10-year-old rape victim denied abortion in OH

[*michaelsean*]

(07-04-2022, 05:32 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Whether we're talking about fallopian tubes, vas deferens or the womb; all three are medical procedures are designed to avoid the same end result, which is ending up with a child. All three directly pertain to issues of personal / bodily autonomy, and the individual's right to freely make their own medical decisions.

However, my specific question wondered about the response if vasectomies we're banned. Whether you feel it's comparable or not, what would your reaction be to the state deciding to take away your right to get one?  

I think it would be stupid but please don’t try to act like you weren’t comparing the two because you’ve attempted to defend the non-sensical comparison twice.

[Lucidus]

(07-04-2022, 05:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think it would be stupid but please don’t try to act like you weren’t comparing the two because you’ve attempted to defend the non-sensical  comparison twice.

My entire point is that it violates a person's autonomy, for all the reasons I mentioned. I don't consider right to bodily autonomy or freedom over medical decisions to be at all nonsensical. 

If Dobbs had been about giving the states the power to ban vasectomies instead of abortions, those directly affected would be furious because they know the government shouldn't have the right to forcibly impose their morality onto the sperm ducts of it's citizens. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-04-2022, 05:54 PM)Lucidus Wrote: My entire point is that it violates a person's autonomy, for all the reasons I mentioned. I don't consider right to bodily autonomy or freedom over medical decisions to be at all nonsensical. 

If Dobbs had been about giving the states the power to ban vasectomies instead of abortions, those directly affected would be furious because they know the government shouldn't have the right to forcibly impose their morality onto the sperm ducts of it's citizens. 

Your comparison, as if they were similar and your subsequent attempts to argue their similarity was non-sensical. And btw if you were ok with Roe then you were ok with lack of autonomy.

[Lucidus]

(07-04-2022, 06:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Your comparison, as if they were similar and your subsequent attempts to argue their similarity was non-sensical. And btw if you were ok with Roe then you were ok with lack of autonomy.

As it pertains to the fetus?

[*michaelsean*]

(07-04-2022, 06:16 PM)Lucidus Wrote: As it pertains to the fetus?

I’m not sure what that question has to do with what you highlighted. I wasn’t talking about the fetus.

[Lucidus]

(07-04-2022, 06:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’m not sure what that question has to do with what you highlighted. I wasn’t talking about the fetus.

My apologies. Please explain what you were referring to.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-04-2022, 06:21 PM)Lucidus Wrote: My apologies. Please explain what you were referring to.

Third trimester.

[Lucidus]

(07-04-2022, 06:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Third trimester.

Roe, and later held by Casey, afforded the pregnant individual autonomy for the first 6 months until the fetus was deemed by the Courts to be legally viable, at which point the state could outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life.  Agreeing with and supporting the Courts position on those determinations doesn't translate to being "OK with lack of autonomy".

It granted the individual two full trimesters in which to exercise their autonomy and have the freedom to make their own medical decisions. You see, it didn't strip the individual of their autonomy; it respected it until the point of reasonable restriction.

However, allowing states the power to ban abortions at any point in time, or altogether is very much in opposition with Roe. Dobbs allowed for states to disregard any respect for autonomy and granted them the power to force pregnant individuals to remain pregnant without a lengthy, rational amount of time for them to freely come to a very difficult decision.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-04-2022, 07:08 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Roe, and later held by Casey, afforded the pregnant individual autonomy for the first 6 months until the fetus was deemed by the Courts to be legally viable, at which point the state could outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life.  Agreeing with and supporting the Courts position on those determinations doesn't translate to being "OK with lack of autonomy".

It granted the individual two full trimesters in which to exercise their autonomy and have the freedom to make their own medical decisions. You see, it didn't strip the individual of their autonomy; it respected it until the point of reasonable restriction.

However, allowing states the power to ban abortions at any point in time, or altogether is very much in opposition with Roe. Dobbs allowed for states to disregard any respect for autonomy and granted them the power to force pregnant individuals to remain pregnant without a lengthy, rational amount of time for them to freely come to a very difficult decision.

So short answer is you were ok with limiting autonomy. It did strip their autonomy in the third trimester. If we can’t violate autonomy then there are no reasonable restrictions. Doctors of course can refuse, but we can’t limit it because it is now unpalatable.

[Lucidus]

(07-04-2022, 07:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So short answer is you were ok with limiting autonomy. It did strip their autonomy in the third trimester. If we can’t violate autonomy then there are no reasonable restrictions. Doctors of course can refuse, but we can’t limit it because it is now unpalatable.

We should always respect the right of autonomy up the point when one's autonomy could harm another. A fetus entering the third trimester has a much higher survival rate and much lower risk of health issues if delivered; thus can be reasonably determined to be viable. Once the fetus is deemed viable -- to a high degree of scientific, evidence based certainty -- it should then be allowed the unfettered opportunity to be born, excluding emergency medical situations.

To understand autonomy, is to understand the limitations of autonomy. I'm sure you've heard the expression "your personal liberty to swing your arm ends where my nose begins". Once a fetus attains the status of being highly viable outside the womb, it should be afforded that same consideration. That consideration, at that point, is in no way in opposition the autonomy of the pregnant individual.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-04-2022, 08:15 PM)Lucidus Wrote: We should always respect the right of autonomy up the point when one's autonomy could harm another. A fetus entering the third trimester has a much higher survival rate and much lower risk of health issues if delivered; thus can be reasonably determined to be viable. Once the fetus is deemed viable -- to a high degree of scientific, evidence based certainty -- it should then be allowed the unfettered opportunity to be born, excluding emergency medical situations.

To understand autonomy, is to understand the limitations of autonomy. I'm sure you've heard the expression "your personal liberty to swing your arm ends where my nose begins". Once a fetus attains the status of being highly viable outside the womb, it should be afforded that same consideration. That consideration, at that point, is in no way in opposition the autonomy of the pregnant individual.

Viability is actually quite a random point. No arguments that I have seen on these boards can be dismissed with viability. Just read posts two and five for example. The last sentence of two especially. If you agree with it I mean.

Also do we move back when a woman can have an abortion as viability changes?

[Sled21]

(07-03-2022, 09:10 PM)Lucidus Wrote: First, a fetus is not a child, just as a sperm isn't a fetus.

Second, the partner can and should be able to express their thoughts and preference, but the final decision should necessarily be that of the person who's body would be directly affected by remaining pregnant or having a procedure to end the pregnancy.

Sperm isn't a fetus because it needs the egg to fertilize. I would argue that a fetus IS a child, it's just at it's earliest stage of development. Anyway, I wasn't asking to argue that point, I have always thought if it's consensual sex, both the man and the woman are the parents to be, and I have always thought it was kind of wrong that a woman can kill a man's child in the womb and he not have a say in it. I don't have the answer to that, I just think it's wrong.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-04-2022, 03:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I didn’t sign off on anything when my wife did.

My daughter's husband had to, even after 4 kids.

My sister's husband had to (even though the last pregnancy damn near killed her and my niece) even after 4 kids.

Just curious - how old was your wife when she got hers done? My daughter and sister were still of 'healthy child bearing age', so their doctors insisted on spousal consent.

There are also a handful of doctors who will do it without spousal consent. However those doctors are definitely in the minority.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-04-2022, 08:15 PM)Lucidus Wrote: We should always respect the right of autonomy up the point when one's autonomy could harm another. A fetus entering the third trimester has a much higher survival rate and much lower risk of health issues if delivered; thus can be reasonably determined to be viable. Once the fetus is deemed viable -- to a high degree of scientific, evidence based certainty -- it should then be allowed the unfettered opportunity to be born, excluding emergency medical situations.

To understand autonomy, is to understand the limitations of autonomy. I'm sure you've heard the expression "your personal liberty to swing your arm ends where my nose begins". Once a fetus attains the status of being highly viable outside the womb, it should be afforded that same consideration. That consideration, at that point, is in no way in opposition the autonomy of the pregnant individual.

Which of course is why late term abortions are - at best - incredibly rare and only available if continuing the gestate is dangerous not only to the long term health of the mother but the child-to-be.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-04-2022, 09:08 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: My daughter's husband had to, even after 4 kids.

My sister's husband had to (even though the last pregnancy damn near killed her and my niece) even after 4 kids.

Just curious - how old was your wife when she got hers done? My daughter and sister were still of 'healthy child bearing age', so their doctors insisted on spousal consent.

There are also a handful of doctors who will do it without spousal consent. However those doctors are definitely in the minority.

35 maybe? They were doing something else (don’t tell her I can’t remember what it as) and said they could do it while they were doing the other thing.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-04-2022, 09:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 35 maybe?  They were doing something else (don’t tell her I can’t remember what it as) and said they could do it while they were doing the other thing.

Yeah that's around the age when they stop asking if I recall correctly - menopause is right around the corner.

I believe my sister 27 or 28 and my daughter was around the same age.

[Lucidus]

(07-04-2022, 08:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Viability is actually quite a random point.  No arguments that I have seen on these boards can be dismissed with viability. Just read posts two and five for example. The last sentence of two especially.  If you agree with it I mean.

Also do we move back when a woman can have an abortion as viability changes?

Post 2 was a response to the idea of banning abortion and violating bodily autonomy in general terms. It was not a specific discussion of post-viability, which is the one we're having now. As I stated in post 2, no one should have their autonomy violated by being forced to remain pregnant. That autonomy isn't violated post-viability for the reasons I gave in the post you've quoted, which you really didn't address directly.

In post 5, I was responding to the poster's notion that getting an abortion was akin to "killing a child." Again, to simply deem a fetus a child is to simply deem a sperm a fetus. A sperm remains just a sperm until a certain state is achieved, just as a fetus remains just a fetus until a certain state is achieved. 

As to viability, I'm comfortable with any consensus that is reliant upon the best scientific available at the time. That could change over time, but if we're using that criteria, the evidence based accuracy should bottleneck; where viability can only move back if the greatly increased survival rates and greatly decreased health risks eventually supports the move.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Why indeed that sucks.

It's BOO-HOO-HOO to you guys.

This is what happens when something is poorly done and hastily. It had to many holes in it.

The main problem is that neither side wants a compromise, it's extremist vs extremist on this issue. In the end, the people that need it most lose.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-04-2022, 09:25 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Post 2 was a response to the idea of banning abortion and violating bodily autonomy in general terms. It was not a specific discussion of post-viability, which is the one we're having now. As I stated in post 2, no one should have their autonomy violated by being forced to remain pregnant. That autonomy isn't violated post-viability for the reasons I gave in the post you've quoted, which you really didn't address directly.

In post 5, I was responding to the poster's notion that getting an abortion was akin to "killing a child." Again, to simply deem a fetus a child is to simply deem a sperm a fetus. A sperm remains just a sperm until a certain state is achieved, just as a fetus remains just a fetus until a certain state is achieved. 

As to viability, I'm comfortable with any consensus that is reliant upon the best scientific available at the time. That could change over time, but if we're using that criteria, the evidence based accuracy should bottleneck; where viability can only move back if the greatly increased survival rates and greatly decreased health risks eventually supports the move.

Just so we are sure we are talking about the same statements. Are you saying this statement, “ I don't want the state to have unfettered control over a uterus; in any scenario at all.” is consistent with what you are now saying about viability? “any scenario at all” would seem to exclude viability.

Of course the autonomy is violated after viability. Saying it isn’t because, well, you don’t think it is isn’t really a reason. You could say the state’s interest in protecting the now viable baby supersedes autonomy.

[Bengalzona]

(07-04-2022, 03:57 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I always assumed there were exceptions for rape.

Same. But apparently not in some states such as Ohio. And that is the main thing I wanted to call out here with the thread, not necessarily the SCOTUS decision about states' rights to legislate abortion. Rather what may be (at least to most of us, I think) an extreme case of legislation that needs amended. I think rape, and especially incestuous rape, should be an exception.