Ohio passes 'heartbeat' abortion bill

[Ghostpanther]

The 14th Amendment, as determined by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton.

Which could be looked at like the Supreme Court does the Second. While governments can restrict and regulate their (arms ) possession, they can not out right ban them.

[Chrysia]

Which could be looked at like the Supreme Court does the Second. While governments can restrict and regulate their (arms ) possession, they can not out right ban them.

Which is what they already did, with the determination of fetal viability, that being the point when the fetus has a reasonable chance of maintaining homeostasis without the exclusive aid of the mother. This may or may not be a moving goalpost. Barring a few outliers, fetal viability has been pretty static since Roe was decided. It's possible that without being able to successfully transplant a fetus, into either a surrogate or artificial womb, 24 weeks may be more or less the hard cutoff for fetal viability.

[Ghostpanther]

Which is what they already did, with the determination of fetal viability, that being the point when the fetus has a reasonable chance of maintaining homeostasis without the exclusive aid of the mother. This may or may not be a moving goalpost. Barring a few outliers, fetal viability has been pretty static since Roe was decided. It's possible that without being able to successfully transplant a fetus, into either a surrogate or artificial womb, 24 weeks may be more or less the hard cutoff for fetal viability.

Well, it is going to be 20 weeks in Ohio. Which I think 15 states have such a law set at 20 weeks? So I assume it is impossible for a fetus to survive out of the womb at 19 weeks, 6 days.

[Chrysia]

Well, it is going to be 20 weeks in Ohio. Which I think 15 states have such a law set at 20 weeks? So I assume it is impossible for a fetus to survive out of the womb at 19 weeks, 6 days.

I don't know that any of the 20 weeks bills have been challenged in court, and I know none have made it to SCotUS. There's at least one case of an infant surviving prior to 20 weeks, but the kid has massive health issues. IIRC the brain never fully developed properly and he or she will require lifelong medical care. Can't find a source on it right now.

There's also a lot of misinformation going around about the viability debate, because there's an anecdotal story where a woman claims that her doctors told her they wouldn't even attempt to save her baby if it was born before 24 weeks, but I'm pretty sure that's horseshit.

[Masark]

I don't know that any of the 20 weeks bills have been challenged in court, and I know none have made it to SCotUS. There's at least one case of an infant surviving prior to 20 weeks, but the kid has massive health issues. IIRC the brain never fully developed properly and he or she will require lifelong medical care. Can't find a source on it right now.

No, the record is 21 weeks, 5 days, which occurred in 1987.

You're probably thinking of Amillia Taylor, who was born at 21 weeks, 6 days in 2006. Anti-abortion groups like to use incorrect math (she was conceived via IVF, so counting from the mother's last period is incorrect) to say she was born at 19 weeks, 6 days.

[Raelbo]

@Lemonpartyfan FFS, stop being obtuse and try to at least listen to me and attempt to understand what I am saying. I understand perfectly what you are saying most of which I actually agree with, but honestly, you are simply evading my point and trying to draw me into a different argument without bothering to acknowledge the point I am actually making.

Yes, its a fact that a child isn't a zygote. I'm sorry you don't understand that.

At no point did I ever try to argue that a zygote is a child. Nor would I care to, because I agree that it isn't. So stop trying to put words into my mouth.

I've also not once stated specifically anything about a 40 week old anything. The argument was about zygotes anyway.

You said, and I quote: "A fetus is not a child."
You did not say: "A zygote is not a child"

Had you said the latter I would have agreed with you. I took exception to your comment because a foetus covers the developmental stages from "embryonic state to birth". My point is that a 40 week old foetus is, to all intents and purposes, if you're talking about killing it, a child. From a pure logic standpoint you have to accept this since a premature "child" will be less developed than a full term (or overdue) "foetus".

Nothing about my arguments are fake or disingenuous.

Here is why I said that:

You are using one criterion to define a "child". Namely that it has to be born. You do this in order to counter the emotive argument of "Abortion = killing a child". The disingenuousness of your argument is that you are simply playing with semantics without ever acknowledging that, regardless of the label you use to specify it, whether it be baby, child or foetus, killing a near term baby through abortion is wrong for the same reasons that killing a newborn child would be.

If you want to refuse to acknowledge a near term foetus as a "child" fine. But then don't try to argue that aborting it is ok because it is not a child. That would be utterly disingenuous.

Shouting that a fetus is a human being/child is actually the red herring; its only purpose is to illicit sympathy to make it seem like an abortion is somehow a terrible thing.

I mostly agree with this statement (and if you had been paying attention to what I have saying this should have been obvious). It should be pretty clear by now that my issue is with your use of the term "fetus".

By the same token as you're arguing against "shouting that a fetus is a human/being" shouting that a foetus is not a human being is equally a red herring. The reality is that the term "foetus" actually describes a massive spectrum of human development, from a zygote to something that is to all intents and purposes a human child.

The discussion on whether "abortion is somehow a terrible thing" is actually heavily dependent on where in its development the foetus is. Trying to paint all foetus's with the same brush is equally disingenuous by both the pro choice and pro life camps.

This discussion should not be about whether abortion is ok or not. It should be about when it is ok and when it becomes not ok. When people like you go and make a ludicrous statement like "a fetus is not a child" it simply gives ammunition to your opponents. I am not suggesting that you entertain the equally ludicrous notion of the pro life camp that all foetuses are children. I am suggesting that you recognise the fallacy of painting all foetuses with the same brush. You cannot apply the same set of arguments to a six week old foetus as a 36 week old foetus because to do so would actually prove your opponents correct and validate the "a zygote is a human being" argument.

I've also never advocated for aborting a fetus at 40 weeks. So there isn;t much of a reason to bring it up.

Here, since you can;t be arsed to understand this:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

Like I already said, these are labels and applied with a certain purpose in mind. For example it is important in legal circles to define what a child is so that laws can be properly defined. But terms such as "unborn child" and "baby in the womb" which have been in common use since biblical times would indicate that as humans we accept that the definition of "child" for practical purposes does indeed include foetuses in the final stages of development.

From the legal perspective it makes sense to call an unborn child a foetus. What that means is that one can apply different laws and rights to foetuses as to children. But just because a foetus is not a child in the legal sense does not mean that a foetus should not be entitled to some of the same rights as a child.

The age of the foetus is an important factor to consider. At the one end of the spectrum I agree it should have almost no legal rights, but on the other end of the spectrum, it should have almost all the legal rights afforded a newborn baby.

[Slybak]

Well, it is going to be 20 weeks in Ohio. Which I think 15 states have such a law set at 20 weeks? So I assume it is impossible for a fetus to survive out of the womb at 19 weeks, 6 days.

1) 20 week bans have nothing to do with fetal viability. They're actually designed to undermine a fetal viability standard.

2) The actual numerical limit isn't as important as the legal principles that form the basis of those numerical limits.

The limit of viability is 24 weeks, meaning that at 24 weeks a fetus has a greater than 50% chance of surviving outside the womb (and this includes putting it in a neonatal ICU). This is the "third trimester" standard introduced in PP v Casey in 1992, which established that only at the limit of viability can the state intervene against the termination of a pregnancy to protect the liberty interests of the fetus. Before 24 weeks, the pregnant woman's liberty interests hold sway.

When the architects of the decision (which pretty much means former Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) set this standard, they did so under the assumption that medical science would continually advance to the point that the limit on viability would be further reduced into the second trimester. That hasn't happened. Nearly 25 years later, the limit of viability is still 24 weeks, as it turns out that there's not much doctors can do to keep a <6 month old fetus alive in an incubator. The fetus is still entirely dependent on the placenta to process nutrients and remove cellular waste; until around week 22 it hasn't even started to produce its own red blood cells.

What the 20 week limit does is replace the fetal viability standard of Casey with a new maternal health standard. At 20 weeks, fetal blood tests and sonograms will have ruled out any chromosomal or anatomical deformities that are the typical causes of miscarriages and maternal mortality. A pregnant woman who gets an abortion after 20 weeks does so because they went to the OB/GYN one day and got some truly terrible, soul crushing news; either the fetus is likely going to die in utero (and will put her life at risk from things like infection and septic shock), or has a high chance of causing severe internal damage if the pregnancy continues.

Why does this matter? Because replacing the fetal viability standard of Casey with this new maternal health standard actually puts the "liberty interests" of the fetus ahead of the woman's interests at every stage of pregnancy. It's no longer a matter of "does the fetus have a reasonable chance of surviving independently of the woman carrying it," but "does continuing the pregnancy undermine the ability of the woman to remain alive." Under this rubric, the state has far greater power to intervene against terminating a pregnancy, and its under this standard that various TRAP laws (targeted restrictions of abortion providers) have been put into effect in several states. Under a dishonest guise of "protecting the health of the mother," state governments have enacted draconian regulations to shut down abortion providers.

And that's the point; to make the choice of getting an abortion much more difficult in practical terms, not protecting anyone's actual health. Again, these 20 week limits have been implemented precisely because medical science hasn't reduced the limit of viability below 24 weeks, which was the assumption guiding Casey.

6 week limits, or so-called "fetal heartbeat" restrictions, are even worse. Instead of fetal viability or maternal health, these laws enshrine the "liberty interests" of the fetus as paramount under all circumstances, with the added bonus of setting an arbitrary "personhood" standard so close to the point of insemination that most women will surpass that limit before they even find out they're pregnant. Medically and legally, a pregnancy begins on the first day of a woman's last menstruation, and women who do not intend to get pregnant will likely not begin to suspect they are pregnant until they're subsequent menstruation is one or two weeks late. These laws are specifically designed to ban abortions in all circumstances.

[Deleted]

I only read the first ten pages or so, forgive me if this has already been asked, but what is the difference between a child and a zygote?

[Chrysia]

I only read the first ten pages or so, forgive me if this has already been asked, but what is the difference between a child and a zygote?

A zygote doesn't have any recognizable human features.

The difference between a fetus and a child is that a child has been born. This is both the legal and medical definition.

The difference between a viable and a non-viable fetus for the purpose of legal cut-off points for voluntary abortion services is the ability of the fetus to have a reasonable chance to maintain homeostasis without the exclusive aid of the mother. This is, and has been, about 24 weeks for quite some time. A few babies have survived despite being born sooner, and many die despite being born later, but those born sooner that live are very much statistical outliers.

[Deleted]

What is a recognizable human feature though? To My understanding, the zygote or fetus is still a living being, albeit one in formation.

But thank you for clarifying the legal distinction for me.

[Barnabas]

Well 20 weeks would impact some abortions but as a majority of them are done in the first trimester it's not as disastrous as the six week proposal.

yeah you'd be looking at a 650 usd pill which is still an option with current laws.

[Muzjhath]

What is a recognizable human feature though? To My understanding, the zygote or fetus is still a living being, albeit one in formation.

But thank you for clarifying the legal distinction for me.

Well, a zygote is before it becomes a fetus. So when it in essence is just a clump of replicating cells and you could mistake it for being a cancerous growth. Lacks any features other than "more or less blob". Generally it takes weeks for a zygote/embryo to develop to a stage where we start calling it a fetus. When you start being able to recognize it as more than "a blob". (Even if there isn't a single state of being a fetus but has a ton of names if you dive deep). The specific "zygote" stage is rather short and once it's connected to the placenta I believe it's no longer a zygote at all but... something else I don't know the name of. (Not yet a fetus).

[Deleted]

Yes but it is a human child in development, no? 99,99% of all human zygotes will grow into human beings, given the chance to do so?

[Chrysia]

What is a recognizable human feature though? To My understanding, the zygote or fetus is still a living being, albeit one in formation.

But thank you for clarifying the legal distinction for me.

Being a living being doesn't entitle one to rights. Not to sound insensitive, but cancer is genetically distinct from its host organism, but still recognizably human DNA. That's exactly what makes it so dangerous, because the body begins attacking itself to kill the cancer. The cancer is, under any coherent definition, alive, though it isn't cognizant.

The viability cutoff also coincides with the formation of certain brain structures, so it's also the point where personhood even realistically enters the equation from a medical point of view.

[Deleted]

But wether something is a self aware/person is irrelevant when it comes to protecting other creatures, for example you are not allowed to kill a human child before 2 years of age, even though it's not a self sufficient animal, not self aware and lower intelligence compared to a wide array of other mammals.

I'll say beforehand that I am against abortion in general, however I realize that there is a need for a reasonable limit, 6 weeks is way too early.

[Chrysia]

But wether something is a self aware/person is irrelevant when it comes to protecting other creatures, for example you are not allowed to kill a human child before 2 years of age, even though it's not a self sufficient animal, not self aware and lower intelligence compared to a wide array of other mammals.

I'll say beforehand that I am against abortion in general, however I realize that there is a need for a reasonable limit, 6 weeks is way too early.

Children under 2 years are somewhat self-aware, and they aren't exclusively dependent on a specific individual for their survival. They can maintain homeostasis regardless of who is providing them with nutrients.

[Deleted]

But it is not until several years of a humans early development that they rival the intelligence of many apes, dolphins and such. What I am trying to get at is that human life, at about every stage is far more worth to preserve than any other individual creature. Issue for me is, that a fetus/zygote aborted is a person who had their life terminated against their will.

[Chrysia]

But it is not until several years of a humans early development that they rival the intelligence of many apes, dolphins and such. What I am trying to get at is that human life, at about every stage is far more worth to preserve than any other individual creature. Issue for me is, that a fetus/zygote aborted is a person who had their life terminated against their will.

Intelligence isn't relevant. A fetus during the legal abortion window doesn't have a will. The brain components associated with will don't develop until after the viability cutoff. A fetus is not legally, nor functionally, a person yet. Nothing associated with an individual beyond DNA exists in a fetus during any point you can legally abort.

[Deleted]

No, but it would have had a will, which is to me a very important factor.

[Chrysia]

No, but it would have had a will, which is to me a very important factor.

Estimates put the miscarriage rate of early development zygotes/fetuses at around 50%. It may never develop a will regardless of what the mother does. Also, what it could someday be still doesn't afford it rights.