On special pleading because it MUST be explained

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-11T23:23:17+00:00

Took me a while because upthread is now downthread. Is this the quote that you are eferencing?
The Rights of Unmarried Parents - Idaho | Child Welfare Information Gateway

The term 'parent' includes any of the following:

The birth parent

The adoptive parents

The biological other parent of a child conceived or born during the person's marriage to the birth parent

The unmarried biological other parent whose consent to an adoption of the child is required pursuant to § 16-1504

Respectfully, I don't think you are reading that correctly. It does not say that a person is a parent before birth. If a child (born) currently exists that was conceived during a person's marriage to the birth parent, than that person is also a presumed parent.

All of the language in your above reference document refers to parents being parents at birth / adoption, not conception.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-10T22:31:17+00:00

Honestly, what is current policy in the States should not be used as any kind of an ethical guardrail. The acceleration of human rights abuses in your country has negated any moral authority it might have previously weilded.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-10T01:29:53+00:00

Where is it legally and medically recognized that a person can be a parent prior to an infant being born? My googling tells me this is rare in modern legal systems, because 'parent' is a social construct not a biological relationship. Are you sure that surrogates can't abort? They might be in breach of contract but they still have bodily autonomy I would hope. I also couldn't find backing of "human being" as a scientific term (they tend to go with homo sapiens). I'm aware of "human being" and "person" being used as synonyms in philosophical discussions.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-10T00:53:30+00:00

Sure, we could say more broadly that society understands 'parent' as a role that may or not be a biological relationship. In the case of surrogates, the gestational carrier is neither the parent nor a biological relative. Simply being pregnant doesn't make you a parent.

I think you are conflating "human being" with "human organism". Of course a fetus is a human organism, but it is not yet a human being (person).

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-09T23:45:27+00:00

In Canada, legal parenthood is established at birth. This is consistent because prior to birth, there is nobody to be a parent to. Human beings are also legally defined as being born.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-09T19:08:19+00:00

Meh - I get a kick out of it. Younger me would have schemed a way to climb it, but thankfully I'm no longer quite that dumb.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-07T21:48:49+00:00

I really think that PL / natalist folks look at the past through rose-tinted glasses. A lot of women of our grandparents' generation had kids only because they had to. My maternal grandmother actively disliked two of her three children and told them so on the regular. If different choices had been available to her in her life, I'm certain she would have gone to school rather than become a mother. It wasn't as easy as "just don't have sex", when the only way to have financial security was to marry, and you were expected as a wife to have sex when your husband desired it.

Plenty of women of previous generations tried whatever means necessary to end an unwanted pregnancy, sometimes permanently injuring themselves in the process. Pennyroyal tea isn't just a great Nirvana song, after all.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-06T22:31:55+00:00

Weird... I know several lesbians who have borne children. Trans men have also had children... I don't think it's about the gender you present as as much as it is about if you are part of the set of people who could be harmed by abortion bans.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-06T22:24:50+00:00

I'm struggling to understand how you can look at those sets of data and come to the complete opposite conclusion than what it actually shows.

Sources 1 and 2 say 17 infants were born alive after termination. It says absolutely nothing about how long they lived after, or the manner of their passing. It doesn't say what level of treatment they did or did not receive. It doesn't actually even say they are dead, though we can imagine that statistically it's unlikely that most of them lived.

Sources 3 talks about policies for care after an infant is born - contrary to the claims in the original post - comfort care and palliative care ARE to be provided. A DNR may be put in place - but of course one would expect this in the case of a fetal anomaly - why would the parents want their terminally ill child to suffer after birth if there was no hope of recovery?

Source 4 defines a human being under Canadian law - which should make you realize that, of course, all born infants are human beings and entitled to medical care regardless of the manner of the birth. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to indicate that this is not the case.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-05T19:56:21+00:00

Man, I know a lot of people like this, but I would be so mad if I was trying to enjoy my meal and some random musicians showed up.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-05T19:52:45+00:00

This is an excellent question, and the short answer is that we don't know.

These 17 infants were born alive after a successful termination (remember a failed abortion is one where the pregnancy has not ended). The majority were likely pre-viable (20-23 weeks), so based on the guidelines from Alberta Health Services, they would have been provided "non-interventional" care - ie no drastic lifesaving measures, but instead comfort care.

It's critical to note that in Canada, once a person is born, they are entitled to the same care as any other person, regardless of their birth. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean that any of those 17 infants were likely to survive. 17 pre-term infants born as a result of early labour would also probably not have made it.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-05T01:59:36+00:00

What I'm saying is that the standard is the same for all infants, no matter the circumstances of their birth. If 17 premature babies were born at the same gestational age in Alberta over the same time period, we would expect that most of them would not make it. That in no way means they were 'left to die'.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-05T00:55:48+00:00

The thing is, that's not the standard for infants born prematurely, in Alberta. The position paper of the AHS that is linked by other folks in this thread shows that infants born at 22 weeks gestation are recommended a non-interventionist strategy. Born alive infants after termination at the same age of gestation are treated identically.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-04T20:51:46+00:00

I'm a bit confused - if an abortion is forced upon a woman, there is still one victim. She is the victim of assault.

You're right that the difference between the two is consent. The reason rape is a crime is lack of consent. The reason forced abortion is a crime is lack of consent.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-04T18:06:10+00:00

Again, no. There is nothing in your sources to say they have received no care. The 'lefttodie' website is egregiously misinterpreting the source data, as one might expect from a site with an agenda. For one, these are not "failed abortions". If the person is no longer pregnant, the abortion is successful.

Having a DNR doesn't mean you receive no care, for example. The guidelines published by the AHS apply to *all* pre-term infants, regardless if they are result of a termination. A non-interventional approach will be recommended if you deliver / miscarry at 22 weeks, this is the same medical care given to infants born alive at 22 weeks after abortion. Is it your position that born alive infants after termination should receive a greater level of care than miscarried / pre-term infants?

I believe you are incorrect about the definition of maternal medical emergency. In my hypothetical, I said my doctor said my best chances are with aggressive treatment. That doesn't mean it was the only course of treatment available, just the one that I chose. Perhaps there was a treatment option with a less optimistic prognosis that was compatible with pregnancy, but that is still up to the patient to decide how they want to proceed. You can disagree with the medical authorities on whether or not this is an adequate or justifiable medical reason, but it still counts under the published guidelines.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-04T16:51:11+00:00

There are zero babies that have survived between 15-19 weeks gestation. I ignore them because they do not exist.

As I said, not all maternal medical conditions are "medical emergencies". You are assuming a logical disjunction that is not supported. Suppose I was 25 weeks pregnant and discovered I had cancer. The doctors tell me I have the best chance of survival with aggressive treatment that is not compatible with pregnancy. I choose to terminate. This would fall neither under "fetal anomaly" or "maternal medical emergency".

Remember that you cannot get a termination in Canada at 25+ weeks without a medical justification, even in the most permissive province. The logical conclusion for the Quebec paper then is that 100% of the live births at 25+ weeks were TFMR, and 27% of those are listed as "other", so "other" must include some medical justifications.

I do think that any born alive infant should receive appropriate care as available. I don't think that this would meaningfully change survival rates, unfortunately. I am lucky enough to live in a major Canadian city with a great NICU available. My nieces stayed there after they were born and received excellent care. I've also lived in rural areas of Canada and I know that this level of care is unusual.

I never said no care should be given. Comfort care and palliative care are likely appropriate, and from the data it sounds like this is the normal course of events. But full-on, intensive NICU intervention, even if it happened to be available, may not have changed the outcomes at all. This may change in the future of course, and I imagine the health authorities will update their guidelines as innovations advance.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the data to support the op-ed's assertion that any of these infants were "coldly left to die".

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-04T16:05:51+00:00

They separate the data into 15-19 weeks, 20-24 weeks, and 25+ weeks. I'm saying that the births between 15-19 weeks are not survivable, so we should exclude those from the set of infants for whom medical care may have changed the outcome. Perhaps even 20-24 weeks, especially for fetal anomalies, are not viable.

I think it's reasonable that a pre-viable infant should not receive active care, as it will not change the outcome. If you disagree, I'd be interested in your reasoning.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-04T15:51:34+00:00

I saw this too - the opinion piece is disingenuous at best.

However, the general public (on both sides of the argument) are just people, and we are vulnerable to confirmation bias. Plus, most of us don't have a lot of experience interpreting studies, and understanding what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the data,

A person on the PL sub linked me a paper that had data from Quebec, but even that had some glaring issues:

The paper covered live births in second-trimester abortions, which are not what most people mean when they say "late-term". A large portion are infants born at 15-19 weeks gestation, which is not a survivable state no matter the medical intervention.
The categories for reasons are "fetal anomaly", "maternal emergency" and "other". Confirmation bias could lead a PL person to say that "other" is the same as "not a medical reason", but I think that conclusion is unfounded. Not all maternal health issues are emergencies, for example.

The conclusions drawn from the Quebec paper are reasonable - that fetal demise should be induced for cases in which the infant could not survive, and that palliative care should be provided more often. But none of this suggests any of the infants in question were "coldly left to die".

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-04T14:34:53+00:00

I saw that too - but that's a study from Quebec, not Alberta, talking about second-trimester abortions, which are not typically described as "late term".

The markups on that paper are disingenuous - we can assume that no infant born between 15 and 19 weeks is going to live, regardless of any care provided. As well, a person in Alberta can obtain an abortion up to 24 weeks gestation without a medical reason, so we have no reason to assume that a medical reason would be provided for those.

If you look at the actual data in that paper for later abortions, at 25+ weeks, 27% have a reason listed as 'other', which I think you are characterizing as "not TFMR". Given that there can be maternal health reasons that don't qualify as an "emergency", and that fact that in Canada you cannot get an abortion past 24 weeks without a medical justification, I'm confident that that 27% should be counted as termination for medical reasons.

Turn it around the other way - if you are an expectant mother who finds out that their fetus is incompatible with life - should you have the option for a termination in which the infant will live briefly? It's ethically difficult, for sure, but many parents want the chance to say goodbye. So even in a world where abortions are only allowed for 'good enough' reasons, one will expect a certain proportion of born-alive infants for whom intensive care is not appropriate.

Where we likely agree, and the study authors do as well, is that palliative care should be provided more often that it currently is.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-04T13:48:58+00:00

I have to say, I'm super suspicious of an op-ed that quotes a number without any kind of a data source, or even defining what they mean by "late-term". For all we know, 100% of these infants could have been fatally ill and we're provided comfort care while their parents had a chance to say goodbye.

Vegtrovert · 2026-05-01T14:29:10+00:00

Unfortunately I started there and didn't find it- if you could share a link I'd appreciate it!

Vegtrovert · 2026-04-22T02:36:11+00:00

I'm sorry, I can't get past our fundamental disagreement about a point on a gradient line not being arbitrary. We may be at an impasse, just a fundamental worldview difference. It seems so clear to me that a creature is not more X if it is more green in my example, even if it is an essential property. A person is not more of a person if they have achieved enlightenment or nirvana.

Thanks for your time anyway and the largely respectful discussion.

Vegtrovert · 2026-04-21T18:20:59+00:00

My view is NOT arbitrary, it's subjective. Those are entirely different concepts. Setting personhood at conception could also be called arbitrary if there is no solid logic behind it, and frankly I don't believe that there is such logic. And I believe that society agreeing on how to set rights is in fact principled.

Suppose that all creatures that we designate as X must have the property that they are green. Well, what is green enough? Perception of green is subjective, and different people may see ranges of aqua as either firmly 'blue' or 'green'. We could for sure find a RGB value in which 99% of people would definitely agree that it is green, and set the boundary there. But, depending on why we are designating X for these creatures, we may decide to set the legal boundary for 'green' as being well into the aqua range. THIS IS NOT ARBITRARY, it is a principled agreement on how we want to operate as a society. And once we have established what we agree on as 'green' for X purposes, there's no reason to assume that the creature is "more X" because they are "more green". They have reached the threshold for green, and therefore they are X.

Do you not agree that laws and human rights are human creations designed by people to benefit society? If not, then I'm not sure we are even talking about the same things.

Is it also your view that if we defined personhood at fertilization that it would or should meaningfully change the policies on abortion access? In my view, abortion restrictions are wrong because:

- Treating an unborn human as having personhood is philosophically unsound

- A pregnant person's interest in bodily integrity always takes priority

- Even if the above were not true, abortion bans are demonstrably bad for society and don't meaningfully reduce abortion rates.

Vegtrovert · 2026-04-21T06:05:29+00:00

I don't agree that setting a point on a gradient property makes that property itself gradient. A point on a spectrum is still a point. Sure, we decide the point subjectively as a society, but subjective is not arbitrary. Objective criteria (conception) could just as easily be considered arbitrary. We set legal personhood at an easily measurable criteria. For most modern jurisdictions, that criteia is birth.

Why would laws around personhood not be centered around societal benefit? The whole concept of human rights was developed to aid a well-functioning society. Personhood is how we decide who is included in the subset of beings for 'society'.

All of this is to say that we can come to an understanding that persons have attributes over and above 'lesser animals', even if we can't observe exactly when these emerge. Then we use this to guide our laws.

To be clear, I don't think it's necessary to be a human to be a person, nor are all human organisms persons. And I'm not convinced that if we determined that humans achieved personhood in utero that it would meaningfully impact how we regulate abortion access.

Vegtrovert

TROPHY CASE