Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-03-2019, 12:53 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,247
Why shouldn't all late-term abortions be legal?

There are multiple threads going on about the recent New York law in GQ and GD - I don't want to derail them and so I am starting a thread in IMHO to put some distance between here and them:


The usual argument against late-term abortions is "viability;" that at a certain point the fetus is capable of life outside the womb independent of the mother's body. But even if so, there are still multiple factors that still apply in late-term abortions like early-term ones:
  • The mother may not want to go through a C-section or childbirth, and prefer abortion. Why should the doctor be able to dictate to her, "You want an abortion, but we insist on you delivering a live fetus?"
  • The mother may not want to raise the child or give it up for adoption - financial cost, family reasons, social reasons, etc. etc.
  • There have been many instances in which a woman was pregnant but didn't even know it until childbirth (just Google "woman didn't know she was pregnant"). Suppose, then, that a woman doesn't know she is pregnant until her 8th month or so. In such a situation, the woman couldn't have made an informed decision about abortion (since she didn't know she was pregnant) and now has no choice but a late-term abortion (if an abortion is what she wants.)
  • Regardless of whether the fetus is in its 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester, it's still in the woman's body, so why shouldn't it be considered able to terminated all the way up until the point of birth?
  #2  
Old 02-03-2019, 01:03 PM
ITR champion ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,229
Because almost everyone is opposed to the killing of a child at that stage.

Note that all your points discuss what the mother wants, and none mention the rights of the child.
  #3  
Old 02-03-2019, 01:03 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,728
Nm

Last edited by Acsenray; 02-03-2019 at 01:03 PM.
  #4  
Old 02-03-2019, 01:08 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The mother may not want to raise the child or give it up for adoption - financial cost, family reasons, social reasons, etc. etc.
This could also be true after the baby is born.
Quote:
Regardless of whether the fetus is in its 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester, it's still in the woman's body, so why shouldn't it be considered able to terminated all the way up until the point of birth?
This would make personhood a matter of location.

I think the vast majority of Americans find infanticide morally objectionable and believe it should be illegal. And if it's the same baby immediately before and immediately after it comes out of the womb, why should its life be protected one place but not the other?
  #5  
Old 02-03-2019, 01:34 PM
Musicat Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 20,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
And if it's the same baby immediately before and immediately after it comes out of the womb, why should its life be protected one place but not the other?
Well put. I would like to suggest that there is a continuous scale from conception to adulthood to death. Societies put a different value on life at different points on the scale. Most modern societies dislike imposed death on adults, but have less reservations about pre-born, especially extremely pre-born, when the "life" may be only a blastocyst. So it's only a matter of degree.

Where do we draw the line? Should religion and ancient mores be considered? If you think ALL life is sacred, and I don't, should you dictate my decisions?
  #6  
Old 02-03-2019, 03:42 PM
outlierrn outlierrn is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: republic of california
Posts: 5,579
Because I've taken care of too many babies born at 35 weeks to support that.
__________________
Just another outlying data point on the bell curve of life
  #7  
Old 02-04-2019, 10:16 AM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Note that all your points discuss what the mother wants, and none mention the rights of the child.
The child isn't conscious to make decisions about it.
  #8  
Old 02-04-2019, 10:24 AM
Baka Baka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Japan
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The child isn't conscious to make decisions about it.
So if you’re in a vegetative coma, may I kill you as well?
__________________
To love Justice and give Mercy
  #9  
Old 02-04-2019, 10:44 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There are multiple threads going on about the recent New York law in GQ and GD - I don't want to derail them and so I am starting a thread in IMHO to put some distance between here and them:


The usual argument against late-term abortions is "viability;" that at a certain point the fetus is capable of life outside the womb independent of the mother's body. But even if so, there are still multiple factors that still apply in late-term abortions like early-term ones:
  • The mother may not want to go through a C-section or childbirth, and prefer abortion. Why should the doctor be able to dictate to her, "You want an abortion, but we insist on you delivering a live fetus?"
  • The mother may not want to raise the child or give it up for adoption - financial cost, family reasons, social reasons, etc. etc.
  • There have been many instances in which a woman was pregnant but didn't even know it until childbirth (just Google "woman didn't know she was pregnant"). Suppose, then, that a woman doesn't know she is pregnant until her 8th month or so. In such a situation, the woman couldn't have made an informed decision about abortion (since she didn't know she was pregnant) and now has no choice but a late-term abortion (if an abortion is what she wants.)
  • Regardless of whether the fetus is in its 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester, it's still in the woman's body, so why shouldn't it be considered able to terminated all the way up until the point of birth?
May I ask what your position is on this subject?
  #10  
Old 02-04-2019, 10:49 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,316
Which is why society as a whole makes decisions on the child's behalf.
  #11  
Old 02-04-2019, 11:10 AM
aceplace57 aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 24,951
I've supported Pro-Choice for nearly my entire adult life. I feel strongly that the morning after pill should be made readily available to any woman that needs it.

There's also the abortion pill that can end an early, unwanted pregnancy. Women have several options available to them.

Late term abortion is an entirely different subject. Babies born prematurely have a very high success rate of survival in a modern NICU facility.

It's unbelievable too me that anyone would suggest late term abortion isn't wrong. It's sickening to even contemplate.

I'm concerned late term abortions will have a very adverse effect on support for Roe v Wade. The backlash from legal late term abortions will be swift and devastating for the Pro Choice movement.

It will certainly cause me to rethink my continued support.
  #12  
Old 02-04-2019, 11:13 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
  • The mother may not want to go through a C-section or childbirth, and prefer abortion. Why should the doctor be able to dictate to her, "You want an abortion, but we insist on you delivering a live fetus?"
Because preserving an innocent human being from being killed is more important that a woman's wish to avoid labor or a C-section.
Quote:
  • The mother may not want to raise the child or give it up for adoption - financial cost, family reasons, social reasons, etc. etc.?"
Because preserving an innocent human being from being killed is more important than a woman's desire to avoid financial, family, or social consequences.
Quote:
  • There have been many instances in which a woman was pregnant but didn't even know it until childbirth (just Google "woman didn't know she was pregnant"). Suppose, then, that a woman doesn't know she is pregnant until her 8th month or so. In such a situation, the woman couldn't have made an informed decision about abortion (since she didn't know she was pregnant) and now has no choice but a late-term abortion (if an abortion is what she wants.)?"
Because sometimes if you wait too long, circumstances change, and you can no longer choose from the same options. Even if the reason why you waited too long isn't your fault.
Quote:
  • Regardless of whether the fetus is in its 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester, it's still in the woman's body, so why shouldn't it be considered able to terminated all the way up until the point of birth?
Because it's an innocent human life, and therefore is not just a matter of the woman's body.

Regards,
Shodan
  #13  
Old 02-04-2019, 11:34 AM
Littleman Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Because sometimes if you wait too long, circumstances change, and you can no longer choose from the same options. Even if the reason why you waited too long isn't your fault.

Regards,
Shodan
This.
Which applies to soooo many situations in life.
  #14  
Old 02-04-2019, 11:43 AM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 15,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
...I feel strongly that the morning after pill should be made readily available to any woman that needs it.

There's also the abortion pill that can end an early, unwanted pregnancy. Women have several options available to them.
That. Everyone can have a jolly time debating on when an embryo becomes a person, but a zygote ain't a person.
__________________
Y'all are just too damned serious. Lighten up.
  #15  
Old 02-04-2019, 11:55 AM
TRC4941's Avatar
TRC4941 TRC4941 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NE Minnesota
Posts: 926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Because preserving an innocent human being from being killed is more important that a woman's wish to avoid labor or a C-section.

Because preserving an innocent human being from being killed is more important than a woman's desire to avoid financial, family, or social consequences.

Because sometimes if you wait too long, circumstances change, and you can no longer choose from the same options. Even if the reason why you waited too long isn't your fault.

Because it's an innocent human life, and therefore is not just a matter of the woman's body.

Regards,
Shodan
Yes - Thank you
  #16  
Old 02-04-2019, 12:05 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,671
It's because we have taken positions that are logically very strong, but emotionally very weak. (And that's both sides.) The reason we have done this is because the scientific evidence does not really support what we believe, so we have to get creative. Scientifically, a zygote is its own thing. It's not a part of the mother. It resides within the mother. It has its own DNA and if we were to invent an artificial womb, it would eventually learn how to type on a keyboard and make political arguments on Facebook. This differs from say a tumor that if we put it in a suitable environment it might grow a tooth, but that tooth would not register for a political party. Science says human development is a continuum. We constantly change and there is no real point at which a zygote flips a switch and becomes 'human being.' A 12 week fetus and a three month old baby or a three year old toddler or a 13 year old adolescent are all just the same thing at different developmental stages. They may have different abilities, but there is no fundamental difference between them. When we talk about fetuses then, we have to invent a concept we call 'personhood.' This is a philosophical or religious concept, so that means that we fight about it. We are not able to detect any mystical aura that suddenly inhabits a fetus and flips the switch from 'non-person' to 'person.' Most of the things that we can measure regarding 'personhood' that people try to use as hard and fast dividing lines are shady and can apply to humans that most of us can agree are people at different stages of life (A paralyzed person that can't feel pain as an example does not become a non-person, or as mentioned above, someone in a coma doesn't become a non-person or a 1 month old baby which basically is a fetus that is living outside of a womb isn't a non-person.)

What happened in the US is that abortion was decided by courts instead of by legislatures. This is really great if you want to 'win,' but not so great if you believe in nuance. Since abortion is a subject with a lot of nuance, this court victory basically screwed up the debate for 50 years. What happened on the pro-choice side is that instead of making arguments to a legislature which can inject nuance into a law about perhaps young girls in bad situations and how people were suffering from unsafe abortions (The arguments that were used pre-Roe v. Wade.) The rhetoric had to shift to 'fundamental human right.' Well, that's stupid, because most people then and now probably don't see abortion as a fundamental human right. Most of us acknowledge that there are appropriate and inappropriate times to have an abortion. "The dad is black and I don't think a black baby goes with most of my wardrobe." or "I don't like girls and the baby is a girl" probably bad reasons. "The fetus tested positive for 'I'm in pain every second of my existence disease.'" or "I'm starving to death and live on the streets and a homeless guy raped me." probably good reasons. What happens though is that the court decision forced us to make the argument a 'rights issue' instead of a 'public good issue.' A 'public good issue' would let us say, "Hey, a 40 week old fetus, ain't a fetus. It's a baby and you'd better have a damn good reason for wanting to kill it." while at the same time saying 'You poor thing, you were raped and it's not right or in the public interest to have you carry a baby to term and co-parent it with your rapist." A rights issue though makes us say, "This is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the Constitution that shall not be infringed." and it doesn't give a rip whether it's a 12 year old rape victim who can't comprehend what's even happening, or a 25 year old who thinks condoms and birth control suck and her parents keep paying for abortion as birth control. The courts did realize that what they were saying ended up being pretty gross, so they inserted a viability clause (Which is itself the dumbest thing in the world. When the artificial womb exists-and it's coming soon-does this fundamental human right just disappear? Not so fundamental then, is it?) Human rights rhetoric forces us to say, "Why does a woman lose her right to choose just because the fetus looks like a baby?" and there's not a good answer for that. The wingnuts then say 'There is no good answer! Kill em all!' but the reality is that most people, even on the pro-choice side recognize that there is a difference between a zygote and a 40 week old fetus and aborting a 40-week-old is pretty abhorrent. (To be fair, the pro-life wingnuts have the same issue in regards to rape. 'A person's a person no matter how small.' forces some abhorrent things itself.)

So, to answer your question. A 40 week old fetus is a child. We all know it. Let's not pretend differently for the sake of our rhetoric. 40 week abortions shouldn't be legal because we don't kill children. It's gross and my culture sees such as immoral. I sympathize with the women who didn't realize they were pregnant, but, we don't kill children.

To be fair, I have always identified as pro-life, but I'm not in favor of making abortion illegal. I recognize that there are times when abortion is the best option and criminalizing something that someone does out of lack of options to me is like criminalizing stealing bread to feed your family (which I recognize is still stealing and currently criminalized, but should it be? I digress.) I do think that more regulation than 'It's the Wild West.' is appropriate and that abortion should be seen as an extreme measure and not a common one. I have a problem when 1/3 of all pregnancies in New York end up in abortions. That's not a few people scared and making mistakes. That's cultural normalcy and that to me isn't OK. In my ideal world, the laws would be the same, but birth control would be free, cheap and easy and culturally an unwanted pregnancy would be greeted with "What is in the best interests of this child?" rather than "What time does the clinic open?"
  #17  
Old 02-04-2019, 01:52 PM
Doctor Jackson's Avatar
Doctor Jackson Doctor Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Jawja
Posts: 10,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicat View Post
Well put. I would like to suggest that there is a continuous scale from conception to adulthood to death. Societies put a different value on life at different points on the scale...So it's only a matter of degree.

Where do we draw the line?
Yup. Since there is no way to "prove" at exactly what point after contact an egg and sperm become a human, we as a society have determined an arbitrary cutoff point to say, in effect, "We deem these cells to be human at this point in development and unnatural death after that point is punishable as a crime". In the same manner, our society has said one must be 16 to drive a car, 18 to be legally an adult, or 21 to drink alcohol. There is nothing magical that happens at any of those points in time to make one "ready to drive/adult/drink", but we assign an arbitrary point in time to differentiate between legal activity and illegal.
  #18  
Old 02-04-2019, 02:09 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Jackson View Post
Yup. Since there is no way to "prove" at exactly what point after contact an egg and sperm become a human, we as a society have determined an arbitrary cutoff point to say, in effect, "We deem these cells to be human at this point in development and unnatural death after that point is punishable as a crime". In the same manner, our society has said one must be 16 to drive a car, 18 to be legally an adult, or 21 to drink alcohol. There is nothing magical that happens at any of those points in time to make one "ready to drive/adult/drink", but we assign an arbitrary point in time to differentiate between legal activity and illegal.
Of course, that's the whole problem. We recognize that say '21 to drink' is arbitrary and that plenty of 18 year olds can and do drink responsibly or frequently even pre-teens can have a drink with dinner in some cultures. The consequences of forbidding a 20 year old to drink are seen as minor and the penalties are generally mild. We acknowledge that a drinking age of 18 (or 16 or 14 or none) works in some places.

It's a much different thing when the arbitrary age determines whether you get to live or die. The consequences of a 20 year old not being able to buy a beer are fairly mild. Beer is wonderful and all, but the overall impact to his life and freedom are pretty small. If we're screwing up the drinking age, it's something to discuss and amend and really the harm is relatively negligible. If on the other hand we're screwing up the arbitrary abortion age, we've just killed a heck of a lot of people. If the aliens ever come down with their magic technology machines and say, "Oh, you know what, it's really not a big deal to let 16 year olds drink." We'd say, "Oops, our bad. I guess that was silly of us." If they come down and say, "Oh, you know what, zygotes are people." We'd say "Holy crap, we just perpetuated the largest mass murder in the history of humanity! We have created an efficient and wide-ranging mass murder industry!" "Oops, our bad," might not cut it as a response.
  #19  
Old 02-04-2019, 02:30 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Of course, that's the whole problem. We recognize that say '21 to drink' is arbitrary and that plenty of 18 year olds can and do drink responsibly or frequently even pre-teens can have a drink with dinner in some cultures. The consequences of forbidding a 20 year old to drink are seen as minor and the penalties are generally mild. We acknowledge that a drinking age of 18 (or 16 or 14 or none) works in some places.

It's a much different thing when the arbitrary age determines whether you get to live or die. The consequences of a 20 year old not being able to buy a beer are fairly mild. Beer is wonderful and all, but the overall impact to his life and freedom are pretty small. If we're screwing up the drinking age, it's something to discuss and amend and really the harm is relatively negligible. If on the other hand we're screwing up the arbitrary abortion age, we've just killed a heck of a lot of people. If the aliens ever come down with their magic technology machines and say, "Oh, you know what, it's really not a big deal to let 16 year olds drink." We'd say, "Oops, our bad. I guess that was silly of us." If they come down and say, "Oh, you know what, zygotes are people." We'd say "Holy crap, we just perpetuated the largest mass murder in the history of humanity! We have created an efficient and wide-ranging mass murder industry!" "Oops, our bad," might not cut it as a response.
"We don't know, but we can't afford to make such a potentially horrible mistake because somehow, sometime, somewhere someone will reveal information we never suspected existed in the first place?
The trouble with this kind of "logic" is that it is used so selectively. For instance, what if alien cockroaches or mosquitoes land in the future and ask to see their ambassadors? What if we find out in the future that trees have been sentient all this time, but we had no means to find that out? There are thousands of silly scenarios out there that follow the pattern of logic you are trying to apply to the situation in the OP-"We don't dare X because we might find out Y in the future!". Guilt tripping over something that might be revealed in the future? No, thank you.
  #20  
Old 02-04-2019, 02:45 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
"We don't know, but we can't afford to make such a potentially horrible mistake because somehow, sometime, somewhere someone will reveal information we never suspected existed in the first place?
The trouble with this kind of "logic" is that it is used so selectively. For instance, what if alien cockroaches or mosquitoes land in the future and ask to see their ambassadors? What if we find out in the future that trees have been sentient all this time, but we had no means to find that out? There are thousands of silly scenarios out there that follow the pattern of logic you are trying to apply to the situation in the OP-"We don't dare X because we might find out Y in the future!". Guilt tripping over something that might be revealed in the future? No, thank you.
The problem is that we acknowledge the arbitrariness of the decision. If we said, "Ants are worthy of rights, but termites aren't." because "You just have to draw the line somewhere." I think that if the termite aliens pop down, we would have some serious moral culpability. If you're going to be arbitrary about a decision that literally takes lives, then you need to err on the side of caution. If it were not an arbitrary decision, then there is less of a problem. We say that trees don't have human rights, because they aren't human. It's not arbitrary to say "Humans possess things which endow them with rights that non-humans don't have." This is not necessarily true and it's arguable, but it's not arbitrary. Secondly, there is no hint that trees are sentient and should have rights. If you're someone that believes that all sentient beings should have rights, then I think it's reasonable and even necessary that you should advocate for the rights of any species that we might have a reasonable guess is sentient. Saying that 'dogs need protection, but not pigs' is arbitrary and I think that it does become abhorrent if the magic pig aliens come down and say, "Hey, pigs are sentient too. Why the heck are you eating them?" And it's especially dangerous if the arbitrary decision is being made because it's beneficial to another group to make an arbitrary distinction at that point. Again, if you're arbitrarily protecting dogs and not pigs because pigs are delicious and you like the benefits of killing them and dogs aren't, then the culpability is especially egregious.

Last edited by senoy; 02-04-2019 at 02:48 PM.
  #21  
Old 02-04-2019, 03:03 PM
snoe snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,154
I suggest you all read/listen to people who've had "late-term abortions" -- a totally undefined term -- and revisit the question.

I'm not saying that because I believe it'll make you come down on "my side" -- just saying that it's worth listening to what people who've done it have to say about their decision and their reasons.

I've done some of that, and come away from it unimpressed by arguments for banning such abortions. YMMV.
  #22  
Old 02-04-2019, 03:14 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,158
I'm pro-choice because I think bodily autonomy is (or should be) inviolate, such that anyone and everyone has the right to expel/evict anything or anyone they want from inside their body, at any time, and for any reason.

I'll note that this doesn't necessarily mean killing whatever is inside the body. This bodily-autonomy philosophy wouldn't preclude a law that allowed a woman to end her pregnancy any time she wanted, and for any reason, but require that the fetus/baby be delivered alive (and kept alive) if possible. I'm not sure how I'd feel about such a law, but the principle I use for judging abortion laws wouldn't be involved in my determination.
  #23  
Old 02-04-2019, 03:19 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There are multiple threads going on about the recent New York law in GQ and GD - I don't want to derail them and so I am starting a thread in IMHO to put some distance between here and them:


The usual argument against late-term abortions is "viability;" that at a certain point the fetus is capable of life outside the womb independent of the mother's body. But even if so, there are still multiple factors that still apply in late-term abortions like early-term ones:
  • The mother may not want to go through a C-section or childbirth, and prefer abortion. Why should the doctor be able to dictate to her, "You want an abortion, but we insist on you delivering a live fetus?"
  • The mother may not want to raise the child or give it up for adoption - financial cost, family reasons, social reasons, etc. etc.
  • There have been many instances in which a woman was pregnant but didn't even know it until childbirth (just Google "woman didn't know she was pregnant"). Suppose, then, that a woman doesn't know she is pregnant until her 8th month or so. In such a situation, the woman couldn't have made an informed decision about abortion (since she didn't know she was pregnant) and now has no choice but a late-term abortion (if an abortion is what she wants.)
  • Regardless of whether the fetus is in its 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester, it's still in the woman's body, so why shouldn't it be considered able to terminated all the way up until the point of birth?
I'm trusting that you're arguing this in good faith and this is your position. Can you explain how a woman having an 8th month abortion can avoid going through labor or a C-section? The one case I found where there was a 32-week abortion, she had to go through labor anyway to deliver the dead fetus.
  #24  
Old 02-04-2019, 03:21 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm pro-choice because I think bodily autonomy is (or should be) inviolate, such that anyone and everyone has the right to expel/evict anything or anyone they want from inside their body, at any time, and for any reason.

I'll note that this doesn't necessarily mean killing whatever is inside the body. This bodily-autonomy philosophy wouldn't preclude a law that allowed a woman to end her pregnancy any time she wanted, and for any reason, but require that the fetus/baby be delivered alive (and kept alive) if possible. I'm not sure how I'd feel about such a law, but the principle I use for judging abortion laws wouldn't be involved in my determination.
Of course, the problem with this is that we can keep babies alive when they are really young, but that doesn't mean that they don't have serious problems later. My son was born at 26 weeks. He was alive, but had brain bleeds, needed a tracheostomy and a feeding tube and at 10 years old still isn't able to eat solid foods and must be tube fed. The brain bleeds caused mild cerebral palsy and all of the complications that that brings and have caused mild cognitive disabilities. Not enough to ruin his life, but enough to make things harder than they need to be. We know other kids in similar situations with severe developmental disabilities. It's one thing to subject a kid to that because of a random quirk of nature and quite another because 'your mom had bodily autonomy.'

Last edited by senoy; 02-04-2019 at 03:23 PM.
  #25  
Old 02-04-2019, 03:23 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Of course, the problem with this is that we can keep babies alive when they are really young, but that doesn't mean that they don't have serious problems later. My son was born at 26 weeks. He was alive, but had brain bleeds, needed a tracheostomy and a feeding tube and at 10 years old still isn't able to eat solid foods and must be tube fed. The brain bleeds caused mild cerebral palsy and all of the complications that that brings. We know other kids in similar situations with severe developmental disabilities. It's one thing to subject a kid to that because of a random quirk of nature and quite another because 'your mom had bodily autonomy.'
I'm not sure what it is you're arguing against.
  #26  
Old 02-04-2019, 03:28 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm not sure what it is you're arguing against.
The argument is that taking a 'Mother has full bodily autonomy, the state can require the fetus be born alive rather than killed.' can lead to a class of people that have severe and serious disabilities and problems that are completely preventable all in the name of preserving the mother's right to bodily autonomy.

Do you think that it's ethically just to say to a person, "Hey, I'm sorry that your IQ is 90, you can't talk or walk and you're confined to a group home, but your Mom got tired of you at 25 weeks and decided to evict you. If she had waited a couple of months, you'd probably be perfectly healthy, but them's the breaks."
  #27  
Old 02-04-2019, 03:37 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
The argument is that taking a 'Mother has full bodily autonomy, the state can require the fetus be born alive rather than killed.' can lead to a class of people that have severe and serious disabilities and problems that are completely preventable all in the name of preserving the mother's right to bodily autonomy.

Do you think that it's ethically just to say to a person, "Hey, I'm sorry that your IQ is 90, you can't talk or walk and you're confined to a group home, but your Mom got tired of you at 25 weeks and decided to evict you. If she had waited a couple of months, you'd probably be perfectly healthy, but them's the breaks."
I'm not arguing in favor of the hypothetical law I described -- I was just explaining my position on abortion, and how my position is entirely separated from my views on the sanctity of life or fetal personhood. I don't know how I'd feel about such a law.
  #28  
Old 02-04-2019, 03:38 PM
snoe snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
The argument is that taking a 'Mother has full bodily autonomy, the state can require the fetus be born alive rather than killed.' can lead to a class of people that have severe and serious disabilities and problems that are completely preventable all in the name of preserving the mother's right to bodily autonomy.

Do you think that it's ethically just to say to a person, "Hey, I'm sorry that your IQ is 90, you can't talk or walk and you're confined to a group home, but your Mom got tired of you at 25 weeks and decided to evict you. If she had waited a couple of months, you'd probably be perfectly healthy, but them's the breaks."
THIS is why it's worth listening to women who have actually had "late-term" abortions. They -- unlike all the men who are talking here -- do not talk about the issue this way.

EDIT: oh, also -- listen to the doctors who perform those abortions. Who are, from what I've read, mostly women. For a reason.

Last edited by snoe; 02-04-2019 at 03:39 PM.
  #29  
Old 02-04-2019, 03:53 PM
snoe snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I'm trusting that you're arguing this in good faith and this is your position. Can you explain how a woman having an 8th month abortion can avoid going through labor or a C-section? The one case I found where there was a 32-week abortion, she had to go through labor anyway to deliver the dead fetus.
A woman undergoing an abortion at 8 months is not doing so "electively," as we men choose to describe it. She has a reason. ALMOST CERTAINLY A MEDICAL REASON.

But hey, prove me wrong with a cite. Are women just getting pregnant and having 8-month abortions for fun? They went through 8 months of pregnancy and then changed their minds about having a kid? "My pregnancy has been fine, but this last month will be a bitch -- never mind"?

EVERYBODY: listen to women who've had late-term abortions. And the people who've performed them. It's a lot more complicated than "cut the baby out at 26 weeks, it's viable!" If it doesn't change your mind, fine -- but listen to, or read, what these women and doctors have to say.

Last edited by snoe; 02-04-2019 at 03:54 PM.
  #30  
Old 02-04-2019, 03:59 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
THIS is why it's worth listening to women who have actually had "late-term" abortions. They -- unlike all the men who are talking here -- do not talk about the issue this way.
How do you perceive they talk about it? I have read the studies for the reasons why which largely track with the reasons for any time according to Guttmacher. The biggest differences are largely failure of our healthcare system to provide money and transportation. In comparison to early aborters, late aborters (20+ weeks) found out about their pregnancy later (At an average of 12 weeks as opposed to 5 weeks for early aborters), had more difficulty deciding whether to abort and had more disagreements with the father. The largest what we can call 'systemic barrier' was not realizing where they could go to get an abortion, while early aborters were more likely to know. Largely this factor was due to how long they waited and local clinics would no longer abort. Transportation was the second largest 'systemic barrier' for the late ones and again this was largely related to few facilities that would perform the procedure, so much longer distances to get to the ones that would. The biggest issues that probably actually 'caused' a late term rather than early term abortion are insurance access and cost. Abortions are relatively cheap, but at roughly 700 dollars are still out of reach to many at short notice and that causes delay that sends them to late term abortions, but even that is a minority of late term abortions.

In the Guttmacher study, they interviewed late termers, but they didn't sound all that different from other anecdotal people who had abortions. Largely they just took a lot longer to make up their minds. Maybe more anecdotal relationship drama, but early abortion-havers (what's the correct term, that sounds sloppy) also had lots of relationship drama. A big issue is the number that have mental health or substance abuse disorders. They may find out they are pregnant during a good time and really want the child, but then they crash later and abort. In UK studies, late terms were much more correlated to relationship changes (Got a new boyfriend, didn't want the baby. Divorced the father. etc.) than we see in the US. The belief is that in the US, access overwhelms the relationship change dynamic.

Cite:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...0.1363/4521013

Last edited by senoy; 02-04-2019 at 04:00 PM.
  #31  
Old 02-04-2019, 04:01 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
A woman undergoing an abortion at 8 months is not doing so "electively," as we men choose to describe it. She has a reason. ALMOST CERTAINLY A MEDICAL REASON.

But hey, prove me wrong with a cite. Are women just getting pregnant and having 8-month abortions for fun? They went through 8 months of pregnancy and then changed their minds about having a kid? "My pregnancy has been fine, but this last month will be a bitch -- never mind"?

EVERYBODY: listen to women who've had late-term abortions. And the people who've performed them. It's a lot more complicated than "cut the baby out at 26 weeks, it's viable!" If it doesn't change your mind, fine -- but listen to, or read, what these women and doctors have to say.
I'm pretty sure we're on the same side here. The OP mentioned that a woman may want to have a 8 month abortion to avoid labor or a C-section and I was asking the OP how that was possible. As far as I know, if the pregnancy is that far along, you're going through some sort of birthing process even if the fetus is dead.

In the article I reference, she had to go through a 32 week abortion because of severe abnormalities they found in the fetus. It certainly wasn't something she wanted to do, it cost $10k, she had to fly to Colorado to get it done, and then went through labor anyway to deliver the now dead fetus. Doesn't sound like a fun hobby to me either. She was devastated.
  #32  
Old 02-04-2019, 04:19 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 18,520
It is human nature that they want absolutes. In this case it's either allow abortions any time for any reason or never allow them at all.

The Real World doesn't work like that. So a compromise has to be worked out. Unfortunately our society is becoming increasingly dominated by the "absolute" types. (Esp. note people who are constantly saying something they like is "the best" and something they don't like is "the worst". They are not helping in any way shape or form.)

Stuff is fuzzy. Get used to it.
  #33  
Old 02-04-2019, 04:34 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
It is human nature that they want absolutes. In this case it's either allow abortions any time for any reason or never allow them at all.
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
  #34  
Old 02-04-2019, 04:42 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
It is human nature that they want absolutes. In this case it's either allow abortions any time for any reason or never allow them at all....
Can you tell me who is advocating for abortions any time for any reason? It seems to me that the one who has trouble with absolutes is you.

The laws I'm familiar with under discussion lately get rid of the time period limits for abortions but would still restrict very late term abortions to cases where the woman's life or health is in danger. From a practical standpoint, there aren't really doctors out there who would assist a woman with an abortion "for any reason", except maybe that PA doctor who is currently serving life in prison. Nearly every other doctor would have to have a damn good reason to allow an abortion at 30+ weeks.

This is made clear in Canada where there is no abortion law at all, and yet there aren't 30+ abortions-for-fun clinics. I would be fine with getting rid of abortion laws and relying on medical licensing rules, hospital oversight, regular laws, ethics rules, and so one, to make sure that the woman and her doctor are making medically valid decisions for late term abortions.

I'd love to hear from the OP again, since I think there have been several questions sent his/her way.
  #35  
Old 02-04-2019, 04:55 PM
araminty araminty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 2,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
This is made clear in Canada where there is no abortion law at all, and yet there aren't 30+ abortions-for-fun clinics. I would be fine with getting rid of abortion laws and relying on medical licensing rules, hospital oversight, regular laws, ethics rules, and so one, to make sure that the woman and her doctor are making medically valid decisions for late term abortions.
I agree with you. The framing of this as a political argument is ridiculous. There just IS NOT an army of shadowy baby murdering doctors out there, slicing up unborn children because their (poor! brown! unwed! teenage!) mothers have suddenly flaked out. There are some few cases where medical and moral circumstances prevent positive outcomes, but they don't deserve this kind of insane scrutiny.

Any time an anti-abortion activist makes this argument, they should be instantly shut down.

(I'm almost 41 weeks pregnant, so maybe this isn't the best time for me to be thinking about this stuff. I'm sure it's not doing my blood pressure any good.)
  #36  
Old 02-04-2019, 05:38 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoe View Post
I suggest you all read/listen to people who've had "late-term abortions" -- a totally undefined term -- and revisit the question.

I'm not saying that because I believe it'll make you come down on "my side" -- just saying that it's worth listening to what people who've done it have to say about their decision and their reasons.

I've done some of that, and come away from it unimpressed by arguments for banning such abortions. YMMV.
Any specific recommendations? My current impression is that the reasons they usually offer for seeking an abortion late in pregnancy are unimpressive.
  #37  
Old 02-04-2019, 05:58 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Any specific recommendations? My current impression is that the reasons they usually offer for seeking an abortion late in pregnancy are unimpressive.
I haven't researched really late term abortions much, so I'm genuinely curious about where you got those impressions from. I found one case at 30-plus weeks, and it was pretty heartbreaking, and that's it. What have you seen?

Would it be possible to avoid really pro-life cites? Because I'll discount those pretty heavily.
  #38  
Old 02-04-2019, 06:54 PM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,007
I'd support a law that says a woman can have an abortion legally any time she wants one, no qualifiers. Not after the birth, mind you—no post-delivery reconsiderations once it's no longer (also) part of her body—but right up until then, yeah, sure.

Last edited by AHunter3; 02-04-2019 at 06:56 PM.
  #39  
Old 02-04-2019, 06:56 PM
araminty araminty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 2,760
This piece by Jia Tolentino at Jezebel: https://jezebel.com/interview-with-a...-at-1781972395
  #40  
Old 02-04-2019, 07:15 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHunter3 View Post
I'd support a law that says a woman can have an abortion legally any time she wants one, no qualifiers. Not after the birth, mind you—no post-delivery reconsiderations once it's no longer (also) part of her body—but right up until then, yeah, sure.
Good luck getting a doctor to perform that, though, with no qualifiers.

This Wikipedia article has a listing of reasons for late term abortions in the US:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_t...#United_States

Note, this is just 16+ weeks, not 21+ weeks, which are extremely rare. I find it ironic/disturbing/depressing that some large portion waited because of barriers placed in their way -- they had problems making arrangements (maybe at the only remaining one in the state, when they had to make two visits with a waiting period, etc.), they were pressured not to, or they didn't even know they could get one. So, some portion of these later term abortions likely could have happened earlier if there weren't so many restrictions.
  #41  
Old 02-04-2019, 07:20 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Any specific recommendations? My current impression is that the reasons they usually offer for seeking an abortion late in pregnancy are unimpressive.
Why don't you give us a few cites to see if your impressions match up with ours?
  #42  
Old 02-04-2019, 07:31 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I haven't researched really late term abortions much, so I'm genuinely curious about where you got those impressions from. I found one case at 30-plus weeks, and it was pretty heartbreaking, and that's it. What have you seen?

Would it be possible to avoid really pro-life cites? Because I'll discount those pretty heavily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Why don't you give us a few cites to see if your impressions match up with ours?
Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks?

Quote:
... data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 02-04-2019 at 07:35 PM.
  #43  
Old 02-04-2019, 07:49 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Are there any cites for really late abortions? Your study link was to yet another study that lumps in everything from 20 weeks on.
  #44  
Old 02-04-2019, 08:01 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are there any cites for really late abortions? Your study link was to yet another study that lumps in everything from 20 weeks on.
Not that I know of, but I'd be interested in it if someone did. In the meantime, some light reading:

At what point would you place your personal cutoff for "really late abortions"?
  #45  
Old 02-04-2019, 08:02 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You mention why they aren't seeking abortions after 20 weeks but not why they are. For example, is it a valid reason if they had so much troubling scheduling it earlier due to so many onerous restrictions and so few abortion clinics? For example, if you live several hundred miles from the nearest clinic and you're required to make two visits with a waiting period between the visits, it might take some time to work that into an hourly job schedule.

In NY, it would be a piece of cake to get it done early, but Texas? Mississippi? May be difficult if you're poor.

That is, if your main concern is late-term abortions. We all know that all those onerous restrictions are because those legislators want to ban abortion outright. One result will be more late term abortions, and then people can complain at the number of late term abortions. It's all so disingenuous, just like Erick Erickson's crocodile tears about the Virginia law. (To be clear, I'm not saying you're being disingenuous -- it's those passing those laws)
  #46  
Old 02-04-2019, 08:09 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
You mention why they aren't seeking abortions after 20 weeks but not why they are. ...
The study said this:

Quote:
Our factor analysis identified five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample. Forty‐two percent of later abortion patients fit only one group; 38% belonged in two or more groups.
The five "general profiles" offered were:

1) Raising children alone

2) Depressed or using illicit substances

3) Conflict with male partner or domestic violence

4) Trouble deciding and access problems

5) Young and nulliparous
  #47  
Old 02-04-2019, 08:13 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Because preserving an innocent human being from being killed is more important that a woman's wish to avoid labor or a C-section.

Because preserving an innocent human being from being killed is more important than a woman's desire to avoid financial, family, or social consequences.

Because sometimes if you wait too long, circumstances change, and you can no longer choose from the same options. Even if the reason why you waited too long isn't your fault.

Because it's an innocent human life, and therefore is not just a matter of the woman's body.

Regards,
Shodan
I am pro-choice, and I pretty much agree with this. Abortion should not be used as birth control. Once viability is reached, it is person. The only valid reason for a late term abortion is that the pregnancy threatens the mother's life.
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #48  
Old 02-04-2019, 08:22 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The study said this:



The five "general profiles" offered were:

1) Raising children alone

2) Depressed or using illicit substances

3) Conflict with male partner or domestic violence

4) Trouble deciding and access problems

5) Young and nulliparous
So, which one is not a good enough reason in your mind? Number 5? Number 4, except for the access problems part? Do you think access should be easier to avoid late term abortions?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
I am pro-choice, and I pretty much agree with this. Abortion should not be used as birth control. Once viability is reached, it is person. The only valid reason for a late term abortion is that the pregnancy threatens the mother's life.
I guess you're not pro-choice then.

Anyway, how about severe deformities in the fetus? Threats to the mother's health, such as a cancer diagnosis or possible loss of organs? What if the father dies and the mother no longer has any means of supporting herself, or even paying for the hospital bills to give birth? What if the fetus is viable but will likely only live for weeks due to some developmental defect?

Hey, OP, are you coming back? I think you should be defending your OP as well here. It's your thesis that there should be zero restrictions, not mine.
  #49  
Old 02-04-2019, 08:29 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
So, which one is not a good enough reason in your mind? ...
Any and / or all of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
... Do you think access should be easier to avoid late term abortions? ...
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
... Hey, OP, are you coming back? I think you should be defending your OP as well here. It's your thesis that there should be zero restrictions, not mine.
Perhaps (hopefully) he has realized it's not a very good thesis.
  #50  
Old 02-04-2019, 08:44 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Any and / or all of them.


No.


Perhaps (hopefully) he has realized it's not a very good thesis.
So, are you anti-abortion/pro-life in general? If so, it seems like this isn't the thread for you, since it was meant to be focused on late-term abortions.

Assuming you're only against late-term abortions, why wouldn't you want better access to early abortions? That will help avoid the late-term ones. In the Wiki article, about half said that problems scheduling the abortion accounted for their 16+ week abortion, so I don't understand your "No" above.

If you're just taking a pro-life position, I'm out.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017