This Post Has No Title
Capracus said:
The point of the question wasn’t if it were possible (which technically it would be) or likely, or that a full term fetus’s survival would or should be given priority over that of the mother, but whether it should be denied any right of survival simply because of its location.
One of these things that annoys me about these discussions, and yes, it can be a cumulative effect, which is why I'm mentioning it to you—notwithstanding that some others wouldn't pay attention, anyway—is that it almost doesn't matter what I or someone in my position says.
As I
noted previously:
I mean, really, think about the part you're skipping. Regardless of anyone else's assignment of personhood at any earlier point, the child outside the womb, removed from its maternal feeding tube is unquestionably a person.
Simply because of its location? That's entirely
yours.
Look, it isn't hard to understand that people disagree with me, but the one confounding thing about that disagreement is that people want to change the terms.
For instance, I am no longer attending anything one of our neighbors has to say in this thread. It's fine with me if people disagree, but when they disagree without actually paying attention to what I say, what use is it? Our neighbor's offense is falsely complaining that an argument isn't there. When examples of that argument he complained wasn't there were presented to him, demonstrating that they did, in fact, exist in this thread, he changed the criteria, which, incidentally, invalidated his own haughty example.
I know, it sounds like a farce. In what rational debate is this behavior acceptable?
In this case, it's not just about location. To the one, there would have been better statements of mine to extract for that purpose; to the other, the answer would have been the same because the sum of all those statements would cover the difference.
I
get that our neighbor disagrees with me about some things, but he won't tell me why. And while that's annoying in and of itself, the bonus multiplier is that this is pretty much what we expect from that side of the argument.
To bring this to you, I would simply point out that you started with a statement about the umbilical attachment, which by the time you responded to Bells had been transformed into "simply because of its location".
For background, I would note that this, at least, is a bit more creative than pretending one cannot tell the difference between a zygote implanted in the uterine wall and a twenty-four year-old living in his parents' house. Over the course of the last
six years at least, the only answer I can get is that there is no difference. Wait, wait, I take that back. Some people have asserted that pregnancy and conjoinment are analogous. You know, because your twin grows out of your armpit only because you had that wild fling in a motel once upon a time.
It would be one thing if people acknowledged the limits of their analogies; to wit, there is a difference between the "tumor" analogy as it was presented here, once upon a time—and I'm not certain it's that great of an analogy to begin with—and Ken Buck's comparison of his cancer treatment to pregnancy and abortion.
But they don't. I even tried a wild analogy, comparing a zygote to a vampire, in order to illustrate the difference I see. That is to say, I think there is a difference between using my teeth to puncture your neck and draw sustenance from your blood and being attached to the inside of you, where I completely reside, by a biologically-generated feeding tube that draws sustenance from your blood.
And no, apparently there is no difference. (That the response was nearly incomprehensible is beside the point, though the bit about Count von Count was, at least, somewhat creative.)
The thing is that nobody will tell me
why there is no difference. In the end, one ends up asking questions that seem ridiculous.
Here's one exchange from six years ago:
DLN: "Explain to me the qualities a new born baby has that an unborn baby doesn't?"
T: Independent existence.
DLN: "I'm 24 and I'd say I'm just starting to reach the level of independent existence now, not completely just yet, let's not get carried away, but soon enough."
T: Am I to believe that you really, sincerely, can't tell the difference?
DLN: "Am I to gather that you truely, seriously, can't explain the difference?"
T: Are you still physically attached to your mother?
DLN: "And congratulations, that couldn't be more arbitrary."
You'll notice that people have tried that bit about being unable to tell the difference between their navel and an umbilical cord in this thread, as well.
It's kind of stupid; I get that some think the difference arbitrary. But why?
In that six year-old discussion, part of the issue was that the other wanted me to answer a question about deserving to die, which was his own invocation. In other words, he wanted his question answered in a context presupposing personhood. You know, the classic argument:
We can have a rational discussion just as soon as you concede the argument we're going to discuss.
And I get it; we see similar processes in international diplomacy:
Give us everything we want, and then we'll negotiate.
But it is very problematic, insofar as it really stalls any progress in the discussion, when people ask us to answer for their own perspectives.
I can't answer you on the point of location; that's not my argument. And I'm pretty damn sure it's not Bells', either.
I get that people object to the umbilical cord point. But the only answer I've encountered over the years that doesn't seek to change the context of the proposition is that no, one cannot tell the difference between himself, in his mid-twenties, working off his student debt or whatever, and a fetus attached to the inside of another person's body by a biologically-generated feeding tube.
In the real world, outside of Sciforums, the subject occasionally comes up socially, depending on the company and occasion; I just don't encounter this answer.
No, really. This is something that it seems people try on the internet because they don't have to look anyone in the eye and keep a straight face while saying it.
I mean, I really don't believe our troll from six years ago, or our lying neighbor in the current thread, are really so stupid that they can't tell the difference.
Or maybe they are.
But no, it's not simply about location. That's entirely yours.
This dry foot policy should be analogous to its immigration namesake in that an immigrant may gain additional rights upon setting foot in a specific territory, but failing to do so wouldn’t negate the human rights recognized prior to arrival.
Doesn't that presuppose personhood by presuming and assigning rights in the first place? And wouldn't that simply negate the dry-foot policy?
And it would be just as illegal to arbitrarily terminate a full term fetus.
As a matter of law, yes. I'm not sure what your point is. Even in the days of coathangers and back-alley potions, women weren't waiting until week thirty-five to have their underground abortions unless some specific circumstance compelled it.
I mean, to the one, sure, it would be just as illegal. To the other, that's almost a straw man, as Kermit Gosnell demonstrated; as much as some would have society believe his practice is par for the course, he is an extreme deviation.
As for stuffing the person back in the box, I had in mind the more technically plausible scenario of a reverse C-section, but given your version, planning surgical procedures doesn't seem to be your forte.
To the one, it's true I haven't gone to medical school. To the other, my name isn't Heiter.
Like I said, gold standard.
Because there's nothing potentially arbitrary about scheduling delivery, or by your logic granting personhood.
Tell it to the young lady who was born last year at one in the morning on I-405 in Los Angeles.
Or, at least, explain to me how obstetric scheduling fits in there.
My point being that obstetric scheduling really has nothing to do with it. The example I noted earlier? My daughter, you know, being a "person
in utero" decided to disrespect the obstetric scheduling, refusing to be born on her due date, and offering up a big fuck you by deciding it was time to put on a show before the newly-scheduled time.
Em says .... Got no umbilical cords on me!
(Sorry, I can't resist that one when the chance arises. I so adore that photo.)
Haven't you heard?
Policies restricting nonmedically indicated labor inductions are now in place in the majority of hospitals in the United States, and early signs are that they have the desired effect, according to several new studies.
"The national movement to eliminate non-medically indicated delivery at less than 39 weeks of gestation has prompted many hospitals to adopt specific policies against this practice," reported Nathaniel DeNicola, MD, from the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia.
His survey, presented here at the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 61st Annual Clinical Meeting, found that nearly two thirds of more than 2600 hospitals are on the bandwagon.
The majority, 67%, have a formal policy against nonmedically indicated labor induction, and among those without a formal policy, just over half said it was against their standard of care.
Dr. DeNicola found that 69% of formal hospital policies were hard-stop, meaning strictly enforced, as opposed to soft-stop or strongly discouraged.
(Johnson)
I would note that Dr. Healy also explained, "Something we didn't even anticipate as a benefit of this policy, but was a delightful surprise to see, was a decreased admission rate to the neonatal intensive care unit."
This is actually a somewhat important consideration:
It's a cliche, that "pro-life" policies only apply to the unborn. But it's a cliche with a foundation of truth. And so here we are, WBIR reporting that, as a result of Governor Haslam's telling departments they need to make more cuts to their budgets, TennCare is talking about cutting its $2.25 million perinatal grant (which is then matched by Medicaid) that helps support NICUs across the state.
"Babies who are born anywhere between 23 and 25 weeks can be anywhere from $500,000 to a $1 million baby. So if we were to prevent four or five of those across the state, we would save the money for this grant. So it's money well spent," Dr. [Mark Gaylord, medical director for the UT Medical Center Neonatal Intensive Care Unit] said.
Tennessee ranks as one of the worst states for infant mortality. According to Dr. Gaylord, those numbers are improving but about 13 percent of babies in the state are still born premature.
(Phillips)
I used the editorial version because I wanted that bite about pro-life until you're born to make the point:
In this case, you're recommending a problematic practice that doctors and hospitals are phasing out.
Elective caesarean section
In ths case, it's an interesting proposition. Mothers undergoing Caesarean section deliveries experience a host of issues;
see Willams Cosentino for some of the details. Naturally, vaginal birth brings its own set of challenges, too. But you do realize that, once again, the mother's wellbeing is absent from the pro-life proposition?
No, really, as the article notes:
[T]he practice of elective cesareans is controversial among healthcare providers. The debate spilled into the public eye in 2003 when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a statement essentially approving elective c-sections. In a bow to patient autonomy, the ACOG took the position that doctors may ethically perform an elective cesarean that's medically unnecessary as long as they feel it's "in the best interest of the patient."
I will leave what pregnancy is like for women to describe; after all, I've never been pregnant, and never will be. But Tig always turns to me, when telling the story of our daughter's birth, to explain the first trip to the O.R. That is, the pregnancy is all hers, but she refers to me for that part of the story because I'm the one who witnessed it; she was out cold. And, yeah, it's a good thing she was out cold. A Caesarean is
brutal surgery.
And oh, yeah. I said the
first trip to the O.R.
The doctors followed the proper procedures based on the patient, but there was a problem. At one point, a nurse came into the room for a routine post-procedure check on the Caesarean wound. I was standing to her left. As she pulled up the bandage, her eyes darted to me; it was too late—I saw it, too. Tig was herniating through her sutures. I just nodded, knowing my place, and didn't say anything. The nurse said, quietly and calmly, "Just a moment," and I knew what was coming next. I said nothing to Tig in order to not stress her out. Of course, that was futile because the immediate flood of medical personnel into the room to rush her back into surgery to pull the busted sutures and apply new ones certainly freaked her out. (The anesthesiologist dropping her breathing tube as they were putting her down certainly didn't help, but that's a random accident and beside the point. Still, though, the last thing you want to hear as you're going out is your anesthesiologist saying, "Oh, shit!")
Like I said, the doctors followed the proper procedures based on the patient; that is, they will use heavier sutures for heavier women, but based on the standard they used the right ones for Tig. She was just stronger than they expected when she came out of surgery, and somehow actually busted the line. It blew everyone's mind, was the talk of the medical center that day.
This was a medically indicated C-section. And, sure, it's just
one case, and anecdotal at that.
However, you're suggesting major elective surgery.
And underlying your attempt to tie personhood to obstetric scheduling is of problematic relevance in application. The abortions that take place, in which "obstetric scheduling" becomes an issue as you have suggested, are late-term, and only performed (A) under medically necessary circumstances, or (B) by an unscrupulous doctor who shouldn't have a theatre, or even a license, anywhere in the world.
In the end, then, what you're looking at is either a crisis that is going to kill the mother, or a fatal birth defect that will result in extreme suffering before the birthed child dies.
And obstetric scheduling won't change that.
Your twist of personhood by obstetric scheduling is an interesting thought exercise, but not applicable.
Meanwhile, I would simply note the irony that in the nine hundred sixty-five posts in this thread, we have yet to discuss the topic of what happens to women under LACP, and now we're onto why women should have Caesarean section surgery. It's ... an interesting contrast, to say the least.
____________________
Notes:
Johnson, Kate. "Elective Labor Induction May Soon Be Medical History". Medscape Medical News. May 23, 2013. Medscape.com. January 31, 2014. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/804700
Phillips, Betsy. "Tennessee: Pro-life, Until You're Born". Pith in the Wind. January 13, 2014. NashvilleScene.com. January 31, 2014. http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2014/01/13/tennessee-pro-life-until-youre-born
Williams Cosentino, Barbra. "Elective cesarean: Is it for you?" BabyCenter. (n.d.) January 31, 2014. http://www.babycenter.com/0_elective-cesarean-is-it-for-you_1498696.bc