Michigan Anti-Abortion Bill, 'Most Extreme' In The Country

Williebee said:

I can't find a way to make this a standalone true statement. Can you support it? It would seem to me that the sperm was alive prior to conception. So, "scientifically" speaking, there already was life.

And even then, conception doesn't make it a human life.

Click to expand...

LOL What other kind of life could it be, if it's not human?

Pretty much what everyone else said. A sperm or an egg by itself does not have the requirements to become a fully developed human being.

But while the statement "life begins at conception" is true, I agree that it is not a sufficient argument. We do have to go further, as missesdash does below:

missesdash said:

I also think there's an issue with the statement "life begins." Because we agree that after conception it is living and it is human. But does it have a 'life'?

I think 'life begins at conception' as a philosophical statement is false. The human experience doesn't begin until after viability when a fetus becomes conscious and begins its journey to self awareness. Before that it's just as alive as one of the leaves falling from the tree outside of my house. But we don't say "this is a plant life." We acknowledge that it's living. But it has never been conscious or had self awareness, so we're less inclined to call it "a life."

So when I hear pro-life people talking about when "life begins" I always doubt they're talking about from it a 'scientific' point of view because that kind of life has no inherent value.

Click to expand...

That's precisely it. The question is of inherent value. That's why I believe if our population was in a severe decline and we were becoming extinct, zygotes would become very valuable and abortions would probably be highly restricted.

My question is, how can we put various values on life? Is a child's life less or more valuable than an adult's life? Is a poor, unemployed, addicted person's life less valuable that of a brilliant scientist who has discovered the cure for cancer? Is it morally right for us to make those types of determinations? To me, all life is inherently valuable. The value of life cannot be determined by others, IMO.

Alessandra Kelley said:

Is anyone interested in discussing the Michigan bill?

Click to expand...

Yes. I would like to know, if the bill were structured so that post-20 week abortions were limited to medical necessity--medical necessity being clear risk to the mother's life (actual life v. death) and/or severe complications of the fetus that would mean brain death, missing organs, etc. resulting in death or vegetative state--would that be an acceptable bill?

Chrissy said:

Yes. I would like to know, if the bill were structured so that post-20 week abortions were limited to medical necessity--medical necessity being clear risk to the mother's life (actual life v. death) and/or severe complications of the fetus that would mean brain death, missing organs, etc. resulting in death or vegetative state--would that be an acceptable bill?

Click to expand...

Yes.

The thing is, though, that's not the way they usually structure these bills. Bill Clinton had said before he was elected that he would never sign any bill that limited abortion without a health exception, and he kept his promise. But then, when he vetoed a bill like this, the pro-lifers were able to criticize him by saying, "Look! Bill Clinton thinks it's okay for women to have abortions in the third trimester!" That's why they do it that way.

Chrissy said:

Yes. I would like to know, if the bill were structured so that post-20 week abortions were limited to medical necessity--medical necessity being clear risk to the mother's life (actual life v. death) and/or severe complications of the fetus that would mean brain death, missing organs, etc. resulting in death or vegetative state--would that be an acceptable bill?

Click to expand...

No.

Apart from other issues, a bill like that does not allow for concerns over the health of the mother -- only a "clear risk to the mother's life."

Possible death for the mother (or sure death for the fetus) remains the only exemption.

That's still an extremist bill.

Celia Cyanide said:

Yes.

The thing is, though, that's not the way they usually structure these bills. Bill Clinton had said before he was elected that he would never sign any bill that limited abortion without a health exception, and he kept his promise. But then, when he vetoed a bill like this, the pro-lifers were able to criticize him by saying, "Look! Bill Clinton thinks it's okay for women to have abortions in the third trimester!" That's why they do it that way.

Click to expand...

That is extremely frustrating indeed.

missesdash said:

But by limiting it to "humans" you're already making a value judgement. I'm sureyou have no qualms about swatting at a mosquito? But would be more hesitant about bashing a dog's head in, right?

When science speaks of living versus non-living it makes no distinctions between the life of one species versus another.

Click to expand...

ALL MOSQUITOS MUST DIE.

I would not only be more hesitant about bashing a dog's head in, I would make that illegal under all circumstances except self-defense. (And I think it already is)

I do believe that scientists have definitely distinguished between human life and other life forms.

rugcat said:

No.

Apart from other issues, a bill like that does not allow for concerns over the health of the mother -- only a "clear risk to the mother's life."

Possible death for the mother (or sure death for the fetus) remains the only exemption.

That's still an extremist bill.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by the health of the mother? Would you give one or more examples of health issues? If you want to.

At any rate, we've got one yes and one no.

Chrissy said:

Yes. I would like to know, if the bill were structured so that post-20 week abortions were limited to medical necessity--medical necessity being clear risk to the mother's life (actual life v. death) and/or severe complications of the fetus that would mean brain death, missing organs, etc. resulting in death or vegetative state--would that be an acceptable bill?

Click to expand...

No. It's a start, but a woman's life should not be the consideration so much as her health.

Let me give you an example. I belong to a 'Women and Epilepsy' group that tracks women of childbearing age who have epilepsy. The focus of this group is to compile a database of women's experiences with different anti-seizure medications as they pertain to pregnancy. These data are then submitted to a national registry. The purpose of this registry is to provide information (both anecdotal and statistical) to pregnant women or would-be pregnant women on the long-term effects of their drugs on both them and their children.

I remember very vividly a woman who came in to the support group for a few months before she got pregnant, very much by choice. There is no consensus, particularly for some newer anti-seizure meds, as to what the best course of action is on taking meds or not while pregnant. She chose not to, in case there were deleterious side effects to the fetus. She remained relatively seizure-free until sometime in her second trimester, where she start having clusters of seizures. Typically, the more seizures you experience, the likelier they are to spread to other lobes of your brain and the likelier it is you will lose some amount of brain function. There is also some unquantified risk to the fetus from your seizures. In this case, the mother's life was not in danger but her mental health had a high risk of deteriorating. She elected to have an abortion. It was one of the most traumatic experiences I have seen someone go through but in the end, she had to decide what was best for her and the fetus in the long term.

This is, of course, anecdotal but serves as an example where a law stating abortions shall be disallowed after a certain point except to save the mother's life doesn't leave much leeway for the woman to make choices about her health.

Chrissy said:

My question is, how can we put various values on life? Is a child's life less or more valuable than an adult's life? Is a poor, unemployed, addicted person's life less valuable that of a brilliant scientist who has discovered the cure for cancer? Is it morally right for us to make those types of determinations? To me, all life is inherently valuable. The value of life cannot be determined by others, IMO.

Click to expand...

Okay. If all life is equal then why should the fetus have more rights than the woman carrying it? Why should it have more rights than a newborn baby? I can't use another person's body against their will. So far as I know we can't declare that because a baby is in trouble somebody else can be forced to give up their bodily autonomy to, say, give blood or whatever. Why does the fetus get special rights? If I can choose not to donate an organ even if making that choice means the person who needs the organ dies, then why can't a pregnant woman choose to terminate the pregnancy even if that means the fetus dies? What I really hear in anti-abortion arguments is something like, "Everybody's equal, but the fetus is more equal," "Everybody's valuable, but the fetus is more valuable," "Everybody gets rights, but the fetus gets more."

Chrissy said:

What do you mean by the health of the mother? Would you give one or more examples of health issues? If you want to.

At any rate, we've got one yes and one no.

Click to expand...

Two nos. (eta: oops, I'm slow) A woman shouldn't be mandated by law to give up her health for a pregnancy. Some will make that choice and should be free to do so. Why should a woman who already has two or three children carry a fourth (which she might even want), but which would result in complications that might render her unable to care for the ones she has?

For examples? The ones discussed and decided upon between a women and her doctor. Whatever they may happen to be. Which is why laws like this one are unqualified bad ideas.

Chrissy said:

What do you mean by the health of the mother? Would you give one or more examples of health issues? If you want to.

At any rate, we've got one yes and one no.

Click to expand...

See vsrenard's post.

But there's no point in listing hypotheticals. Surely you can see there will be situations where health issues arise that are not life-threatening, but serous nonetheless.

And those issues and their consequences are a matter for the woman and her doctor to assess, not the state.

vsrenard said:

No. It's a start, but a woman's life should not be the consideration so much as her health.

Let me give you an example. I belong to a 'Women and Epilepsy' group that tracks women of childbearing age who have epilepsy. The focus of this group is to compile a database of women's experiences with different anti-seizure medications as they pertain to pregnancy. These data are then submitted to a national registry. The purpose of this registry is to provide information (both anecdotal and statistical) to pregnant women or would-be pregnant women on the long-term effects of their drugs on both them and their children.

I remember very vividly a woman who came in to the support group for a few months before she got pregnant, very much by choice. There is no consensus, particularly for some newer anti-seizure meds, as to what the best course of action is on taking meds or not while pregnant. She chose not to, in case there were deleterious side effects to the fetus. She remained relatively seizure-free until sometime in her second trimester, where she start having clusters of seizures. Typically, the more seizures you experience, the likelier they are to spread to other lobes of your brain and the likelier it is you will lose some amount of brain function. There is also some unquantified risk to the fetus from your seizures. In this case, the mother's life was not in danger but her mental health had a high risk of deteriorating. She elected to have an abortion. It was one of the most traumatic experiences I have seen someone go through but in the end, she had to decide what was best for her and the fetus in the long term.

This is, of course, anecdotal but serves as an example where a law stating abortions shall be disallowed after a certain point except to save the mother's life doesn't leave much leeway for the woman to make choices about her health.

Click to expand...

So the pregnancy caused the seizures?

Why couldn't she go on the medication at that point?

I very much feel for this woman, but I am also discouraged by the fact that she voluntarily got pregnant knowing the risks of having to abort. Was it so important that she try pregnancy, even knowing the result could be a mid- to late- term abortion? What if the seizures had started in the third trimester? How okay is it to experiment when the result could be 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions?

Chrissy said:

So the pregnancy caused the seizures?

Why couldn't she go on the medication at that point?

I very much feel for this woman, but I am also discouraged by the fact that she voluntarily got pregnant knowing the risks of having to abort. Was it so important that she try pregnancy, even knowing the result could be a mid- to late- term abortion? What if the seizures had started in the third trimester? How okay is it to experiment when the result could be 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions?

Click to expand...

Are you actually arguing that a full grown woman can't decide to try and get pregnant even if there are known risks?

It happens all the time. There are parents who want to try for a child and only have 25% chance of their child not getting huntingtons disease or some other horrible defect.

They try because the desire to reproduce is very strong, but does that automatically mean they give up their right to stop the pregnancy if something goes horribly wrong?

Sometimes you just lose.

Two examples of health I've seen in real life.

1. A woman's kidney's started to fail during her pregnancy. She was already late term and decided she would follow it through. She had to pass on the transplant in order to carry the pregnancy to full term. She did not die during the pregnancy, hence no threat to life, but she died months afterward when they couldn't find another match for her. That was her decision and I totally respect that, but what if she had decided she wanted the chance to live and aborted? I would have respected that too. Under this bill she wouldn't have had the choice. It would have been forced on her.

2. A friend of mine got uterine cancer while she was pregnant. It was spreading fast and she had the choice to remove her entire uteris, including the unborn life, and live cancer free because it was still in one area, or continue with the very risky pregnancy that had a 60% chance of failing anyway and risk having the cancer spread to her ovaries and cervix.

She wanted this child. She had to make the most horrible decision to terminate the pregnancy and deal with the cancer. She could never have kids of her own, and they ended up adopting later on. In this sort of bill she wouldn't have had that option and she probably would have died or had several parts of her body carved up to save her.

There are probably thousands more senarios that have happened that deal with health but not life during the pregnancy.

Chrissy said:

So the pregnancy caused the seizures?

Click to expand...

That and her not being on her meds.

Why couldn't she go on the medication at that point?

Click to expand...

Her doctors counseled her not to be on her meds.

I very much feel for this woman, but I am also discouraged by the fact that she voluntarily got pregnant knowing the risks of having to abort. Was it so important that she try pregnancy, even knowing the result could be a mid- to late- term abortion? What if the seizures had started in the third trimester? How okay is it to experiment when the result could be 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions?

Click to expand...

Apparently it was important enough to her to get pregnant to risk possible abortion. Are we now going to dictate in what cases it's acceptable for people to get pregnant.

This scenario could just as easily be the woman developing the onset of seizures from becoming pregnant. The point is that there are scenario in which a woman's health is severely compromised even if her life is not in danger. She deserves to make the decision that is best for her in consultation with her doctor, not have it predetermined by a bunch of politicians.

virtue_summer said:

Okay. If all life is equal then why should the fetus have more rights than the woman carrying it? Why should it have more rights than a newborn baby? I can't use another person's body against their will. So far as I know we can't declare that because a baby is in trouble somebody else can be forced to give up their bodily autonomy to, say, give blood or whatever. Why does the fetus get special rights? If I can choose not to donate an organ even if making that choice means the person who needs the organ dies, then why can't a pregnant woman choose to terminate the pregnancy even if that means the fetus dies? What I really hear in anti-abortion arguments is something like, "Everybody's equal, but the fetus is more equal," "Everybody's valuable, but the fetus is more valuable," "Everybody gets rights, but the fetus gets more."

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I meant to address your post before, and I got completely sidetracked.

First, I don't see it as giving the fetus MORE rights than the woman. I see it as the right to life trumping other, lesser rights. If the woman's life was required so that the fetus could live, then the fetus would have more rights and that would be unjust. If the woman's life is at stake then her right to life is equal to the fetus' right to life, and therefore it is her choice (if she still wants to risk it).

But, and I've said this before, the bodily rights is probably the strongest pro-choice argument I've come across.

The only response I have is that I am not responsible for the random person who asks for my blood, whereas I am responsible for my children--for their health, nourishment and well-being--although, granted, I am still not required to give my blood for my children, as far as I know. (However, why would I withhold my blood from my children if I could give it?)

And I know, a fetus is not my child yet in that way, but I believe there is still the mother-child responsiblity. (And father-child responsibility, for that matter.)

While it is true, as far as I can see, that a pregnant woman under bodily rights has the right to disconnect the fetus from her body, all I can say is, that doesn't make it right.

The woman/fetus relationship is not comparable to any other relationship. Not only is the fetus totally dependent on the woman, it cannot ask for another mother. Neither can it plead its case. Neither can it prove it will someday be of any benefit whatsoever to the woman. In fact, it will continue to need, for many years, and it may even, eventually as a full-grown adult, have to be booted out of the house.

It's a relationship with which there is no adequate comparison. That's all I can say.

First, I don't see it as giving the fetus MORE rights than the woman.

Click to expand...

But it does. The woman does not have the right to demand to be hooked up to another person in order to prolong her own life. The foetus, in a 'pro-lifer's' ideal world, would have that self same right.

icerose said:

Two examples of health I've seen in real life.

1. A woman's kidney's started to fail during her pregnancy. She was already late term and decided she would follow it through. She had to pass on the transplant in order to carry the pregnancy to full term. She did not die during the pregnancy, hence no threat to life, but she died months afterward when they couldn't find another match for her. That was her decision and I totally respect that, but what if she had decided she wanted the chance to live and aborted? I would have respected that too. Under this bill she wouldn't have had the choice. It would have been forced on her.

Click to expand...

If she needed that transplant to live, and couldn't have it while pregnant and could very easily miss another for a match (as she did) this is life or death, is it not?

2. A friend of mine got uterine cancer while she was pregnant. It was spreading fast and she had the choice to remove her entire uteris, including the unborn life, and live cancer free because it was still in one area, or continue with the very risky pregnancy that had a 60% chance of failing anyway and risk having the cancer spread to her ovaries and cervix.

She wanted this child. She had to make the most horrible decision to terminate the pregnancy and deal with the cancer. She could never have kids of her own, and they ended up adopting later on. In this sort of bill she wouldn't have had that option and she probably would have died or had several parts of her body carved up to save her.

There are probably thousands more senarios that have happened that deal with health but not life during the pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Cancer is a matter of life or death, is it not?

Alessandra Kelley said:

What about ectopic pregnancies, where the fertilized egg implants somewhere other than the womb? It may not kill the woman, but it will surely destroy her reproductive system and leave her unable to bear children if that fetus is not surgically removed.

The fetus cannot live to birth in an ectopic pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Ectopic pregnancies are doomed to fail for both mother and fetus, and surgery should commence immediately. Ectopic pregancies are detectible very early on, as well. If they are not, the mother will most likely die along with the fetus. I always wonder why this is used in the pro-choice debate. There is no chance of fetal survival.

RichardGarfinkle said:

In terms of health risks after 20 weeks, here's one that starts then. Preeclampsia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001900/


Just reading about this scared the heck out of me, but I'm only a man, unfit for such dangerous risks.

The reality is that the human body is constantly at risk. Our evolved systems give us a fighting chance and medicine adds to that chance. But there is no way to make something as immensely complex as pregnancy safe.

Even such a sexist pig as Rudyard Kipling understood that much:
"She who faces death by torture for each life beneath her breast."

We can even set aside the argument about when life begins, and reframe the matter like this:

Life or death decisions should be made by the people at risk of life or death. Everyone else should butt out.

Click to expand...

Back in Kipling's day I'm sure alot of women did die, and nothing could be done to save them. But I agree, as concerns life or death of the mother. I've already stated that several times.

Yes, preeclampsia, if it develops into eclampsia, is a severe life or death situation for the mother. I had preeclampsia with my first child and had to lie on my right side (or was it left?) all freaking day and night and take my blood pressure 4 or 5 times a day. Went for check ups, blood draws, etc. weekly. I never got to eclampsia but they still induced at 38 weeks to be safe.

icerose said:

Are you actually arguing that a full grown woman can't decide to try and get pregnant even if there are known risks?

It happens all the time. There are parents who want to try for a child and only have 25% chance of their child not getting huntingtons disease or some other horrible defect.

They try because the desire to reproduce is very strong, but does that automatically mean they give up their right to stop the pregnancy if something goes horribly wrong?

Sometimes you just lose.

Click to expand...

To answer this separately and fully, yes, I do think that "I really want to have a baby" is not as important as "I might have to abort this pregnancy."

Sometimes you do just lose, and sometimes the losing is in making the choice that it's not all about you and what you want. (and I'm not saying you-you, or anyone-you, it's for you to decide obviously.)

That's my opinion. Since, to me, abortion is the end of a life, then yes, I would, at all costs, make the choice that would prevent the abortion, even if it meant I should not try to get pregnant. 100% no-brainer for me.

I'm uncomfortable making other people's healthcare decisions for them.

Roger J Carlson said:

I'm uncomfortable making other people's healthcare decisions for them.

Click to expand...

Me too. Clearly if we all had to floss each other's teeth, the world would be a better place.*












*Mag's string theory!

Roger J Carlson said:

I'm uncomfortable making other people's healthcare decisions for them.

Click to expand...

Me too. I cannot, with good conscience, advise someone else on what they should do on the basis that it's what I would do.

Just throwing this into the mix:

In addition, pregnancy sometimes affects the behavior of some cancers. For example, there is some evidence to suggest that the hormonal changes of pregnancy may stimulate the growth of malignant melanoma.

Click to expand...

Under the proposed Michigan law, would "some evidence to suggest" be enough to qualify a woman for an abortion? If she's been diagnosed early and has a relatively good prognosis (though malignant melanoma is a particularly vicious cancer--which my mother died of), might she be told the pregnancy must continue?

How long might the abortion be delayed while someone other than her and her doctor decide that?