[Abortion Thread] A Tough Pill To Swallow

[Port Caverton]

Any states that have fully banned abortion for the foreseeable future?

No states have completely banned abortion to my knowledge. It usually remains legal when lives are in danger - at least de jure.

They're banning a lot of them though.

Has anyone made like a map or a list or something

[Kathol Rift]

Perhaps you've guard the analogy of the twins with an alcoholic father, where one grows up successful and kind, the other turns into a raging alcoholic. When asked how they got like that, they both answer "Because of the hardship under my alcoholic father." Hardship isn't some magical make-people-wise situation.

I already addressed this point. Of course people respond differently to hardship. I said that I believe that most people grow from it - of course that's not universal. What is universal is that no-one who has had an easy life can behave maturely or fully understand the consequences of their actions.

And claiming that people who don't experience hardship are immature and can't make decisions? First off, you yourself said that you have suffered very little in your life, so are you claiming yourself to be immature and incapable of serious decisions?

What, I'm not allowed to be self-critical? Yes, in some sense I am a naive person.

Secondly, it may astonish you to know this, but raising a child well, lovingly, and actually teaching them tends to lead to more mature and well-rounded people than raising a child with pain and suffering.

I disagree. People who are sheltered are always naive. If you want someone to grow out of that, you have to throw them in the proverbial deep-end, even if it seems cruel.

I genuinely don't know why I'm spending my time arguing with an armchair psychologist on the internet, but it's evident that you have no experience in suffering, hardship, or in raising people, so I'm just going to dip out of this conversation and stop derailing the thread.

Back onto topic, the only thing more ridiculous than the overturning of this decision and the banning of abortion, is all the "just use protection durr" people responding to it. Condoms tear. Birth control fails. People get raped. Pregnancy is not always a choice, and the best-prepared people in the world can still end up with an unwanted pregnancy. And that's not even going into all the various ways a wanted pregnancy can kill the mother if abortion is not available. Not to mention that fetuses aren't even considered viable before 20 weeks, at least according to EMS, so banning abortion before that point is frankly ridiculous.

[Diuhon]

you got alabama banning abortion for all cases, including in cases of rape and incest

i'm sure riders banning abortion in case of ectopic pregnancy are in the running, and in any case, pregnant women in general will now be looked upon in suspicion, especially if they so much as hint at miscarriage

what joy

what fucking joy

So if you had a naturally occurring miscarriage you could be under investigation?

it might happen, under sufficiently zealous regimes

and while this isn't quite the same, there's nothing here that precludes persecution by those same sufficiently zealous regimes for miscarriages happening under their eye

[Spirit of Hope]

Intent doesn't mater. Action does. Is the fetus using the woman's body? Yes. If the woman doesn't want the fetus to use her body, why does the fetus get to use her body?

This is a fundamental difference between us that I refuse to argue about. Intent matters. Who is responsible for who matters (you're not responsible for other adults, you are responsible for your child). Outside of cases of rape, if you're pregnant, that was the result of your choices (and the man who got you pregnant), so the original responsibility is yours (and his).

Consent must be continuous, in pregnancy just as in sex. Just because I made a choice at one time does not mean that I can not withdraw at a later time. The fetus doesn't get to use the woman's body without the woman's consent. It really is that simple.

[The Black Forrest]

you got alabama banning abortion for all cases, including in cases of rape and incest

i'm sure riders banning abortion in case of ectopic pregnancy are in the running, and in any case, pregnant women in general will now be looked upon in suspicion, especially if they so much as hint at miscarriage

what joy

what fucking joy

Miscarriages early in pregnancy will be pretty much impossible for the state to monitor or regulate.

Monitor as being told? Sure they can. Call this number if you suspect someone has improperly terminated a pregnancy.

Regulating? Yea not possible.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Outside of rape, I believe the simple solution is to use protection or just don't have sex. If you need abortion because of your life choices, if you wanna murder human life because of your choices, then that sounds like a you problem. Life begins at conception, killing human life is murder, therefore abortion is murder. And that book I read every day called the Bible says that's wrong.

Abortion should be banned, that's my two cents

Thank you

Life doesn't begin at conception because for something to be considered alive it needs to have homeostasis. A fertilized egg, which early on is essentially a sack of cells, doesn't and is thus not alive. Life starts later. But personhood starts after that, because an embryo lacks a brain.

[Fahran]

No, it is not. It would be a boondoggle to ban abortion under such conditions.

Not really, no. I mean... I support a lot of the policies you proposed and agree they would lower the frequency of abortion, but it doesn't really impact the principles we've been discussing or the fact that legal bans can help to reduce the occurrence of such procedures. And we also shouldn't pretend that your support for abortion or, indeed, abortion itself would disappear if those policies were implemented. It's never going to vanish altogether.

Not all killings are murder.

Yes, but, in this case, the the philosophical and legal arguments would describe these particular killings as murders.

The fetus is occupying the woman's body and taking her resources when she does not wish it to. That is very much a harm. Lethal force has been used for less. In Texas, no less.

And a toddler is occupying a woman's house and taking her resources. The solution is not to murder the toddler. Again, it's a lot easier to just deny fetal personhood. Because otherwise you have to acknowledge that you support killing a human being with rights, who happens to also be an innocent and a dependent. Something fundamentally from most forms of self-defense. And that's never going to be savory or without qualms.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

No states have completely banned abortion to my knowledge. It usually remains legal when lives are in danger - at least de jure.

They're banning a lot of them though.

Has anyone made like a map or a list or something

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._ ... tes+ok.svg

[Diuhon]

Miscarriages early in pregnancy will be pretty much impossible for the state to monitor or regulate.

Monitor as being told? Sure they can. Call this number if you suspect someone has improperly terminated a pregnancy.

Regulating? Yea not possible.

but making life hell for random pregnant women? fuck yeah, that can happen

[Khurkhogur]

Consent must be continuous, in pregnancy just as in sex. Just because I made a choice at one time does not mean that I can not withdraw at a later time. The fetus doesn't get to use the woman's body without the woman's consent. It really is that simple.

Responsibility>consent
When you make some decisions, you make a commitment and take on responsibility. It's like signing a contract, you can't just back out with no consequences.

[Spirit of Hope]

And a toddler is occupying a woman's house and taking her resources. The solution is not to murder the toddler. Again, it's a lot easier to just deny fetal personhood. Because otherwise you have to acknowledge that you support killing a human being with rights, who happens to also be an innocent and a dependent. Something fundamentally from most forms of self-defense. And that's never going to be savory or without qualms.

There are options to get the toddler out of the woman's home besides killing the toddler. There is no way to remove a fetus from a woman besides an abortion.

A toddler in the home also doesn't generally pose a significant threat to life or limb to a mother, but a fetus does pose such a threat to a woman.

[Godular]

Protection can fail.

If life begins at conception, I guess that means we have to prosecute any incidence of failure to implant, any miscarriage whatsoever, and so on.

And the book you read every day called the Bible actually doesn't have much of a position on the matter... AT BEST.

When does life begin then? Just wondering what you think

When life begins is not particularly a relevant concern to me. What matters more to me is whether the woman consents to the fetus' presence. If she does, happy day, congratulations are in order. If she does not, then it is important to understand that she may well see that as a violation of the most fundamental order and want it rectified. There is no malice on the woman's part towards the fetus. She does not wish to punish it for its malfeasance. She simply wishes to have this aversive situation rectified.

The reason isn't particularly relevant. The only thing that matters is that the woman does not wish to be pregnant, and to force her to keep the pregnancy otherwise is prolonging a traumatic event and compounding it by denying her redress.

[Fahran]

Life doesn't begin at conception because for something to be considered alive it needs to have homeostasis. A fertilized egg, which early on is essentially a sack of cells, doesn't and is thus not alive. Life starts later. But personhood starts after that, because an embryo lacks a brain.

Fetal homeostasis is a complex subject. A fetus is alive by almost any reasonable metric. Again, the issue is not whether or not a fetus is alive. It's whether or not a fetus has personhood and rights.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Life doesn't begin at conception because for something to be considered alive it needs to have homeostasis. A fertilized egg, which early on is essentially a sack of cells, doesn't and is thus not alive. Life starts later. But personhood starts after that, because an embryo lacks a brain.

Fetal homeostasis is a complex subject. A fetus is alive by almost any reasonable metric. Again, the issue is not whether or not a fetus is alive. It's whether or not a fetus has personhood and rights.

I wasn't talking about fetuses, I was talking about fertilized eggs, because people keep making the claim that life somehow begins at conception when it definitely doesn't.

[Great Heathen Air Force]

So if you had a naturally occurring miscarriage you could be under investigation?

it might happen, under sufficiently zealous regimes

and while this isn't quite the same, there's nothing here that precludes persecution by those same sufficiently zealous regimes for miscarriages happening under their eye

I think you mean "under his eye"

[Fahran]

There are options to get the toddler out of the woman's home besides killing the toddler. There is no way to remove a fetus from a woman besides an abortion.

A toddler in the home also doesn't generally pose a significant threat to life or limb to a mother, but a fetus does pose such a threat to a woman.

Despite this line of argument, the vast majority of pregnancies do not have a high risk of serious complications. Again, this isn't really about safeguarding women's health or lives in most cases. It's about preserving a right to bodily autonomy and privacy - both from a philosophical and a legal perspective.

And I actually don't think the removal of a toddler from the house of his or her caretaker is a moral outcome. We do it mostly to prevent even more evil outcomes. But, yeah, people who decide to abandon dependents aren't usually super great on the moral front. This is, again, why the denial of personhood is probably the best single argument in favor of abortion rights from a philosophical angle.

[Neutraligon]

Consent must be continuous, in pregnancy just as in sex. Just because I made a choice at one time does not mean that I can not withdraw at a later time. The fetus doesn't get to use the woman's body without the woman's consent. It really is that simple.

Responsibility>consent
When you make some decisions, you make a commitment and take on responsibility. It's like signing a contract, you can't just back out with no consequences.

Funny thing, having an abortion is the responsible thing to do. Becoming pregnant is in no way like a contract,, and having an abortion is not without consequence.

There are options to get the toddler out of the woman's home besides killing the toddler. There is no way to remove a fetus from a woman besides an abortion.

A toddler in the home also doesn't generally pose a significant threat to life or limb to a mother, but a fetus does pose such a threat to a woman.

Despite this line of argument, the vast majority of pregnancies do not have a high risk of complications. Again, this isn't really about safeguarding women's health or lives in most cases. It's about preserving a right to bodily autonomy and privacy - both from a philosophical and a legal perspective.

And I actually don't think the removal of a toddler from the house of his or her caretaker is a moral outcome. We do it mostly to prevent even more evil outcomes. But, yeah, people who decide to abandon dependents aren't usually super great on the moral front. This is, again, why the denial of personhood is probably the best single argument in favor of abortion rights from a philosophical angle.

I would say that even if the risk is small, it should be up to the woman if she decides to take that risk.

[Diuhon]

it might happen, under sufficiently zealous regimes

and while this isn't quite the same, there's nothing here that precludes persecution by those same sufficiently zealous regimes for miscarriages happening under their eye

I think you mean "under his eye"

that was the nope, yes

[Godular]

The fetus is occupying the woman's body and taking her resources when she does not wish it to. That is very much a harm. Lethal force has been used for less. In Texas, no less.

And a toddler is occupying a woman's house and taking her resources. The solution is not to murder the toddler. Again, it's a lot easier to just deny fetal personhood. Because otherwise you have to acknowledge that you support killing a human being with rights, who happens to also be an innocent and a dependent. Something fundamentally from most forms of self-defense. And that's never going to be savory or without qualms.

And once again, when faced with the issue of self-defense, folks become utterly baffled by the idea of 'Necessary Force'. That is the amount of force necessary to end the threat. This leads to terms such as 'Shoot to Stop', among others. This does NOT lead to 'fucking kill everything that presents even the most mundane of threats' because that is the stupidest thing in the world and I don't know why folks such as yourself think this is a viable line of argument to take.

The toddler can be dealt with in ways that rectify any 'harm' with immediacy and effect without killing the toddler. The ONLY recourse for a woman who wishes to no longer be pregnant against her will involves terminating the fetus. This is sad, but that does not mean the fetus should be permitted some kind of exception in which the woman just has to 'deal with it'.

[Fahran]

I would say that even if the risk is small, it should be up to the woman if she decides to take that risk.

I don't really take it as a super honest argument. Because, again, if you're pro-choice, you're probably not going to support a ban on abortion even if the threat posed by complications is zero. And abortion is likely to remain an option for high risk pregnancies where the mother's life would be in danger anyway.

I'm not sure why there's so much pushback against just going "they're not persons" and washing hands of the matter.

[Khurkhogur]

Funny thing, having an abortion is the responsible thing to do. Becoming pregnant is in no way like a contract,, and having an abortion is not without consequence.

Yeah, killing the thing you're responsible for is obviously the responsible thing to do. Becoming pregnant is not like a contract, but I think when people have sex without protection/contraception, they should keep in mind that they might create a new living being. I do think they should have time to back out during the initial pregnancy - when the zygote/embryo isn't properly "alive" the way we would define it. But once it becomes a fetus, at that point you should be considered responsible.

[Fahran]

And once again, when faced with the issue of self-defense, folks become utterly baffled by the idea of 'Necessary Force'. That is the amount of force necessary to end the threat. This leads to terms such as 'Shoot to Stop', among others. This does NOT lead to 'fucking kill everything that presents even the most mundane of threats' because that is the stupidest thing in the world and I don't know why folks such as yourself think this is a viable line of argument to take.

The toddler can be dealt with in ways that rectify any 'harm' with immediacy and effect without killing the toddler. The ONLY recourse for a woman who wishes to no longer be pregnant against her will involves terminating the fetus. This is sad, but that does not mean the fetus should be permitted some kind of exception in which the woman just has to 'deal with it'.

Why not? Again, the reason self-defense is even justified is because you're facing a credible threat of serious bodily harm or death in most instances. If you're not experiencing that as a result of pregnancy, can one justify self-defense against what is effectively a dependent?

[Fahran]

Yeah, killing the thing you're responsible for is obviously the responsible thing to do.

Is a pregnant woman responsible for a fetus? If so, why?

[Krivstonia]

When does life begin then? Just wondering what you think

When life begins is not particularly a relevant concern to me. What matters more to me is whether the woman consents to the fetus' presence. If she does, happy day, congratulations are in order. If she does not, then it is important to understand that she may well see that as a violation of the most fundamental order and want it rectified. There is no malice on the woman's part towards the fetus. She does not wish to punish it for its malfeasance. She simply wishes to have this aversive situation rectified.

The reason isn't particularly relevant. The only thing that matters is that the woman does not wish to be pregnant, and to force her to keep the pregnancy otherwise is prolonging a traumatic event and compounding it by denying her redress.

So you think it's okay to kill a life because one doesn't want to take care of it?

If a guardian does want to take care of their child, and their child is dependent on them for survival, is it not murder if the guardian rejects their child cuz they don't want the responsibility, and the child dies?

[Neutraligon]

I would say that even if the risk is small, it should be up to the woman if she decides to take that risk.

I don't really take it as a super honest argument. Because, again, if you're pro-choice, you're probably not going to support a ban on abortion even if the threat posed by complications is zero. And abortion is likely to remain an option for high risk pregnancies where the mother's life would be in danger anyway.

I'm not sure why there's so much pushback against just going "they're not persons" and washing hands of the matter.

The threat posed by complications cannot be zero, and so the hypothetical you suggest does not matter. It being an option for high-risk pregnancies still means that women are forced to take on the risks associated with pregnancy when it is not high-risk. It is a very honest argument.