[Abortion Thread] A Tough Pill To Swallow

[The Alma Mater]

1. So do you apply that to all doctor-patient decisions or just this one? 2. For example, if a doctor and patient decide to forgo vaccinations, is that something that should not be infringed/legislated by the government?

1. Legally speaking, generally yes, except for abortion which is now the only exception.

Ah, but why is it the only exception? What is the underlying reasoning for making it "special"?

Because if the underlying reasoning involves another human dying if the woman excercises bodily autonomy we return to the whole "why is refusing to have ones organs harvested not illegal" and "why is refusing to get vaccinated legal" - since that ALSO causes other humans to die needlessly.

[Fahran]

Ah, but why is it the only exception? What is the underlying reasoning for making it "special"?

Because if the underlying reasoning involves another human dying if the woman excercises bodily autonomy we return to the whole "why is refusing to have ones organs harvested illegal" - since that ALSO causes other humans to die needlessly.

Gonna be honest. I don't think people who aren't immuno-compromised should have the option to refuse vaccinations given the clear public health benefit they represent and, more broadly, I think bodily autonomy in many cases is remarkably stupid. I get why, aesthetically, it appeals to people, but, from a public health perspective, it can be really annoying to see perfectly reasonable policies shot down, leading to unnecessary deaths.

[Katganistan]

Specifically, the Roe decisions ruling was that doctor-patient relationship was private and medical decisions should not be infringed/legislated by government.

Now the Reps want to regulate your medical decisions.

At least know what you're arguing.

So do you apply that to all doctor-patient decisions or just this one? For example, if a doctor and patient decide to forgo vaccinations, is that something that should not be infringed/legislated by the government?

So do you want to go to Disney World? That has as much to do with what I said as your comment.

[Katganistan]

Can you claim them on a Federal tax return?
Do they possess a social security number?
Can a pregnant woman carrying twins drive in the HOV 3+ lane?

Why not?????

1. As we discussed before, laws are inconsistent on such matters. If a woman carrying a child is murdered, the person who murdered her can actually be charged with double homicide in a number of jurisdictions - which implies that, on some level, the fetus is acknowledged by the judiciary to possess a substantive place in the community and right not to be killed by people other than it's mother. This is one example among many of laws being philosophically inconsistent because they weren't created with a singular philosophical framework in mind.

2. Multiple people who possess rights within the context of the United States legal system do not possess social security numbers. Fetal personhood need not necessarily imply fetal citizenship, especially given how the United States treats and confers citizenship. I do think there's a stronger argument in many other countries for that though. Iure sanguinis and all that.

3. Philosophical inconsistencies and ongoing disputes within our political and legal discourse. See above. And these don't just exist for abortion.

Fetuses ARE NOT PERSONS. They are not legally recognized as persons. That is consistent with the law, so far.

That is why they cannot have social security numbers.
That is why they cannot be claimed on federal tax returns as dependents.
That is why you get a ticket if you drive in a HOV lane thinking your pregnancy is another passenger.

[ImperialRussia]

No abortion should be allowed it harms employer who trying to employee jobs for equity of business

[Katganistan]

No abortion should be allowed it harms employer who trying to employee jobs for equity of business

This does not make any sense.

[Fahran]

This does not make any sense.

It's written poorly, but employers generally do not have a vested interest in female employees who have been trained having children and/or starting families - at least not in the short-term. This likely explains, at least in part, why some employers have prominently offered abortion coverage or abortion-related perks as incentives to employees.

[Fahran]

Fetuses ARE NOT PERSONS. They are not legally recognized as persons. That is consistent with the law, so far.

True, and, at present, some people seem intent on either changing that outright or extending some lesser level of recognition to fetuses at some point during gestation. It's not an unreasonable approach and has de facto occurred in the past - even during the time when the precedent established by Roe v. Wade was upheld. As I've mentioned in the past, it's not completely insane to oppose abortion on demand after a certain point. That's actually the norm in most places, including places that have very high standards of healthcare and uninhibited access to abortion in the first or even second trimester.

That is why they cannot have social security numbers.
That is why they cannot be claimed on federal tax returns as dependents.
That is why you get a ticket if you drive in a HOV lane thinking your pregnancy is another passenger.

Dead people aren't persons and yet they have social security numbers for taxes purposes. So I'm not certain that's actually the best argument.

And, honestly, even if we don't acknowledge any level of fetal personhood, I think claiming pregnancies on tax returns would actually be a step in the right direction given how expensive pregnancy is.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

My view is:
You’re anti-abortion? Don’t get one.
You’re a man? Your opinion doesn’t matter.
You’re a conservative? Solve the issues like school shootings first.
You’re an unborn baby? Speak up.

How about women who for various medical or age-related issues cannot become pregnant? Do their opinions matter?

No. As I say, anti-abortion, don't get one. And they can't get in a position where they need one to begin with.

[Tarsonis]

1. As we discussed before, laws are inconsistent on such matters. If a woman carrying a child is murdered, the person who murdered her can actually be charged with double homicide in a number of jurisdictions - which implies that, on some level, the fetus is acknowledged by the judiciary to possess a substantive place in the community and right not to be killed by people other than it's mother. This is one example among many of laws being philosophically inconsistent because they weren't created with a singular philosophical framework in mind.

2. Multiple people who possess rights within the context of the United States legal system do not possess social security numbers. Fetal personhood need not necessarily imply fetal citizenship, especially given how the United States treats and confers citizenship. I do think there's a stronger argument in many other countries for that though. Iure sanguinis and all that.

3. Philosophical inconsistencies and ongoing disputes within our political and legal discourse. See above. And these don't just exist for abortion.

Fetuses ARE NOT PERSONS. They are not legally recognized as persons. That is consistent with the law, so far.

That is why they cannot have social security numbers.
That is why they cannot be claimed on federal tax returns as dependents.
That is why you get a ticket if you drive in a HOV lane thinking your pregnancy is another passenger.

Yes, but legal definitions of personhood aren't the only definers of personhood which is the point. Screaming "fetuses aren't people" because the law says so, is the same logic that said slaves weren't people, because the law said so. Given the history of using legal personhood to justify all manner of atrocity, this isnt really the winning argument you think it is.

[Fahran]

No. As I say, anti-abortion, don't get one. And they can't get in a position where they need one to begin with.

Again, given how many pro-life folks view abortion, this is potentially the equivalent of "Don't like murder? Well then, don't commit murder." It's only a logical position if you assume that fetuses aren't persons entitled to rights and protection under the law - which is the assumption that pro-life folks and their predecessors have pretty much always challenged since at least the late nineteenth century.

And, in any case, a libertarian approach to social issues isn't neutral or the default. It represents the imposition of a particular hegemonic worldview, a secular theology, on the political community in much the same way that any other approach does. It is not, intrinsically, a compromise, though, for other issues, it has served as a compromise in the past.

[New Rogernomics]

No. As I say, anti-abortion, don't get one. And they can't get in a position where they need one to begin with.

Again, given how many pro-life folks view abortion, this is potentially the equivalent of "Don't like murder? Well then, don't commit murder." It's only a logical position if you assume that fetuses aren't persons entitled to rights and protection under the law - which is the assumption that pro-life folks and their predecessors have pretty much always challenged since at least the late nineteenth century.

And, in any case, a libertarian approach to social issues isn't neutral or the default. It represents the imposition of a particular hegemonic worldview, a secular theology, on the political community in much the same way that any other approach does. It is not, intrinsically, a compromise, though, for other issues, it has served as a compromise in the past.

I sidestep really the concept of a fetus as a person, as it is irrelevant to how things work in practice, as the goal is always to save life always where possible, whether you are talking about a woman or a fetus. Pro-life folks are die-hards to principle on paper and ignore how abortion or giving birth works in practice, and all the medical complications that make it a lot harder than just "baby lives if there is no abortion".

Though, for sake of argument, let's assume that a fetus is a person, should we value one life over in any of these situations?

1. If there is an abortion, the mother may survive, but the fetus will not. Doctors fear complications that would result in the mother's death without an abortion.
2. If there is an abortion, the mother has a greater chance of survival than the fetus, if not it is unknown if either will survive.
3. The mother and fetus have an equal chance of survival if a birth takes place, but one will die and the other will live.
4. Risk of complications is expected to be low, but mother wants an abortion to not take the risk on the advice of their doctor.

Pro-life die hards are against an abortion from 2-4, which flies in the face of medical ethics from the point of view that one life is not worth more than another, and it gets worse if you consider they are putting a value of a living and functional human being over one where such functionality is not assured or certain, as just being born doesn't imply that a child will live a full life or one at all - as a whole lot of medical problems can still ensue after birth.

Effectively, even if abortion was immoral or "murder", it would be effectively killing one human being to preserve the life of another to deny an abortion where even the smallest possibility of a complication exists and they deny an abortion, so the pro-life position can't claim this moral high ground on this issue. I really think that the state shouldn't have a role beyond quality of service requirements, as the government shouldn't be deciding for the mother, only herself and medical professionals. Legislators aren't expected to be practicing doctors, and they certainly shouldn't legislate against medical professionals doing their job or applying medical ethics to medical emergencies.

[Laasmistan]

I sidestep really the concept of a fetus as a person, as it is irrelevant to how things work in practice, as the goal is always to save life always where possible, whether you are talking about a woman or a fetus. Pro-life folks are die-hards to principle on paper and ignore how abortion or giving birth works in practice, and all the medical complications that make it a lot harder than just "baby lives if there is no abortion".

Though, for sake of argument, let's assume that a fetus is a person, should we value one life over in any of these situations?

1. If there is an abortion, the mother may survive, but the fetus will not. Doctors fear complications that would result in the mother's death without an abortion.
2. If there is an abortion, the mother has a greater chance of survival than the fetus, if not it is unknown if either will survive.
3. The mother and fetus have an equal chance of survival if a birth takes place, but one will die and the other will live.
4. Risk of complications is expected to be low, but mother wants an abortion to not take the risk on the advice of their doctor.

Pro-life die hards are against an abortion from 2-4, which flies in the face of medical ethics from the point of view that one life is not worth more than another, and it gets worse if you consider they are putting a value of a living and functional human being over one where such functionality is not assured or certain, as just being born doesn't imply that a child will live a full life or one at all - as a whole lot of medical problems can still ensue after birth.

Effectively, even if abortion was immoral or "murder", it would be effectively killing one human being to preserve the life of another to deny an abortion where even the smallest possibility of a complication exists and they deny an abortion, so the pro-life position can't claim this moral high ground on this issue. I really think that the state shouldn't have a role beyond quality of service requirements, as the government shouldn't be deciding for the mother, only herself and medical professionals. Legislators aren't expected to be practicing doctors, and they certainly shouldn't legislate against medical professionals doing their job or applying medical ethics to medical emergencies.

Nah, even the vast majority of the most hardcore pro-lifers are still okay with abortion to save the mother's life. It's like the one scenario where there's near universal agreement that abortion is acceptable.

[The Alma Mater]

I sidestep really the concept of a fetus as a person, as it is irrelevant to how things work in practice, as the goal is always to save life always where possible, whether you are talking about a woman or a fetus. Pro-life folks are die-hards to principle on paper and ignore how abortion or giving birth works in practice, and all the medical complications that make it a lot harder than just "baby lives if there is no abortion".

Though, for sake of argument, let's assume that a fetus is a person, should we value one life over in any of these situations?

1. If there is an abortion, the mother may survive, but the fetus will not. Doctors fear complications that would result in the mother's death without an abortion.
2. If there is an abortion, the mother has a greater chance of survival than the fetus, if not it is unknown if either will survive.
3. The mother and fetus have an equal chance of survival if a birth takes place, but one will die and the other will live.
4. Risk of complications is expected to be low, but mother wants an abortion to not take the risk on the advice of their doctor.

Pro-life die hards are against an abortion from 2-4, which flies in the face of medical ethics from the point of view that one life is not worth more than another, and it gets worse if you consider they are putting a value of a living and functional human being over one where such functionality is not assured or certain, as just being born doesn't imply that a child will live a full life or one at all - as a whole lot of medical problems can still ensue after birth.

Effectively, even if abortion was immoral or "murder", it would be effectively killing one human being to preserve the life of another to deny an abortion where even the smallest possibility of a complication exists and they deny an abortion, so the pro-life position can't claim this moral high ground on this issue. I really think that the state shouldn't have a role beyond quality of service requirements, as the government shouldn't be deciding for the mother, only herself and medical professionals. Legislators aren't expected to be practicing doctors, and they certainly shouldn't legislate against medical professionals doing their job or applying medical ethics to medical emergencies.

Nah, even the vast majority of the most hardcore pro-lifers are still okay with abortion to save the mother's life. It's like the one scenario where there's near universal agreement that abortion is acceptable.

Then why is it not legislated that way in practice by said pro-lifers?

[Old Hope]

My view is:
You’re anti-abortion? Don’t get one.
You’re a man? Your opinion doesn’t matter.
You’re a conservative? Solve the issues like school shootings first.
You’re an unborn baby? Speak up.

Well, the unborn babies cannot speak up; and society usually should protect those who cannot speak. Not a great line of reasoning.

[Fahran]

Then why is it not legislated that way in practice by said pro-lifers?

The complicated answer here is that it is to some extent, but that exceptions for the mother’s health and fetal non-viability at present are too muddled, too unclear, and too limited and thus place women’s health at serious risk. Take Texas for example. We have among the most draconian abortion laws in the country. The problem isn’t that no exceptions exist. It’s that exceptions are unclear and/or limited, often causing healthcare professionals to delay treatment until things like ectopic pregnancy become immediately life-threatening.

Per the local ACLU…

In Texas, a pair of laws together ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy, without exceptions for rape or incest, and with narrow exemptions for pregnant people at risk of death: Senate Bill 8 (SB , signed by Gov. Greg Abbott, which took effect on Sept. 1, 2021. This law outlaws abortion around six weeks of gestation, even in cases of rape and incest. SB 8 is currently in effect.

House Bill 1280 (HB 1280), a so-called “Trigger Ban,” which creates harsh criminal penalties for providers and doctors for performing or aiding abortions at all stages of pregnancy, without exception for rape or incest, and with narrow exemptions for the life and health of pregnant people. As of August 25, 2022, this “trigger” has been pulled.

I’ve actually written my local representatives regarding some of these laws and could make a fairly in-depth post on the subject if you would like. Though that’d be more nitty gritty detail than completely new information. In short, the problem isn’t so much the principle of the matter as it is the combination of oversights, problematic misunderstandings about women’s health from legislators, and an extensive chilling effect impacting both patients and healthcare professionals.

[Fahran]

My view is:
You’re anti-abortion? Don’t get one.
You’re a man? Your opinion doesn’t matter.
You’re a conservative? Solve the issues like school shootings first.
You’re an unborn baby? Speak up.

Well, the unborn babies cannot speak up; and society usually should protect those who cannot speak. Not a great line of reasoning.

Oof.

[Free Algerstonia]

It does give me an idea though. Start going after the fathers of aborted children and see how many Republican lawmakers suddenly shut up about the issue.

Case and point: Herschel Walker.
You know the old joke. In America you have a Far-Right party, then you have the Republicans

nobody tells that joke tho?

[Dogmeat]

Case and point: Herschel Walker.
You know the old joke. In America you have a Far-Right party, then you have the Republicans

nobody tells that joke tho?

Well you are the expert on jokes nobody tells, enjoys, or finds funny.

[Free Algerstonia]

nobody tells that joke tho?

Well you are the expert on jokes nobody tells, enjoys, or finds funny.

i don't tell jokes on here. but i'll start: why was the abortion doctor mad? because his patient dyed... HIS HAIR AN UGLY COLOR AT THE DOCTORS OFFICE

[American Legionaries]

My view is:
You’re anti-abortion? Don’t get one.
You’re a man? Your opinion doesn’t matter.
You’re a conservative? Solve the issues like school shootings first.
You’re an unborn baby? Speak up.

If you don't like school shootings, don't do one. This seems like an easily solved problem.

[The Alma Mater]

Case and point: Herschel Walker.
You know the old joke. In America you have a Far-Right party, then you have the Republicans

nobody tells that joke tho?

Mostly because it is not a joke but reality.

[Des-Bal]

It does give me an idea though. Start going after the fathers of aborted children and see how many Republican lawmakers suddenly shut up about the issue.

Male rape victims have to pay child support to their rapists. Women are treated with vastly more empathy than men by lawmakers.

[Des-Bal]

I sidestep really the concept of a fetus as a person, as it is irrelevant to how things work in practice, as the goal is always to save life always where possible, whether you are talking about a woman or a fetus. Pro-life folks are die-hards to principle on paper and ignore how abortion or giving birth works in practice, and all the medical complications that make it a lot harder than just "baby lives if there is no abortion".

Though, for sake of argument, let's assume that a fetus is a person, should we value one life over in any of these situations?

1. If there is an abortion, the mother may survive, but the fetus will not. Doctors fear complications that would result in the mother's death without an abortion.
2. If there is an abortion, the mother has a greater chance of survival than the fetus, if not it is unknown if either will survive.
3. The mother and fetus have an equal chance of survival if a birth takes place, but one will die and the other will live.
4. Risk of complications is expected to be low, but mother wants an abortion to not take the risk on the advice of their doctor.

Pro-life die hards are against an abortion from 2-4, which flies in the face of medical ethics from the point of view that one life is not worth more than another, and it gets worse if you consider they are putting a value of a living and functional human being over one where such functionality is not assured or certain, as just being born doesn't imply that a child will live a full life or one at all - as a whole lot of medical problems can still ensue after birth.

Effectively, even if abortion was immoral or "murder", it would be effectively killing one human being to preserve the life of another to deny an abortion where even the smallest possibility of a complication exists and they deny an abortion, so the pro-life position can't claim this moral high ground on this issue. I really think that the state shouldn't have a role beyond quality of service requirements, as the government shouldn't be deciding for the mother, only herself and medical professionals. Legislators aren't expected to be practicing doctors, and they certainly shouldn't legislate against medical professionals doing their job or applying medical ethics to medical emergencies.

You're sidestepping the most relevant thing.

Two people lie in hospital beds, one is unconscious and nonresponsive.

1. Person A would be more comfortable if Person B was dead.
2. Person A's health is at risk and will improve if Person B dies.
3. Person A is dying and Person B will certainly die if Person A does.
4. Person A is dying and Person B will die either way.

In which of the above scenarios would it be okay for the doctor to kill Person B?

We legislate doctors actions, and we don't allow them to kill people.

The other side is "in what situations should a person be allowed to get a manicure?" The answer is just about any because what a person does with their cells isn't a big deal.

The only issue of any importance when it comes to abortion is at what point the act becomes killing a person.

[New Georgia and the North Pacific]

Here’s something. Can foetuses speak? Can they feel things? Can they decide?
You are the same set of people who say people shouldn’t be allowed to transition under 18. Frankly, these are under 18? The power of attorney is the mother’s. Therefore, it’s the woman’s choice what to do. And I do not care whether “it is morally right” for a woman to “kill” an unalive “person”. It’s legally their child/body.