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

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, laws based on age are arbitrary. Your point is duly noted.

Your point, however, doesn't mean that I have to take that it is reasonable to accept it as a cutoff if there is a gray area which you are neglecting, which is the 21-24 weeks period.

I know it's a small minority of cases, but it is also a non-zero amount of cases, which is where your argument that "well 24 weeks is when it should be the cutoff date" is just not relevant.

The problem is that if the probability is less, as you stated, that in itself can be a medically valid reason to dismiss it and use the 24 week cutoff. It’s not 0, but it not a high number either.

Sure, but then that's why I am going so hard on the "least non-zero viability" standard.

Because, the problem is this, we all know that the earliest reasonable viable date is not necessarily a strict arbitrary cutoff. Arbitrary cutoffs are good to trigger a date in which a person can be proactively punished for doing something we don't want them to do.

When it comes to abortion, I don't think arbitrary rigidity helps matters. The same thing I'd say if it was since conception or after 20 weeks, or after 3 months, or after 8 months, or before birth. It's all arbitrary, and it doesn't help if you are willing to compromise on a cutoff period during which a woman cannot get an abortion except for a certain number of reasons.

[The New California Republic]

UK's drinking age, IIRC, is 16, or was last time I was there.

It isn't, and has never been. The only times that it is accepted in the case of 16 year olds is if they consume it on licensed premises when ordered with a meal, and accompanied by an adult.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's unfortunate for the woman, but not something I am ready to accept as a justification of the law being such.

In contrast to the current situation where she doesn't have to go through that trauma? No thanks...

The convenience of the woman on whether or not to experience further trauma over tests to see whether she qualifies on the basis of individual fetal viability or not is not particularly relevant to me.

Lovely.

Reason for that being, if you're going to die on the hill of medicine, you cannot at the same time say that making a woman go to her doctor to have tests to determine the viability of the fetus is traumatizing and medically unnecessary because the woman will be traumatized.

It is in contrast to the the current situation whereby she doesn't have to do that. It is adding a hurdle for no real reason.

The same thing will happen after 24 weeks anyways, so you're just delaying it by 3 weeks.

No, the woman isn't subject to a barrage of tests after 24 weeks.

Of course she is. What do you think " you cannot have an abortion except for a medical necessity" means? A woman still has to go through tests in order to see if the fetus is viable at all.

Also, I already acknowledged it is a hurdle, but I have no problem with adding said hurdle if the prosecutable period is made more flexible and more reasonable if there is an opinion of a doctor on file that the child is, indeed, not viable at the time of the abortion being performed.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The problem is that if the probability is less, as you stated, that in itself can be a medically valid reason to dismiss it and use the 24 week cutoff. It’s not 0, but it not a high number either.

Sure, but then that's why I am going so hard on the "least non-zero viability" standard.

Because, the problem is this, we all know that the earliest reasonable viable date is not necessarily a strict arbitrary cutoff. Arbitrary cutoffs are good to trigger a date in which a person can be proactively punished for doing something we don't want them to do.

When it comes to abortion, I don't think arbitrary rigidity helps matters. The same thing I'd say if it was since conception or after 20 weeks, or after 3 months, or after 8 months, or before birth. It's all arbitrary, and it doesn't help if you are willing to compromise on a cutoff period during which a woman cannot get an abortion except for a certain number of reasons.

It may be a matter of giving a static date in order to police the practice in some way. Which is a good thing because we do have unscrupulous people out there. It’s a hard situation with no true right answer. Leave the date open or set a static date to regulate things and minimize abuse.

[Jebslund]

Yes, laws based on age are arbitrary. Your point is duly noted.

Your point, however, doesn't mean that I have to take that it is reasonable to accept it as a cutoff if there is a gray area which you are neglecting, which is the 21-24 weeks period.

I know it's a small minority of cases, but it is also a non-zero amount of cases, which is where your argument that "well 24 weeks is when it should be the cutoff date because 21-24 weeks is just too complicated for me so therefore I will just argue that it is statistically nonsignificant" is just not relevant.

It's got nothing to do with "Oh, it's complicated!". It's that 2% is not statistically significant. It's not complicated at all. You are just refusing to accept that it's really quite simple because it conflicts with your worldview. You so desperately want to believe that that can be turned into 100% that you are ignoring anything to the contrary, including people telling you why that gray area you so desperately want to believe in simply isn't so gray as you make it out.

And any of those laws I just mentioned, someone could also argue, "But there's a gray area you're neglecting!". They'd even have more of a leg to stand on than you, as they wouldn't be arguing that maybe, some day in the future, they'll invent something that breaks the laws of physics and rewrites the laws of biology to make miracles happen.

The simple fact of the matter is that the fetus is not developed enough to survive outside the womb except in very rare cases, and, even then, not without a shitton of help. It's simply not a reasonable enough chance to write policy based on it being a good chance. The 24 week cutoff isn't saying that doctors can't say, "Well, wait a minute, maybe it doesn't need to die. We can try saving it.". It just means that 24 weeks is when abortions can only be performed if it's medically necessary.

[The New California Republic]

Of course she is. What do you think " you cannot have an abortion except for a medical necessity" means?

But we weren't talking about medical necessity...

[Jebslund]

Of course she is. What do you think " you cannot have an abortion except for a medical necessity" means?

I'll answer this one: "Unless continuing to carry the child places your health in imminent danger (IE, the procedure is necessary to save the mother's life, or the child is dead/about to be (carrying a corpse in your womb is... not healthy).), you cannot have an abortion."

It has nothing to do with whether or not the child would survive outside the womb at that point.

[The New California Republic]

It may be a matter of giving a static date in order to police the practice in some way. Which is a good thing because we do have unscrupulous people out there. It’s a hard situation with no true right answer. Leave the date open or set a static date to regulate things and minimize abuse.

Indeed. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that a pro-life doctor could say that the fetus is viable at 22 weeks when it isn't...

[Jebslund]

UK's drinking age, IIRC, is 16, or was last time I was there.

It isn't, and has never been. The only times that it is accepted in the case of 16 year olds is if they consume it on licensed premises when ordered with a meal, and accompanied by an adult.

Ah. Thank ye. Last time I was there was back in '03, so I was working off of memory.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Of course she is. What do you think " you cannot have an abortion except for a medical necessity" means?

I'll answer this one: "Unless continuing to carry the child places your health in imminent danger (IE, the procedure is necessary to save the mother's life, or the child is dead/about to be (carrying a corpse in your womb is... not healthy).), you cannot have an abortion."

It has nothing to do with whether or not the child would survive outside the womb at that point.

It’s simpler than that, really. Medical decisions on whether to abort or carry to term are something we should leave in the hands of the woman and her health care provider.

[The New California Republic]

It isn't, and has never been. The only times that it is accepted in the case of 16 year olds is if they consume it on licensed premises when ordered with a meal, and accompanied by an adult.

Ah. Thank ye. Last time I was there was back in '03, so I was working off of memory.

It makes me suspect that you did some illegal drinking here in the UK.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, laws based on age are arbitrary. Your point is duly noted.

Your point, however, doesn't mean that I have to take that it is reasonable to accept it as a cutoff if there is a gray area which you are neglecting, which is the 21-24 weeks period.

I know it's a small minority of cases, but it is also a non-zero amount of cases, which is where your argument that "well 24 weeks is when it should be the cutoff date because 21-24 weeks is just too complicated for me so therefore I will just argue that it is statistically nonsignificant" is just not relevant.

It's got nothing to do with "Oh, it's complicated!". It's that 2% is not statistically significant. It's not complicated at all. You are just refusing to accept that it's really quite simple because it conflicts with your worldview. You so desperately want to believe that that can be turned into 100% that you are ignoring anything to the contrary, including people telling you why that gray area you so desperately want to believe in simply isn't so gray as you make it out.

And any of those laws I just mentioned, someone could also argue, "But there's a gray area you're neglecting!". They'd even have more of a leg to stand on than you, as they wouldn't be arguing that maybe, some day in the future, they'll invent something that breaks the laws of physics and rewrites the laws of biology to make miracles happen.

The simple fact of the matter is that the fetus is not developed enough to survive outside the womb except in very rare cases, and, even then, not without a shitton of help. It's simply not a reasonable enough chance to write policy based on it being a good chance. The 24 week cutoff isn't saying that doctors can't say, "Well, wait a minute, maybe it doesn't need to die. We can try saving it.". It just means that 24 weeks is when abortions can only be performed if it's medically necessary.

Of course it is gray, but not over the short term, no, over the long term, yes.

Every law you propose or not propose takes at least 3 generations to be turned over or made irrelevant. Excessively cruel laws see less turnover time than that, but for the most part, a lot of laws we enact usually last longer than a generation or two.

The only leg you have to stand on is "well right now that's how it is". And "right now" is frankly irrelevant to the point of policy, that policy is not just to dictate what a generation is going to do, but society as a whole, so it has to be far more far-thinking than just the now.

[Joohan]

Has this thread already went through a hellstorm over the Georgia and Alabama decisions?

I was pleasantly shocked about that clever bit of legislation passed in Georgia, but then Alabama just went all out and banned all abortions of convenience. The icing on the cake was when a whole bunch of deplorable B-list celebrities ( exempting Ben Stiller of course ) declared they wouldn't work in those states anymore.

My personal opinion on the matter.

[Jebslund]

Ah. Thank ye. Last time I was there was back in '03, so I was working off of memory.

It makes me suspect that you did some illegal drinking here in the UK. :p

Nope. Didn't start drinking until last ear, actually. Never would have, either, had I never been introduced to mead.

I just remember that my parents were talking about some of the older kids (I say kids, these were 18-year-olds) in the league I was in being caught drinking and being reminded that being legal off base didn't mean being legal on base and a discussion about the drinking ages int he UK vs the US.

[Jebslund]

Of course it is gray, but not over the short term, no, over the long term, yes.

Every law you propose or not propose takes at least 3 generations to be turned over or made irrelevant. Excessively cruel laws see less turnover time than that, but for the most part, a lot of laws we enact usually last longer than a generation or two.

The only leg you have to stand on is "well right now that's how it is". And "right now" is frankly irrelevant to the point of policy, that policy is not just to dictate what a generation is going to do, but society as a whole, so it has to be far more far-thinking than just the now.

Source on that 3 generations bit?

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misconstruing my point or simply not understanding. It's not about how it is now, it more about the fact that nothing can reasonably be made that will defy the laws of nature to increase viability at 21-24 weeks. 24 weeks is when the scales tip, and, even then, we're talking slightly better odds than a coin flip. Before that, you have better odds of being in a car accident. And that's not something technology is going to fix any time in the foreseeable future. Not now. Not ten years from now. Not thirty years from now. Not until we can recreate the womb, at which point the whole abortion discussion may very well become moot. It's not the limits of current knowledge. It's the limits of the human body.

[Vassenor]

Has this thread already went through a hellstorm over the Georgia and Alabama decisions?

I was pleasantly shocked about that clever bit of legislation passed in Georgia, but then Alabama just went all out and banned all abortions of convenience. The icing on the cake was when a whole bunch of deplorable B-list celebrities ( exempting Ben Stiller of course ) declared they wouldn't work in those states anymore.

My personal opinion on the matter.

There you have it. Having principles is deplorable, but dictating what women can and cannot do with their own bodies is not.

[The New California Republic]

And that's not something technology is going to fix any time in the foreseeable future. Not now. Not ten years from now. Not thirty years from now. Not until we can recreate the womb, at which point the whole abortion discussion may very well become moot. It's not the limits of current knowledge. It's the limits of the human body.

Indeed:

A study at one of Britain's leading neonatal units has found 71 per cent of babies born between 22 and 25 weeks gestation survived in the late 1990s. In the early 1980s that figure was one third.

Studies, including one published in the British Medical Journal, show that while survival rates have increased significantly for babies born at 24 and 25 weeks, they have not risen for babies born 23 weeks or less.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health ... QandA.html

So although survival rates between 22 and 25 weeks have improved overall when taken as a whole, those at less than 23 weeks or less have not improved. It seems that we have reached some kind of biological limit regarding those at 23 weeks or less, until some new wonder technology comes along, such as artificial wombs as you mentioned.

[The New California Republic]

It makes me suspect that you did some illegal drinking here in the UK.

Nope. Didn't start drinking until last ear, actually. Never would have, either, had I never been introduced to mead.

I just remember that my parents were talking about some of the older kids (I say kids, these were 18-year-olds) in the league I was in being caught drinking and being reminded that being legal off base didn't mean being legal on base and a discussion about the drinking ages int he UK vs the US.

I mean there is a difference but just not as extreme as 16 vs 21, being 18 here vs 21 in most of the US.

[New haven america]

They replied to posts that were discussing Alabama's new abortion law, which bans it in cases of incest and rape, saying that we need to look at "The Other Side" (Pro-life, which is their own side...) and why they decided to do this.

So either they're ok with rape and incest (Which I don't think they are, least I hope they aren't), or they're fine with laws like this getting passed so long as they win more ground... I honestly can't decide which is worse. Either that, or they just picked a really shitty post to reply to, in which case, I'll take back what I said.

1. That's a false conclusion.

2. Men who are raped or are victims of incest right now have no right to force an abortion, and can't kill the child of the said rape or incest after it's born (that's murder). Most people wouldn't support either of these things.

3. Does that mean people are ok with rape and incest?

1. Nope
2. Way to go in without knowing my position, deary. I believe both parties should have a say in what happens to the fetus, unless one party was wronged by the other (You know, rape, incest, etc...), in which case the wrong party should be allowed full control over what happens, and that right should be respected. So the man in this case should have the right to force one if they feel it necessary.
3. Could've fooled me. Isn't male rape/sexual harassment still not seen as an issue by the public at large? Aren't there tons of shows and movie either excusing it or treating it as one of the funniest things ever?

[Galloism]

1. That's a false conclusion.

2. Men who are raped or are victims of incest right now have no right to force an abortion, and can't kill the child of the said rape or incest after it's born (that's murder). Most people wouldn't support either of these things.

3. Does that mean people are ok with rape and incest?

1. Nope
2. Way to go in without knowing my position, deary. I believe both parties should have a say in what happens to the fetus, unless one party was wronged by the other (You know, rape, incest, etc...), in which case the wrong party should be allowed full control over what happens, and that right should be respected. So the man in this case should have the right to force one if they feel it necessary.
3. Could've fooled me. Isn't male rape/sexual harassment still not seen as an issue by the public at large? Aren't there tons of shows and movie either excusing it or treating it as one of the funniest things ever?

2. Awesome. Forced abortions. Seems legit.
3. There are such movies, in point of fact, but that doesn't mean people are "ok" with rape and incest.

Also, who decides for incest? By definition, both people committed incest. That's how incest works.

[New haven america]

1. Nope
2. Way to go in without knowing my position, deary. I believe both parties should have a say in what happens to the fetus, unless one party was wronged by the other (You know, rape, incest, etc...), in which case the wrong party should be allowed full control over what happens, and that right should be respected. So the man in this case should have the right to force one if they feel it necessary.
3. Could've fooled me. Isn't male rape/sexual harassment still not seen as an issue by the public at large? Aren't there tons of shows and movie either excusing it or treating it as one of the funniest things ever?

2. Awesome. Forced abortions. Seems legit.
3. There are such movies, in point of fact, but that doesn't mean people are "ok" with rape and incest.

4. Also, who decides for incest? By definition, both people committed incest. That's how incest works.

2. It's no different from forcing a rape victim to keep their child. 2 heinous extremes that I would rather society not have the need to argue about, but here we are.
3. You're right. The public at large is still ok with male rape and sexual harassment. Incest no, except for maybe in Alabama it seems... Should've clarified that bit.

4. Coerced incest is a thing, dude. Hell, I read a story a few days ago about a women who's dad paid them to have sex with them when the author was practically homeless and the mom or other family didn't/couldn't help.

[Godular]

The problem is that if the probability is less, as you stated, that in itself can be a medically valid reason to dismiss it and use the 24 week cutoff. It’s not 0, but it not a high number either.

Sure, but then that's why I am going so hard on the "least non-zero viability" standard.

Because, the problem is this, we all know that the earliest reasonable viable date is not necessarily a strict arbitrary cutoff. Arbitrary cutoffs are good to trigger a date in which a person can be proactively punished for doing something we don't want them to do.

When it comes to abortion, I don't think arbitrary rigidity helps matters. The same thing I'd say if it was since conception or after 20 weeks, or after 3 months, or after 8 months, or before birth. It's all arbitrary, and it doesn't help if you are willing to compromise on a cutoff period during which a woman cannot get an abortion except for a certain number of reasons.

If I recall correctly, the whole business about consciousness and everything has been somewhat misstated.

The point about the 20-24 week mark is that it is when the first indications of a coherent synaptic pattern emerges. At that point it becomes rather difficult to claim that the fetus cannot feel pain. By this point, the woman carrying the pregnancy has almost certainly decided to keep the pregnancy to term, barring medical complications.

To go much earlier than that would swiftly encounter issues with the time at which the woman learns they are actually pregnant.

[Godular]

Has this thread already went through a hellstorm over the Georgia and Alabama decisions?

I was pleasantly shocked about that clever bit of legislation passed in Georgia, but then Alabama just went all out and banned all abortions of convenience. The icing on the cake was when a whole bunch of deplorable B-list celebrities ( exempting Ben Stiller of course ) declared they wouldn't work in those states anymore.

My personal opinion on the matter.

I hope you will also be pleasantly shocked when the legislation crashes and burns.

[Galloism]

2. Awesome. Forced abortions. Seems legit.
3. There are such movies, in point of fact, but that doesn't mean people are "ok" with rape and incest.

4. Also, who decides for incest? By definition, both people committed incest. That's how incest works.

2. It's no different from forcing a rape victim to keep their child. 2 heinous extremes that I would rather society not have the need to argue about, but here we are.
3. You're right. The public at large is still ok with male rape and sexual harassment. Incest no, except for maybe in Alabama it seems... Should've clarified that bit.

4. Coerced incest is a thing, dude. Hell, I read a story a few days ago about a women who's dad paid them to have sex with them when the author was practically homeless and the mom or other family didn't/couldn't help.

So in the case of coerced incest, then the victim of said coercion. How about uncoerced?

[The New California Republic]

So the man in this case should have the right to force one if they feel it necessary.

Forced abortions just seems all kinds of fucked up. I know that criminals give up some degree of bodily sovereignty as punishment for crimes etc, but this? I mean, it'd entail forcefully sedating the woman in order to carry it out, as otherwise she is more than likely to resist pretty fiercely. And if she knew that was going to happen then in all likelihood she would flee the country.