Roe v Wade is rumored to be overturned soon.

[Cuthbert]

---

Members don't see this ad.

There are plenty of children who have genetic abnormalities who are born terminally ill. In fact, many are and medicine intervenes to keep them alive.

BTW, what is the definition of “healthy” you are using, because I guarantee that’s a matter of perspective?

Sure, but that's exactly my point, it's a matter of perspective. In my opinion, an argument for abortion should therefore not hinge on it. It's a weak argument.

Anyhow, for the sake of the discussion, let's say that an otherwise healthy child (in this situation) would include any child who is not terminally ill (and has a chromosomal abnormality) in the PICU. So then the questions is this: have you pushed Propofol and Fentanyl on a child with a chromosomal abnormality who isn't terminally ill? Or would you consider it?

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Sure, but that's exactly my point, it's a matter of perspective. In my opinion, an argument for abortion should therefore not hinge on it. It's a weak argument.

Anyhow, for the sake of the discussion, let's say that an otherwise healthy child (in this situation) would include any child who is not terminally ill (and has a chromosomal abnormality) in the PICU. So then the questions is this: have you pushed Propofol and Fentanyl on a child with a chromosomal abnormality who isn't terminally ill? Or would you consider it?

Well, there aren’t healthy children in the ICU. That doesn’t make any sense. It’s not called intensive care because kids are well.

And, I don’t need to talk about a “healthy” child as that isn’t relevant to any point I’ve made. First you responded to my point about genetic abnormalities with “innocent” and then it was “healthy”, neither of which you gave a definition of nor have any objective quantifies. But if you want to change the subject, you are welcome to it. I’m sticking with people forcing others to take care of a financial and emotionally debilitated child based on their feelings of a situation that they know nothing about.

 

[Cuthbert]

Well, there aren’t healthy children in the ICU. That doesn’t make any sense. It’s not called intensive care because kids are well.

And, I don’t need to talk about a “healthy” child as that isn’t relevant to any point I’ve made. If you want to change the subject, you are welcome to it but I’m sticking with people forcing others to take care of a financial and emotionally debilitated child based on their feelings of a situation that they know nothing about.

I haven't changed the subject. You brought up chromosomal abnormalities:

And the lucky ones get even more (or even less) than a whole set and have a lifetime of impairments and health conditions related to it.

When asked about you being ok with killing a human life based on its genetics, you are the one who brought up pushing Fentanyl and Propofol - seemingly because a parent thought their child was suffering:

I have personally pushed Propofol and Fentanyl when the parents told me that they felt their child was suffering and had a poor quality of life.

And yes, there are no healthy children in the ICU, but I'm guessing you don't euthanize every sick child that comes in. Only the ones with chromosomal abnormalities maybe? Which chromosomal abnormalities justify pushing those meds to end a life? Some parents might think that their Trisomy 21 child might be suffering compared to other children. If they come to the PICU during a leukemia treatment, are you going to ask if the family would just like to push Propofol and Fentanyl? What specific genetic code deserves life in your opinion?

I think it is callus and unethical to place more value on one type of human than another based on chromosomes. You are practicing eugenics at that point.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

I haven't changed the subject. You brought up chromosomal abnormalities:



When asked about you being ok with killing a human life based on its genetics, you are the one who brought up pushing Fentanyl and Propofol - seemingly because a parent thought their child was suffering:



And yes, there are no healthy children in the ICU, but I'm guessing you don't euthanize every sick child that comes in. Only the ones with chromosomal abnormalities maybe? Which chromosomal abnormalities justify pushing those meds to end a life? Some parents might think that their Trisomy 21 child might be suffering compared to other children. If they come to the PICU during a leukemia treatment, are you going to ask if the family would just like to push Propofol and Fentanyl? What specific genetic code deserves life in your opinion?

I think it is callus and unethical to place more value on one type of human than another based on chromosomes. You are practicing eugenics at that point.

Well, you brought up genetics initially, but that’s okay.

Actually the bolded happens. I’ve seen it. Whether that’s right or wrong is not for me to judge.

And see this is where you clearly aren’t understanding. None of this is MY opinion, I don’t have the lived experience of what is an acceptable quality of life for another family. But is it is MY opinion that no one does except for that family who lives it and no has the right to force people to do things that harms them against their will.

 

[Proudfather94]

I still haven't seen a response to individuals getting pregnant as a consequence for their choice of having sex. If you don't have sex you don't get pregnant. An argument can be made that people are simply looking for a way out to not deal with the consequences of their actions

So people that have sex should be punished by being forced to have a child they don't want? Sex has a huge innate biological drive. If you're a doctor do you have this same condescending attitude towards all of your patients? Do you go around saying "well you wouldn't have had a heart attack if you didn't eat like crap." "Welp you have end stage lung cancer, kind of what you get for smoking!"

 

[Proudfather94]

So far we have doctors letting ectopic pregnant patients bleed out as they are consulting lawyers, people's arthritis medications are being refused to be filled by pharmacists because they can abort fetuses, a 10 year old had to travel from Ohio to Indiana to get an abortion, and much more has happened. Pro lifers on here, is any of this acceptable to you? People are suffering already as you continue to say this is for the greater good.

 

[Cuthbert]

So far we have doctors letting ectopic pregnant patients bleed out as they are consulting lawyers, people's arthritis medications are being refused to be filled by pharmacists because they can abort fetuses, a 10 year old had to travel from Ohio to Indiana to get an abortion, and much more has happened. Pro lifers on here, is any of this acceptable to you? People are suffering already as you continue to say this is for the greater good.

Dealing with these issues was going to be inevitable with the overruling. I do not deny that those people have and may continue to endure suffering. And no, those cases are unacceptable to me.

Also unacceptable are the 60 million abortions performed since Roe v Wade. Depending on the literature sited, around 62,000 abortions per year take place after 13 weeks gestation. Here is a description of that procedure: (description only, no video because that would be horrific). I would recommend you listen to all of it as it can help to give a picture as to why some people are prolife.

 

[Captain_Falcon]

So people that have sex should be punished by being forced to have a child they don't want? Sex has a huge innate biological drive. If you're a doctor do you have this same condescending attitude towards all of your patients? Do you go around saying "well you wouldn't have had a heart attack if you didn't eat like crap." "Welp you have end stage lung cancer, kind of what you get for smoking!"

Equating a fetus to an MI or Cancer is essentially saying a fetus is a disease that needs to be treated. I don't think it'd a fair comparison.

Do people that have sex know that pregnancy is a possible outcome? Yes right? Biological urges or not, it is something that should not be taken lightly is all im saying. Lightly in the sense that "oh if I get pregnant I can just get an abortion"

I think this is a very complicated discussion. I have not said I believe there is never a situation that may warrant an abortion. I just don't think some of the arguments for pro choice hold up well

 

[Proudfather94]

Dealing with these issues was going to be inevitable with the overruling. I do not deny that those people have and may continue to endure suffering. And no, those cases are unacceptable to me.

Also unacceptable are the 60 million abortions performed since Roe v Wade. Depending on the literature sited, around 62,000 abortions per year take place after 13 weeks gestation. Here is a description of that procedure: (description only, no video because that would be horrific). I would recommend you listen to all of it as it can help to give a picture as to why some people are prolife.

So you as a doctor/future doctor thought about how overruling this could kill or severely impact women and decided that it was worth it since the fetus has more of a right to live then the mother.

 

[Proudfather94]

Equating a fetus to an MI or Cancer is essentially saying a fetus is a disease that needs to be treated. I don't think it'd a fair comparison.

Do people that have sex know that pregnancy is a possible outcome? Yes right? Biological urges or not, it is something that should not be taken lightly is all im saying. Lightly in the sense that "oh if I get pregnant I can just get an abortion"

I think this is a very complicated discussion. I have not said I believe there is never a situation that may warrant an abortion. I just don't think some of the arguments for pro choice hold up well

It is a fair comparison in context to telling people their health outcome is that they get if they do something that can cause a poor health outcome. I think pro choice arguments hold up greatly. The pregnant woman is the one who has to endure the risk and struggle of carrying the fetus to term so they get the say in if they want to do that.

 

[Cuthbert]

So you as a doctor/future doctor thought about how overruling this could kill or severely impact women and decided that it was worth it since the fetus has more of a right to live then the mother.

No, I did not decide that, nor did I make that statement.

 

[Captain_Falcon]

It is a fair comparison in context to telling people their health outcome is that they get if they do something that can cause a poor health outcome. I think pro choice arguments hold up greatly. The pregnant woman is the one who has to endure the risk and struggle of carrying the fetus to term so they get the say in if they want to do that.

You're now defining pregnancy as a poor health outcome. That's broad strokes at best and unfair at least.

A fully informed consent to a procedure involves understanding potential risks, right? The potential risk of having sex is getting pregnant. A woman should not partake in sex unless they know what can happen during pregnancy.


If a woman is pregnant and ends up in the 2nd or 3rd trimester and has serious health complications from the pregnancy and an option is to end the pregnancy to save the mother, I think that's fine. But terminating pregnancies early on just because of potential future risks that likely will not come to fruition and/or because "my body my rights" effectively means sex without having to deal with any consequences or responsibility for one's actions

 

[Proudfather94]

No, I did not decide that, nor did I make that statement.

"Dealing with these issues was going to be inevitable with the overruling. I do not deny that those people have and may continue to endure suffering." But you did, your quote is right here. By claiming that these issues were going to be inevitable means that you predicted the outcome. Your stance on the issue shows you are alright with it. In fact, saying that it may continue and being alright with the ruling is further proof that you, as a doctor/future doctor, are okay with pregnant women suffering and dying as long as the fetus has to be born.

 

[Proudfather94]

You're now defining pregnancy as a poor health outcome. That's broad strokes at best and unfair at least.

A fully informed consent to a procedure involves understanding potential risks, right? The potential risk of having sex is getting pregnant. A woman should not partake in sex unless they know what can happen during pregnancy.


If a woman is pregnant and ends up in the 2nd or 3rd trimester and has serious health complications from the pregnancy and an option is to end the pregnancy to save the mother, I think that's fine. But terminating pregnancies early on just because of potential future risks that likely will not come to fruition and/or because "my body my rights" effectively means sex without having to deal with any consequences or responsibility for one's actions

So if people do something that all of their ancestors did that is biologically hardwired in their brain to do, they deserve to be stuck with a baby they don't want? If you've ever had sex without the intention of being/ getting someone pregnant this is a very hypocritical stance to take.

 

[Captain_Falcon]

So if people do something that all of their ancestors did that is biologically hardwired in their brain to do, they deserve to be stuck with a baby they don't want? If you've ever had sex without the intention of being/ getting someone pregnant this is a very hypocritical stance to take.

It is in our biologies to harm others to some extent, fight for mating or fight for land or fight for personal reasons or religion. Inflicting harm on someone is natural. So when people perform violent acts should they not be held accountable?

I don't love that comparison but it's the best I can come up with on top of my head. I still don't think you acknowledged my point about requiring people to deal with consequences of their own actions

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

You're now defining pregnancy as a poor health outcome. That's broad strokes at best and unfair at least.

A fully informed consent to a procedure involves understanding potential risks, right? The potential risk of having sex is getting pregnant. A woman should not partake in sex unless they know what can happen during pregnancy.


If a woman is pregnant and ends up in the 2nd or 3rd trimester and has serious health complications from the pregnancy and an option is to end the pregnancy to save the mother, I think that's fine. But terminating pregnancies early on just because of potential future risks that likely will not come to fruition and/or because "my body my rights" effectively means sex without having to deal with any consequences or responsibility for one's actions

I'm not sure getting an abortion means consequence free sex

 

[greatnt249]

I don't love that comparison but it's the best I can come up with on top of my head. I still don't think you acknowledged my point about requiring people to deal with consequences of their own actions

This is a common thread I see in the pro-"life" stance/crowd in which the term "accountability" comes up, as if the pregnancy has to then be carried to term as "punishment" for lack of better preparation. In my opinion, this is an entirely unhealthy view of sex in general. Who gets to bear this punishment? I'll give you a hint; it's generally not the sperm donor.

Ultimately, that seems to be where the pro-life crowd stops with the level of caring; that it is carried to term. Nothing else matters beyond the point of delivery. No care with regard to the child's future development, welfare, how to be set up to succeed in life and be a meaningful contributor to society, whether mother is capable of being a mother, etc. Not your problem, right? Mother should have been more careful, right? Doesn't matter how the child's future prospects look as a product of an unwanted pregnancy in a society not set up to care for their needs, right?

There seems to be some conflation between being pro-choice and "being okay with murdering babies" as well; I find it hard to believe that many (if any) people who are pro-choice thinks of it as some care-free procedure to go through to avoid the consequences (ie punishment) of pregnancy. If you want less abortions, increase access to education regarding safe sex/contraception instead of acting like we live in some Puritanical virtue-signaling "abstinence is the only way to go" society. You don't have to abort the pregnancy that never happens, right?

 

[SurfingDoctor]

This is a common thread I see in the pro-"life" stance/crowd in which the term "accountability" comes up, as if the pregnancy has to then be carried to term as "punishment" for lack of better preparation. In my opinion, this is an entirely unhealthy view of sex in general. Who gets to bear this punishment? I'll give you a hint; it's generally not the sperm donor.

Ultimately, that seems to be where the pro-life crowd stops with the level of caring; that it is carried to term. Nothing else matters beyond the point of delivery. No care with regard to the child's future development, welfare, how to be set up to succeed in life and be a meaningful contributor to society, whether mother is capable of being a mother, etc. Not your problem, right? Mother should have been more careful, right? Doesn't matter how the child's future prospects look as a product of an unwanted pregnancy in a society not set up to care for their needs, right?

There seems to be some conflation between being pro-choice and "being okay with murdering babies" as well; I find it hard to believe that many (if any) people who are pro-choice thinks of it as some care-free procedure to go through to avoid the consequences (ie punishment) of pregnancy. If you want less abortions, increase access to education regarding safe sex/contraception instead of acting like we live in some Puritanical virtue-signaling "abstinence is the only way to go" society. You don't have to abort the pregnancy that never happens, right?

It always strikes me as odd that considering there are 11.6 million children in poverty and and 250000 children in foster care, that no one really champions their cause as much.

 

[greatnt249]

It always strikes me as odd that considering there are 11.6 million children in poverty and and 250000 children in foster care, that no one really champions their cause as much.

I guess their mothers should have planned their lives out better (/sarcasm).

 

[Cuthbert]

It always strikes me as odd that considering there are 11.6 million children in poverty and and 250000 children in foster care, that no one really champions their cause as much.

No one? I’m a pediatrician. I work every day to help those types of kids.

 

[Cuthbert]

"Dealing with these issues was going to be inevitable with the overruling. I do not deny that those people have and may continue to endure suffering." But you did, your quote is right here. By claiming that these issues were going to be inevitable means that you predicted the outcome. Your stance on the issue shows you are alright with it. In fact, saying that it may continue and being alright with the ruling is further proof that you, as a doctor/future doctor, are okay with pregnant women suffering and dying as long as the fetus has to be born.

No. Again, you and anyone else here can put words in my mouth, but it doesn’t make it so. I don’t accuse you of being ok with butchering babies. I’m just stating facts that support my beliefs.

 

[wholeheartedly]

It’s interesting that there’s this view that sex is always either this well thought out responsible undertaking that happens in the context of marriage or some sort of reckless act of seeking pleasure with no regards to consequences. But sometimes the condom breaks, or the birth control fails, or the boyfriend or spouse threatens serious consequences if sex is withheld, or situations where it isn’t so easy to just say no, or a teen didn’t want to go that far but didn’t know how to stop things from progressing.that’s ignoring sex abuse of kids.

Also, for the record, there is an absolutely astounding number of people who do not understand basic biology of sex and reproduction and we have abstinence only sex ed to blame for a lot of that. So people aren’t always making an informed decision. I would have thought healthcare workers would’ve had enough experience with examples of this. There’s probably a thread with stories about this somewhere…

 

[SurfingDoctor]

No one? I’m a pediatrician. I work every day to help those types of kids.

How do you lift a child out of poverty as a pediatrician?

 

[wholeheartedly]

Google Sex ed fails to see why we have issues.

Fixing this would dramatically reduce unintended pregnancies

People Are Sharing The Most "Misinformed" Things That've Ever Been Taught In Sex Ed (And They're Wild)

"My male sex education teacher told our entire classroom that period cramps do not exist and that he would not accept them as an excuse to get out of gym class."

www.buzzfeed.com

 

[Cuthbert]

How do you lift a child out of poverty as a pediatrician?

Can’t tell if you’re serious, but I’ll assume the best of you and answer.

Just as in the PICU, a good intake is where you start. The AAP has a fairly decent intake form that you can have families fill out. Many times, families just need to know their resources. https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/R...95.1838142653.1657759550-492602306.1657661691

On top of that, my family and I like to support different food pantries and nonprofits. I also have served (Pro bono) as a board member for a non profit that specifically supports children with chromosomal abnormalities and severe autism. We provide care for these children when their families are unable to support them - either due to cost or the mental strain that can be induced when caring for an autistic child.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Can’t tell if you’re serious, but I’ll assume the best of you and answer.

Just as in the PICU, a good intake is where you start. The AAP has a fairly decent intake form that you can have families fill out. Many times, families just need to know their resources. https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/R...95.1838142653.1657759550-492602306.1657661691

On top of that, my family and I like to support different food pantries and nonprofits. I also have served (Pro bono) as a board member for a non profit that specifically supports children with chromosomal abnormalities and severe autism. We provide care for these children when their families are unable to support them - either due to cost or the mental strain that can be induced when caring for an autistic child.

Carrying for a medically complex child can certainly be straining on the family.

 

[Cuthbert]

Carrying for a medically complex child can certainly be straining on the family.

I don’t disagree with you. These families and children need and deserve our support. Two of my cousins were mentally handicapped and actually lived at the facility I now serve. They may not have been “normal” as some would call it, but they were beautiful and innocent. With help, they were able to live happy lives up until their death. They also brought joy and purpose to many others. They were one of the reasons I chose to become a pediatrician.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Brain dead people are absolutely not considered alive. They are dead. We make the distinction for the lay public.

Yeah, brain death is very much dead, just like it was 100 years ago and since the beginning of time. When you got kicked the head by a horse and you herniated, you didn’t die of ARDS or an MI, you died because your brain was squeezed out of your skull. The fact that technology can temporarily support the leftover organs has led to so much confusion amongst the lay public. In my decade plus of doing critical care, this issue has become worse and worse.

But really just this mostly just a problem for New Jersey and just another reason to never live there and whose only redeeming value is Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi.

 

[Mad Jack]

I still haven't seen a response to individuals getting pregnant as a consequence for their choice of having sex. If you don't have sex you don't get pregnant. An argument can be made that people are simply looking for a way out to not deal with the consequences of their actions

Viewing human lives as punishments is a disgusting point of view.

"Why do I exist?"

"As penance for your mother's inability to not have sex."

And let's not even get into things like rape and coercion that completely strip agency away, or that perhaps what people do in the bedroom is none of you or the government's business. We know people always have and always will have sex, and that abstinence-focused approaches to things don't work. People are wired for it, quite literally, and most of the people they will have sex with they should not be having kids with. You're basically advocating for either a puritan society or one with many highly broken homes and dysfunctional family structures

 

[Captain_Falcon]

Viewing human lives as punishments is a disgusting point of view

So fetuses are human lives now in your opinion? And it's only a punishment if the individual feels that way and doesn't want to deal with the outcome of their choice

 

[Proudfather94]

No. Again, you and anyone else here can put words in my mouth, but it doesn’t make it so. I don’t accuse you of being ok with butchering babies. I’m just stating facts that support my beliefs.

Well a fetus isn't a baby yet so that would just be factually inaccurate. Okay since you have a hard time accepting that you said you were okay with the suffering or death of pregnant women lets apply what you've said to another scenario. Let's say you come to me and go "proudfather, New York just passed a stop and frisk law and now the police can stop and search everyone!" And I go "that's great that will keep the communities safer" then you go "but this is effecting African Americans more than anyone else, they're being stopped and searched exponentially more than white people!" And I go "well that's inevitable and may be a problem into the future." Wouldn't you claim that I'm indifferent to the mistreatment of African Americans by the police? That's basically your view towards abortion, but you say people are putting words in your mouth when they tell you this.

 

[Proudfather94]

How do you lift a child out of poverty as a pediatrician?

They could donate a good chunk of their money to needy families and start fundraising organizations, but it's easier to force a woman to have their rape baby and tell them it's on them now.

 

[Proudfather94]

I'm not sure getting an abortion means consequence free sex

Yeah I'm sure most people who have one have a ton of emotional trauma from it.

 

[Proudfather94]

It is in our biologies to harm others to some extent, fight for mating or fight for land or fight for personal reasons or religion. Inflicting harm on someone is natural. So when people perform violent acts should they not be held accountable?

I don't love that comparison but it's the best I can come up with on top of my head. I still don't think you acknowledged my point about requiring people to deal with consequences of their own actions

We have delt with those things you mentioned in the first paragraph by forming society. We have made it so that those behaviors are socially unacceptable and raise our children to not engage in fighting the neighbor for their pool. I just don't see why you are saying a baby is a punishment for sex. Sometimes things happen that are out of our control or despite best intentions to prevent it a pregnancy occurs. The risk and responsibility of having a child belongs to the pregnant woman, why do you feel that you have the right to tell them what to do with that fetus? Especially in a society like ours where there is a huge lack of social safety nets.

 

[Mad Jack]

So fetuses are human lives now in your opinion? And it's only a punishment if the individual feels that way and doesn't want to deal with the outcome of their choice

You're advocating that they all reach the point of viability, at which point they become a life that only exists as a consequence

 

[Cuthbert]

Well a fetus isn't a baby yet so that would just be factually inaccurate. Okay since you have a hard time accepting that you said you were okay with the suffering or death of pregnant women lets apply what you've said to another scenario. Let's say you come to me and go "proudfather, New York just passed a stop and frisk law and now the police can stop and search everyone!" And I go "that's great that will keep the communities safer" then you go "but this is effecting African Americans more than anyone else, they're being stopped and searched exponentially more than white people!" And I go "well that's inevitable and may be a problem into the future." Wouldn't you claim that I'm indifferent to the mistreatment of African Americans by the police? That's basically your view towards abortion, but you say people are putting words in your mouth when they tell you this.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that killing an innocent child is not justifiable.

 

[Proudfather94]

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that killing an innocent child is not justifiable.

It's not a child it's a fetus. It is what you said you can deny it if you want but you said these issues were inevitable and they show you are okay with them. To people like you fetus>women.

 

[Cuthbert]

It's not a child it's a fetus. It is what you said you can deny it if you want but you said these issues were inevitable and they show you are okay with them. To people like you fetus>women.

It’s the reproductive offspring of the parents - a child.

Your second point simply doesn’t hold water. It’s just the typical progression of the pro choice argument to devolve into ad hominem attacks. And what else is there for you when you have no consistent, non arbitrary (and logical) reasoning to support the killing of a child?

 

[SurfingDoctor]

It’s the reproductive offspring of the parents - a child.

Your second point simply doesn’t hold water. It’s just the typical progression of the pro choice argument to devolve into ad hominem attacks. And what else is there for you when you have no consistent, non arbitrary (and logical) reasoning to support the killing of a child?

I'm still confused by this. Like if a child is born with anencephaly and the parents want that child and all the misery associated with it... I'm like "cool, whatever" (though I think they should pay for the cost... not society... but let's say they got Jeff Bezos money to make the argument easier).

But if they don't... you want to force them anyways?

 

[Dr Meow]

I think this debate ultimately boils down to religious vs secular mentality.
Secular mentality is that consciousness and adequate brain development is the point of life.
Religious mentality is that a soul is "created" immediately upon egg+sperm and has instantaneous value.

Just like you cannot convince a muslim that Allah doesn't exist, you cannot convince a prolifer that there's no such thing as a soul created upon egg+sperm and that a fetus with a far far far underdeveloped set of cells precursor to a brain and in no way possess consciousness has any more than zero moralistic value whether or not it exists.

I'm convinced no person making any decision with logic can look at a single zygote cell (or even a "few" cells, morula/blastocyst) and say "this thing has equal rights as a fully grown human, and anyone who destroys this single cell is punishable by murder to the same degree as the murder of a fully grown adult capable of reason, consciousness, and emotion". Religious mentality is how you take a smart and sane person and make logical fallacies a virtue.

This is how the prolifer mentality works. As you can see, it's from 1694 before we knew anything.

 

[Proudfather94]

It’s the reproductive offspring of the parents - a child.

Your second point simply doesn’t hold water. It’s just the typical progression of the pro choice argument to devolve into ad hominem attacks. And what else is there for you when you have no consistent, non arbitrary (and logical) reasoning to support the killing of a child?

How do you know if the fetus will be alive come time of birth? Plenty of fetuses die being a fetus doesn't guarantee that they will become a baby. If the baby dies before they are even born are they still the "child" of the parents? I'll be honest, the terminology that you're stating in the second paragraph is pretty foreign to me. Obviously you have had a better education than I had leading to medical school. Still, you said the outcome that is happening now was inevitable, which means that you predicted that it would happen, and are alright with it given your stance on the issue. That means you do hold the life of the fetus above the mother that is carrying it.

You're a pediatrician right? How do you think you would react if a teenager was admitted due to attempted suicide caused by an unwanted pregnancy. Say you have an 11 year old girl that's 10 weeks pregnant. No family support, as her dad raped her and her mom is in denial about it and thinks that the daughter lead him on causing the pregnancy. She got kicked out and decided that ending her life would be the best option, as she lives in a state that outlawed abortion and is legally forced to carry the baby to term. Would you look this girl in the eye and tell her that you believe she needs to give birth to this baby? Say she develops a risk that's not inherently deadly at first, but can be if the pregnancy persists. Your stance would be to basically leave it up to God whether she lives or dies right?

 

[Cuthbert]

I'm still confused by this. Like if a child is born with anencephaly and the parents want that child and all the misery associated with it... I'm like "cool, whatever" (though I think they should pay for the cost... not society... but let's say they got Jeff Bezos money to make the argument easier).

But if they don't... you want to force them anyways?

No. That child, although a unique individual, would have no potential for higher level brain functioning at anytime. THAT child would be the equivalent to the brain death discussion we were having. Their functioning will never change and has no potential to - which is why I think it’s fine to unplug a brain dead patient and allow them to complete the process of death.

 

[Cuthbert]

I think this debate ultimately boils down to religious vs secular mentality.

I do not. You will never find me making an argument based on religion. It has no grounds in this debate. Especially not in the United States.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

No. That child, although a unique individual, would have no potential for higher level brain functioning at anytime. THAT child would be the equivalent to the brain death discussion we were having. Their functioning will never change and has no potential to - which is why I think it’s fine to unplug a brain dead patient and allow them to complete the process of death.

But you said brain dead is not dead. So by that metric, you are killing an innocent child.

There are also many conditions which have no higher brain function who are very much not dead. All you need is a pons and a medulla. Those are not high brain areas, that’s why they are called the brainstem. People with brainstem function are not dead, but they have no high brain function.

 

[Cuthbert]

But you said brain dead is not dead.

Correct. If a braindead person were dead, you wouldn’t have to unplug them.

Pushing protofol and fentanyl on those other individuals that you refer to is another discussion.

Out of curiosity, for the pro choice individuals in this thread, what is your cutoff point for abortion and what is your reasoning for that cutoff?

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Correct. If a braindead person were dead, you wouldn’t have to unplug them.

Pushing protofol and fentanyl on those other individuals that you refer to is another discussion.

Out of curiosity, for the pro choice individuals in this thread, what is your cutoff point for abortion and what is your reasoning for that cutoff?

They don't get unplugged, they don't get a service for something they don't have, which is life. Otherwise, it would be like sending a bill for running water in a vacant lot.

I think abortion is a terrible form of general birth control and should very much be discouraged in that regard. The legality of I have no real opinion about other than to say I definitely think it should be option in the cases of rape/incest/genetic abnormalities/life-saving of the pregnant person and I don't think it should be legal after about 20 weeks (I just made that number up... but enough time to give the pregnant person/family to decide what is their best interests but before the fetus has the potential to be viable).

All that being said, this issue is very much like homosexuals getting married to me. It doesn't really impact me 1 iota so no one should give AF what I think and my opinion shouldn't really count in the manner since the direct effect on me is zero. Again, like homosexuality, I think people should just mind their own business when it comes to personal manners.

 

[NotAProgDirector]

This thread is starting to unravel, which usually happens on page 2 when abortion is the topic. So it's impressive it's made it this far.

Here's my attempt to keep it from going off the rails:

No one is going to change anyone's mind with this discussion. Everyone has already made up their mind, and no amount of logical arguments, appeals to ethics or morals, or any other debate process is going to change anyone's position. People do change their stance on the topic -- but that happens over long periods of time and from personal experiences in this area. So arguing with each other is pointless.

Many of the arguments here are attempts at verbal wordplay and "gotcha's". Trying to prove someone's strongly held belief is incorrect by trying to back them into a logical fallacy will not work. It just makes people angry, and then they lash out. Debating whether a zygote is a "human life" or a "ball of cells" is relatively pointless. Some people believe one of those, and some people believe the other. Neither can prove the other wrong. Both are certain the other is horribly wrong.

What we might be able to do is try to understand the other person's position / beliefs. I am pro-choice. I think a zygote is a ball of cells, and is not a human life. That's my belief. But I recognize that others feel strongly that a zygote is a human life. And if you believe that, then abortion would appear profoundly wrong. I can respect that opinion, and I can understand why people who feel strongly about this may want to make abortion illegal. I don't agree with it -- but I can see their point of view. Either viewpoint doesn't make someone a bad person. If you lose the ability to see the other side's point of view, the net result is usually demonization of the other side and the end of any healthy discourse.

And therein lies the challenge, for which I have no good answer. Some people believe abortion should be a choice. Some people believe it is wrong and would not choose it for themselves but feel that others should be free to do as they wish. And some people believe it is a wrong that is so bad, that no one should have the choice. The last group can't find any compromise / reconciliation with the others. They feel it is so wrong, they can't let others consider it at all. And although I disagree with them, I can see their point of view. To them, any downstream harms from outlawing abortion are much less concerning than abortion itself. I disagree -- but there's no universal scale on which to weigh decisions like this.

And because people feel so passionately about this issue, they are willing to fight for it with any tool available. And this will lead to crazy escalations on both sides. States are already starting to try to punish people who help others cross state lines for the procedure. What's sure to follow is pro-choice groups finding ways around this. I expect we will see attempts at creating abortion clinics on ships in the Gulf, or on Native American reservations. Would also be legal on any federal land - the USPS owns property, and I'm surprised that I haven't heard of someone suggesting using VA hospitals/clinics as abortion centers. All sorts of problems with all of these ideas. They are all terrible solutions which will only escalate the battle.

I have no good solution. Personally, I'd support legal abortion to the point of viability. Any cutoff is inherently arbitrary though -- if we say "20 weeks", there's no practical difference between 19w6d and 20w1d. But it seems wrong to me to allow abortions late term unless there are health issues for the mother (and in that case, early delivery may be an option). But I can see how others may see this as unacceptable.

I'd also support education and other measures to decrease the need for abortion overall as much as possible. But we don't live in a perfect world -- far from it. Given the world's imperfections, I think allowing abortion in early pregnancy is the better of the options available. You may disagree, and that's fine. I'd also prefer that the govt just stayed out of the decision completely -- although I acknowledge that results in the endpoint that I would prefer.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Abortion laws spark profound changes in other medical care

The Supreme Court's decision to let states outlaw most abortions is having profound repercussions in reproductive medicine as well as in other areas of medical care.

apnews.com

Munoz said he faced an awful predicament with a recent patient who had started to miscarry and developed a dangerous womb infection. The fetus still had signs of a heartbeat, so an immediate abortion — the usual standard of care — would have been illegal under Texas law.

“We physically watched her get sicker and sicker and sicker” until the fetal heartbeat stopped the next day, “and then we could intervene,” he said. The patient developed complications, required surgery, lost multiple liters of blood and had to be put on a breathing machine “all because we were essentially 24 hours behind.’’

Ah, the moral high ground.

 

[Proudfather94]

Abortion laws spark profound changes in other medical care

The Supreme Court's decision to let states outlaw most abortions is having profound repercussions in reproductive medicine as well as in other areas of medical care.

apnews.com

Ah, the moral high ground.

Unfortunately that's just what doctors in red states are going to have to do. If they all treat the patient too soon and lose their license then nobody gets care. I would blame the politicians and the people who voted them in as they are practicing medicine without a license and caused this mess.

 

[Proudfather94]

I wonder if a federal law could be passed to put financial pressure on these states to back down? The lady in the story would have only needed an abortion and antibiotics if she didn't have to wait a whole day right? Get the government to pass a federal law that if care is delayed due to pregnancy/potential pregnancy due to a state law, that all care that deviates beyond the standard of care caused by these state laws is paid for by Medicare/Medicaid. This amount of money is deducted from any money that would be given to the state by the federal government. Would this put enough pressure on them to consider once it starts effecting how the state is ran?