[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Punished UMN]

For elective procedures, that should be the doctor's right.

The doctor can ask if they want, and choose not to give the procedure. Requiring a reason that must reach criteria is a needless breach of privacy, especially if some doctors are willing to do it without reason. Once again, it’s a matter of choice. (It also makes the accessibility to the operation harder)

You have a right to medical privacy from the government, not from the physician who is performing medicine on you. If you are not willing to disclose your condition to a medical professional, it's perfectly reasonable for said professional to not be willing to perform a procedure or prescribe medication to you on-demand.

[Punished UMN]

abortion is not the same thing as first aid. i'm all for providing ailing pregnant women with remedies for pains and sicknesses that don't involve murder (i think a big problem with our healthcare system is its insistence on not using natural remedies & making pregnancy worse than it has 2 be bc most of the cures they have for things like pain or nausea are unnatural synthesized chemicals that r bad for babies, which contributes to this, but that's a separate discussion) .

It is a great deal more applicable than an insurance claim. Also, abortion IS a medical procedure, whether you appreciate that or not, and as it is currently legal it cannot be murder any more than defending oneself from an attacker is not inherently murder.

When people use the term "murder" they mean ethically wrong killing, not literally homicide as interpreted by legal statutes.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

It is a great deal more applicable than an insurance claim. Also, abortion IS a medical procedure, whether you appreciate that or not, and as it is currently legal it cannot be murder any more than defending oneself from an attacker is not inherently murder.

When people use the term "murder" they mean ethically wrong killing, not literally homicide as interpreted by legal statutes.

Then it still would not apply. It is not for those who use such terms to pass judgement on what constitutes a just rationale for seeking out abortion services. If they've a moral or ethical qualm with the procedure then they should focus more on rectifying factors that might lead to the need a woman might feel to seek such services out, rather than attempt to shame or punish them for doing so.

[Punished UMN]

When people use the term "murder" they mean ethically wrong killing, not literally homicide as interpreted by legal statutes.

Then it still would not apply. It is not for those who use such terms to pass judgement on what constitutes a just rationale for seeking out abortion services. If they've a moral or ethical qualm with the procedure then they should focus more on rectifying factors that might lead to the need a woman might feel to seek such services out, rather than attempt to shame or punish them for doing so.

You could use the same argument for any type of killing. At some point one has to have enough moral qualms to judge actions, the entire criminal justice system is founded on this idea.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Then it still would not apply. It is not for those who use such terms to pass judgement on what constitutes a just rationale for seeking out abortion services. If they've a moral or ethical qualm with the procedure then they should focus more on rectifying factors that might lead to the need a woman might feel to seek such services out, rather than attempt to shame or punish them for doing so.

You could use the same argument for any type of killing. At some point one has to have enough moral qualms to judge actions, the entire criminal justice system is founded on this idea.

Indeed, and we have a great many sets of precedent to work off of in which any person under duress would be justified in using lethal force against another to protect their own life and property.

[Punished UMN]

You could use the same argument for any type of killing. At some point one has to have enough moral qualms to judge actions, the entire criminal justice system is founded on this idea.

Indeed, and we have a great many sets of precedent to work off of in which any person under duress would be justified in using lethal force against another to protect their own life and property.

And very few legal precedents under which parents may kill their children in order to protect their property and livelihood.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Indeed, and we have a great many sets of precedent to work off of in which any person under duress would be justified in using lethal force against another to protect their own life and property.

And very few legal precedents under which parents may kill their children in order to protect their property and livelihood.

Fetuses do not qualify as children, however. So long as they remain within the woman's body, they are functionally constituting an imposition upon the woman's bodily integrity every bit as problematic as an assault. Once the child has actually been born, there are other means of dealing with an incapacity to care for said child, but before that point there is only one satisfactory remedy if the woman does not wish to be pregnant in the first place.

[Punished UMN]

And very few legal precedents under which parents may kill their children in order to protect their property and livelihood.

Fetuses do not qualify as children, however. So long as they remain within the woman's body, they are functionally constituting an imposition upon the woman's bodily integrity every bit as problematic as an assault. Once the child has actually been born, there are other means of dealing with an incapacity to care for said child, but before that point there is only one satisfactory remedy if the woman does not wish to be pregnant in the first place.

I do not agree, a fetus is one's offspring, whether born or not, and one has a duty to one's offspring.

[Necroghastia]

Fetuses do not qualify as children, however. So long as they remain within the woman's body, they are functionally constituting an imposition upon the woman's bodily integrity every bit as problematic as an assault. Once the child has actually been born, there are other means of dealing with an incapacity to care for said child, but before that point there is only one satisfactory remedy if the woman does not wish to be pregnant in the first place.

I do not agree, a fetus is one's offspring, whether born or not, and one has a duty to one's offspring.

Hard to be offspring when it isn't off yet

[Katganistan]

Fetuses do not qualify as children, however. So long as they remain within the woman's body, they are functionally constituting an imposition upon the woman's bodily integrity every bit as problematic as an assault. Once the child has actually been born, there are other means of dealing with an incapacity to care for said child, but before that point there is only one satisfactory remedy if the woman does not wish to be pregnant in the first place.

I do not agree, a fetus is one's offspring, whether born or not, and one has a duty to one's offspring.

You may feel that is so, but others do not.
I remind you of the quarter-million kids in foster care in the US alone, and the 30000 of them who are dumped out on their own when they age out, with little to no support, who then themselves end up living in poverty and or with children they don't want, or taken advantage of in various ways including human trafficking.

But that doesn't seem to matter.

[San Lumen]

Fetuses do not qualify as children, however. So long as they remain within the woman's body, they are functionally constituting an imposition upon the woman's bodily integrity every bit as problematic as an assault. Once the child has actually been born, there are other means of dealing with an incapacity to care for said child, but before that point there is only one satisfactory remedy if the woman does not wish to be pregnant in the first place.

I do not agree, a fetus is one's offspring, whether born or not, and one has a duty to one's offspring.

a fetus is therefore a person and has rights no one else has?

[Punished UMN]

I do not agree, a fetus is one's offspring, whether born or not, and one has a duty to one's offspring.

a fetus is therefore a person and has rights no one else has?

Children have many rights that adults do not have.

I do not agree, a fetus is one's offspring, whether born or not, and one has a duty to one's offspring.

You may feel that is so, but others do not.
I remind you of the quarter-million kids in foster care in the US alone, and the 30000 of them who are dumped out on their own when they age out, with little to no support, who then themselves end up living in poverty and or with children they don't want, or taken advantage of in various ways including human trafficking.

But that doesn't seem to matter.

This argument requires a lot of projection of other people's ideology onto what the other person believes. Believing that humanity requires social responsibility towards other does not in fact require a gutting of social services.

[The Grand Leader]

Abortion sucks. Like, there goes another potential hard worker for the country! And at a financial cost, too.

[Punished UMN]

Children have many rights that adults do not have.

Such as? And what do they have to do with abortion?

Greater rights to privacy (especially in criminal matters), greater leniency in criminal justice, and I would hope most of us would agree, a right to be cared for.

[Punished UMN]

Greater rights to privacy (especially in criminal matters), greater leniency in criminal justice, and I would hope most of us would agree, a right to be cared for.

I hope everyone has a right to be cared for.

For children, this right is more pressing because children have no means of sustaining themselves.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Such as? And what do they have to do with abortion?

Greater rights to privacy (especially in criminal matters), greater leniency in criminal justice, and I would hope most of us would agree, a right to be cared for.

Fetuses are not children. Physical separation is a critical delineation.

People can still use lethal force to defend themselves from minors if such is necessary.

[Punished UMN]

Greater rights to privacy (especially in criminal matters), greater leniency in criminal justice, and I would hope most of us would agree, a right to be cared for.

Fetuses are not children. Physical separation is a critical delineation.

People can still use lethal force to defend themselves from minors if such is necessary.

That's not the issue, the issue is whether a parent has the right to abandon their own child, even if it means certain death for the child.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Fetuses are not children. Physical separation is a critical delineation.

People can still use lethal force to defend themselves from minors if such is necessary.

That's not the issue, the issue is whether a parent has the right to abandon their own child, even if it means certain death for the child.

That issue is irrelevant. Fetuses are not children. Physical separation is a critical delineation.

[Punished UMN]

That's not the issue, the issue is whether a parent has the right to abandon their own child, even if it means certain death for the child.

That issue is irrelevant. Fetuses are not children. Physical separation is a critical delineation.

Why, exactly? What is different in terms of sentience between a fetus ten minutes before birth and ten minutes after birth?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

That issue is irrelevant. Fetuses are not children. Physical separation is a critical delineation.

Why, exactly? What is different in terms of sentience between a fetus ten minutes before birth and ten minutes after birth?

Also not particularly relevant, as a prospective parent would have already elected to keep the pregnancy by that stage, so any discussion on a distinction at that juncture is largely moot. The statistics have been quoted frequently enough by this point.

[Thepeopl]

I have a question. For those who don't want to allow abortion without medical necessity, should elective plastic surgery also be banned? Because there isn't a medical problem. People have them because they "want" them.
They say they "need" them to live comfortably/ happily.

[The Alma Mater]

That issue is irrelevant. Fetuses are not children. Physical separation is a critical delineation.

Why, exactly? What is different in terms of sentience between a fetus ten minutes before birth and ten minutes after birth?

Are you saying that sentience should be the criterium ?

Because as you know there are two "main" schools of thought on abortion - the ones who argue from the perspective that something without a functional neural net cannot have experiences and therefor is not harmed when killed & the ones who argue that no human has the right to cannibalise the body of another.

It seems you are focussing on the first one now.

[The Free Joy State]

That issue is irrelevant. Fetuses are not children. Physical separation is a critical delineation.

Why, exactly? What is different in terms of sentience between a fetus ten minutes before birth and ten minutes after birth?

Only 1% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks (which is still within the second trimester, and before the foetus can feel any pain, incidentally).

Abortions performed after 30 weeks (when the best research indicates foetuses begin to be sentient) are likely to be like this tragic case:

Dana Weinstein was 31 weeks into her second pregnancy, preparing to welcome a daughter, when she and her husband were given horrible news: A critical piece of the brain had not developed properly.

"[We were told] that our baby would have seizures 70% of the time — that was a best-case scenario; that when we delivered her, that we'd need to have a resuscitation order in place because she would most likely seize to death," Weinstein said.
[...]
She still tears up when she talks about that diagnosis and the difficult decisions that surrounded it. Fearing a short and painful life for their baby, Weinstein and her husband chose to travel to Boulder, Colo., to end the pregnancy, at one of the few clinics in the country that offer third-trimester abortions.

Women who have reached the third trimester of pregnancy want their baby.

So, asking what is the difference ten minutes before birth and ten minutes after birth really misses the reason why third trimester abortions occur.

The question is: what is the tragedy in that far-less-than-one-percent of cases that means the women cannot go through with their pregnancies?

[Punished UMN]

Why, exactly? What is different in terms of sentience between a fetus ten minutes before birth and ten minutes after birth?

Are you saying that sentience should be the criterium ?

Because as you know there are two "main" schools of thought on abortion - the ones who argue from the perspective that something without a functional neural net cannot have experiences and therefor is not harmed when killed & the ones who argue that no human has the right to cannibalise the body of another.

It seems you are focussing on the first one now.

I don't think it should be the criteria, but I acknowledge that it is at least a reasonable criteria.

[Punished UMN]

Why, exactly? What is different in terms of sentience between a fetus ten minutes before birth and ten minutes after birth?

Also not particularly relevant, as a prospective parent would have already elected to keep the pregnancy by that stage, so any discussion on a distinction at that juncture is largely moot. The statistics have been quoted frequently enough by this point.

That wasn't what you said though, you said physical separation is the critical delineation. It's not about statistics, it's about theory.

Why, exactly? What is different in terms of sentience between a fetus ten minutes before birth and ten minutes after birth?

Only 1% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks (which is still within the second trimester, and before the foetus can feel any pain, incidentally).

Abortions performed after 30 weeks (when the best research indicates foetuses begin to be sentient) are likely to be like this tragic case:

Dana Weinstein was 31 weeks into her second pregnancy, preparing to welcome a daughter, when she and her husband were given horrible news: A critical piece of the brain had not developed properly.

"[We were told] that our baby would have seizures 70% of the time — that was a best-case scenario; that when we delivered her, that we'd need to have a resuscitation order in place because she would most likely seize to death," Weinstein said.
[...]
She still tears up when she talks about that diagnosis and the difficult decisions that surrounded it. Fearing a short and painful life for their baby, Weinstein and her husband chose to travel to Boulder, Colo., to end the pregnancy, at one of the few clinics in the country that offer third-trimester abortions.

Women who have reached the third trimester of pregnancy want their baby.

So, asking what is the difference ten minutes before birth and ten minutes after birth really misses the reason why third trimester abortions occur.

The question is: what is the tragedy in that far-less-than-one-percent of cases that means the women cannot go through with their pregnancies?

That is true but not particularly relevant to the theoretical issue the question is getting at.