Woman dies in Ireland for want of an abortion

[Xeng He]

Doesn't matter. It is not a person. For the record, if we want benchmarks, infants aren't really people until they're about age 2 by a benchmark of, say, basic cognitive function, fundamental ideas of rationality, and the ability to think in some manner of abstraction.

...so why can't I commit infanticide then? The infant's still going to be pretty much totally dependent on either me or someone else for the next several years, so it's still going to be using up resources, and, well...it's equivalent to the fetus, whose rights we don't care about.

The answer's relatively straightforward to me--an infant is still capable of perceiving and to some extent learning from its environment.

[Dyakovo]

Doesn't matter. It is not a person. For the record, if we want benchmarks, infants aren't really people until they're about age 2 by a benchmark of, say, basic cognitive function, fundamental ideas of rationality, and the ability to think in some manner of abstraction.

...so why can't I commit infanticide then? The infant's still going to be pretty much totally dependent on either me or someone else for the next several years, so it's still going to be using up resources, and, well...it's equivalent to the fetus, whose rights we don't care about.

The answer's relatively straightforward to me--an infant is still capable of perceiving and to some extent learning from its environment.

Riso has answered that question multiple times.

[Xeng He]

No, she didn't.

She and a man, yeah.

Still involves her participation.

[Bottle]

Yup. That's because the foetus isn't a person.

Again, I still have yet to hear about a difference in brain structure between a 23-week old fetus and a 23-week old premature birth.

Well, see, in the 23-week fetus the cerebral hemispheres are surrounded by pia, arachnoid, dura, bone, periosteum, skin, amniotic fluid, chorion, uterine epithelial layers, visceral peritonium, muscle layer, and final skin layer. In the 23-week born infant, only the first five layers are present.

[Xeng He]

Riso has answered that question multiple times.

I responded to that earlier in the thread. But I can say it again, I suppose...

Why is birth the cutoff?

[Risottia]

Doesn't matter. It is not a person. For the record, if we want benchmarks, infants aren't really people until they're about age 2 by a benchmark of, say, basic cognitive function, fundamental ideas of rationality, and the ability to think in some manner of abstraction.

...so why can't I commit infanticide then?

Because of legal fiction that imparted legal personhood on the newborn.

[Free South Califas]

Stop being misogynistic and stop making arguments that make it clear that what you want is to punish sluts then...

I'm for legalizing prostitution. I support cheap and easy access to contraceptives, and education about those contraceptives. I'm for first and early second trimester abortion.

How can being (in a very on-the-fence way, even) against abortion after the 23rd week make one anti-slut in a way being for legalizing sluts can't wash away?

First, it is telling that you would merely "legalize sluts", even if you do not directly aim to punish them; first because "slut" implies a moral judgement of 'how much is too much', thus imposing your individual moral perspective on people who have no obligation to it; second because, however you count them, they needed no legal act to begin existing without being in conflict with the law, unless sexually active women are first considered illegal in general, and that is a rather troubling proposition to say the least.

Second, why do you want the state to force women over 23 weeks pregnant to give birth? Given that this adds several implied barriers to abortion access, speculation will be inevitable that the aim is to punish sluts. After all, you've marked a distinction between women who want an abortion before and who want one after 23 weeks. Some compelling reason why you want the state to force the women to give birth, and a good-faith attempt to address the unintended consequences of giving doctors and the state extra power over women in vulnerable conditions, could presumably go a long way toward permanently dispelling the notion that your motivation is to "punish sluts".

As it stands, that is the most clearly visible possible motivation to me, but you seem reasonable, and I could be convinced that this is about as far as possible from your intention. However, if the effect is to create (through the counting) and then punish sluts, your noble intentions may not go far after all. So, it would also be necessary to disprove the notion that giving doctors and the state this extra power will have the effect of punishing sluts. Similarly, Kant had the noblest of intentions when he deemed prostitution and concubinary immoral (he wanted women to retain their whole persons and not give them away in unequal trades), but one effect of that proclamation is that sluts are demarcated by society and punished. Kant may be absolved of any such intention, but that would have little bearing on the justice and righteousness of the law (or lack thereof).

But a pregnant woman is not responsible for a fetus.

How so? She and one other are the reason it's in the womb in the first place...

And if she was raped? You cannot wave that away, it's very common.

It enters her womb against her will, she's not resposnible for it.

It enters her womb against its will, too. At least in the woman's case she can (Assuming she learns she's pregnant before the 23rd week) kick it out. The fetus doesn't exactly get that choice.

And if she doesn't learn this, your heart is closed to her needs? What will you do about the inevitable unintended consequences, i.e. pregnancy being kept a secret from the woman until the 23rd week, or doctors using blackmail to extract services, cash etc. before revealing the result of a pregnancy test (drugstore pregnancy tests are not foolproof, and false negatives are certainly possible), or the woman being forced to lie in order to receive desired or needed medical care. What if she can neither afford a drugstore pregnancy test, a clinic visit, or an abortion due to personal economic circumstances during those 23 weeks? In that case, would forcing her to give birth not have the potential effect of forcing deprivation on the future child, perhaps foreclosing the possibility of happiness and full potential for a hypothetical later child which she might have willingly?

Also, does your "23 weeks only" policy include exceptions for rape and to protect the life of the mother? If the former, do you propose some means of actually detecting whether rape occurred (and if so, what do you do about the unjust situation of rape survivors who cannot prove they were raped), or do you propose we simply take the woman's word for it (and if so, what do you do about the inevitable liars)? If the latter, do you propose some minimum standard of threat to the mother (and if so, what is it, and how do you ensure the distinction won't cause injustice), or do you propose to simply take her at her word that she may be suicidal (and if so, how do you solve the resultant moral crisis for women who feel they cannot adequately provide for a child nor sustain pregnancy, but are not actually suicidal, and must lie in order to receive care)? If it does not, the effect of the policy will indeed, in some circumstances, be to demarcate sluts and punish them, under a particularly brutal and medieval definition of slut.

The fetus should have planned better.

Unless you're being sarcastic (you never can tell on the internet), I'm going to assume you're trying to draw some equivalence between the pro-Life demand for women that don't want babies to plan against pregnancies and the, you believe to be equally, ridiculous argument that a foetus should plan against invading a woman's body.

The difference is; a woman can plan against it and, in modern times, it really doesn't take much, but a foetus cannot.

Irrelevant; contraception fails sometimes. Also, whether or not the woman met your authoritarian prescription on protection, the fetus exists now and social policy must deal with the implications regardless of prior acts. We're talking about life and death here. We can't just let people fall through the cracks because you decided you were the god of women.

Rape/failed contraception. Your argument is invalid.

I've already stated, and whilst you were here, that rape is a wholly different subject.

Oh? What makes it "a wholly different subject", and what are the policy implications? Rape is a very common and normalized sex act; to treat it as some special, mythical world of he-beasts and innocent damsels in distress is, frankly, misogynistic and dismissive of the real-world problem.

As for failed contraception, I would generally support a woman's right to an early-term abortion.

Are you callous toward the needs of women who do not learn of their pregnancy early enough, or cannot afford the necessary procedures (testing etc.) during that time? Why do you want the state to force women to give birth outside of this narrow window, exactly?

Beside the point. If I accidentally run somebody over, I've still run somebody over. If a zygote fetus doesn't have the choice to violate a woman's bodily integrity against her will, it can still do it, and a woman has a right to undo anything that was done.

Making sure we don't switch this back to the 4-week example so some idiot will pull the pictures argument again...


Anyhow, this point goes both ways. Even if a woman didn't choose to put the fetus in her womb, she did so. And again, in her case she could've undone the accident without causing any problems to herself.

Why are you so callous toward rape survivors?

Yup. That's because the foetus isn't a person.

Again, I still have yet to hear about a difference in brain structure between a 23-week old fetus and a 23-week old premature birth.

Irrelevant. Right to bodily integrity.
Difference in brain structure is a bad path to go down for other reasons, too; surely you don't mean to suggest that someone whose brain fails to develop past the 9-month stage could be killed without remorse?

Riso has answered that question multiple times.

I responded to that earlier in the thread. But I can say it again, I suppose...

Why is birth the cutoff?

Right to bodily integrity.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Again, I still have yet to hear about a difference in brain structure between a 23-week old fetus and a 23-week old premature birth.

Well, see, in the 23-week fetus the cerebral hemispheres are surrounded by pia, arachnoid, dura, bone, periosteum, skin, amniotic fluid, chorion, uterine epithelial layers, visceral peritonium, muscle layer, and final skin layer. In the 23-week born infant, only the first five layers are present.

[Risottia]

Riso has answered that question multiple times.

I responded to that earlier in the thread. But I can say it again, I suppose...

Why is birth the cutoff?

Look just below the "NATIONSTATES" title bar.

You'll find some text reading:
Board index ‹ General Discussion ‹ General
User Control Panel • View your posts Members Search Logout

The "Search" word is actually a hyperlink. Click on it. Use the search tool.

[Samuraikoku]

No, she didn't.

She and a man, yeah.

Still involves her participation.

What if it was unwilling?

[Zottistan]

Beside the point. If I accidentally run somebody over, I've still run somebody over. If a zygote fetus doesn't have the choice to violate a woman's bodily integrity against her will, it can still do it, and a woman has a right to undo anything that was done.

Making sure we don't switch this back to the 4-week example so some idiot will pull the pictures argument again...

I was going on the logic that the fetus is in the womb for as long as it existed, while a zygote actually forms there. But that's just me failsafing my gramatical semantics.

Anyhow, this point goes both ways. Even if a woman didn't choose to put the fetus in her womb, she did so. And again, in her case she could've undone the accident without causing any problems to herself.

It does indeed go both ways. Which is why the fetus isn't responsible for entering the woman's uterus. I'm not trying to stick the blame on the fetus. I'm trying to say that it's the fault of nobody. It's not a matter of punishment. Both sides start innocent, but the fetus is, however unwillingly, causing the woman discomfort. The woman has a right to remove that discomfort, and if the fetus should die because of this, that's unfortunate, but the woman is not in the wrong. As I said earlier she isn't (or at least shouldn't) be under any obligation.

I'm under no moral obligation, and shouldn't be under a legal one.

In Italy, and in most other European countries, you are under the legal obligation to provide help to a person whose life is in danger.

I never said you weren't under a legal obligation, I said you shouldn't be under a legal obligation. I said you aren't under a moral obligation unless you yourself have a moral qualm with it.

[Dyakovo]

No, she didn't.

She and a man, yeah.

Still involves her participation.

No, implantation of the fertilized egg in her uterine wall requires no effort on her part, and, in fact happens (or doesn't) regardless of her will.

[Risottia]

I never said you weren't under a legal obligation, I said you shouldn't be under a legal obligation. I said you aren't under a moral obligation unless you yourself have a moral qualm with it.

Fair enough. Not that I agree, still, fair enough.

[Dyakovo]

Riso has answered that question multiple times.

I responded to that earlier in the thread. But I can say it again, I suppose...

Why is birth the cutoff?

That question was already answered as well.

[Xeng He]

Well, see, in the 23-week fetus the cerebral hemispheres are surrounded by pia, arachnoid, dura, bone, periosteum, skin, amniotic fluid, chorion, uterine epithelial layers, visceral peritonium, muscle layer, and final skin layer. In the 23-week born infant, only the first five layers are present.

A layer of skin doesn't really affect the way the brain works, you know that.

[Zottistan]

Doesn't matter. It is not a person. For the record, if we want benchmarks, infants aren't really people until they're about age 2 by a benchmark of, say, basic cognitive function, fundamental ideas of rationality, and the ability to think in some manner of abstraction.

...so why can't I commit infanticide then? The infant's still going to be pretty much totally dependent on either me or someone else for the next several years, so it's still going to be using up resources, and, well...it's equivalent to the fetus, whose rights we don't care about.

The answer's relatively straightforward to me--an infant is still capable of perceiving and to some extent learning from its environment.

Financial dependance and biological dependance are different. A child will not necessarily die if cut off from fincance from it's parents. A fetus will die if cut off from biological support from it's mother.

[Risottia]

Well, see, in the 23-week fetus the cerebral hemispheres are surrounded by pia, arachnoid, dura, bone, periosteum, skin, amniotic fluid, chorion, uterine epithelial layers, visceral peritonium, muscle layer, and final skin layer. In the 23-week born infant, only the first five layers are present.

A layer of skin doesn't really affect the way the brain works, you know that.

You asked about brain structure.
About the mind, I already replied.

Next!

[Free South Califas]

Well, see, in the 23-week fetus the cerebral hemispheres are surrounded by pia, arachnoid, dura, bone, periosteum, skin, amniotic fluid, chorion, uterine epithelial layers, visceral peritonium, muscle layer, and final skin layer. In the 23-week born infant, only the first five layers are present.

A layer of skin doesn't really affect the way the brain works, you know that.

Do you mean to imply that children with sufficient mental retardation (in the most literal sense) can be killed with no moral qualms if one accepts the prospect that some women will, and should be able to, receive abortion care?

[Dyakovo]

A layer of skin doesn't really affect the way the brain works, you know that.

Do you mean to imply that children with sufficient mental retardation (in the most literal sense) can be killed with no moral qualms if one accepts the prospect that some women will, and should be able to, receive abortion care?

Considering how often he's brought it up, I've come to the facetious conclusion that he's looking for justification for infanticide...

[Shadowlandistan]

It's thanks to attitudes like this that my mother had to go to Sri Lanka to get her abortion. Thank fortune it was available there. Backstory: neither her nor my dad thought that they were financially secure enough to have a child. When they decided that they were and had me, they were able to give me and later my sister a relatively comfortable upbringing. If she hadn't been able to have one, the family would have probably ended up being pretty fucking poor.

The option of having easy access to abortion is a good thing for a variety of reasons. Not being able to have access to an abortion, especially when the pregnancy puts a woman's life in danger, is a callous state of affairs.

Condoms work too...crazy I know.
Abortion as a form of birth control is frankly barbaric, and justifies every Pro-Life position.

Pro life??? You and the crazy fanatics who agree with you are ANYTHING but....

[Apollonesia]

because POPE and JESUS.

So naive.

Backstory: neither her nor my dad thought that they were financially secure enough to have a child.

Then they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

[Samuraikoku]

because POPE and JESUS.

So naive.

Backstory: neither her nor my dad thought that they were financially secure enough to have a child.

Then they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

So naïve.

[Galloism]

because POPE and JESUS.

So naive.

Backstory: neither her nor my dad thought that they were financially secure enough to have a child.

Then they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

And... is anyone curious what seems to happen if heterosexual (and homosexual, albeit in different ways) married couples obstain from intercourse for a long time?

[Mavorpen]

So naive.


Then they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

And... is anyone curious what seems to happen if heterosexual (and homosexual, albeit in different ways) married couples obstain from intercourse for a long time?

Their penis falls off.

[Dyakovo]

because POPE and JESUS.

So naive.

Backstory: neither her nor my dad thought that they were financially secure enough to have a child.

Then they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

Because every time a woman has sex she gets pregnant...