (aka when the infant is reasonably healthy enough to survive outside of the hospital, presumably under the care of his or her parents). At ~24w you might have a slightly higher odds of surviving than dying, (AKA slightly over 50/50) that is assuming excellent care. There is a 50% chance of those surviving will have some sort of disability and about ~10-20% that it will be a severe disability (blindness, deafness, severe lung disease, heart problems, cerebral palsy, just to name a few). With those odds and complications, I'd be hesitant to label it "viable".

Hmmmm...

Hmmm... what?

So she will normally be denied the abortion then. Awesome, bodily autonomy is not being granted in this scenario.

You are incorrect. Exercising body autonomy, in this case, would be to have the fetus removed, not to have the fetus removed and executed. Again, abortion is a pregnancy-terminating procedure, not a fetus killing one. 37 weeks is a term, early term but term pregnancy. At 37 weeks it is not even considered a preemie.

You're still unclear. Would you perform an abortion on a 37-week pregnant woman who provides informed and free consent?

What you are describing is not an abortion lol. 37 week is a term pregnancy, early term but term nonetheless. It does not make sense. Is like putting a pizza in the oven, the instructions say 8-10 mins to cook it, and you call for it to "cancel the cooking" at 8mins. At this time it is cooked, it might not be fully toasted but it is already cooked.

Body autonomy should give you the right to terminate the pregnancy, delivery is a termination of the pregnancy, it is compatible with my views and not contradictory in the absolute.

[wat0n]

Whether or not a state/country considers something legal/or fair does not actually ensure that said something is in fact fair. For instance, there are countries that have sharia law... is this right?

Same could be said about any person's morality.

I think though that there's clearly a personal injury if a woman ends up pregnant as a result of rape, and it seems I'm not the only one who believes that. The paper I posted earlier also mentions courts in some jurisdictions that did not establish pregnancy could be a form of tort resulting from rape took the stance that since pregnancy was an inherent result of rape, it wasn't separate from it so it couldn't be a different legal injury. This pushed some states to pass these laws, if anything.

Certainly. Not satisfactory though.

You can play dumb all you want. If the mother does not want to be mother, she can just give the newborn for adoption.
Stabbing the fetus once it is outside of her does absolutely nothing to safeguard the mother's body autonomy and it is harming the creature for no reason whatsoever. This "stabbing frenzy" is not compatible with what I have presented in the past few weeks.

You can say the same thing while this 37-week old fetus is inside the womb.

If the two options are abortion vs no abortion, then yes, she should have the right to stop the pregnancy.
But at this stage in pregnancy, it is not an abortion, it is a delivery. You either deliver a stillborn (aka baby is dying due to health issues and this is what is triggering the consideration for abortion) or has severe malformations that will likely lead to its demise during labor or shortly after. The patient will come to her doctor, and have a discussion regarding the options for treatment, etc and the decision should vary depending on the values of the patient, what is medically feasible and what the doctor's expertise w/ consideration of general medical society guidelines.

Why isn't abortion an option here? Is it materially impossible? Why wouldn't you respect the patient's wishes to be treated how she wishes if she wants to have an abortion and kill the fetus in the process?

Again, an abortion is to terminate the pregnancy, the goal is never and has never been to kill a fetus. You want to terminate the pregnancy? By all means, we will help you deliver the baby.
She has body autonomy to request the fetus to come out, she does not have the say as to also kill the fetus on purpose for the sake of killing it. At 37 weeks, she delivers, and this does not come into conflict with body autonomy at all, she can, in fact, have it out.

Oh so now it would then be okay to deny her the option to choose the treatment she wants?

Why wouldn't we ban abortion at the 37th week (or another similar stage of fetal development) except to save the mother's life or from serious injury again?

What you are suggesting is not really a thing. Abortion is a pregnancy termination procedure, not a fetus killing one. That they are related early on in the pregnancy does not mean that later in the pregnancy they must also come together.

Abortion is both things, just as a normal delivery is both a pregnancy termination procedure and a fetus-preserving one. That's it.

I agree with you insofar abortion is indeed a way to terminate pregnancy. Often, the way to do so like when the fetus isn't viable. And it is legitimate to do so under certain conditions, even if we assume the fetus is a person (and if it isn't, it will almost always be). Abortion may be necessary, it may be acceptable, but it's certainly not good, if only because having one means the woman was in danger and/or the pregnancy wasn't wanted to begin with.

And if there's another way to terminate the pregnancy that doesn't kill the fetus, well, it's generally hard to justify not using it. I guess you can still accept not using it if you think the fetus isn't a person, but let's be honest here, normally it would be the preferred procedure.

No you are not correct. At 37 weeks you are actually dealing with a term pregnancy (early term), assuming everything else is OK, this is a newborn that would not be expected to need any sort of heroic medical interventions.

Semantics. That's a decision made by doctors.

Even of post-birth the interests were in direct conflict, it does not matter because each individual is a different entity with their individual bodily autonomy. Before birth, this is not the case, there is only 1 body capable of sustaining life for both, therefore, the mother is the one that can make the choices.

Yes, all up until the fetus is out and the umbilical cord has been cut. Right? That was your position a while ago.

Who is choosing to kill the fetus? seems to me you are just making shit up now.

In this scenario, the mother and the doctor too.

Viability is an spectrum and depends heavily on resources available and technology. What we consider viable today is a farcry compared to what was possible 50 years ago and in turn, what will be possible in 2070 will put to shame our best NICU today. "My definition of viable" is at best subjective and personal and that is going to vary significantly from people to people depending on their values. The short answer, no 20 weeks is not a viable fetus.

Just because the precise cutoff for viability is dependent on technology it doesn't mean it can't be operationalized. Here's a few operational definitions of "viability" that are still fairly specific, despite being dependent on technological availability:

• Non-zero probability of survival and discharge at 1-year of age
• 99%+ probability of survival outside the womb
• Same probability of survival outside the womb and discharge, with all the available care, as if delivery wasn't artificially induced

These can then be translated into concrete gestational age guidelines every 5 or 10 years just as plenty of other medical guidelines are, sounds like a cool work for a biostats guy. For example, the US government updates dietary guidelines every 5 years.

Why couldn't this be done for viability, even more so since viability is currently a statutory cutoff in several states so there's actually a good reason to have these guidelines for legal purposes?

You mean induced labour? That is not a meaningful endpoint. A better endpoint would be survival to hospital discharge (aka when the infant is reasonably healthy enough to survive outside of the hospital, presumably under the care of his or her parents). At ~24w you might have a slightly higher odds of surviving than dying, (AKA slightly over 50/50) that is assuming excellent care. There is a 50% chance of those surviving will have some sort of disability and about ~10-20% that it will be a severe disability (blindness, deafness, severe lung disease, heart problems, cerebral palsy, just to name a few). With those odds and complications, I'd be hesitant to label it "viable".

Fair. I'm okay with that standard, if you wish.

In fact, I doubt this would go against the Roe v Wade standard. It's clear Roe v Wade is meant to be a ruling that establishes a general principle, not a law with an operationalized concept of "viability". It's up to the medical community to provide that to the public, and to the legislators to consider it.

I'd even say that if you were called as an expert witness to an abortion trial you could testify that an abortion done at 24 weeks is not done after viability in that specific case, and it's possible a judge would take that view into account. A judge may take your position and decide 24 weeks old isn't viability because the fetus is unlikely to live a normal life.

I don't have a set opinion, personally. I don't think your criterion is unreasonable.

You are incorrect. Exercising body autonomy, in this case, would be to have the fetus removed, not to have the fetus removed and executed. Again, abortion is a pregnancy-terminating procedure, not a fetus killing one. 37 weeks is a term, early term but term pregnancy. At 37 weeks it is not even considered a preemie.

What you are describing is not an abortion lol. 37 week is a term pregnancy, early term but term nonetheless. It does not make sense. Is like putting a pizza in the oven, the instructions say 8-10 mins to cook it, and you call for it to "cancel the cooking" at 8mins. At this time it is cooked, it might not be fully toasted but it is already cooked.

Body autonomy should give you the right to terminate the pregnancy, delivery is a termination of the pregnancy, it is compatible with my views and not contradictory in the absolute.

Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying ever since you introduced the 37-week example. Both delivery and abortion fulfill the bodily autonomy, so it's hard to choose abortion in this case.

You were the one who chose to link abortion to bodily autonomy even in this case. It's good to see we agree about this part, at least.

But now tell me, why would you protect this fetus? That is, what are your reasons for preferring inducing labor over doing an abortion assuming both have entail the same level of risk for the woman? I recall you don't consider the fetus a child, so why would you give it this type of protection and basically treat it like a newborn in all but name?

[Pants-of-dog]

The exception for rape strongly implies that carrying the baby to term is a form of punishment for sex.

This is because abortion is allowed when it is not the pregnant person who is to blame for the sex.

[wat0n]

The exception for rape strongly implies that carrying the baby to term is a form of punishment for sex.

This is because abortion is allowed when it is not the pregnant person who is to blame for the sex.

I disagree. I think it implies pregnancy is a constant reminder of how it came to pass. In this case, a constant reminder that the woman was raped.

[Pants-of-dog]

I disagree. I think it implies pregnancy is a constant reminder of how it came to pass. In this case, a constant reminder that the woman was raped.

This is a completely unverifiable speculation.

If it was not about punishment, there would be no rape exception.

The rape exception shows that the issue is about the pregnant person’s choices, not about the life of the fetus.

[wat0n]

To me it sounds you are making an unverifiable speculation about pregnancy from consensual sex being regarded as punishment. If anything the standard view is that pregnancy is normally a bittersweet thing.

Besides, the rape exception doesn't mean no one is being punished for the unwanted pregnancy, and its subsequent termination. It only means the burden for all this is shifted where it belongs.

[Pants-of-dog]

To me it sounds you are making an unverifiable speculation about pregnancy from consensual sex being regarded as punishment. If anything the standard view is that pregnancy is normally a bittersweet thing.

Besides, the rape exception doesn't mean no one is being punished for the unwanted pregnancy, and its subsequent termination. It only means the burden for all this is shifted where it belongs.

No.

Once again:

Rape and incest means that it is not the decision of the pregnant person.

Therefore if these override the whole save a life thing, then the choices of the pregnant are clearly more important than the life of the unborn child.

So, if the choices are the more important thing, that means that society wants the pregnant person to be forced to carry the baby to term if they chose sex.

[wat0n]

Yet that doesn't mean it's a punishment for wanted sex. That is your unverifiable speculation

Instead, it means society holds the rapist solely responsible for the pregnancy and its subsequent termination.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yet that doesn't mean it's a punishment for wanted sex. That is your unverifiable speculation

Instead, it means society holds the rapist solely responsible for the pregnancy and its subsequent termination.

No.

It holds the fetus responsible for the rape. The person who did not do anything.

You know, by killing it.

[wat0n]

If so, the pregnancy wouldn't be an aggravation (in this case, injury) and no extra penalty would be associated to it. Several states consider this in their statute.

[Drlee]

@Pants-of-dog

The exception for rape strongly implies that carrying the baby to term is a form of punishment for sex.

This is because abortion is allowed when it is not the pregnant person who is to blame for the sex.

I don't think that is what it is as much as it is a concession to the art of what is doable. It would not be possible to get abortion bans that do punish the mother this way. Same with incest where there may or may not be "fault".

(Note that incest is not illegal throughout the USA. It is not a crime in New Jersey or Rhode Island if over 16/18 years old and consensual.)

So you have it just backward. The incest and rape exceptions are just examples of what I have been saying all along. This is all about politics. Abortion laws represent the art of the doable.

[Pants-of-dog]

If so, the pregnancy wouldn't be an aggravation (in this case, injury) and no extra penalty would be associated to it. Several states consider this in their statute.

Sorry.

An ad hoc rationalisation by some lawmakers does not change anything.

Besides you are confusing two different things:

1, The punishment enacted in the fetus for the sins of the rapist.
2. The punishment enacted on the rapist for raping.

If number two is made more severe because it resulted in pregnancy, that has no impact whatsoever on number one.

@Drlee

Yes, I understand why this logical contradiction is doable: because of feels. We feel that it is right and just to make the dirty slut pay for not keeping her legs shut by forcing her to have the baby, but we do not feel it is right and just if the legs were forced open.

That clarifies one of the reasons why I am right.

[wat0n]

Sorry.

An ad hoc rationalisation by some lawmakers does not change anything.

Besides you are confusing two different things:

1, The punishment enacted in the fetus for the sins of the rapist.
2. The punishment enacted on the rapist for raping.

If number two is made more severe because it resulted in pregnancy, that has no impact whatsoever on number one.

You could say the rapist is being punished not for the raping but for the pregnancy itself (and its termination) since pregnancy is regarded as an aggravation (so the punishment is harsher). If on-demand abortion is banned but abortion in the case of rape is allowed, then it would stand to reason that the penalty for this particular type of aggravated rape leading to a pregnancy and its termination would go up as well. It's not illogical.

[Drlee]

@Pants-of-dog

Yes, I understand why this logical contradiction is doable: because of feels. We feel that it is right and just to make the dirty slut pay for not keeping her legs shut by forcing her to have the baby, but we do not feel it is right and just if the legs were forced open.

That clarifies one of the reasons why I am right.

Your emotional outburst notwithstanding, I need not repeat why you are wrong. It is obvious to the rest of us that the exception for rape and incest, as illogical as it is to the concept of "pro-life", it is clearly an act of compassion for the mother. Not punishment.

Once you regain your composure and objectivity you will see the error in your ways.

[Pants-of-dog]

You could say the rapist is being punished not for the raping but for the pregnancy itself (and its termination) since pregnancy is regarded as an aggravation (so the punishment is harsher). If on-demand abortion is banned but abortion in the case of rape is allowed, then it would stand to reason that the penalty for this particular type of aggravated rape leading to a pregnancy and its termination would go up as well. It's not illogical.

Yes, you are confusing the two different things, as I said.

Here you are doing it again.

———————

@Drlee

Yes, if the exception is compassion, then the lack of exemption is a lack of compassion.

And that makes sense since the dirty sluts do not deserve compassion, right?

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog let me know when you can make a cogent argument here. Nobody is punishing the woman or even the fetus in that case.

By the way, what's your view on aborting a 37-week old fetus? Should that be legal or the pregnant woman should only be allowed to deliver it? A full pro-choice position would say abortion is just fine in this case.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog let me know when you can make a cogent argument here. Nobody is punishing the woman or even the fetus in that case.

The fetus is being killed.

It is killed because of the actions of the rapist.

Ergo, it is being punished for the sins of someone else.

A full pro-choice position would say abortion is just fine in this case.

Then what do you think my position is?

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog so you are okay with aborting a 37-weeks old fetus even though pregnancy can be terminated without doing so?

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Is this in a developed country, or a developing country like the USA?

[wat0n]

In any country.