SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Axxil]

I'd also encourage my fellow LGBTQ Americans to look into buying a gun for protection at this point. We are the next target and they won't just want to get rid of gay marriage.

Why don't you have guns already is the real question.

[D3thray]

That’s the 10 million dollar question and one I really have no clear answer to.

Can pretty well guarantee it’s within the final 2 months of pregnancy. But the exact point would be impossible to pin down exactly as it would vary from fetus to fetus.

I understand how you can see my description as gross and it is, not because it’s wrong that, it’s very much accurate. It just doesn’t paint babies in the pristine light they typically are. From a dry, clinical and scientific perspective, that’s about what they are. A cluster of cells feeding off a host.

So overall, can’t say exactly when it transitions exactly from cells to person down to the exact moment but any time within the first 6 months is rather safe to say they have no emotions or consciousness.

Edit: had to change the 2 to a 6, typing on a phone and guess I miss tapped.

Starting at around 12 weeks and certainly by 15 weeks the fetal brain takes control of the body. This includes the cerebrum and cerebral cortex which control voluntary movements and thinking (among other things). The 15 week laws definitely weren’t picked arbitrarily. Going by the standard you laid out it seems like as good a cutoff point as any. Any later and I’d argue you’re probably killing a being who had some autonomy and not just a cluster of cells.

[Fugus]

Starting at around 12 weeks and certainly by 15 weeks the fetal brain takes control of the body. This includes the cerebrum and cerebral cortex which control voluntary movements and thinking (among other things). The 15 week laws definitely weren’t picked arbitrarily. Going by the standard you laid out it seems like as good a cutoff point as any. Any later and I’d argue you’re probably killing a being who had some autonomy and not just a cluster of cells.

Not too educated on the actual development of them but that sounds about right.

If they could pin down the exact stage we could be more exact. But 4 months sounds like a good starting point. Minus any input for actual professions on the development it would have my vote.

[Axxil]

Not surprising though, the folks who support moves like this largely seem to belong to a party that doesn't just not care about poor folks, but is overtly and explicitly hostile towards them.

To be fair, neither party actually cares about the poor.

- - - Updated - - -

The Republican Party has not won a popular vote since 2004 so... no, "the people" didn't vote for this.

Yes because we are a republic and not a democracy.

You REALLY don't want mob rule, it always leads to horrible things.

[DarkTZeratul]

Starting at around 12 weeks and certainly by 15 weeks the fetal brain takes control of the body. This includes the cerebrum and cerebral cortex which control voluntary movements and thinking (among other things). The 15 week laws definitely weren’t picked arbitrarily. Going by the standard you laid out it seems like as good a cutoff point as any. Any later and I’d argue you’re probably killing a being who had some autonomy and not just a cluster of cells.

At the very least, while most people are in favor of open access to abortions, I'd say very few people are in favor of unrestricted abortions regardless of the developmental stage. The further along you get, the more people are willing to place limits. 12-15 weeks is basically the start of the second trimester. Personally, I'd be inclined to place the limit at the point of fetal viability outside the womb, which is around 24 weeks (approximately the end of the second trimester) with significant medical care (earlier than that is effectively impossible with current medical technology, and possibly with most future medical technology too).

Of course, this sort of discussion is largely academic; the vast majority of abortions happen during the first trimester anyway (65% within 8 weeks, and 91% within 13 weeks), and the further out you go the more likely those abortions are going to be for medically significant reasons.

[Axxil]

WILL YOU BE ABLE TO ASK ABOUT PEOPLES VACCINATION STATUS WITHOUT VIOLATING HIPAA?

(as if this was ever a violation of HIPAA)

Asking was never a violation. Pulling status without consent very much is.

[DarkTZeratul]

Asking was never a violation. Pulling status without consent very much is.

Tell that to people screaming about their "HIPPA rights."

[D3thray]

At the very least, while most people are in favor of open access to abortions, I'd say very few people are in favor of unrestricted abortions regardless of the developmental stage. The further along you get, the more people are willing to place limits. 12-15 weeks is basically the start of the second trimester. Personally, I'd be inclined to place the limit at the point of fetal viability outside the womb, which is around 24 weeks (approximately the end of the second trimester) with significant medical care (earlier than that is effectively impossible with current medical technology, and possibly with most future medical technology too).

Of course, this sort of discussion is largely academic; the vast majority of abortions happen during the first trimester anyway (65% within 8 weeks, and 91% within 13 weeks), and the further out you go the more likely those abortions are going to be for medically significant reasons.

The reason the law gets involved ironically has to do with some of the same rationale used to defend abortion access, equal protection under the law. Because at some point it’s a baby (human) not a parasite. I personally would err on the side of caution in terms of deciding exactly where to draw that line.

[eschatological]

Within this framework, please explain convictions for manslaughter and or murder of a fetus from say a drunk drive striking a pregnant woman. Since it wasn’t the mother’s intention to abort the fetus, does that mean it gained equal protection under the law?

Laws which separately distinguish a fetus as a distinct criminal charge of manslaughter haven't been held up to constitutional scrutiny. Before extremist states like Texas decided to try out those laws, murder of a pregnant woman could have enhanced penalties, sort of like hate crimes where you get an enhanced penalty if you did the crime BECAUSE of the race of a woman.

And it won't hold up to judicial scrutiny, or rather, it shouldn't. Legal personhood is the basis of applicability for laws. And legal personhood is granted on first breath. You don't get a social security number before birth, you can't claim your 8 month old fetus as a dependent on your taxes. Moreover, those benefits should NOT be extended to some point before birth, because viability is a shifting line, and not a "bright line," which is what you really want for legal definitions, and the "humanity" of a fetus is, at best, a philosophical question, and at worst (legally speaking) a religious question. The former has no real answer, the latter not permitted to be used as justification for a law.

Furthermore - conservatives would love to extend this straight to conception. Hypothetical: A 2 week pregnant woman is murdered. Neither she nor her murderer knows she was pregnant - but because it's a murder, that fact comes out at autopsy. I'd argue no reasonable person can, with a straight face, say that that murderer should be charged with two murders. And since conception and birth are the only real bright line tests for human personhood that we can nail down, and conception is a patently absurd place to confer legal personhood - we're stuck with live birth. I'm sure most of us can say fairly that the opposite situation (2 weeks FROM birth, IE 8 1/2 months pregnant) feels a bit squeamish for saying no legal person exists at that point - but the law is sometimes like that. I don't want people to do drugs and become addicted - most people can clearly say drug abuse is a negative thing - but I do think, legally, using drugs should not be a crime.

[NED funded]

I'd also encourage my fellow LGBTQ Americans to look into buying a gun for protection at this point. We are the next target and they won't just want to get rid of gay marriage.

Is this the part where you tell ppl to larp jan 6 too

If you want a gun go for it but a lot of this stuff is weird

[DarkTZeratul]

The reason the law gets involved ironically has to do with some of the same rationale used to defend abortion access, equal protection under the law. Because at some point it’s a baby (human) not a parasite. I personally would err on the side of caution in terms of deciding exactly where to draw that line.

I'm not sure it does, actually. Laws about bodily autonomy are very clear that nobody can force you to give them the usage of part of your body, even to save a life. You cannot be compelled you to give blood, to donate a kidney, or even to give your organs after you die. That same principle should, in theory, suggest that even if a fetus is a person, it has no legal right to use its mother's body without her permission.

[D3thray]

I'm not sure it does, actually. Laws about bodily autonomy are very clear that nobody can force you to give them the usage of part of your body, even to save a life. You cannot be compelled you to give blood, to donate a kidney, or even to give your organs after you die. That same principle should, in theory, suggest that even if a fetus is a person, it has no legal right to use its mother's body without her permission.

I dunno, the mere fact of the physical necessity of a mother not only for life but perpetuation of the human species puts this in a singular category not well covered by legal precedent in other areas. It’s a unique issue in law in my opinion.

[DarkTZeratul]

I dunno, the mere fact of the physical necessity of a mother not only for life but perpetuation of the human species puts this in a singular category not well covered by legal precedent in other areas. It’s a unique issue in law in my opinion.

I don't think we're in any danger of failing to perpetuate our species. There are more than enough women who want to get pregnant and have babies without forcing those who don't to do so.

[szechuan]

You REALLY don't want mob rule, it always leads to horrible things.

The Majority voted for Hillary not Trump.

[D3thray]

Laws which separately distinguish a fetus as a distinct criminal charge of manslaughter haven't been held up to constitutional scrutiny. Before extremist states like Texas decided to try out those laws, murder of a pregnant woman could have enhanced penalties, sort of like hate crimes where you get an enhanced penalty if you did the crime BECAUSE of the race of a woman.

And it won't hold up to judicial scrutiny, or rather, it shouldn't. Legal personhood is the basis of applicability for laws. And legal personhood is granted on first breath. You don't get a social security number before birth, you can't claim your 8 month old fetus as a dependent on your taxes. Moreover, those benefits should NOT be extended to some point before birth, because viability is a shifting line, and not a "bright line," which is what you really want for legal definitions, and the "humanity" of a fetus is, at best, a philosophical question, and at worst (legally speaking) a religious question. The former has no real answer, the latter not permitted to be used as justification for a law.

Furthermore - conservatives would love to extend this straight to conception. Hypothetical: A 2 week pregnant woman is murdered. Neither she nor her murderer knows she was pregnant - but because it's a murder, that fact comes out at autopsy. I'd argue no reasonable person can, with a straight face, say that that murderer should be charged with two murders. And since conception and birth are the only real bright line tests for human personhood that we can nail down, and conception is a patently absurd place to confer legal personhood - we're stuck with live birth. I'm sure most of us can say fairly that the opposite situation (2 weeks FROM birth, IE 8 1/2 months pregnant) feels a bit squeamish for saying no legal person exists at that point - but the law is sometimes like that. I don't want people to do drugs and become addicted - most people can clearly say drug abuse is a negative thing - but I do think, legally, using drugs should not be a crime.

I hate to keep banging the drum, but there’s that uncertainty factor again with the legal definition which again is why I really don’t want the law involved, and yet 8 1/2 months along, pretty sure there should be legal protections as you say. There are circumstances where killing is legal (self-defense, capital punishment) I feel like there needs to be a shift in society towards both acknowledging that abortion is at the very least killing of a life and acceptance of if not always approval for the act. Because I totally understand those who say it’s ending a human life as well as those saying the mother should have a say to a greater or lesser extent depending on circumstances.

Btw I also agree drugs should be decriminalized and I’d also go as far as abolishing the DEA. I don’t really fit neatly into the ‘far-right fascist’ bin several posters like to toss me into.

[szechuan]

I dunno, the mere fact of the physical necessity of a mother not only for life but perpetuation of the human species puts this in a singular category not well covered by legal precedent in other areas. It’s a unique issue in law in my opinion.

A False Dichotomy Fallacy.

[Mekh]

I hate to keep banging the drum.

No, you don't. You've given a veritable drum solo of noise. You love it. At least be honest about your misogyny.

[Elegiac]

I dunno, the mere fact of the physical necessity of a mother not only for life but perpetuation of the human species puts this in a singular category not well covered by legal precedent in other areas. It’s a unique issue in law in my opinion.

And your opinion is wrong, because there is absolutely legal precedent.

Any human is theoretically necessary for the "perpetuation of human life", but in no circumstance is it considered acceptable to violate bodily autonomy for the purposes of saving other human life. You cannot force people to donate blood, bone marrow, organs, etc. even if doing so would be instrumental in saving someone's life. You cannot even take such from deceased humans without permission. Creating a special case for abortion is essentially reducing women to second-class humans.

So all the arguments about what constitutes a person and at what point it kicks in are utterly meaningless emotional appeals because what you're effectively advocating for is giving a living woman fewer rights than a corpse.

Yes because we are a republic and not a democracy.

Yeah, and that's a bad thing.

You REALLY don't want mob rule, it always leads to horrible things.

Citation needed that democracy always leads to horrible things when the US' plutocratic republicanism has led to equally if not more horrible things.

[Muzjhath]

And never forget that rich people will always have access if they want it.

[Draco-Onis]

And never forget that rich people will always have access if they want it.

This has always been about screwing the poors, these "moral" republicans mistresses will of course be able to abort their child.