Miscarriages and death certificates

[SheWolf]

I don't get it. What was be the rational FOR signing one?

It's a human being with full personhood rights.

 

[reinoe]

No. Hell, most miscarriages happen in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. The woman may have not even known she was pregnant.

Millions of women are murders without even knowing it.

 

[Lursa]

Millions of women are murders without even knowing it.

And exactly what negative affect has that had on society?

Apparently, it mattered not at all.

 

[dpcal]

They also didnt deny when human life began.

They just agreed that the unborn shall not be accorded rights as persons.

They had similar decisions in the past...where they decided that blacks and women should receive equal rights. But their being 'human life' was never the question.

I dont mean to be obtuse, just not sure of your point.

When the supreme court states its not in a position to speculate as to when life begins, the wheels of Texas's case fell off... game, set, match doe. Then it was all about what states could and couldn't do in terms of end runs with health and safety regulation.. It seems pretty obvious, that until the fetus is recognized as a human life, ... ie expulsion with some kind of activity, granting personhood is a bit of a stretch.

 

[maquiscat]

Millions of women are murders without even knowing it.

Since murder requires intent and knowledge, no not really.

 

[brothern]

It's a human being with full personhood rights.

It was never even born, lol.

 

[SheWolf]

It was never even born, lol.

It's a human being at conception.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It's a human being at conception.

Human yes, being no. Beings have a conscience. At conception no zygote has such.

As for the OP, silly question. The answer is of course: No.

 

[Captain Adverse]

If the fetus is a person, and it dies, then legally a death certificate must be filled out.

Sorry, you have to be BORN in order to die. The fetus was never born, it simply stopped developing and was flushed out of the woman's body. That's what a miscarriage is.

NOTE: If a child comes to term, and is delivered "stillborn" a death certificate is issued.

 

[joG]

Like I said, I get later pregnancy. 500 grams is potentially viable - what is that, about 22-23 weeks?

But this thread is speaking to miscarriages in general.

Actually there is no time limit, but in Switzerland the stipulation is 500 grams and over 20 weeks. Not so in Germany, where alone the weight determines it. A new law just passed so that smaller children can now be buried in cemetery like anyone else. BTW, abortion is interpreted to be unlawful killing, which is legalese for murder here. It is just exempted from prosecution.

 

[maquiscat]

Human yes, being no. Beings have a conscience. At conception no zygote has such.

The problem is that this assertion is not provable in either direction. We have no real way of measuring a conscience, especially while in the womb.

 

[Paleocon]

Simple question: If a woman miscarries, should she be required to sign a death certificate for the fetus?

No. Physicians or coroners should sign death certificates, not parents.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The problem is that this assertion is not provable in either direction. We have no real way of measuring a conscience, especially while in the womb.

A zygote is literally a formless mass of cells. Having a conscience requires a brain. Which a zygote does not have.

 

[nota bene]

Sorry, you have to be BORN in order to die. The fetus was never born, it simply stopped developing and was flushed out of the woman's body. That's what a miscarriage is.

NOTE: If a child comes to term, and is delivered "stillborn" a death certificate is issued.

And yet there are those who are pro-choice who argue that a stillborn baby was never really alive.

 

[tres borrachos]

Simple question: If a woman miscarries, should she be required to sign a death certificate for the fetus?

Since when do women who aren't doctors, medical examiners, nurse practitioners, or coroners sign death certificates?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Where are you that a miscarriage gets a death certificate?

I get that late in pregnancy that may be different...but most miscarriages end much much earlier in pregnancy.

Just like 98% of abortions?

 

[Removable Mind]

And yet there are those who are pro-choice who argue that a stillborn baby was never really alive.

That's absolutely hyperbole. When conception begins - if there was no life, then there is no development...not even fertilization could happen if the sperm are "dead" or defective - or the egg is the same.

Life, in and of itself, doesn't have to exist in its most mature form.

But pro-life postulates that there's no difference in the life advancing (or developing) stage of a zygote than an 80 year old. The latter stage (retrogressive development) is apparently just a blown of version of the first stage.

Which pro-choice individuals are you talking about in DP who claims that a stillborn was never alive? If it had never been alive...it wouldn't make it to the "STILL" STAGE much less born.

 

[Removable Mind]

No. Regardless of whether the fetus is a person or not, it hasn't been born, there's no birth certificate, so what need would there be for a death certificate?

Honestly, I can't think of much a fetus, or a newborn for that matter, would need a death certificate for.

I agree. If a fetus isn't viable (can't survive outside the womb)...then it'd be a waste of paper to do a death certificate.

But once a fetus is considered "viable" - the state has an automatic interest. It's still limited, but enough to cause some serious legal grief.

Texas law requires a death certificate when a "VIABLE fetus" is prematurely born, or purposely taken from the womb, even if it is place on life support of some kind, and it dies.

And so not to confuse the matter. "Live birth" doesn't always mean "VIABLE". A 20 week old fetus can show signs of life...as described below. In Texas, "Stillbirths" require a special certificate...IF THE FETUS IS 20 WEEKS or more.

TEXAS

Live birth defined:

‘‘Live Birth’’ means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached; each product of such a birth is considered live born.

Fetal death defined:

‘‘Fetal death’’ means death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy; the death is indicated by the fact that after such separation, the fetus does not breathe or show any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.

When fetal death reporting is required:

A certificate of stillbirth (fetal death) shall be filed for any stillbirth (fetal death) if the period of gestation is twenty completed weeks or more. Induced termination of pregnancy defined:

An abortion is any act or procedure performed after pregnancy has been medically verified with the intent to cause the termination of a pregnancy other than for the purpose of either the birth of a live fetus or removing a dead fetus, and shall not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives. (Texas Abortion Facility Reporting and Licensing Act, Health and Safety Code, Chapter 245)

When induced termination of pregnancy reporting is required: The statute requires a ‘‘universal reporting’’ of abortion procedures by all providers of abortion services.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/itop97.pdf

 

[Lursa]

When the supreme court states its not in a position to speculate as to when life begins, the wheels of Texas's case fell off... game, set, match doe. Then it was all about what states could and couldn't do in terms of end runs with health and safety regulation.. It seems pretty obvious, that until the fetus is recognized as a human life, ... ie expulsion with some kind of activity, granting personhood is a bit of a stretch.

There is no doubt when 'life' begins in science. Human development is clearly researched and published.

What the courts could not decide on is when to assign a value to a specific stage of development. Science doesnt assign value, it only presents facts.So they got stuck on a subjective point where they needed to assign value to the unborn. Is it more or less than or equal to born people? They didnt know exactly where that point is but they had the good sense and common decency to realize that it's not equal to that of the born. So they went with basically, viability, the range where there is a possibility of life outside the womb.

It is Congress that accepted the even more logical and more easily applied (in law) decision to use birth as the benchmark. It's the only way to apply 'person' and recognize rights that does not reduce women to 2nd class citizens again by making their rights subordinate to the unborn.

 

[dpcal]

There is no doubt when 'life' begins in science. Human development is clearly researched and published.

What the courts could not decide on is when to assign a value to a specific stage of development. Science doesnt assign value, it only presents facts.So they got stuck on a subjective point where they needed to assign value to the unborn. Is it more or less than born people? They didnt know exactly where that point is but they had the good sense and common decency to realize that it's not equal to that of the born. So they went with basically, viability, the range where there is a possibility of life outside the womb.

It is Congress that accepted the even more logical and more easily applied (in law) decision to use birth as the benchmark. It's the only way to apply 'person' and recognize rights that does not reduce women to 2nd class citizens again by making their rights subordinate to the unborn.

The courts plain language is very clear, and they IMO decided correctly that it would be inappropriate for a court to "resolve the difficult issue of when life begins." Unlike you, SCOTUS did not believe science was clear on when life began.

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."


Unless I missed something in the decision, what you are saying is simply your personal speculation. If I have missed anything including "they went basically with viability" would appreciate your pointing out what they said on the matter.

 

[Lursa]

The courts plain language is very clear, and they IMO decided correctly that it would be inappropriate for a court to "resolve the difficult issue of when life begins." Unlike you, SCOTUS did not believe science was clear on when life began.

"What the courts could not decide on is when to assign a value to a specific stage of development. Science doesnt assign value, it only presents facts.So they got stuck on a subjective point where they needed to assign value to the unborn. Is it more or less than born people? They didnt know exactly where that point is but they had the good sense and common decency to realize that it's not equal to that of the born. So they went with basically, viability, the range where there is a possibility of life outside the womb."

Unless I missed something in the decision, this appears to be nothing more than your speculation. If I have missed anything including "they went basically with viability" would appreciate your pointing out what they said on the matter.




Everything you describe the court doing is simply your speculation.

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

and read something into that decision that wasn't there,

There is no doubt when life begins in science. They were using that word more loosely. (When does that *growing clump of DNA become a human 'being'? was basically their dilemma) Because then they'd also have to define which of the characteristics they'd use, things like heartbeat, when they can feel pain, consciousness, etc. And they couldnt do that...because again, then they start splitting the 'value' hairs in development.

And they didnt specifiy the word viablity but they chose the period...20 weeks, 21 weeks (I forget which) where that possiblity occurs.

*growing means alive. There's no disputing that. I mean, we're not talking about crystals here.

 

[dpcal]

There is no doubt when life begins in science. They were using that word more loosely. (When does that *growing clump of DNA become a human 'being'? was basically their dilemma) Because then they'd also have to define which of the characteristics they'd use, things like heartbeat, when they can feel pain, consciousness, etc. And they couldnt do that...because again, then they start splitting the 'value' hairs in development.

And they didnt specifiy the word viablity but they chose the period...20 weeks, 21 weeks (I forget which) where that possiblity occurs.

*growing means alive. There's no disputing that. I mean, we're not talking about crystals here.

The court wisely chose to avoid viability, because its not only a moving target but they would have had to make a medical definition. In 1973, "viability" for most facilities would likely have been around 28 weeks, but possibly a little lower. Science considers bacteria to be the simplest form of life, however it becomes infinitely more difficult to determine when "life" begins for multicellular organism, as they all start off as a single cell, and over time develop into a functional organism. However, the court has no business telling medicine what point in that development process human life begins. That decision should be made by the scientific disciplines (medicine/biology) best equipped to do so. What would be interesting is if a state decided to limit abortion after 26 weeks where fetal survival is currently in the 90% range.

 

[Lursa]

The court wisely chose to avoid viability, because its not only a moving target but they would have had to make a medical definition. In 1973, "viability" for most facilities would likely have been around 28 weeks, but possibly a little lower. Science considers bacteria to be the simplest form of life, however it becomes infinitely more difficult to determine when "life" begins for multicellular organism, as they all start off as a single cell, and over time develop into a functional organism. However, the court has no business telling medicine what point in that development process human life begins. That decision should be made by the scientific disciplines (medicine/biology) best equipped to do so. What would be interesting is if a state decided to limit abortion after 26 weeks where fetal survival is currently in the 90% range.

Really? Since when does science....biology...apply value to anything? It does not. Value is subjective. Science is not.

WHen does human *life* begin? At conception. That is proven. That is not when we see a human being or a 'person.' So again, it is subjective.

Do you believe that a fertilzed human egg is equal to a born person? You may. I do not.

And yes. they were aiming for viability IMO, with a wide net much for the reasons you claim.

 

[dpcal]

Really? Since when does science....biology...apply value to anything? It does not. Value is subjective. Science is not.

WHen does human *life* begin? At conception. That is proven. That is not when we see a human being or a 'person.' So again, it is subjective.

Do you believe that a fertilzed human egg is equal to a born person? You may. I do not.

And yes. they were aiming for viability IMO, with a wide net much for the reasons you claim.

I share your belief that human life begins at conception, but we differ in terms of how we view the Roe v Wade decision. You are welcome to read into it whatever, you like.... many others who don't believe human life begins at conception also read things into the decision. I prefer to go with the words they said.

 

[Lursa]

I share your belief that human life begins at conception, but we differ in terms of how we view the Roe v Wade decision. You are welcome to read into it whatever, you like.... many others who don't believe human life begins at conception also read things into the decision. I prefer to go with the words they said.

The life of a human does start at conception. That's not up for debate...it's biology. It is living and growing Homo sapiens DNA.

The decision is about Constitutional law and subjective application of OTHER attributes beyond DNA that make a someone a human being or person.

It is the subjective opinion that people object to. IMO, they do not take into consideration the affects that recognizing equal rights for the unborn would have on women, since born and unborn cannot be treated equally legally or practically in the US. One must take precedence and one must be subordinated.

If you have compelling reasons why the courts would reconsider their decison, please provide them. Because that is what it would take for change.