Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor says a FETUS is the same as a BRAIN-DEAD Person.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Who knows the science the best? The doctors and researchers.
Or you could just go with what the AMA says. I am just assuming that they consulted the medical community to pick the point of viability and didn't just pick a number out if thin air.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Where are you guys getting this 17 week limit?

Mississippi asks Supreme Court again to review its 15-week abortion ban

SCOTUS is contemplating Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban. That really translates into 13 gestational weeks, because it's based on the first day of a woman's last period, which is approximately 2 weeks before she could concieve.

There is a two week extension in the MS law for those that discover that they are pregnant after a certain threshold, and a couple other exceptions that make the target somewhere between 15 & 17 weeks for their viability assumption (safety number) based on 21 week viability consensus.

The numbers used by scotus in rvw were 29 weeks for consensus and 24 weeks for assumption.

The precise number of weeks in this discussion 15-17 matters not to me, only that this is the MS arguement, and law being discussed.

Folks here are still discussing that MS law, and the Republican case, regardless of whether they us 15, 16 or 17 week in their post, I normally just respond using whatever the previous poster used.

It is still the same scotus case being honestly discussed either way.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Roe did not say the fetus had the constitutional rights of a person at any point. They said the state had an interest in the fetus at that point. And, the point they gave was the third trimester.

A women gets in a car accident, she arrives at the hospital brain dead and is put on life support. She is 15 weeks pregnant. The baby is showing very little signs that it is in distressed. Dad wants the hospital to do all they can for the baby. The hospital wants to also but is also cost conscious because they know that this is a bill that will never be paid in full.
Now, when do you think this baby is viable?
When do you feel the drs should separate the living baby from its mother assuming that the fetus stays healthy inside the womb? I have a feeling that they surely ain't gonna do it before the point the supreme court has determined as being viable, that would result in dad filing a lawsuit and walking away with quite a bit of money. They would more than likely wait till it was past that viability point, since micro-preemies seem to come with alot of developmental problems.
You can call me a liar all you want.. they lawyer isn't asking the court to change the point of viability or it's meaning. They are just saying that since a few babies have survived at the 21 week point, which I believe is a week sooner, they should discard viability as.the main consideration as far as when abortions can be banned. What did that legal defination say again? Oh, ya, I believe it said it is the point that DOCTORS determine a fetus can survive outside of the womb.....with life support... not lawyers, not lawmakers, not the supreme court even. The court just took the consenses of the medical community and used that and then adapted as technology adapted. But I doubt if you will find any doctor who will say the point of viability is before 20 weeks.
If you want to say that the lawyers want to discard viability as a measure... ok... it's not as stupid of an idea and is more accurate as to what the lawyer and state is asking. But for the court to step in and say the drs are wrong in their consenses and insert their untrained opinions, or the state to... umm, no. That could lead to insurance companies to step up and demand the doctors of that car accident victim to go by an earlier standard if they want the insurance to pay out. Or, hospitals to when they get too cost conscious. Leave the viability issue in the hands of those trained to make an informed assessment.

Those words 'that the state has an interest' MEAN exactly that the unborn baby has certain constititutional rights.

What other 'interest' did you think scotus was discussing here?

Also, roe doesn't say that the states had to ban abortion at the third trimester and casey didn't say
the states had to. They just acknowledged that at that point the states had an interest in the fate of the fetus. The states also have an interest in the fate of the women as well as their own financial stability. The states might decide they don't want to force every pregnancy to term just to end up having to finance the care of alot of them. Especially if they are serious about their no exemption for fetal anomolies. They want to be as stingy as possible now when it comes to early childhood intervention and special education and those programs are inadequately funded.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Ghostsdogood
Absolutely.

The term is misleading.
Simple biology shows that the fetus is not an "extension of the mother's body".
The fetus is another person that the mother and father chose to create. It has it's how unique DNA.
By their definition the fetus should also be considered an extension of the father's body.
Sperm with 23 chromosomes, willfully donated by the father.
Egg with 23 chromosomes, willfully donated by the mother.
Together make a new human being.
Yes, it is that simple.
Viability? A baby, alone can not survive outside of the womb at any age. It is going to need someone for the first few years of its life (including the time in the womb).
The argument here is that the mother, who agreed to try and get pregnant, does not want to be that someone the baby needs.

Correct. That is the issue here.

Scotus used the terms we are discussing in order to determine the point at which a fetus becomes an unborn baby with constitutional rights, and in rvw, set that point at 24 weeks to be safe, because medical doctors already KNEW at the time that the unborn baby was medically viable at 29 weeks with some assistance.

Medical science has learned quite a bit in the 48 years since rvw, and scotus is now tasked with determining whether the MS law is violating somebody's constitutional rights (baby or mother), or if it is proper as a result of medical knowledge gained in the last 48 years.

That is the ENTIRE case before scotus.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood
No, if it meant that the supreme court saw roe as an infringement of constitutional rights of the fetus... they would have had an obligation to protect those rights not to hand it off to the states to decide.
They saw the abortion bans that were present at the time to be an infringement of the women's rights..
And, the supreme court does have an interest in protecting the rights of the women as well as every other living, breathing person living in the states.

a reply to: dawnstar

My point was, and I will probably die saying this because no seems to understand it...

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!

Politics relies on votes... science is not politics. Science is based on experimental and empirical data. No "scientific consensus" is worth a red cent. If you take nothing away else from this conversation, at least try to remember that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Have fun finding a few doctors who will say that a fetus can survive outside of the womb before the 20 week mark being assisted with our current technology then..
Maybe consensus isn't the right word, but when there is no doctors claiming it, no scientific evidence showing it, and no fetus ever surviving... then, to me, that is good enough..

And, the fact that babies will need care long after birth changes nothing. If a pregnant women dies and the fetus isn't viable, it is gonna die also. If a mother of a infant dies.. it does on living because the caregiver does not have to be the mother.

a reply to: dawnstar

Have fun finding a few doctors who will say that a fetus can survive outside of the womb before the 20 week mark being assisted with our current technology then..

Found some! They're supporting the MS case.

Did you think MS would bring a case concerning medical technology before the Supreme Court and not have doctors/researchers to testify? I realize it's MS, but come on! They're not completely brain dead, and the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear the argument without evidence.

Maybe consensus isn't the right word

It isn't. Thank you for acknowledging that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

They have not!!

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's probably been beat to death by this point, but the studies are damn near certain that in the 6-8 week range the in utero nervous system is vigorously assembling. Quite the opposite of brain dead. Now a lifeform that can't sustain itself outside the womb doesn't mean "not alive" but is diagnosed as symbiotic for reasons I don't have to explain. That's still alive and still human, albeit desperately in need of a "host" or incubator.

I expect this decision will be upheld in court and second trimester abortions outlawed across the nation.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I think they may decide to change the standard from fetal viability to recognize the issue if fetal life. But, I think it will be sent back to the states and tell them to find a better way to protect the interests of the host because this "to save the life of the mother" doesn't cut it and, there is plenty of cases to prove it doesn't already out there.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I think (hope) that you are correct.

I'll make one correction, though. I don''t think any abortions will be outlawed by this decision. Rather, I expect the states will have the right to outlaw abortions. Quite the difference in reality.

I would love to see a court decision that actually would outlaw third trimester abortions nationally, except where the life of the mother is threatened. That would be an overturn of Roe v Wade, of course.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dawnstar

this "to save the life of the mother" doesn't cut it

What are you on about now? You've been preaching "life of the mother" for the last dozen pages at least, even though no one claimed to want different... now you don't want it?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Been there done that...
"Saving the life of the mother" is inadequate if it means ignoring complications till the mother is near death's door and you have a medical emergency on your hands.
Saving the life of the mother does not protect her from easily foreseeable organ damage. The women's health needs to be protected also.

The interests of the mother has to be weighed against the interests of the fetus. You can't place and undue burden on the mother. And leaving a women in a condition where she needs dialysis the rest of her life is an undue burden.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

Been there done that...
"Saving the life of the mother" is inadequate if it means ignoring complications till the mother is near death's door and you have a medical emergency on your hands.
Saving the life of the mother does not protect her from easily foreseeable organ damage. The women's health needs to be protected also.

The interests of the mother has to be weighed against the interests of the fetus. You can't place and undue burden on the mother. And leaving a women in a condition where she needs dialysis the rest of her life is an undue burden.

NOTHING in this case is even REMOTELY related to the nonsense you keep posting in your dishonest distraction effort.

And NOBODY here has even attempted to dispute your claims in this area.

So why do you persist with such dishonesty?

Are you TRYING to demonstrate just how dishonest modern democrats are?

If so, well done!

If not, wtf are you thinking?

Should have stopped digging that hole days ago.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood
No, if it meant that the supreme court saw roe as an infringement of constitutional rights of the fetus... they would have had an obligation to protect those rights not to hand it off to the states to decide.
They saw the abortion bans that were present at the time to be an infringement of the women's rights..
And, the supreme court does have an interest in protecting the rights of the women as well as every other living, breathing person living in the states.

WRONG.

Stop lying.

The STATE, whether one of the 50, or referring to the USA, only has an interest in ONE thing.

To ensure that nobody's constitutional rights are violated.

THAT is the reason for rvw in the first place, and is STILL the reason for reviewing the constitutionality of the recent restrictive laws in states like MS.

The 'STATE' has no other interest in this case or in rvw.

a reply to: dawnstar


"No, if it meant that the supreme court saw roe as an infringement of constitutional rights of the fetus... they would have had an obligation to protect those rights not to hand it off to the states to decide."


Who are you attempting to deceive here?

RVW did EXACTLY as you suggest they would in that case.

EXACTLY.

SCOTUS determined that according to the facts known at the time, any unborn baby should have constitutional rights after 24 weeks.

Said NO state should kill unborn babies after 24 weeks for EXACTLY this reason, in a convoluted jumble of words that everyone has been arguing about and trying to interpret ever since.

Leaving states with SOME flexibility to make their own decisions about the moment an unborn baby should be deemed to have those rights.

Said states could kill fetuses before 24 weeks because they did not have any constitutional rights yet, so the mother's rights were the only ones that mattered until that 24 week mark, so states could not restrict their right to terminate pregnancy before that.

After 24 weeks, according to RVW, decisions become more difficult because the unborn baby also has those same constitutional rights.

a reply to: dawnstar

"Saving the life of the mother" is inadequate if it means ignoring complications till the mother is near death's door and you have a medical emergency on your hands.

I think any reasonable person (legal standard) would say that a known condition that will threaten a woman's life should be treated as needed (including abortion) when known.

Saving the life of the mother does not protect her from easily foreseeable organ damage. The women's health needs to be protected also.

I see some creep coming into this conversation. First you were upset because a woman might die from a pregnancy complication; now you're upset because their health might suffer. OK, I can go along with severe health issues (although I have never heard of anyone needing dialysis over a pregnancy complication; might happen, I don't know, but I have never heard of that particular complication). But can we draw a line there? What constitutes a sufficient health issue that deserves to kill the child? Stretch marks?

This is the kind of creep that has led us to this point. Some people will abuse any loophole they can possibly find to be able to kill a child. So let's stay specific here, OK?

TheRedneck

Link

Look. I just read close to the whole decision of roe. That was with me feeling like crap with my vision constantly losing focus.

First.. roe defined what they meant by viability and they meant exactly what I said.
Second, they said that "saving the life of the mother" was too vague and inadequate. The mother's health had to be preserved as well.
Third they said the states had an interest in protecting the fetus in the third trimester, which is the point where viability becomes an issue. They used the word may, not will, or must, they may choose to.

Christ, this is why I don't like playing with you guys anymore. You make up crap, go out of your way to insult anyone who doesn't agree with you, and nit pick what people are saying, and in the end just accuse them of lying. I am too old to have kids, I am too sick for anyone to stick me with raising my grandkids if your screwy abortion laws happen to kill my future daughter in laws. It isn't worth my time and effort! Make your bed however you like and then enjoy sleeping in it.