[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Telconi]

Or not. But nice try.

Okay, a straight-forward question: would you let a rape victim who was ten/eleven or fourteen, like the girls San Lumen brought up in Paraguay have an abortion?

Situational dependant on other factors.

[The Free Joy State]

Okay, a straight-forward question: would you let a rape victim who was ten/eleven or fourteen, like the girls San Lumen brought up in Paraguay have an abortion?

Situational dependant on other factors.

What factors would it depend on, for you?

[Telconi]

Situational dependant on other factors.

What factors would it depend on, for you?

Risk to the mother or child if pregnancy is carried to term.

[The Free Joy State]

What factors would it depend on, for you?

Risk to the mother or child if pregnancy is carried to term.

What about if the rape victim was a child who couldn't give birth without serious injury?

The younger the girl the higher the risk of serious unforeseen injury in childbirth; her pelvis might be too small to deliver -- she may die in childbirth, develop fistulas. The foetus also leaches nutrients from a still-growing child.

Girls under 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth than women in their 20s.

Considering the heightened risk to the mother, would you let a young rape victim abort?

[Telconi]

Risk to the mother or child if pregnancy is carried to term.

What about if the rape victim was a child who couldn't give birth without serious injury?

The younger the girl the higher the risk of serious unforeseen injury in childbirth; her pelvis might be too small to deliver -- she may die in childbirth, develop fistulas. The foetus also leaches nutrients from a still-growing child.

Girls under 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth than women in their 20s.

Considering the heightened risk to the mother, would you let a young rape victim abort?

I think everything you've brought up falls under "risk to the mother or child if pregnancy were carried to term"

[Katganistan]

Here is a study that discusses the impacts of unintended pregnancy on both parents and children.

Another discussing the impacts on women who wanted to abort but could not.

Legalizing abortion has led to a significant drop in crime.

Most adult women who have abortions do not have mental health problems as a result of them.

Children born of unintended pregnancies tend to have poorer developmental scores.

Sorry to infodump, but there seem to be reasons that abortion is sometimes better than carrying to term.

Why not put it up for adoption instead of killing it?

"The answer my friend
is upstream in this thread
The answer is upstream in this thread" (with apologies to to Bob Dylan)

[Katganistan]

...because the woman would need to go through 9 months of pregnancy before that happens...? And because chucking another 600,000+ babies into the already creaking adoption and foster system isn't a viable solution...?

Almost like...we should put more money into the system. Also with the rising acceptance of gay people in culture, I wouldn't imagine that gay couples who can't have kids wouldn't happily take unwanted children.

OH NO
CAN'T LET TEH GAYZ ADOPT
THEN TEH SWEET INNOCENT BABBIES WILL BECOME TEH GAYZ!

Yeah. It's a thing some people are against.
I for one am all for letting all people who can provide a safe, healthy, loving environment for children adopt. Apparently some people think gays can't provide that without some gross sexual predation entering into their wish to adopt and/or that they will convert straight babies to gay babies.

[Godular]

Almost like...we should put more money into the system. Also with the rising acceptance of gay people in culture, I wouldn't imagine that gay couples who can't have kids wouldn't happily take unwanted children.

OH NO
CAN'T LET TEH GAYZ ADOPT
THEN TEH SWEET INNOCENT BABBIES WILL BECOME TEH GAYZ!

Yeah. It's a thing some people are against.
I for one am all for letting all people who can provide a safe, healthy, loving environment for children adopt. Apparently some people think gays can't provide that without some gross sexual predation entering into their wish to adopt and/or that they will convert straight babies to gay babies.

Indeed, part and parcel of a great portion of the emotive response: Logical Consistency? The only consistency I need is for my grits!

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

The foetus feels nothing and knows nothing.

The rape victim -- the actual victim and a child in both cases in Paraguay -- is conscious of her suffering every day.

Then by your logic, we should euthanize rape victims in their sleep

That is a complete strawman. A rape victim (or a born human in general), while asleep, has previously been conscious and can regain consciousness in the future (by waking up). Euthanizing a sleeping human, from their subjective experience, would be like them dying the moment they fell asleep. Terminating a 1st/2nd-trimester foetus (92% of abortions happen within the first trimester), on the other hand, from the foetus' subjective experience would be like them having never been conceived in the first place, as they would have never experienced consciousness.

[Kowani]

Oh, and for everyone who claims that “There is little to no risk in pregnancy!” No. Every pregnancy is inherently risky. Even with modern medicine, it’s still fuckin’ dangerous.
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ ... 546889002/
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ ... 547050002/

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Soooooo, I have something of a question for the catholics out there.

I can understand that the ongoing policy is that one must work to preserve all human life, but I am fundamentally flabbergasted at the idea of inflicting suffering on others to do so. It feels almost as if quality of life has taken a complete backseat to quantity, without regard for those who actually feel pain.

The two properties are very much intertwined. How can the policy hold up without glaring inconsistencies? Would you maim in self defense? How is refusing to remove a stillborn that has gone septic a part of this policy?

‘Tis a boggler.

(yes this is Godular, couldn’t be arsed to switch to my main)

[The Free Joy State]

Soooooo, I have something of a question for the catholics out there.

I can understand that the ongoing policy is that one must work to preserve all human life, but I am fundamentally flabbergasted at the idea of inflicting suffering on others to do so. It feels almost as if quality of life has taken a complete backseat to quantity, without regard for those who actually feel pain.

The two properties are very much intertwined. How can the policy hold up without glaring inconsistencies? Would you maim in self defense? How is refusing to remove a stillborn that has gone septic a part of this policy?

‘Tis a boggler.

(yes this is Godular, couldn’t be arsed to switch to my main)

Acknoledging that not all Catholics are hard-line prolifers or prolifers at all (Catholics for Choice is an organisation), I found this from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that explores some possible reasons:

The “Hard Cases”

Children are sometimes conceived as a result of an evil act, such as rape, but a child’s worth does not depend on the circumstances of his or her conception. A child is always a great good in the eyes of God and a source of joy and love to his biological or adoptive family as well.[...]

Today many of the babies diagnosed prenatally with a disability are aborted. Frightened parents, unsure of their ability to care for a child with disabilities, need to recognize that God has chosen them to be the parents of this child for a reason. [...] Even when a baby has such severe disabilities that she is likely to die before or during birth, parents can find peace by nurturing the baby until God calls her home. [...]

Very rarely, continuing a pregnancy may put the mother’s life at risk. In certain cases, such as aggressive uterine cancer or an ectopic pregnancy, it is morally licit to remove the threat to the mother’s life by removing the cancerous uterus, or by removing part or all of the Fallopian tube where the child implanted, even though it is foreseeable that the child will die as an indirect and unintended effect of such surgery. Abortion, a direct and intentional attack against the child’s life, is never morally licit. The unborn child and his mother have equal human dignity and possess the same right to life. When a medical crisis arises during pregnancy, there are always two patients involved. Doctors should do whatever they can to save both their lives, never directly attacking one—through drugs, surgery or other means—to save the other.

Additionally, it is apparent that some believe that a woman's health is not sufficient unless her death is literally imminent (the example the article gives of when uterine removal -- not abortion, they're very clear on that -- would be licit is advanced uterine cancer at a few weeks pregnant**). From Catholic.com:

The Mother’s (Insert Here) Health

The criteria used to determine that this rare choice is morally acceptable are the same criteria that tell us that abortions for "the health of the mother" are immoral. If an abortion is performed to preserve a less-than-life-threatening aspect of the mother’s health, it is simply wrong, by all three criteria of the moral principle of double effect.

Although the intention is ostensibly to preserve the health of the mother, all too often the mother’s mental or emotional health—even financial or social health—is invoked to justify the act. In some cases, the doctor may foresee problems arising in a pregnancy that would put the mother at risk.

But regardless of the reason cited, the action taken is the abortion of the child, and the direct intention of that act is death. When an abortion is performed to "preserve the health of the mother," the abortion is the cause of any perceived benefit to the mother. In other words, an evil is being done to pursue a supposed good, and this is never morally licit. Finally, we must weigh the moral gravity: A grave evil is being done—the direct and intentional killing of an innocent person—to achieve a lesser good. Whether the intended benefit to the mother’s health is small or great, actual or contrived, "good health" can never equal life itself. Abortions performed "for the health of the mother" fail the test on all three counts.

Basic TL;DR: beliefs in God's unknowable but ever-glorious will, that suffering happens for a reason (IIRC, there's something of an idea that suffering brings redemption in some Catholic theology), and that a zygote has the same right to life as the mother ("life" apparently does mean the functioning of cells, not an actual experience).

Women as effective broodmares designed to pop 'til they drop and that benefits to women's health (great or small) are not sufficient reason to abort also seems to feature in the second excerpt.

There are probably more reasons, but that seems to be the main ones behind most hardline religion pro-life views.

**As for the pregnant hypothetical woman with uterine cancer? If she were further along, the article mentions the possibility of postponing her treatment and reducing her chance of survival until the foetus is viable without her, so I think it's pretty clear where some -- not all -- hard-liners stand, overall.

[Telconi]

Oh, and for everyone who claims that “There is little to no risk in pregnancy!” No. Every pregnancy is inherently risky. Even with modern medicine, it’s still fuckin’ dangerous.
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ ... 546889002/
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ ... 547050002/

I don't think anyone has disputed that.

[The Free Joy State]

Following from Godular's question for (hardline) Catholics, an interesting factoid: Irish Catholic abortionist saints

The most detailed account is told of Ciarán of Saigir, after he rescued a nun named Bruinnech who had been abducted by a local king. “When the man of God returned to the monastery with the girl, she confessed that she was pregnant. Then the man of God, led by the zeal of justice, not wishing the serpent’s seed to quicken, pressed down on her womb with the sign of the cross and forced her womb to be emptied.” Bruinnech’s feelings about her rape, pregnancy, or abortion are not addressed, apart from her “confession”

When another nun, pregnant after “fornicating secretly”, had Cainnech of Aghaboe bless her belly, “at once the baby (infans) in her womb vanished without a trace”. While this may well have answered her most desperate prayers, the sort of blessing she sought isn’t specified.

As an aside, abortion was considered a "sin" in the Medieval period, but less-so than having oral sex. The most severe penance for abortion was three-and-a-half years, if performed in the first trimester (the more permissive was six months of bread and water and no wine) -- with twice to four times the penalty for the man. For oral sex, it was four to five years; seven years if you'd had it more than once.

Also, all of this seems to have dealt with nuns. So, who's to say it was regarded the same way for women who weren't nuns?

In fact, it appears it's only recently that the Catholic church has taken a hard and fast "no abortions for anyone" stance. In 1869 with Pope Pius IX.

St Augustine apparently also said that abortion shouldn't be regarded as homicide as "there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being fully formed” (although he did believe it was a sin to abort to hide adultery)

St Thomas Aquinas believed a foetus first had a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, then a rational soul. Basically, that it developed its higher human functioning in stages.

Early church thinkers accepted abortion, it appears, until "ensoulment", which Pope Gregory XIV (circa 1591) determined was when the mother felt the foetus "quicken" (around 24 weeks).

Maybe some hardline Catholics need to return to the roots of their faith?

[Olerand]

How does abortion continue to dominate the political discussion so much? How is it possible that out of all Western countries, only one is still hung up on this.

Anyway, most of Continental Europe has the right policy on this, elective until the end of the first trimester, then subject to special circumstances.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

How does abortion continue to dominate the political discussion so much? How is it possible that out of all Western countries, only one is still hung up on this.

Anyway, most of Continental Europe has the right policy on this, elective until the end of the first trimester, then subject to special circumstances.

Much of Europe has universal healthcare though. That makes the idea more tenable for them.

The US continues to dawdle on that issue though.

[Olerand]

How does abortion continue to dominate the political discussion so much? How is it possible that out of all Western countries, only one is still hung up on this.

Anyway, most of Continental Europe has the right policy on this, elective until the end of the first trimester, then subject to special circumstances.

Much of Europe has universal healthcare though. That makes the idea more tenable for them.

The US continues to dawdle on that issue though.

Why does it make it more tenable? The opposition to abortion isn't exactly tethered to the great American healthcare fiasco.

EDIT: Also, all of Europe has some form of public provision of healthcare. Whether through a mixed system like France or Germany, a public system like Britain or Scandinavia, or a publicly-funded and managed private system like the Netherlands and Switzerland.

Even poor Belarus and Moldova have public healthcare provision.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Much of Europe has universal healthcare though. That makes the idea more tenable for them.

The US continues to dawdle on that issue though.

Why does it make it more tenable? The opposition to abortion isn't exactly tethered to the great American healthcare fiasco.

Because having to pay for certain services, even a small fee, can be too much for some women. If they had universal healthcare, they’d be more willing to seek medical attention on the matter.

Plus, does your universal healthcare include abortion services?

[Olerand]

Why does it make it more tenable? The opposition to abortion isn't exactly tethered to the great American healthcare fiasco.

Because having to pay for certain services, even a small fee, can be too much for some women. If they had universal healthcare, they’d be more willing to seek medical attention on the matter.

Plus, does your universal healthcare include abortion services?

I'm confused. What does this have to do with societal support for or opposition to abortion? If anything, judging from the American opposition to "using public funds for abortion services", I would presume that the public financing of abortion would be a rallying call for opposition.

I can't speak for all of Europe, but abortion is 100% refundable by Social Security in France (most non-long term medical expenses are covered up to 70%), so yes.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Because having to pay for certain services, even a small fee, can be too much for some women. If they had universal healthcare, they’d be more willing to seek medical attention on the matter.

Plus, does your universal healthcare include abortion services?

I'm confused. What does this have to do with societal support for or opposition to abortion? If anything, judging from the American opposition to "using public funds for abortion services", I would presume that the public financing of abortion would be a rallying call for opposition.

I can't speak for all of Europe, but abortion is 100% refundable by Social Security in France (most non-long term medical expenses are covered up to 70%), so yes.

I’m speaking specifically to access for services affecting the tenable time limitation. The 13 week business is fine... for you. It is not fine for everyone.

[Olerand]

I'm confused. What does this have to do with societal support for or opposition to abortion? If anything, judging from the American opposition to "using public funds for abortion services", I would presume that the public financing of abortion would be a rallying call for opposition.

I can't speak for all of Europe, but abortion is 100% refundable by Social Security in France (most non-long term medical expenses are covered up to 70%), so yes.

I’m speaking specifically to access for services affecting the tenable time limitation. The 13 week business is fine... for you. It is not fine for everyone.

Ah, I see. But if you're poor and you don't have the funds for an abortion by the 12th week, will you by the 22nd?

[The Free Joy State]

Why does it make it more tenable? The opposition to abortion isn't exactly tethered to the great American healthcare fiasco.

Because having to pay for certain services, even a small fee, can be too much for some women. If they had universal healthcare, they’d be more willing to seek medical attention on the matter.

Plus, does your universal healthcare include abortion services?

Universal healthcare covers abortion, free contraception and the morning-after-pill in my country. God bless the NHS.

Because having to pay for certain services, even a small fee, can be too much for some women. If they had universal healthcare, they’d be more willing to seek medical attention on the matter.

Plus, does your universal healthcare include abortion services?

I'm confused. What does this have to do with societal support for or opposition to abortion? If anything, judging from the American opposition to "using public funds for abortion services", I would presume that the public financing of abortion would be a rallying call for opposition.

This may help. Trump offered to keep federal funding for Planned Parenthood if they stopped performing abortions (although they already didn't use federal funds for abortion).

Without universal healthcare, abortion services are provided by such charitable health organisations (vital for poor women), or private health insurance (which not all women carry).

Medicaid only has to offer abortion in cases of rape, incest and danger to a woman's life, which conservative states can use to prevent abortion access to low-income women. Studies show that up to 35% of Medicaid-eligible women have been forced to carry their pregnancies to term in states where access is restricted.

So I'd say provision of funding and public support go hand-in-hand.

[Olerand]

Because having to pay for certain services, even a small fee, can be too much for some women. If they had universal healthcare, they’d be more willing to seek medical attention on the matter.

Plus, does your universal healthcare include abortion services?

Universal healthcare covers abortion, free contraception and the morning-after-pill in my country. God bless the NHS.

I'm confused. What does this have to do with societal support for or opposition to abortion? If anything, judging from the American opposition to "using public funds for abortion services", I would presume that the public financing of abortion would be a rallying call for opposition.

This may help. Trump offered to keep federal funding for Planned Parenthood if they stopped performing abortions.

Without universal healthcare, abortion services are provided by charitable health organisations (vital for poor women), or private health insurance (which not all women carry).

Medicaid only has to offer abortion in cases of rape, incest and danger to a woman's life, which conservative states can use to prevent abortion access to low-income women. Studies show that up to 35% of Medicaid-eligible women have been forced to carry their pregnancies to term in states where access is restricted.

So I'd say provision of funding and public support go hand-in-hand.

In that public support must precede public funding no? So the provision of public funds for abortion doesn't give rise to public support for abortion, but rather stems from it.
At least that's how I would imagine it.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I’m speaking specifically to access for services affecting the tenable time limitation. The 13 week business is fine... for you. It is not fine for everyone.

Ah, I see. But if you're poor and you don't have the funds for an abortion by the 12th week, will you by the 22nd?

Mayhap.

[The Free Joy State]

Universal healthcare covers abortion, free contraception and the morning-after-pill in my country. God bless the NHS.


This may help. Trump offered to keep federal funding for Planned Parenthood if they stopped performing abortions.

Without universal healthcare, abortion services are provided by charitable health organisations (vital for poor women), or private health insurance (which not all women carry).

Medicaid only has to offer abortion in cases of rape, incest and danger to a woman's life, which conservative states can use to prevent abortion access to low-income women. Studies show that up to 35% of Medicaid-eligible women have been forced to carry their pregnancies to term in states where access is restricted.

So I'd say provision of funding and public support go hand-in-hand.

In that public support must precede public funding no? So the provision of public funds for abortion doesn't give rise to public support for abortion, but rather stems from it.
At least that's how I would imagine it.

However, some U.S. views are a little inconsistent here. Recent polls reveal only 18% of the American population are completely opposed to abortion (with the majority allowing abortion in some, the majority, or all cases). On the other hand, 40% would be in favour of a law prohibiting health clinics that provide abortion services from receiving federal funding.

So, some appear to accept abortion as sometimes necessary, but don't seem to see the need for federal funds to pay for it.