Perhaps a bit of an overstatement, but hypocrisy is pervasive enough that the person who is not conflicted about some issue is an extreme outlier.
If it were not for double standards, I would have no standards at all.
Probably true. But it doesn’t mean that everyone is being a hypocrite who holds a specific position on any specific issue.
I figured it was to dodge what comes next, Judith Jarvis Thomson’s fifty year old paper, ‘A defense of abortion’, in which she introduced the world to a very famous and very unconscious violinist.
Thinking about late-term abortions is also a way to better understand why some people want to abolish abortion. It’s a useful thought exercise to consider why late-term abortions are thought of differently than early ones. If someone wants to get an abortion because of a non-medical reason like “the delivery date will interfere with vacation plans”, people feel differently about it if it’s in the 1st month versus the 8th month. But why should that make a difference? The procedure is more complicated in the 8th month, but that’s not why people are more uncomfortable with it.
Certainly late-term abortions are not the norm. If someone wants an abortion, they’d likely get it before then. But there could be many reasons to get a late-term abortion that don’t have anything to do with critical medical need, such as a change to employment, housing, or financial situations; a change in relationship status; a change of mind; a new opportunity; a change of desire to be a parent, etc. It’s all the same reasons to get an abortion early. Or maybe the person didn’t discover they were pregnant until very late (e.g. Cryptic Pregnancy). If someone discovers they are pregnant in the 8th month, they may want to terminate it for the same reasons that someone wants to do it in the 1st month. And in the cases of infanticide that are occasionally in the news, I would assume that those people would consider having a late-term abortion.
I think the reason people, including pro-choice people, are uncomfortable with late-term abortions is because there is overlap between what people think of is a fetus and a baby. The uncomfortableness of a late-term abortion comes from the feeling that it is a conscious choice to end a baby’s life. Pointing out some arbitrary designation like “life begins at birth” doesn’t change that people often feel that a late-term fetus is very much like a baby. I think the difference between pro-choice and pro-life people is the line at which those feelings overlap. For pro-choice people, that line is far along in the pregnancy. For pro-life people, that line is much earlier. The queasy feelings that a pro-choice person has about late-term abortions may be what pro-life people feel about abortions at any time.
Wait, what? I’m as pro choice as they come but I don’t follow the logic here at all.
I think it’s got at least as much to do with the fact that, if the fetus and the mother are both healthy, the fetus could be delivered alive, thus removing it from the mother while still giving it a chance of a normal life.
Which is why such things are generally done because the fetus and/or mother are very much not healthy.
And I will note that induced labor is very common, at least in the USA, and nobody calls it “late-term abortion” even if it’s induced before the expected due date.
Did you read what I was responding to?
Yes, you responded to a joke about an adult living inside a uterus instead of paying rent hurting the housing market, by saying that you can’t tell whether or not the anti abortion argument ultimately stems from the idea that women are property.
I have no idea what you’re complaining about. I responded to a stupid evasive “joke” with a sarcastic over the top one.
Telling that you chose to jump on my post instead of theirs.
That’s because yours didn’t read as a joke.
I don’t think this is true. I think a lot of people have been convinced that they don’t know exactly where the line is, and want to err on the side of protecting babies.
Yes there is. It’s not a lot of demand, but there are definitely people who favor that position. It’s the official position of the Catholic Church, for instance, although unlike with abortion, they haven’t worked to impose that on non-Catholics. They still think the rest of us are sinning if we use condoms, though.
Having been pregnant by choice, i think “rape” is a really good analogy for being forced to be (or stay) pregnant. It’s less of a stretch than calling early abortion “murder”.
Something that’s similar to a human being in important ways, yes. If a man can kill another real live actual full fledged human being for entering his Texan house against against the man’s will, doesn’t it seem bizarre that a woman can’t kill an entity that is somewhat similar to a human being who entered her BODY against her will?
I really do think that
- individuals oppose abortion for a wide range of reasons
- most of the money and political power behind abortion bans is about preventing women from having sex without becoming attached to (and subservient to) a man.
I thought it was good.
OK, so you WERE joking. Great.
Unfortunately based on some of the posts in this thread I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that sentiment expressed for real.
If I thought that both your post and the other post were serious, theirs is obviously far more odious than yours. But I can’t imagine anyone holding the position that the problem with a grown man living inside a uterus is that it drops demand for rent, while I can imagine multiple posters in this thread insisting that opposition to abortion is based on viewing women as property.
The thread I have been alluding to, that I’ve been debating in parallel with this one, is titled: “They are Literally Killing Babies at the DNC. (And I wish I was making this up)”
Bear in mind it was the abortion pill that they were giving out at a mobile clinic at the DNC.
And this is typical IME of “pro-life” advocates…it’s not people erring on the side, or making a compromise…many or most of them are true believers. They truly believe that a sperm meeting an egg = a new soul / person is there now.
Although, as I said upthread, they often aren’t consistent about this in other circumstances. Cognitive dissonance is real.
I’m not defending Texas law, but I believe you are referring to what is known as the “Castle Doctrine”, and it does not seem to say a man can kill another simply for entering his house, the owner apparently must also be in reasonable fear that the intruder is about to commit a violent crime and that the use of force is reasonably necessary to prevent that (Texas Stand Your Ground, Castle Doctrine & Self Defense [2024]).
When seen in that context, it is more akin to a woman being allowed to terminate her pregnancy when there is a reasonable likelihood of serious harm to her if she does not, which of course most abortion laws already provide an exception for. So, despite your implication, I see no real disconnect between these laws.
Now do trespassing laws.
A couple of data points that I wish were universally known and understood, but that are probably well known here (I can dig up cites if desired):
- In 2016, two-thirds of abortions occurred at eight weeks of pregnancy or earlier, and 88% occurred in the first 12 weeks
- “…one in three people confirm their pregnancies past six weeks, and one in five past seven weeks. Later confirmation of pregnancy is even higher among young people, people of color, and those living with food insecurity, suggesting that gestational bans on abortion in the first trimester will disproportionately hurt these populations.” [University of California - San Francisco]
- As mentioned above, Roe did not allow abortions “up until the time of birth.” PRIMARY HOLDING: A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception
- The Democrats’ Women’s Health Protection Act would ensure that later in pregnancy, states cannot limit access to abortion if it would jeopardize the life or health of the mother
- “In 2014, 51% of abortion patients were using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant, most commonly condoms (24%) or a short-acting hormonal method (13%).”
- By the age of 45, roughly one in four American women will have had an abortion (Guttmacher). Every year, at least 18% of American abortions are performed on self-declared “Evangelical Christians” (Focus On The Family)
In part because of proposals like transvaginal ultrasound requirements (31pp PDF), mandatory waiting periods, and so-called TRAP laws, maybe staunchly anti-choice people should be encouraged to demonstrate deep knowledge about what it is we’re actually talking about before forming such intractable positions.
And yet, women with ectopic pregnancies are being advised to travel to other states to have them treated. But men who just vaguely feel “fear” from an “invader” are not being punished for killing those invaders.
I wrote a much longer post, and then decided most of it was a hijack from the topic, “what’s the point of these laws”. So i deleted most of it. But minimizing the risks and damage that pregnancy causes a woman while not doing that for any other situation is the norm. Even a planned, joyous pregnancy is more damaging to the woman than a trespasser setting up camp in a corner of your house And this imbalance suggests that the out of the laws isn’t just to “protect life”, but to police women who do “bad stuff”.
yes, it is certainly possible that in actual practice there is a discrepancy in how these are enforced, but on the face of it the exceptions that allow the corresponding actions are broadly equivalent, i.e. a reasonable apprehension or likelihood of serious harm to the person or their health. My point is that there is not really a disconnect in the laws themselves here.
Now do trespassing laws.