Are European nations violating women's rights?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Kimstu

Demanding that there be no legal restrictions at all on abortion is simply not a serious position in the US abortion-rights movement, despite the OP’s and others’ unsupported assertions to the contrary.

What if it were someone’s serious position, that abortion should be treated as a medical procedure subject only to conventional medical regulation? Would that person be considered a sociopath or something? They’d have unrealistic political views, maybe, but that’s hardly unusual in the modern day U.S.

[Kimstu]

@Bryan_Ekers

What if it were someone’s serious position, that abortion should be treated as a medical procedure subject only to conventional medical regulation?

You mean, like, Canadians? Sure, I don’t have a problem with someone who sincerely endorses such a position publicly advocating it. Any more than I have a problem with someone who sincerely believes that full human rights go into effect at conception publicly advocating a total ban on abortion under any circumstances. It’s a free country, liberty of conscience, and all that.

What I have a problem with is the sloppy or dishonest rhetorical strategy of pretending that those two positions comprise a “polarized debate” on abortion rights in the US. No they don’t, because the first of those two positions is barely visible in US political discourse.

Make no mistake: the real polarized debate on abortion rights in the US is between anti-abortion extremists who want to prohibit abortion altogether, and the majority pro-abortion-rights view that does not oppose maintaining some legal restrictions on abortion in the US or anywhere else. The anti-abortion extremists aren’t tug-of-warring with pro-abortion extremists; they’re dragging as hard as they can on the moderate center.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Kimstu

Your characterization of the Florida Planned Parenthood lobbyist’s position is ludicrously inaccurate. This testimony was in reference to procedures used during a late-term abortion that already conformed to legal abortion restrictions, not any kind of demand for completely elective late-term abortion WITHOUT any legal restrictions at all.

Your characterization of both my post and the Florida Planned Parenthood lobbyist’s position are ludicrously inaccurate.

1. I have not said anything about “completely elective late-term abortion WITHOUT any legal restrictions at all”, but my comment was rather about “post-birth abortions”.

2. You’ve inserted the word “during” into your phrase “during a late term abortion”, when the correct term would be “after” as in “after a late term abortion”.

Testifying against a Florida bill that would require abortionists to provide emergency medical care to an infant who survives an abortion, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow was asked point blank: “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” She replied: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

[Bryan_Ekers]

How often do you think that actually happens, and is it often enough to lead to laws covering circumstances where this does not occur?

[iiandyiiii]

I’ll go on record as saying that while the woman’s right to bodily autonomy trumps the rights of anyone inside her, once that someone (the baby) is out, she and the doctor have the same duty towards it as they would any other random baby lying on a table. Aborting a pregnancy should be entirely up to the mother, at any time and for any reason, but once the pregnancy is over (whether by abortion or any other way), if there’s a live baby on the table, its rights are no longer trumped by anyone else’s.

[Bozuit]

@Asympotically_fat

In the USA the debate has been polarized to the extent that on one side you have that every fertilized egg is fully human and sentient being and should have the same rights as such and some even are willing to even kill to prevent abortion; whereas on the other side you have a group that a woman’s choice trumps everything and even fetus that could survive outside the womb can be aborted as a mere matter of choice, some even taking the extreme and quite frankly disturbing position that a baby that has survived an abortion process can be killed if the women so chooses. Obviously that is a generalization and there are people occupying the vast expanse of middle ground between these two extreme positions, but I’m shocked at how polarized it seems to an outsider.

Agreed. I’m generally “pro-choice” (I don’t like the term) but I think the “pro-choice” side of the debate in the US can get as ridiculous as the “pro-life” side. It’s not very helpful when people end up with the mentality that all that matters is the pregnant woman’s wishes. That view is as overly simplistic and as bad as any “God says” “pro-life” view.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Bryan_Ekers

How often do you think that actually happens, and is it often enough to lead to laws covering circumstances where this does not occur?

I don’t know how often it happens. The linked article points to an undercover video from a pro-life organization which apparently shows a Planned Parenthood worker telling a girl:

For the most part, no [the baby is not born alive - F-P] but it does happen, where it’s still alive … but it wouldn’t be able to survive on its own, so eventually the baby does die.

It doesn’t sound like she’s talking about something that almost never happens, but I don’t know.

Regardless, my point here was not about the Florida law, but about whether the notion of post-birth abortions was limited to a few loonies on the internet, as Kimstu was claiming.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bozuit

Agreed. I’m generally “pro-choice” (I don’t like the term) but I think the “pro-choice” side of the debate in the US can get as ridiculous as the “pro-life” side. It’s not very helpful when people end up with the mentality that all that matters is the pregnant woman’s wishes. That view is as overly simplistic and as bad as any “God says” “pro-life” view.

I don’t think so (though I’m not going to the mat on this one- I’m relatively pleased with most “pro-choice” attitudes). When is it OK for the government to tell women “you cannot do this thing to your body” or “you cannot expel this thing or this person from your body when you want him/her/it out”? To me, it’s never OK for government to do this.

[gracer]

@iiandyiiii

That’s OK- you don’t have to support it. You can oppose it, and say and think anything you want about it- that’s bad, it’s murder, it’s evil, etc. What matters is this- are you willing to push that women should be legally prevented from making the decision for themselves?

Nope. Don’t want to push that.

[Kimstu]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I have not said anything about “completely elective late-term abortion WITHOUT any legal restrictions at all”

Then your remarks are irrelevant to this debate, which according to the OP’s explicit statement concerns what he alleges to be the frequent assertion “that women have a right to abortion when and where they want it, and that any restriction is a violation of their rights”, and the alleged “vocal opposition to any abortion restricts [sic] in this country”. Emphasis added.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I don’t know how often it happens. The linked article points to an undercover video from a pro-life organization which apparently shows a Planned Parenthood worker telling a girl:

It doesn’t sound like she’s talking about something that almost never happens, but I don’t know.

Regardless, my point here was not about the Florida law, but about whether the notion of post-birth abortions was limited to a few loonies on the internet, as Kimstu was claiming.

Why is it loony to answer a question about an extreme and highly unlikely circumstance? What’s loony is using this as a justification to dismiss everything else a person says.

For example, I could picture shooting a child in the head if the child was playing with the remote detonation device of a bomb that was under a hospital, i.e. the kid’s uncle built and planted the bomb and somehow the kid got hold of the detonator and is now tossing it back and forth between his hands and threatening to push the big shiny button if anyone tries to take it away from him, and the only way to ensure the safety of the people in the hospital is to put the kid down… feel free to embellish the hypothetical further, to address and rule out possibilities that the bomb could be defused or the detonator signal blocked or whatever.

By admitting this, though, I run the risk that from now on any opinion I express can be dismissed with “Don’t listen to Bryan Ekers - he wants to shoot kids in the head!”

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Kimstu

Then your remarks are irrelevant to this debate, which according to the OP’s explicit statement concerns what he alleges to be the frequent assertion “that women have a right to abortion when and where they want it, and that any restriction is a violation of their rights”, and the alleged “vocal opposition to any abortion restricts [sic] in this country”. Emphasis added.

It’s not uncommon for threads to go beyond the specifics laid out in the OP, and you are undoubtedly aware.

In this case, asympotically fat raised the issue of post-birth abortions in post #12, and you challenged this in post #13. My response specifically addressed this issue.

@Bryan_Ekers

Why is it loony to answer a question about an extreme and highly unlikely circumstance? What’s loony is using this as a justification to dismiss everything else a person says.

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Heh, fitting.

[suranyi]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I don’t know how often it happens. The linked article points to an undercover video from a pro-life organization which apparently shows a Planned Parenthood worker telling a girl:

It doesn’t sound like she’s talking about something that almost never happens, but I don’t know.

Regardless, my point here was not about the Florida law, but about whether the notion of post-birth abortions was limited to a few loonies on the internet, as Kimstu was claiming.

I’m not a fan of using undercover video to make political points, because I believe that if you take enough footage you’ll get someone, somewhere to say something ridiculous that makes exactly the point you want to make. No matter what your political beliefs are.

It’s like wondering if there are people who believe strange things on the internet. If you look for them you are sure to find them.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Bryan_Ekers

Heh, fitting.

Agreed.

@suranyi

I’m not a fan of using undercover video to make political points, because I believe that if you take enough footage you’ll get someone, somewhere to say something ridiculous that makes exactly the point you want to make. No matter what your political beliefs are.

It’s like wondering if there are people who believe strange things on the internet. If you look for them you are sure to find them.

I’m not sure what “political point” you’re objecting to, but the only thing I introduced that video for was in response to Bryan Ekers’ question as to how often this took place. It would seem from that person’s that it’s not the norm by any means but that it’s not completely far out - to the point where it would be something that she was unfamiliar with SOP in such cases - either.

[Bryan_Ekers]

So do you know of any pro-choicers who think Kermit Gosnell was wrongly convicted? We may as well abandon the realm of the hypothetical to the maximum extent possible.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

1. That’s not the proper standard. No one is claiming that this was a mainstream view - the original claim was that it was “extreme” and the question here is whether kimstu is correct in claiming that it’s only a few loonies on the internet. Whether I personally know such people is not to be expected in any event.

2. I’m guessing it’s a lot more common for doctors to allow the babies to die - which is what this person was discussing - than for them to sever their spinal cords with scissors - which is what Gosnell did. That freaks a lot of people out.

3. In general, many people have no idea what goes on in all sorts of medical situations and from the safety of their own lay world in which they don’t have to confront these types of issues can afford to take a more highminded view.

[Bryan_Ekers]

It strikes me as odd that such a view could be considered “extreme”. One would expect a whole country that followed an “extreme” example (on any number of topics) to be a wasteland of chaos and violence filled with gangs of roving murders and rapists operating with the sanction of dictatorial authority or in indifference to ineffectual authority…

Basically, how can it be extreme if the consequences of implementing it are so mild?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Is this another attempt to be cute?

[Bryan_Ekers]

I don’t know, do you think Canada’s lack of abortion law is cute? Doesn’t the lack of a subsequent rise in infanticide or Divine Wrath or other negative consequences make the dire predictions of pro-lifers seem cute?