Pro-choicers: would you take this abortion deal?

[donnie_darko]

@miss_elizabeth

I’m not sure you understand what irony is, but ok.
A woman’s control over her fertility is one of the most important advances in the history of humanity. Look at what happened for women after Roe v. Wade and the invention of the birth control pill. It’s a HUGE advancement; women are no longer help hostage by their bodies. They can work and plan their childbearing.

What happens in India and China happens because woman there have no freedom or control over their own lives.
For a fact? Let’s see a cite then, from an un-biased source.

Abortion is not eugenics. That is a lie.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/willie-lawson-changing-game/2013/apr/28/black-abortion/

[donnie_darko]

@Mosier

Agreed on all points. It’s just funny to hear one side call it family planning, while the other side calls it murdering babies.

It would be like hearing the nazis call the death camps “social engineering,” and when someone else points out how silly it is say that, the nazis respond “What is it, if not social engineering?”

I’m not calling abortion murder, btw. I just think it’s a trickier subject than most people will admit. We all know that there’s nothing magical about the birthing process, which causes a fetus to become a human. We all know killing humans is wrong, but we also know that this is the first time ever in history that women have been about as socially and politically free as men, and a huge part of that is due to reproductive rights.

I think taking away reproductive rights and outlawing abortion would be a giant step backward, but that doesn’t make me love abortion. Der Trihs isn’t 100% wrong about the motivations of anti-abortionists. Quite a few of them just want to put women in their place. Most of them aren’t like that though. They just think a fetus is a baby, and they’re opposed to killing babies. It’s not a particularly evil point of view to have, in my opinion.

Cheers for a rational, balanced point of view on the subject. I completely agree with you.

[donnie_darko]

@Cheesesteak

The rights under which we acknowledge that women should have access to abortions has nothing to do with family planning. It has to do with women having control over their bodies.

Deciding you don’t want to be pregnant anymore is different than deciding you don’t want to be a parent. Pre-viability, the choices are intertwined, there is no separating them. Post-viability, I think her right to decide she doesn’t want to be a parent takes a back seat to the right of the baby to live.

Except a fetus is not her body. It has its own DNA, so it’s a separate biological entity.I’m not saying I think abortion should be criminalized because I’m not, but the “woman’s body” thing is a fallacious argument.

[Der_Trihs]

@donnie_darko

Except a fetus is not her body. It has its own DNA, so it’s a separate biological entity.

The same goes for cancer and tapeworms.

[donnie_darko]

@Der_Trihs

Given that “viability” is a technological definition, that’s just a stealth way of slowly denying women abortions as medical technology advances. Eventually, “viability” will be at 0 weeks.

And again; you couldn’t put her through that for an adult, why should you be allowed to do so for a fetus?

If I were to use your slippery slope argument I could also say abortion is a way of slowing making infanticide, and eventually all kinds of murder legal. I think age of viability is a logical compromise, because it’s generally about halfway between conception and birth that a fetus starts to become a human as opposed to just a seed. Neurology backs this up too.

[donnie_darko]

@Der_Trihs

The same goes for cancer and tapeworms.

This analogy betrays your misanthropy.

[Peremensoe]

@donnie_darko

If I were to use your slippery slope argument I could also say abortion is a way of slowing making infanticide, and eventually all kinds of murder legal.

Except that there is a clear, bright line forever separating all abortions from all murders: whether the being or proto-being is inside, attached to, and dependent on a person. Thought experiments and science fiction aside, this is utterly unlike any real born person’s existence.

I think age of viability is a logical compromise, because it’s generally about halfway between conception and birth that a fetus starts to become a human as opposed to just a seed. Neurology backs this up too.

That’s a far fuzzier territory.

I happen to agree that neurology suggests an almost-born baby is as much a person as a just-born one… except for that one huge, all-important difference.

[Der_Trihs]

@donnie_darko

This analogy betrays your misanthropy.

Equating a fetus to a woman is misogynistic. Pointing out that cancer and tapeworms have their own DNA, live in the body, and we still don’t hesitate to destroy them is just pointing out what should be obvious but apparently isn’t.

[donnie_darko]

@Der_Trihs

Equating a fetus to a woman is misogynistic. Pointing out that cancer and tapeworms have their own DNA, live in the body, and we still don’t hesitate to destroy them is just pointing out what should be obvious but apparently isn’t.

I never said a fetus is equal to a grown woman. I just think that killing a baby that could be born tomorrow simply because the mother feels like it and couldn’t make up her mind is reprehensible.

[Der_Trihs]

@donnie_darko

I never said a fetus is equal to a grown woman.

When you assert that a fetus has rights and a woman doesn’t, you are claiming that the fetus is if anything the superior of the woman.

@donnie_darko

I just think that killing a baby that could be born tomorrow simply because the mother feels like it and couldn’t make up her mind is reprehensible.

:rolleyes: So instead you slander women, and that’s supposed to be an improvement? That’s not why women have late term abortions.

[Unauthorized_Cinnamon]

@donnie_darko

I never said a fetus is equal to a grown woman. I just think that killing a baby that could be born tomorrow simply because the mother feels like it and couldn’t make up her mind is reprehensible.

And how many abortions could be described this way? I’d be willing to bet quite a lot that it is effectively zero. You can’t include women who wait because they have no access to early abortion - that’s not “couldn’t make up her mind.” As miss elizabeth says, the derisive portrait of a flighty, selfish, thoughtless woman arbitrarily murdering a 40-week fetus on a whim reflects a population that is either nonexistent or vanishingly small.

I wouldn’t take the deal. I can imagine the very rare flighty, callous woman killing a healthy 40-week fetus, and I think that’s probably immoral. However, I’m not at all OK with the government using its power to coerce anyone to lend their body to another entity to prolong its life. And I’m very disturbed at the idea of government force used to make a woman carry and deliver a profoundly deformed baby that has no chance of survival, or to risk her life to go through labor, or any of the other gut-wrenching individual situations in which a patient and doctor are the only people who are really qualified to determine what to do. If the rare indecisive, immoral person winds up terminating a viable fetus because of where that line is drawn, I think that’s a better outcome.

@AHunter3

Correct. Therein lies the differences of opinion.

The reason her desire to end her pregnancy is sufficient to allow her to order the destruction of the viable fetus is that it’s a god-given natural right, the flip side of morning sickness and susceptibility to UTI’s and the wear and tear of pregnancy itself: women have the capacity to do this, to gestate life, and along with that comes the authority to exert control over the process. It is simultaneously her body AND also her body + a viable fetus.

It is an exception to the general rule that we don’t permit people to go around killing people, but not the only exception. (We do engage in wars and we do execute criminals and we do kill in self-defense). It happens to be the only exception where the killing is not being done almost exclusively by male people.

I have heard you right-to-life folks about your concern that it is killing and that you have moral qualms about that. I’m not ignoring you and the voice of your movement. But the greater moral good is definitely ensured by enshrining women’s possession of reproductive control. Truly horrible moral social outcomes result from preventing women from having abortions if and when they want them. It perverts sex and sexuality, polarizes men and women, and poisons natality and the family.

Yeah, the fetus is “human” (it isn’t a space alien or a fungus) and yeah it’s killing. Get over it. The people doing it are the ones closest to the situation who have the greatest personal reasons (situational hormonal and evolutionary) for wanting to continue and protect the pregnancy, but also the most at stake in terms of the involved negatives. No one is better positioned to make the decision and no one better deserves to do so.

Technically I think there’s a self-defense argument for abortion at any point in pregnancy. The mother is protecting herself from likely grievous bodily harm.

[WhyNot]

@donnie_darko

I never said a fetus is equal to a grown woman. I just think that killing a baby that could be born tomorrow simply because the mother feels like it and couldn’t make up her mind is reprehensible.

Sure thing. So do I. If you ever find a case where this has happened, ever in the history of womankind, do let me know.

[Guinastasia]

@Peremensoe

You said, your body, your choice. But you said that choice could be taken away from women after a time limit.

I don’t consider that “having it both ways”. YMMV

[miss_elizabeth]

@donnie_darko

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/willie-lawson-changing-game/2013/apr/28/black-abortion/

The Washington Times is not a reputable news source, nor a good cite. You may have it confused with the Washington Post. Now you know.

Also, this is an editorial, which makes it no more of a cite than you posting your opinion on here. Arguably, it’s less reliable, given the source.

Finally, Margaret Sanger is dead dead dead. She no longer runs or is involved with Planned Parenthood, and hasn’t been for quite a long time. It is true she had early ties to the eugenics movement. It’s also true things she said have been taken out of context to make it appear that birth control was a secret plot to kill black babies. In actuality, there was no such plot. I’m sorry you’ve been misled, but these are just more pro-life lies.

Abortion is not eugenics.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Cliffy

I believe if you read my post, you will have your answer. Don’t think you can shame me into stepping back. There’s nothing in my position to be ashamed of.

–Cliffy

You didn’t directly answer my question in your previous post, but considering what that post and the one I’m quoting say, it seems to me you’d perfectly fine with an abortion even at say eight months.

@BobLibDem

d- Religious organizations that continue to protest the 22 week rule would have their tax exempt status revoked.

Would this apply to religious organizations who agitate in other political issues (say all those religious groups who are antiwar and directly protest various wars as a result)?

[adaher]

@miss_elizabeth

Abortion is not eugenics.

Theoretical question: if there is a gay gene, and it can be pre-screened for, would it be a problem if most gay babies were aborted?

[stui_magpie]

I’m pro choice and I’m male and I agree with the proposition.

I cannot agree to unfettered access to abortion in late term. For mine, the half way mark is reasonable (20 weeks) but I can live with 22. The point of no return for me is once the fetus is viable to live outside the womb.

I’m not sure if it’s still the case but in Australia, a “spontaneous abortion” is/was called a “Miscarriage” prior to 20 weeks and a “Stillborn” after 20 weeks.

I’ve held a 20 week stillborn in my hands and had a daughter born at 26 weeks. I could not in conscience agree with aborting a viable fetus at 26 weeks or after unless there was a significant risk to the mother or the fetus.

[Cyros]

@adaher

Theoretical question: if there is a gay gene, and it can be pre-screened for, would it be a problem if most gay babies were aborted?

I find a larger problem in the government using its power to force a person to use their body to support another regardless of the reason for their wish not to do so.

I have no problem with that person being the subject of social censure.

[adaher]

I agree with that 100%. However, whether or not we support it, the right to abortion does have a eugenics result and the more we learn about genetics the more that will be true.

We’ve seen that in China, where men outnumber women by a good margin, and that’s just the beginning.

In the end, liberty has to trump those concerns, but we should still watch the trends and prepare for them as best we can.

[Khendrask]

My stance here is very well defined, and always has been.
Her body, Her choice. Done deal.
Pro-life women have every right to NOT have have an abortion if that is their decision, but neither they (nor sanctimonious men) have the right to prevent another woman from making a different decision.