[Abortion][REVISED POLL] If you had the power...

[Chestaan]

Of course, but some people who are pro-choice will be against abortions after a certain time. A position that really puzzles me to be quite honest.

Normally because after viability the fetus is capable of living on it's own and thus there are alternate ways to ensure the bodily sovereignty of the mother and the life of the fetus. In essence after viability the two rights are not directly in conflict as the fetus can be removed without killing it.

But viability is quite late isn't it? Around third trimester? In Ireland, the proposed law if the 8th amendment is repealed will prevent abortion beyond 12 weeks.

[Benuty]

I chose option eight, but not out of anything such as stupid family planning measures practiced formerly in China. Instead hypothetically speaking natural reproduction as a phenomenon must cease with all of humanity being sterilized. Children will be born through other measures, and the need for abortions will be a thing of the past. As for humanity-wide sterilization viruses in the form of sterility plagues, and biochemical weapons without the nasty side effect of unnecessary death, and mutilation could work. There will be those sad that natural reproduction is over, and that the matter of choice when it comes to pregnancy will be considered redundant, but they will get over it.

We cannot as of now make a human without some aspect of natural reproduction.

Also, why

The answer is the logical extreme, of course, my dear friend.

Imagine a world where the idea of bombing a clinic is both stupid and redundant. A person cannot simply bomb something that doesn't provide abortions anymore. No more will there be fake family planning clinics baiting in desperate women looking for the solution to what they face in an uncertain future. No more will states be able to restrict access to sites, and funding for clinics over "trivial" concerns or pass new tightening laws for women to expand the period of waiting time before an abortion can be allowed. This also goes out of its way to solve the constant bickering over Roe vs Wade, and in the long run really is for the greater good.

[Ifreann]

Normally because after viability the fetus is capable of living on it's own and thus there are alternate ways to ensure the bodily sovereignty of the mother and the life of the fetus. In essence after viability the two rights are not directly in conflict as the fetus can be removed without killing it.

But viability is quite late isn't it? Around third trimester? In Ireland, the proposed law if the 8th amendment is repealed will prevent abortion beyond 12 weeks.

With exceptions.

[Cekoviu]

Should be legal and government-subsidized.

Legalize all the drugs.

Legal, but one shouldn't be pressured into doing it.

There can be exceptions in dire situations, but I'd say abortions should be only legal to carry out before the third trimester in most cases. Fetuses tend to have a great enough intellectual ability after that that they could plausibly pass the threshold of legal personhood.

Why does it matter if the fetus is a person or not? Isn't the issue that it is within the woman's body and thus she has the right to abort?

As an analogy: you don't have the right to kill a person in your house just because they're being annoying. When the choice is either between them burning down your house along with you or killing them, you have the right to self-defense. Same with a fetus.

[Kaspania]

Those of you who are pro-choice on the basis of the right to bodily autonomy, what are your opinions on prostitution, legalisation of drugs and selling organs? Also if you believe there should be a time limit on when abortion can be carried out why do you believe this?

I don't see the correlation between prostitution and selling organs, and choosing not to birth a child because you're not prepared to care for it. Also, I don't judge on what people choose to do with their bodies. If someone needs money badly enough to resort to prostitution and selling (assuming their selling their own organs) organs. I can't personally judge them.

[Godular]

Sure (so long as they are licensed, medically safe, and follow necessary precautions), Sure (as long as those drugs do not constitute an overt danger to others), Sure (but shouldn’t be plan A), and post viability abortions are as much of a danger to the mother as allowing the pregnancy to proceed to term.

What if the mother wants to have an abortion regardless of the health risks?

Emergency C-sections be a thing, and are pretty much what would happen.

[Reikoku]

Those of you who are pro-choice on the basis of the right to bodily autonomy, what are your opinions on prostitution, legalisation of drugs and selling organs? Also if you believe there should be a time limit on when abortion can be carried out why do you believe this?

Completely for prostitution and selling organs, though I'd prefer decriminalization of drugs rather than legalization. I believe that abortion should be impermissible after the first trimester, with medical exceptions obviously.

[Shazbotdom]

Those of you who are pro-choice on the basis of the right to bodily autonomy, what are your opinions on prostitution

The illegalization of prostitution was done as a push from the "moral right". What it has done is create the demand for human trafficking, kidnapping and prostitution rings. What two consenting adults do together should be no matter for the government to legislate.

legalisation of drugs

Should be legal. If someone does drugs and drives, it will fall under the Driving Whole Intoxicated laws that are currently on the books in regards to alcohol.

selling organs?

If there is a legal contract between the seller and the buyer, what place does the government have to tell them what to do?

Also if you believe there should be a time limit on when abortion can be carried out why do you believe this?

As soon as the feotus reaches viability, then it should be illegal.

[The Alma Mater]

Also if you believe there should be a time limit on when abortion can be carried out why do you believe this?

The moment the fetus gains the ability to have experiences is where I draw the line. This is when the brain and neural net are active - which is pretty far in the pregnancy.

However, if someone uses the "no human is allowed to use another persons body against their will" line of reasoning there should be no limit in my opinion. Happily I use the person angle

[Neutraligon]

Normally because after viability the fetus is capable of living on it's own and thus there are alternate ways to ensure the bodily sovereignty of the mother and the life of the fetus. In essence after viability the two rights are not directly in conflict as the fetus can be removed without killing it.

But viability is quite late isn't it? Around third trimester? In Ireland, the proposed law if the 8th amendment is repealed will prevent abortion beyond 12 weeks.

Yes, viability is normally at around 24 weeks. That is about half of those born at 24 weeks survive, and it drops rapidly before that. At week 22 10% survive at best and before week 21 there are basically no survivors. As a note most abortions (like 99%) happen well before 24 weeks.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Those of you who are pro-choice on the basis of the right to bodily autonomy, what are your opinions on prostitution, legalisation of drugs and selling organs? Also if you believe there should be a time limit on when abortion can be carried out why do you believe this?

Prostitution - Should be legalised, with safeguards to protect sex workers

Drug legalisation - Legalise soft drugs like weed, decriminalise hard drugs and provide medical care for addicts to get over their addiction (like what Switzerland did in the 1980s during a heroin crisis)

Selling organs - I'm kind of split on this, given how it is used in the developing world to exploit poorer people, but if there's a legal contract between the seller and buyer, so be it.

Time limit on abortion - 24 weeks, which is where the fetus reaches viability and according to multiple studies when it attains consciousness and can subjectively experience pain

[Luminumbra]

Abortions legal across the board up until the nervous system and the brain is formed, after which it should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, or a case of a teenage pregnancy etc.

Plus actions to reduce unwanted pregnancies, with top experts and psychologists at the helm of programs designed exactly for that.

[Neutraligon]

Abortions legal across the board up until the nervous system and the brain is formed, after which it should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, or a case of a teenage pregnancy etc.

Plus actions to reduce unwanted pregnancies, with top experts and psychologists at the helm of programs designed exactly for that.

Given that the brain continues to form throughout the pregnancy when exactly during formation do you mean?

[The V O I D]

Abortions legal across the board up until the nervous system and the brain is formed, after which it should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, or a case of a teenage pregnancy etc.

Plus actions to reduce unwanted pregnancies, with top experts and psychologists at the helm of programs designed exactly for that.

Given that the brain continues to form throughout the pregnancy when exactly during formation do you mean?

I think they are trying to imply it should be more restricted as soon as it is close to finished being formed, e.g. at or near viability of the fetus.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Abortions legal across the board up until the nervous system and the brain is formed, after which it should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, or a case of a teenage pregnancy etc.

Plus actions to reduce unwanted pregnancies, with top experts and psychologists at the helm of programs designed exactly for that.

Given that the brain continues to form throughout the pregnancy when exactly during formation do you mean?

I'd say when the brain develops to the level where the fetus becomes conscious (according to multiple studies, at 24-30 weeks)

[Dogmeat]

Abortions legal across the board up until the nervous system and the brain is formed, after which it should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, or a case of a teenage pregnancy etc.

Plus actions to reduce unwanted pregnancies, with top experts and psychologists at the helm of programs designed exactly for that.

Why incest?

[Benuty]

Abortions legal across the board up until the nervous system and the brain is formed, after which it should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, or a case of a teenage pregnancy etc.

Plus actions to reduce unwanted pregnancies, with top experts and psychologists at the helm of programs designed exactly for that.

Why incest?

To clarify your question a bit...are you asking why abortion should be allowed in the case of incest or something else?

For obvious reasons incest starts producing some...horrible results after two to three generations. There was a case of an entire Australian family practicing so much incest that the kids had to be separated forever due to how messed up in the head they were. To put it bluntly, if someone suggested executing the family in an unironic fashion they probably wouldn't be fired for it because of how disturbing this case is.

Due to the PG-13 rating on this site, I cannot post the case file so just look it up on google.

[Dogmeat]

Why incest?

To clarify your question a bit...are you asking why abortion should be allowed in the case of incest or something else?

For obvious reasons incest starts producing some...horrible results after two to three generations. There was a case of an entire Australian family practicing so much incest that the kids had to be separated forever due to how messed up in the head they were. To put it bluntly, if someone suggested executing the family in an unironic fashion they probably wouldn't be fired for it because of how disturbing this case is.

Due to the PG-13 rating on this site, I cannot post the case file so just look it up on google.

Alright, but that's after multiple generations. Hardly typical. Moreover, I can point to all kinds of chromosome anomalies that will cause horrifically disturbing effects immediately, and there's no exception made for that.

[Benuty]

To clarify your question a bit...are you asking why abortion should be allowed in the case of incest or something else?

For obvious reasons incest starts producing some...horrible results after two to three generations. There was a case of an entire Australian family practicing so much incest that the kids had to be separated forever due to how messed up in the head they were. To put it bluntly, if someone suggested executing the family in an unironic fashion they probably wouldn't be fired for it because of how disturbing this case is.

Due to the PG-13 rating on this site, I cannot post the case file so just look it up on google.

Alright, but that's after multiple generations. Hardly typical. Moreover, I can point to all kinds of chromosome anomalies that will cause horrifically disturbing effects immediately, and there's no exception made for that.

Outside of genetics, its probably due to the fact nearly every culture on earth has an incest taboo dating back to the earliest days of society, and it's not exactly unreasonable or irrational to have one at all. So taking that into account thousands of years of conditioning to revile incest is probably why it had an exemption for many years in countries that didn't allow universal abortion for a time (such as the U.S).

[Dogmeat]

Alright, but that's after multiple generations. Hardly typical. Moreover, I can point to all kinds of chromosome anomalies that will cause horrifically disturbing effects immediately, and there's no exception made for that.

Outside of genetics, its probably due to the fact nearly every culture on earth has an incest taboo dating back to the earliest days of society, and it's not exactly unreasonable or irrational to have one at all. So taking that into account thousands of years of conditioning to revile incest is probably why it had an exemption for many years in countries that didn't allow universal abortion for a time (such as the U.S).

Which is why I'm calling attention to it.

Shagging your cousin is probably not a smart thing to do, but it's hardly a guarantee poor health for the kid. In fact, it's arguably less detrimental then having a child at 40, and no one makes an exception for that. Something being icky is not justification for throwing it alongside rape.

[The Parkus Empire]

The 9th protects prior rights which were always taken for granted, such as the right to breathe. It's not about coining new ones.

Here's the thing - you are right that right to bodily autonomy is neither an enumerated right nor one of the unenumerated rights.

The logical outcome of that is that the government can, in its capacity of governing, decide someone else's right to life is more important than your (nonexistent) right to bodily autonomy. That means the government can, in fact, strap you down and take a kidney to give to someone else who will die without it. This is also not mayhem, because official government legal acts are not mayhem, any more than a police officer slamming someone to the ground and arresting them for smoking weed is mayhem.

Your argument is actually sound. It just has really bad consequences.

They're not really supposed to seize without due process.

[The Parkus Empire]

The 9th protects prior rights which were always taken for granted, such as the right to breathe. It's not about coining new ones.

Nah, it’s written in such a way where it doesn’t distinguish between prior or future rights, just rights. Bodily sovereignty isn’t even a new concept, it’s practically as old as the constitution itself, it not older. The “right to breathe” example you gave is even under the umbrella of bodily sovereignty.

No, it's really not. Bodily "sovereignty" is the same as "self sovereignty", which is not any sort of old right. The self was never sovereign. Unless he was literally a sovereign. Now the self my not be an absolute plaything, the self may have rights, but that does not make the self " sovereign "

[Galloism]

Here's the thing - you are right that right to bodily autonomy is neither an enumerated right nor one of the unenumerated rights.

The logical outcome of that is that the government can, in its capacity of governing, decide someone else's right to life is more important than your (nonexistent) right to bodily autonomy. That means the government can, in fact, strap you down and take a kidney to give to someone else who will die without it. This is also not mayhem, because official government legal acts are not mayhem, any more than a police officer slamming someone to the ground and arresting them for smoking weed is mayhem.

Your argument is actually sound. It just has really bad consequences.

They're not really supposed to seize without due process.

I'd like to introduce you to the concept of "taxes".

[The Parkus Empire]

The 9th protects prior rights which were always taken for granted, such as the right to breathe. It's not about coining new ones.

Except that isn't how even the conservative judicial theorists interpret the Constitution. The accepted wisdom is that the Founders knew that society would change over time, and that it would be necessary to re-interpret the text in light of a new perspective. You can argue that the 9th Amendment isn't designed to protect new rights, but that is exactly how it is used.

In fact, Roe v. Wade wasn't even a question of abortion rights. It was a question of privacy rights and how they apply to seeking certain procedures. The Founders considered the issue of privacy, albeit indirectly, so it isn't unreasonable to include it under 9th Amendment protections.

I don't know what you mean by "privacy right," there is no such general right. There is a right to not be subject to unreasonable *search* or *seizure *. That doesn't mean it is therefore unconstitutional to outlaw prostitution or abortion.

[Benuty]

Outside of genetics, its probably due to the fact nearly every culture on earth has an incest taboo dating back to the earliest days of society, and it's not exactly unreasonable or irrational to have one at all. So taking that into account thousands of years of conditioning to revile incest is probably why it had an exemption for many years in countries that didn't allow universal abortion for a time (such as the U.S).

Which is why I'm calling attention to it.

Shagging your cousin is probably not a smart thing to do, but it's hardly a guarantee poor health for the kid. In fact, it's arguably less detrimental then having a child at 40, and no one makes an exception for that. Something being icky is not justification for throwing it alongside rape.

I don't think labeling it as icky does justice to the fact revulsion of incest is the one thing that unites a good chunk of humanity together regardless of religion, race, or ideology.