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

[Necroghastia]

This does bring us to the notion of artificial wombs. I always have a healthy bit of skepticism when the medical industry says something is "ten years away"...

However, the technology is progressing, and, as you say, it's only going to get better. What do we do, as a position, when we can extract the bundle of cells and grow it into a human in a really cool metal cylinder where they float buoyantly?

At least, I hope that's how we do it, as that would make the best dystopian/scientific documentary films.

Yup. It is probably one of the only things that is going to end the abortion debate once and for all, i.e. where it becomes a non-issue. However, even in that case there would still be the issue of who is going to take care of the many thousands of extra children...

Precisely why I am skeptical of the concept as something that will end the abortion debate. A significant proportion of abortions are done because the would-be parents are not in a position to be caregivers, and so in theory this would only lead to an even more bloated adoption system, which I'm sure people will agree isn't a good thing.

[Galloism]

Not really, as most pro-lifer positions are anti-abortion due to seeing the fetus or embryo as an innocent being or soul (if they're religious) and abortion as an undeserved death. Pro-death penalty is targeted at criminals, usually ones who've committed heinous crimes.

There is still an inherent contradiction in the same person being on the one hand pro-life and on the other hand pro-death penalty.

I'm opposed to jailing fetuses and in support of jailing adult criminals.

[The Free Joy State]

The reason for the 24 week cutoff is that consciousness begins and fetal viability goes over 50%.

Consciousness would presumably be fixed there at 24 weeks. Fetuses probably aren't going to start gaining consciousness sooner. Viability will only get better with time. If the viability numbers for lower week counts creep past 50%, would you support lowering the week count cutoff?

At 23 weeks it has no consciousness. You know if you give it a week and it will become a conscious human. How do you disconnect the act of aborting it at 23 weeks with the fact that if you hadn't it almost certainly would have become a conscious human had you done nothing? How do you disconnect the act of aborting the process with aborting the human that would have existed in a week? I am obviously biased here, but it would still feel like killing a human to me either way because the odds of it surviving that week into personhood would be quite high.

I justify abortion at 23 weeks by the knowledge that they are rare and not undertaken lightly. Women who abort at this stage are statistically more likely to be extremely vulnerable (in an abusive relationship, struggling to raise the money for the procedure), or aborting due to foetal abnormality or medical risk to themselves.

I also know that research indicates that the foetus feels no pain until the third trimester, and -- although it is a matter of discomfort for me, and makes me feel squicky on a personal level -- I can't justify removing the bodily autonomy of a human being for an unconscious foetus.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

There is still an inherent contradiction in the same person being on the one hand pro-life and on the other hand pro-death penalty.

I'm opposed to jailing fetuses and in support of jailing adult criminals.

So what happens to pregnant criminals?

[Galloism]

I'm opposed to jailing fetuses and in support of jailing adult criminals.

So what happens to pregnant criminals?

Ok, it's probably better to say I'm usually opposed to jailing fetuses.

You got me on that one.

[The 1984th Regime]

*ben shapiro walks in* "Libtards"

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

*ben shapiro walks in* "Libtards"

Wrong thread, wrong forum, and possibly wrong website.

[Luna Amore]

*ben shapiro walks in* "Libtards"

*** Warned for trolling ***

Really bad start. I'd suggest looking over the rules.

[Galloism]

Yup. It is probably one of the only things that is going to end the abortion debate once and for all, i.e. where it becomes a non-issue. However, even in that case there would still be the issue of who is going to take care of the many thousands of extra children...

If I were to guess, I'd say that the equivalent to the pro-life camp would be people who want the woman to pay for the artificial womb and then take care of the child once it's "born". That and people who want to ban artificial wombs.

I would humbly suggest they would go after "parents" in this regard. Given with already born children now we are willing to let mothers off the hook with no repercussions for literally any reason, while never letting fathers do so except in very very exceptional corner cases, it would be unlikely to "flip", if that makes sense.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

A pro-life position, regardless of its consequences is usually not motivated by hate, malice or malevolence. Treating a non-malicious person as if they were malicious is a bad argument strategy and a bad way to change minds.

Did I mention those motivations? I am merely saying that the position is ignorant of facts, and hinges more on sentiments regarding idea of a potential person than the well-being of an actual person. Certainly there are malicious pro-lifers, but I believe ignorance is a larger issue, especially willful ignorance when acknowledgement of facts would contradict beliefs.

Well then do not treat them as if they are malicious.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

If I were to guess, I'd say that the equivalent to the pro-life camp would be people who want the woman to pay for the artificial womb and then take care of the child once it's "born". That and people who want to ban artificial wombs.

I would humbly suggest they would go after "parents" in this regard. Given with already born children now we are willing to let mothers off the hook with no repercussions for literally any reason, while never letting fathers do so except in very very exceptional corner cases, it would be unlikely to "flip", if that makes sense.

That admittedly does make more sense, but I was trying to account for women who might not have partners.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Did I mention those motivations? I am merely saying that the position is ignorant of facts, and hinges more on sentiments regarding idea of a potential person than the well-being of an actual person. Certainly there are malicious pro-lifers, but I believe ignorance is a larger issue, especially willful ignorance when acknowledgement of facts would contradict beliefs.

Well then do not treat them as if they are malicious.

NG doesn't seem to be treating them as if they're malicious. They're definitely being a bit blunt with their accusations, but I have a hard time calling that "accusations of malice".

[Galloism]

I would humbly suggest they would go after "parents" in this regard. Given with already born children now we are willing to let mothers off the hook with no repercussions for literally any reason, while never letting fathers do so except in very very exceptional corner cases, it would be unlikely to "flip", if that makes sense.

That admittedly does make more sense, but I was trying to account for women who might not have partners.

If they like their finances, they'll likely be obliged to name one.

Basically how state welfare is done now, if I had to guess.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Is 24 weeks a reasonable limit for abortions that are not performed to save the life of the woman?

I dunno if 24 weeks should be the cutoff, due to the rare, but plausible cases of fetuses surviving earlier than that.

My standard on that, if we're talking of a compromise position is "whatever the earliest viable day/week the fetus can be extracted and put in an incubator or whatever is the one we should respect, no matter how rare or common it is".

[The Black Forrest]

Is 24 weeks a reasonable limit for abortions that are not performed to save the life of the woman?

I dunno if 24 weeks should be the cutoff, due to the rare, but plausible cases of fetuses surviving earlier than that.

My standard on that, if we're talking of a compromise position is "whatever the earliest viable day/week the fetus can be extracted and put in an incubator or whatever is the one we should respect, no matter how rare or common it is".

Errr. Rather rare and extreme measures to save them.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Consciousness would presumably be fixed there at 24 weeks. Fetuses probably aren't going to start gaining consciousness sooner. Viability will only get better with time. If the viability numbers for lower week counts creep past 50%, would you support lowering the week count cutoff?

At 23 weeks it has no consciousness. You know if you give it a week and it will become a conscious human. How do you disconnect the act of aborting it at 23 weeks with the fact that if you hadn't it almost certainly would have become a conscious human had you done nothing? How do you disconnect the act of aborting the process with aborting the human that would have existed in a week? I am obviously biased here, but it would still feel like killing a human to me either way because the odds of it surviving that week into personhood would be quite high.

I justify abortion at 23 weeks by the knowledge that they are rare and not undertaken lightly. Women who abort at this stage are statistically more likely to be extremely vulnerable (in an abusive relationship, struggling to raise the money for the procedure), or aborting due to foetal abnormality or medical risk to themselves.

I also know that research indicates that the foetus feels no pain until the third trimester, and -- although it is a matter of discomfort for me, and makes me feel squicky on a personal level -- I can't justify removing the bodily autonomy of a human being for an unconscious foetus.

Thing is, your argument hinges on therapeutic abortions, or abortions under the threat of coercion, which is a social issue tied to abortions, but it doesn't necessarily justify an abortion on its own merits. Rather, it merely justifies abortion from secondary causes.

In that sense, I'd be more comfortable changing things socially than I would legally. Tho the same thing I can say for criminalizing abortion: I see its best possible shot at changing society's perspective on both abortion and pregnancy, rather than forcing legislation to deal with what is, fairly, a matter of public opinion yet.

And it's not so much that criminalizing it is right or wrong, but that there is no consensus over what to do.

The other thing that, frankly, would solve the problem in the US at least is leaving the decision to the states. Each state being able to draft legislation to protect, limit, or ban the right to have an abortion.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I dunno if 24 weeks should be the cutoff, due to the rare, but plausible cases of fetuses surviving earlier than that.

My standard on that, if we're talking of a compromise position is "whatever the earliest viable day/week the fetus can be extracted and put in an incubator or whatever is the one we should respect, no matter how rare or common it is".

Errr. Rather rare and extreme measures to save them.

Sure, but then that would be as good as I'll go on that.

24 weeks frankly seems arbitrary, and doesn't take into account medical advances where premature fetuses can be kept alive. In that sense, I'd rather not dismiss medical advances for the sake of a position where I am just gonna go "depends", honestly.

[The New California Republic]

Is 24 weeks a reasonable limit for abortions that are not performed to save the life of the woman?

I dunno if 24 weeks should be the cutoff, due to the rare, but plausible cases of fetuses surviving earlier than that.

My standard on that, if we're talking of a compromise position is "whatever the earliest viable day/week the fetus can be extracted and put in an incubator or whatever is the one we should respect, no matter how rare or common it is".

To put some hard numbers on this issue:

Completed weeks of gestation at birth and chance of survival

21 and less: 0%
22: 0-3%
23: 0-5%
24: 40-70%
25: 50-80%
26: 80-90%
27: >90%
30: >95%
34: >98%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_via ... _viability

---

24 weeks frankly seems arbitrary

It isn't arbitrary at all. Arbitrary would be saying 12 weeks with no evidence to justify said decision. The 24 week limit has various things to back it up.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I dunno if 24 weeks should be the cutoff, due to the rare, but plausible cases of fetuses surviving earlier than that.

My standard on that, if we're talking of a compromise position is "whatever the earliest viable day/week the fetus can be extracted and put in an incubator or whatever is the one we should respect, no matter how rare or common it is".

To put some hard numbers on this issue:

Completed weeks of gestation at birth and chance of survival

21 and less: 0%
22: 0-3%
23: 0-5%
24: 40-70%
25: 50-80%
26: 80-90%
27: >90%
30: >95%
34: >98%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_via ... _viability

---

24 weeks frankly seems arbitrary

It isn't arbitrary at all. Arbitrary would be saying 12 weeks with no evidence to justify said decision. The 24 week limit has various things to back it up.

But so do the 23 and 22 weeks, as rare as they may be.

Within a few decades, 22 might become the new standard, and what, then? Hard numbers don't mean anything in probability, as probabilities are hardly "hard" numbers.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

To put some hard numbers on this issue:

---

It isn't arbitrary at all. Arbitrary would be saying 12 weeks with no evidence to justify said decision. The 24 week limit has various things to back it up.

But so do the 23 and 22 weeks, as rare as they may be.

Within a few decades, 22 might become the new standard, and what, then? Hard numbers don't mean anything in probability, as probabilities are hardly "hard" numbers.

22 and 23 say that it's virtually certain that the fetus will die (in comparable circumstances, it's far more likely that you'd survive being medically dead). And the fact that the numbers might shift in the future doesn't change what they are now.

[Dogmeat]

To put some hard numbers on this issue:

---

It isn't arbitrary at all. Arbitrary would be saying 12 weeks with no evidence to justify said decision. The 24 week limit has various things to back it up.

But so do the 23 and 22 weeks, as rare as they may be.

Within a few decades, 22 might become the new standard, and what, then? Hard numbers don't mean anything in probability, as probabilities are hardly "hard" numbers.

Presumably, at some point, artificial incubators will solve the abortion issue altogether.

I'd like to think we'd be there now, if the pro-life camp would invest their money in medical research rather than billboards.

[The Free Joy State]

I justify abortion at 23 weeks by the knowledge that they are rare and not undertaken lightly. Women who abort at this stage are statistically more likely to be extremely vulnerable (in an abusive relationship, struggling to raise the money for the procedure), or aborting due to foetal abnormality or medical risk to themselves.

I also know that research indicates that the foetus feels no pain until the third trimester, and -- although it is a matter of discomfort for me, and makes me feel squicky on a personal level -- I can't justify removing the bodily autonomy of a human being for an unconscious foetus.

Thing is, your argument hinges on therapeutic abortions, or abortions under the threat of coercion, which is a social issue tied to abortions, but it doesn't necessarily justify an abortion on its own merits. Rather, it merely justifies abortion from secondary causes.

In that sense, I'd be more comfortable changing things socially than I would legally. Tho the same thing I can say for criminalizing abortion: I see its best possible shot at changing society's perspective on both abortion and pregnancy, rather than forcing legislation to deal with what is, fairly, a matter of public opinion yet.

And it's not so much that criminalizing it is right or wrong, but that there is no consensus over what to do.

The other thing that, frankly, would solve the problem in the US at least is leaving the decision to the states. Each state being able to draft legislation to protect, limit, or ban the right to have an abortion.

My argument for the legality of late abortion is to argue the situations under which they are more likely to occur. You can't prevent medical complications through social means, and breaking all ties to a abusive partner is often the only way to get free (sharing a child would prevent that).

Of course, better abortion access earlier and greater awareness of the signs of pregnancy (especially for women on hormonal contraception, who may not notice or believe they could get pregnant) could reduce later abortions due to poverty or women not realising they were pregnant. And better social care is always a good thing.

But leaving the decision over abortion provision to local governments (such as the States in the US) would put poor women at grave risk.

Poorer women are more likely to delay getting abortion until the second trimester (due to having to save up for an abortion in their local area). Imagine if they had to travel to another State or country.

There are, as I'm sure you'll be aware, States trying to ban abortion after 6 weeks (in the hope of going to the Supreme Court and overturning Roe v. Wade), which risks illegalising miscarriage. Women have already been prosecuted for miscarriage and stillbirth in the United States. Allowing the States to decide their own laws would risk criminalising innocent women, not to mention that allowing local governments to be the arbiters over bodily sovereignty -- granting or removing it from people at will, based on their characteristics -- is in itself a risk.

[The New California Republic]

But so do the 23 and 22 weeks, as rare as they may be.

0-3% and 0-5%. So we should prohibit abortions after 22 weeks because of survivability that is in single figures or less? No. Fuck that.

Within a few decades, 22 might become the new standard, and what, then?

The fetus still doesn't become conscious earlier. But as I said earlier, artificial wombs would likely make this whole argument moot anyway.

Hard numbers don't mean anything in probability, as probabilities are hardly "hard" numbers.

Come on man, it was just a turn of phrase. It wasn't meant to mean they are absolutely correct and on the nose.

[Jebslund]

But so do the 23 and 22 weeks, as rare as they may be.

Within a few decades, 22 might become the new standard, and what, then? Hard numbers don't mean anything in probability, as probabilities are hardly "hard" numbers.

Ah, yes... I'd bet money on 2% odds...

You might want to take it easy on those shoulders. Reaching that hard could tear a muscle or tendon.

As for that few decades estimate, if we get the artificial womb up and mass-production-capable in that time, yeah, but most of that 97-98% death rate is due to the fetus not having developed the structures and organs it needs to be viable, not because there's a gap in our science. Essentially, it still needs its mother's body because it cannot feed itself, breathe, or eliminate its waste otherwise. It still needs her amniotic fluid and her body.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

But so do the 23 and 22 weeks, as rare as they may be.

Within a few decades, 22 might become the new standard, and what, then? Hard numbers don't mean anything in probability, as probabilities are hardly "hard" numbers.

22 and 23 say that it's virtually certain that the fetus will die (in comparable circumstances, it's far more likely that you'd survive being medically dead). And the fact that the numbers might shift in the future doesn't change what they are now.

But you are trying to convince people that 24 is a perfectly good cut off. Yet there are rare cases where fetuses at 22 weeks survive over 1%, or 1 in 100 births.

The best your argument has is that it is too expensive to provide life support to a 22 week old fetus. But not that it is unreasonable to think that 22 weeks is as good as 24.