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

[San Lumen]

The law in Paraguay is extremely strict. If I recall correctly doctors refused to perform an abortion for fear of being prosecuted and some wouldnt do it on moral grounds.

It doesn't matter what the conditions were. No child should have to go through something like that under any circumstance and due to viewpoints like yours she died as a result.

Yeah and I think Paraguay's laws are too strict. I've already stated more than once that if it's medically necessary it should be allowed. I don't agree with the total prohibition supported by the RCC and some Protestant churches. My own church doesn't even support that extreme level.

In both cases an abortion should have been allowed?

[The New California Republic]

IIRC artificial wombs were originally something considered by the pro-choice side in the past as an alternative, not the pro-life side.

It's occasionally come up over the past several years in the previous iterations of this thread.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Yes it is.

A natural phenomenon is not a medical procedure.

"Natural phenomenon" is too general a term to be useful in any context. You're basically riding the positive connotations of "natural" ... which come to think of it, is quite hackneyed.

Anyway, a lot of abortions nowadays are pharmaceutical. Thus, abortion can't be defined as "a medical procedure" in every case.

And about time too. Hopefully the pharmaceutical options just get better and women can perform their own abortions in absolute secrecy, and pro-lifers can find their natural place among conspiracy theorists. They make such bad use of a little information, denying them any information at all might be enough to utterly discredit them.

[The Marlborough]

Yeah and I think Paraguay's laws are too strict. I've already stated more than once that if it's medically necessary it should be allowed. I don't agree with the total prohibition supported by the RCC and some Protestant churches. My own church doesn't even support that extreme level.

In both cases an abortion should have been allowed?

Once again, if there were conditions known and present that indicated that death was likely and that abortion was the most effective or only effective measure to prevent her death, then yes.

[San Lumen]

In both cases an abortion should have been allowed?

Once again, if there were conditions known and present that indicated that death was likely and that abortion was the most effective or only effective measure to prevent her death, then yes.

I don’t think they knew the older girl would die in childbirth.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

IIRC artificial wombs were originally something considered by the pro-choice side in the past as an alternative, not the pro-life side.

It's occasionally come up over the past several years in the previous iterations of this thread.

I mock it whoever brings it up. Adherents of what is natural, and opponents of contraception/abortion, have too wide an overlap for it ever to be mandated by government.

My main argument against, is that at least for the next decade of development, incubators will provide second-best care for a foetus. However a lot of people think it's unethical to speak again a government backed program producing otherwise avoidable disability in born children. I guess they can't help seeing it as eugenics and therefore my ultimate aim must be eliminating all disability. Whatever. It would also be fantastically expensive, as it will remain part of the medical system, and to anyone who doesn't believe in the mystical personhood of fetuses, utterly pointless.

[Neutraligon]

Ture my wording is bad, does not change the fact you are forcing women to take a risk they are unwilling to take when there is a safe effective option to prevent it.

They're not forcing anything. The risk is naturally occurring. Medical providers do not have a medical duty to do anything demanded of them by patients to reduce risk, even if they believe such a procedure to be unethical.

They are since the risk is preventable. True they do not need to provide it, they however can offer it, and there are those willing to do so. Since there are doctors willing to provide the service, making that service illegal is forcing the women to take the risk

[The Marlborough]

A couple pages back you basically said that you believe that the pro-life side hold no legitimate basis for its beliefs and is just a cynical grab at controlling people. I don't think you're in a position to criticize my lack of trust of your side.

I will honestly not be surprised that as the pro-life movement becomes more open to the idea of state support and funding for families we see a bunch of pro-choice people take a hard turn towards fiscal conservatism even if nominally left-wing.

I've honestly never met someone who was pro-choice who has been in favor of abortion for the sake of abortion*. It seems an almost cartoonish inverse (since pro-life never wants abortions to happen, those of us who are pro-choice must always want them to happen) when it's always been about reproductive rights.

And also, you're kind of confirming why we wouldn't support rolling back abortion rights. Because you're arguing that abortion shouldn't be done in the event of rape, even if the victim is a child. This is essentially what would happen if we gave an inch to the pro-life camp.

Except maybe for people who believe human extinction is a good thing (?)

I can think of at least one poster ITT who I would describe as being pro-abortion for the sake of it. Regardless, is it not cartoonish to argue that the pro-life side is inherently arguing from bad faith? Odd how rapidly the tables turned when the same standard is applied to the other side. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

And we have people on your side arguing that even if we had technology that made abortion redundant (which by the way is an example of favoring abortion for the sake of it), it should still be allowed. On that basis, why should, say, the Catholics even move an inch towards my own church's position let alone moving towards the much wider list of reasons supported by the pro-choice side?

[Punished UMN]

A natural phenomenon is not a medical procedure.

"Natural phenomenon" is too general a term to be useful in any context. You're basically riding the positive connotations of "natural" ... which come to think of it, is quite hackneyed.

Anyway, a lot of abortions nowadays are pharmaceutical. Thus, abortion can't be defined as "a medical procedure" in every case.

And about time too. Hopefully the pharmaceutical options just get better and women can perform their own abortions in absolute secrecy, and pro-lifers can find their natural place among conspiracy theorists. They make such bad use of a little information, denying them any information at all might be enough to utterly discredit them.

Not really, my use of the term natural has nothing to do with positive connotations and everything to do with that it is a bodily process which no one has willed to take place. There are many natural phenomenon which are not positive, cancerous growths being among them. None of us would call cancer a medical procedure.

[Bienenhalde]

There are those for forced abortion and sterilization, typically for specific groups.

But in that case, it's not pro-choice.

True, but people who are sympathetic to such ideas might still support the pro-choice movement because it is a more socially acceptable way to promote their goals within a 21st century context. I can tolerate abortion as a necessary evil in the case of rape or threats to a mother's life, but I don't see how unlimited freedom of choice would be a good thing when the choice in question involves ending the life of an innocent person.

[The Marlborough]

Once again, if there were conditions known and present that indicated that death was likely and that abortion was the most effective or only effective measure to prevent her death, then yes.

I don’t think they knew the older girl would die in childbirth.

Well then that's unfortunate but if there was no reason to believe she was at undue risk then abortion shouldn't have been allowed.

[Punished UMN]

They're not forcing anything. The risk is naturally occurring. Medical providers do not have a medical duty to do anything demanded of them by patients to reduce risk, even if they believe such a procedure to be unethical.

They are since the risk is preventable. True they do not need to provide it, they however can offer it, and there are those willing to do so. Since there are doctors willing to provide the service, making that service illegal is forcing the women to take the risk

By admitting though that it's a matter of doctors being willing to perform the procedure though, we already admit that the right to abortion is not absolute, which seriously undermines the bodily autonomy argument.

[The New California Republic]

It's occasionally come up over the past several years in the previous iterations of this thread.

I mock it whoever brings it up. Adherents of what is natural, and opponents of contraception/abortion, have too wide an overlap for it ever to be mandated by government.

My main argument against, is that at least for the next decade of development, incubators will provide second-best care for a foetus. However a lot of people think it's unethical to speak again a government backed program producing otherwise avoidable disability in born children. I guess they can't help seeing it as eugenics and therefore my ultimate aim must be eliminating all disability. Whatever. It would also be fantastically expensive, as it will remain part of the medical system, and to anyone who doesn't believe in the mystical personhood of fetuses, utterly pointless.

The form in which we have discussed it previously has most often been one that has a perfect like-for-like replacement of natural incubation in the womb. Of course it needs to be stressed that such things are not really relevant for discussing abortion as an argument in the here-and-now, as it's science fiction; we may as well talk about abortions performed using a Star-Trek-esque matter-energy transporter that beams the fetus out, if we are willing to seriously entertain discussing artificial wombs as if they have an impact in the here-and-now.

[San Lumen]

I don’t think they knew the older girl would die in childbirth.

Well then that's unfortunate but if there was no reason to believe she was at undue risk then abortion shouldn't have been allowed.

So forcing a child to give birth is acceptable and if she happens to die in childbirth or from other complications oh well? The fetus matters more? That is reprehensible. Your giving a fetus more rights than any person.

No child should have to go through something so traumatic and risk serious injury or death from something they didn’t ask for. The fetus isn’t a person and therefore has no rights and the concept of innocence doesn’t apply either.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Well then that's unfortunate but if there was no reason to believe she was at undue risk then abortion shouldn't have been allowed.

So forcing a child to give birth is acceptable and if she happens to die in childbirth or from other complications oh well? The fetus matters more? That is reprehensible. Your giving a fetus more rights than any person.

No child should have to go through something so traumatic and risk serious injury or death from something they didn’t ask for. The fetus isn’t a person and therefore has no rights and the concept of innocence doesn’t apply either.

Hm? What would you consider to be a person?

[San Lumen]

So forcing a child to give birth is acceptable and if she happens to die in childbirth or from other complications oh well? The fetus matters more? That is reprehensible. Your giving a fetus more rights than any person.

No child should have to go through something so traumatic and risk serious injury or death from something they didn’t ask for. The fetus isn’t a person and therefore has no rights and the concept of innocence doesn’t apply either.

Hm? What would you consider to be a person?

Once your born your a person before that no.

[The Marlborough]

I mean there is research going on right now on artificial wombs. IIRC they've already gotten to the point where they can support a fetus for month in one and that ended more because of laws in place about how long it can be tested for. It's quite possible within the coming decades to have genuine artificial wombs that can support the growth of a fetus or at least the majority of the time needed.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Hm? What would you consider to be a person?

Once your born your a person before that no.

Born as in out of the womb?

[Thepeopl]

I mock it whoever brings it up. Adherents of what is natural, and opponents of contraception/abortion, have too wide an overlap for it ever to be mandated by government.

My main argument against, is that at least for the next decade of development, incubators will provide second-best care for a foetus. However a lot of people think it's unethical to speak again a government backed program producing otherwise avoidable disability in born children. I guess they can't help seeing it as eugenics and therefore my ultimate aim must be eliminating all disability. Whatever. It would also be fantastically expensive, as it will remain part of the medical system, and to anyone who doesn't believe in the mystical personhood of fetuses, utterly pointless.

The form in which we have discussed it previously has most often been one that has a perfect like-for-like replacement of natural incubation in the womb. Of course it needs to be stressed that such things are not really relevant for discussing abortion as an argument in the here-and-now, as it's science fiction; we may as well talk about abortions performed using a Star-Trek-esque matter-energy transporter that beams the fetus out, if we are willing to seriously entertain discussing artificial wombs as if they have an impact in the here-and-now.

I saw an article about the consequences of csection and formula
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02807-x

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/ ... work-67563

https://www.genengnews.com/news/metagen ... velopment/

Want to guess what a artificial womb will do?

[The New California Republic]

I mean there is research going on right now on artificial wombs. IIRC they've already gotten to the point where they can support a fetus for month in one and that ended more because of laws in place about how long it can be tested for. It's quite possible within the coming decades to have genuine artificial wombs that can support the growth of a fetus or at least the majority of the time needed.

Yes there is research going on, but at the level it needs to be at to support from the time abortions normally take place—before 12 weeks—and to result in no deleterious effects to the resulting child that is born, it's likely something that none of us is going to be needing to concern ourselves with in our lifetime.

---

The form in which we have discussed it previously has most often been one that has a perfect like-for-like replacement of natural incubation in the womb. Of course it needs to be stressed that such things are not really relevant for discussing abortion as an argument in the here-and-now, as it's science fiction; we may as well talk about abortions performed using a Star-Trek-esque matter-energy transporter that beams the fetus out, if we are willing to seriously entertain discussing artificial wombs as if they have an impact in the here-and-now.

I saw an article about the consequences of csection and formula
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02807-x

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/ ... work-67563

https://www.genengnews.com/news/metagen ... velopment/

Want to guess what a artificial womb will do?

Yes, as I've emphasised the tech is nowhere near to where it needs to be to actually be viable. I'm willing to bet we'll all be in our graves before we see such a thing happening.

[The Marlborough]

Well then that's unfortunate but if there was no reason to believe she was at undue risk then abortion shouldn't have been allowed.

So forcing a child to give birth is acceptable and if she happens to die in childbirth or from other complications oh well? The fetus matters more? That is reprehensible. Your giving a fetus more rights than any person.

I'm not saying "Oh well". Maternal death is unfortunately something that still happens more often than any person would like (albeit we have been successful in reducing the number dying). My position is that it can allowed when there are reasons to believe that the mother's life is in danger and that abortion is the most viable or only viable remedy. At that point it becomes a medical necessity in order to save the mother's life.

[The Marlborough]

I mean there is research going on right now on artificial wombs. IIRC they've already gotten to the point where they can support a fetus for month in one and that ended more because of laws in place about how long it can be tested for. It's quite possible within the coming decades to have genuine artificial wombs that can support the growth of a fetus or at least the majority of the time needed.

Yes there is research going on, but at the level it needs to be at to support from the time abortions normally take place—before 12 weeks—and to result in no deleterious effects to the resulting child that is born, it's likely something that none of us is going to be needing to concern ourselves with in our lifetime.

Given the fortunate developments that have been made, I disagree. With adequate support research could probably advance to having viable methods within our lifetimes. It's not been until recently that research has been taken more seriously on the matter.

[San Lumen]

So forcing a child to give birth is acceptable and if she happens to die in childbirth or from other complications oh well? The fetus matters more? That is reprehensible. Your giving a fetus more rights than any person.

I'm not saying "Oh well". Maternal death is unfortunately something that still happens more often than any person would like (albeit we have been successful in reducing the number dying). My position is that it can allowed when there are reasons to believe that the mother's life is in danger and that abortion is the most viable or only viable remedy. At that point it becomes a medical necessity in order to save the mother's life.

but the case of rape and incest no ?

[The Marlborough]

I'm not saying "Oh well". Maternal death is unfortunately something that still happens more often than any person would like (albeit we have been successful in reducing the number dying). My position is that it can allowed when there are reasons to believe that the mother's life is in danger and that abortion is the most viable or only viable remedy. At that point it becomes a medical necessity in order to save the mother's life.

but the case of rape and incest no ?

How many times are you going to ask me to repeat my position?

[The New California Republic]

Yes there is research going on, but at the level it needs to be at to support from the time abortions normally take place—before 12 weeks—and to result in no deleterious effects to the resulting child that is born, it's likely something that none of us is going to be needing to concern ourselves with in our lifetime.

Given the fortunate developments that have been made, I disagree. With adequate support research could probably advance to having viable methods within our lifetimes. It's not been until recently that research has been taken more seriously on the matter.

Keep in mind that some of us are older, so if it takes several decades then some of us will be pushing up daisies by that point.