Topic: So, let's talk about that new abortion law... (Read 760 times)

Oh perhaps your general dismissal of the debate, your default to relativism, and perhaps this...


No slippery slope here, even though we are already well down that slope sliding away...

I'm litteraly saying abortion must be allowed but considered last resort and first duty of society is to promote prevention methods... How's that even slightly linked to your answer?

Yeah this kind of logic certainly won't lead do genocidal eugenics programs. Thanks for another gem from the mind of MOgliE.

I find all this to be a bit of a non debate.

There is no such thing as pro choice or pro life in most cases. Of course you got some crazy guys saying a woman shouldn't be able to have any kind of abortion even when it's a rape child, and some saying abortion should be given automatically on a simple demand whatever the state of pregnancy.

But truth be told I think there is no real answer and anything is defendable as long as you're in the middle of this.

How can be a 5 months limit be better or worse than a 6 months limit?

As Theymos illustrated, abortion is simply a socialy accepted limit between a foetus and a some-kind of human.

For me anything below 1 year old isn't really humand because that's more or less the age you get self-consciousness which is the real difference betwee human and animals. But that's not something socially acceptable I guess ^^


Anyway what's sure:
-Abortions are part of human society, if you get them illegal they'll continue, only putting more danger for the mother.
-You can't force someone to be a parent. That's impossible.
-Accidents DO happen, not only talking about rape but you can be on the pills and wear condom and still be freaking unlucky.
-Abortion IS an important process that MUST be avoided 99,9% of the time. It's not a light medical act and the first priority is to prevent situations in which abortion can become a necessity. Prevention is far better than anything here.

So as long as a society do whatever it can to educate the people in contraception, ease the access to contraception, educate people on sexuality and sexual practices, and allow abortion in some way for anyone, I don't think you can really be right or wrong. There is nothing factual about what is good and what is bad in putting some kind of deadline... It's just a question of personnal perspective.

There are a number of times I have had conversations on this subject with friends who were fundamentalist Christian, and they felt very deeply about it. Almost to the point of being able to call them single issue voters.

I don't find myself getting emotionally aroused much about this subject. I am willing to ascribe that to basic personality flaws, rather than any grand ethics and morality.

Right! The more people, the more CO2. The more greenhouse gasses, the warmer the climate. The warmer the climate, the more moisture and heat in the atmosphere. Northern Canada and Siberia (and even Antarctica) will warm up, and there will be more room for habitation. The Sahara will become a fertile jungle (almost) from the CO2. More moisture in the atmosphere will cause more H2O2 to be made naturally, and it will flood the waters and the atmosphere, killing of all kinds of pathogens.

There is a whole lot of room to inhabit the oceans. Ocean farming will have to become stabilized. World controls will be needed to keep people from destroying nature, and thereby destroying other people.

We need more people, and the earth can handle them. The more people, the more geniuses. The sooner we reach the stars... and figure out how to live to 1000-y-o so that we can enjoy the stars.

Abortion only means destruction, and women are being whipped up into a freedom frenzy by the elite, just to keep us all slaves longer through abortion.

This is another issue that always seems to get swept under the rug because it makes people uncomfortable. What about a father's reproductive rights? While I don't advocate for women being forced to carry children against their will, as we explained earlier getting pregnant is largely a choice to begin with as we have many options to prevent this even if you are sexually active. Both parents choose to engage in sex.

After that point the man has no further say in what happens, but he is also financially responsible for the upbringing of that child until 18 years of age if the mother so chooses. It seems to me there should be some kind of counterbalance of rights and responsibilities here, or at least some kind of option for the father to be released of these rights and responsibilities if the child is carried to term against his wishes. Without this there is quite a clear double standard of rights. This combined with some kind of clearly defined term limit (with the usual physical health, rape, incest, etc exceptions), and perhaps some informed consent protocols IMO would go a long way toward deflating this conflict of ideologies.

Oh no?

Thou shalt NOT Kill

When I was younger, I used to be totally pro-choice, but now I'm mildly pro-life. When I was pro-choice, it was based mainly on:

1. The "evictionism" argument: the woman's body is fundamentally hers to do with what she wishes. If eg. you live at the south pole and someone barges into your house and must stay for 9 months or else die from the cold, your property rights allow you to refuse them, especially if their presence creates risks for you.
2. Unborn children aren't developed enough to be moral agents with rights. If you treat them the same as full humans because they can (at certain points) feel pain, have a heartbeat, etc., then you might as well consider animals as full humans too.

My opinion on the evictionism argument was changed by the counter-argument that it's more as if you hit someone with a car far from civilization, and they're going to die if you don't shelter them in your house. By bringing a child into life knowingly or through carelessness, you've created a sort of tort against both them and your partner which obliges you to at least try to keep the child alive until birth.

I still somewhat agree with #2, which is why I'm only mildly pro-life. If the subject has never been able to form thoughts objecting to it, I can't consider it fully murder, at least.

That said, I find it very problematic on an intellectual level to set hard timeline-borders such as "it's totally OK 1 second before birth, but murder 1 second after birth". If you believe that abortion is OK just before then the only consistent position is to believe that it's not much worse just after . So in the Northam controversy, I actually find his "post-birth abortion" position more intellectually honest than many of the more extreme pro-choice advocates, even if I strongly disagree with him. I think that you have to define "moral agency" as a continuous function over time, starting at conception and ending at some point in the future, perhaps even after birth. So perhaps killing the fetus should be treated as "75% murder" both 1 second before and 1 second after birth, for example. I'm not advocating any specific function, though -- I suppose it should be based on the local cultural standards and the available scientific data.

It's frustrating when one side of this issue totally fails to perceive the other side's legitimate arguments. Many people scream "you're killing babies!" or "you want to control women's bodies!", completely closing their minds to the opposing arguments.

These sorts of tricky issues which will never have a single universally-agreed-upon answer is a major thing which attracted me to David-Friedman-style anarcho-capitalism, which in a very natural way allows for different people with different ideologies to have different laws.

---

My instincts have developed as I've gotten older. The thought of abortion used to not bother me at all, but now it makes me uncomfortable even very soon after conception. But we must remain aware that this sort of instinctual discomfort is an external factor enforced by evolution, and it is disconnected from rationality.

Also, from a utilitarian perspective I totally reject over-population arguments. Humans create usable resources on net through innovation - practically-speaking, resources are not some limited pool which we all fight over in a zero-sum way. The more people, the better.

Quote from: TECSHARE on February 03, 2019, 07:27:59 AM

the shift from abortion being a rare last resort, kind of intervention, to a method of contraception in lieu of others.

Agreed, while I don't think that this kind of thinking is all that common, where it exists it is really unpleasant.

Tough nut to crack it is and we have to remember how rare those medically recommanded abortions are.
Never was a fan of abortion sponsored by the state, to me it looks to much like the eugenic plan for population reduction. However law should recognise the cases where such procedure is unpreventable, inevitable in order to save mothers life. Yet with such late upper limits for the abortion to be legal, state and society enters a very dangerous territory of determining who's life is more valuable to preserve. Mostly because five month old pregnancy has some actual chances for survival outside the womb.

I would be keen to accept those regulations under one condition: it can't be sponsored by the state.
If it is, than every member of given society is putting his hand to it and one should have the right to be free of such burden.

I think arguments for and against here are often mischaracterized. In my personal opinion, I find abortion a repugnant act, but also recognize that there are some valid arguments for it. It seems to me that we have gone well beyond these valid arguments now and have just gone full blown allowing "abortion" on demand, even after birth. The new laws on the books and New York and being debated now in Virginia demonstrate this.

In my opinion most of the push back against abortion is a result of the shift from abortion being a rare last resort, kind of intervention, to a method of contraception in lieu of others. There is no reason abortion needs to be used as a form of contraception for consensual sex. By definition this is a choice, and you also have the choice to use contraceptives of various sorts to prevent insemination to begin with, or God forbid not engage in sex with some one you don't plan to partner with long term.

There are a lot of things people are not taking into consideration when they look at this debate. Of course it is about as white hot of a contentious debate as any, so most tend to avoid it all together, and as a result get very limited superficial information. Also frankly, if you want real information on this subject, you have to look at some VERY depressing, unpleasant, and sick facts, and there is not much motivation for people to jump into that dumpster of medical waste.

For one, no one ever bothers informing these women that they could have long lasting health issues resulting from abortion, and that each abortion they have makes their chances of raising a viable child later more slim. It seems to me this is just a denial of personal responsibility being wrapped in a veil of choice, and having it being maximally abused until everyone is acclimated to the new standard, and then pushing it even further so no one ever has to take responsibility for their actions. This is a dangerous trend leading to Eugenics and genocide.

This is going to be turned into a system for exterminating disabled children. If women can chose to "abort" the baby at birth, then if the child has a disability they can choose to simply kill the infant. Furthermore no one addresses the profit motive here for keeping these discarded children alive just a little bit longer in order to harvest their very valuable tissues. This is going to get out of control really fast, especially when you combine it with a state run single payer healthcare system. You will not be paying the bills, so you don't get a choice any more when it really comes down to it down the line.

I don't think abortion needs to be banned, but I definitely think the direction we are heading is in Mengele territory, and we need to have a major correction on how approach the subject of abortion as a culture, and treat it more like an emergency medical procedure than a more complicated morning after pill.

Morning gents 😊  Was curious to the opinions on the board. Personally, I dont see that a whole lot has changed; this is pretty much Roe v Wade. The "termination up to birth" consideration is a rare case; a very low percentage of abortions go on past five months, let alone nine. And typically in the event of medical necessity. It's a no brainer in those cases, hell yes abort the child if it will not be viable. To not do so is medically irresponsible.

The practice is legally contentious in the first place; most doctors wont touch abortions of this type for the legal liability it creates. So as I see it, this essentially decriminalized abortion in these cases; this is the most profound change by far. Potentially life saving procedures should not have the threat of legal force behind them; this ties the hands of caregivers to provide the most informed situational solutions for the health of a patient.

And empirically, we have seen that restricting early term abortion seems to actually increase the rate at which late term abortions occur. Seriously.

Is the poor reaction to this just a product of the politics we live with now, or am I missing something?

And full disclosure, I'm for both. Yep, pro choice and pro life. You see, I'm a Christian. The Bible isn't clear enough on this, but in my heart I feel that every consideration to give the child to someone else should be attempted before abortion is an option. I just feel that is what Jesus would do. Our love for human life, and desire for it to be happy and optimal for all, I would logically assume means protecting the defenseless and preserving life.

On the other hand, I support a woman's choice to decide if she wants to carry a baby to term. While I may frown on it, it is not for me to decide as God has given us free will. Many impacted by this law are not Christian; given that there is a clear separation of Church and State, religious and moral considerations based off of Christianity dont really come into play here. This is not a power the State should have, the right to control one's own health outcomes. While I may frown on the act, my frown doesn't mean too much in the grand scheme.

Thoughts?