A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Bells]

I have no need to parse here as the answer is simple, abortion should be made legal up until the third trimester everywhere in a perfect world. If a woman chooses to have an abortion after the third trimester (there are exceptions of course and those should be defined clearly, legally speaking) she should be prosecuted as the law deems just. Why isn't this limit on abortion good enough, Bells? Personally, I find the dry foot position horrendous and extreme, furthermore, it is harmful to the pro choice movement.

So damn her right to access to health care and prosecute her if she is desperate enough to get an abortion past that arbitrary line..

68,000 women dead, millions maimed every single year. Over 21 million women you think should be prosecuted for breaking the law because they feel they should have rights over their bodies.

The dry foot policy determines that while the baby is inside the mother, then the mother's rights are paramount. That's the crux of it. And you believe this is horrendous and extreme and harmful to the pro-choice movement? That is what the pro-choice movement is about. The right of women to determine for themselves what is right for themselves and their bodies. It's about bodily integrity and choice.

It's not that I don't think this limit is good enough. It's that I know such limits will result in so many women dying.

So which is better? Allowing women to die and be permanently scarred and maimed and doing this knowingly with the knowledge that if they survive the procedure, they can just be arrested and prosecuted and that makes it all better? Or providing women with safe options which more often than not, involve counseling and help for these women to try and find different options? I'd rather try and save these women's lives by providing them with choices and safe and legal options. Personally, I find the 68,000+ figure of deaths and millions more scarred for life to be unacceptable. But apparently, this is acceptable to some.

 

[billvon]

I have no need to parse here as the answer is simple, abortion should be made legal up until the third trimester everywhere in a perfect world. If a woman chooses to have an abortion after the third trimester (there are exceptions of course and those should be defined clearly, legally speaking) she should be prosecuted as the law deems just.

I mostly agree. The part I get stuck on is the exceptions. For example, you could put a general ban on late term abortions (which I would support from an ideological standpoint) as long as there were exceptions based on the health of the mother and modified by the health of the fetus. For example, eclampsia (health of the woman) and thanatophoric dysplasia (health of the fetus) would be clear exceptions. Question is - who gets to decide that? The two I listed are easy; the first could kill the mother, the second guarantees death of the baby even if it is carried to term. Everyone can agree there. But what about pre-eclampsia? SMA type 1? RH incompatibility? History of abruption? Heavy drug usage while pregnant? And what about cases where the mother is so incapable that harm to the child is almost guaranteed?

The end of that particular train of thought is that the mother and her doctor should always decide, because they are best suited to make medical decisions on risks to both mother and child. But that's very similar to saying "as long as they think it's a good idea, late term abortion is legal."

As an alternative I have been considering the case where a woman who wants a late term abortion must consent to either induction or a Cesarean and then give up custody of the child. This protects her right to decide she no longer want to carry the child to term, but increases her risk slightly overall compared to the risk of an IDX abortion. So is it right to demand that she expose herself to that additional risk? Tough call.

 

[Balerion]

Many people view abortion beyiond a certain point torture and murder. Do you think murderers should be given a safe, secure place to kill?

 

[Bells]

I'm talking about late-term abortions, which have restrictions in some places In the US.

And according to studies, women tend to gdt later-term abortions because they're young, or poor, or less educated. I don't see these as viable reasons for late-term abortions.



You can't. But that's not a valid reason for making or keeping late-term abortions legal.



No you aren't. You're looking for a word or a phrase to latch onto out of context and claim victory.

So that many women dying and being scarred for life is not a valid or viable reason to provide them with safe and legal options.

Fair enough.

So much for women's rights. And the preventable pandemic continues..

Good work all of you in justifying why it's acceptable for women to die because it's apparently valid and viable for them to be denied a safe medical procedure which would prevent their deaths and because to prevent those deaths would somehow afford them special rights..

My faith in the humanity of this site just went further down the drain.

 

[Balerion]

I mostly agree. The part I get stuck on is the exceptions. For example, you could put a general ban on late term abortions (which I would support from an ideological standpoint) as long as there were exceptions based on the health of the mother and modified by the health of the fetus. For example, eclampsia (health of the woman) and thanatophoric dysplasia (health of the fetus) would be clear exceptions. Question is - who gets to decide that? The two I listed are easy; the first could kill the mother, the second guarantees death of the baby even if it is carried to term. Everyone can agree there. But what about pre-eclampsia? SMA type 1? RH incompatibility? History of abruption? Heavy drug usage while pregnant? And what about cases where the mother is so incapable that harm to the child is almost guaranteed?

The end of that particular train of thought is that the mother and her doctor should always decide, because they are best suited to make medical decisions on risks to both mother and child. But that's very similar to saying "as long as they think it's a good idea, late term abortion is legal."

As an alternative I have been considering the case where a woman who wants a late term abortion must consent to either induction or a Cesarean and then give up custody of the child. This protects her right to decide she no longer want to carry the child to term, but increases her risk slightly overall compared to the risk of an IDX abortion. So is it right to demand that she expose herself to that additional risk? Tough call.

It's a very tough call. But I think the discussion should be had, rather than simply deferring to the woman.

 

[Kittamaru]

Can you cite which women view abortions as a means of contraception?
Do you have a link to that quote? How many women view abortion as a "perfectly acceptable means of contraception"? I know hundreds of women. Not a single one of them view abortion as a form of contraception.

I cannot, as they were people I knew in real life - mostly people from high school and college.

Irresponsibility..
As noted and supported with evidence, women are often prevented for a variety of reasons from being able to access one earlier on in the pregnancy. Do you have evidence that women are waiting until the third trimester and subjecting themselves to a much harder and more complicated procedure which poses greater risks to their well being because she just didn't bother to get it done sooner? That she's just a slack arse who is simply irresponsible? Studies? Anything?

Slow down Bells - I already stated that the vast majority of women DO NOT do this - in fact, it begs a question... why are you begging the question? If responsible women don't do this, and I've already stated that there are extenuating circumstances wherein the "point of no return" can be ignored (such as rape, coercion, etc)... then what are you arguing here? What reason is there NOT to set a late (third trimester) limit, since apparently this isn't a problem to begin with?

21.6 million women, 68,000 deaths, millions scarred for life - women who obtained unsafe and illegal abortions because to do so safely and legally was a "no go option". Do you have any proof that making it illegal will mean that women will simply not get or have abortions past what you have pegged as the foetal pain mark?

In all truth, do you actually and honestly think that women who need abortions aren't going to get them one way or the other?

Once again - in an instance where a late abortion is appropriate or justified, such as rape, abuse, danger to the woman, etc, I believe it should be done. In this instance, what is it you are fighting against?

68,000 deaths and millions scarred for life.. Is this an acceptable figure in your opinion? WHO view it as a pandemic. And it is wholly preventable if women were able to access safe and legal abortions. So do you honestly think that a woman who needs an abortion in the third trimester is not going to get one anyway? Would you prefer she obtains it illegally and in an unsafe and dangerous environment? Or that she is able to access one in a safe and legal environment where she can be counseled and helped to perhaps consider her other options? Yes or no?

It is funny though... this is the exact opposite argument that proponents of gun-control laws use...

So damn her right to access to health care and prosecute her if she is desperate enough to get an abortion past that arbitrary line..

If she is that desperate, why did she wait so long to make the decision? If it's a case of abuse/coercion/health issues, then as seemingly everyone is in agreement over, exceptions can and should be made.

 

[Balerion]

So that many women dying and being scarred for life is not a valid or viable reason to provide them with safe and legal options.

Fair enough.

So much for women's rights. And the preventable pandemic continues..

Good work all of you in justifying why it's acceptable for women to die because it's apparently valid and viable for them to be denied a safe medical procedure which would prevent their deaths and because to prevent those deaths would somehow afford them special rights..

My faith in the humanity of this site just went further down the drain.

Case in point. Your argument is wholly superficial. It has zero depth.

 

[Gremmie]

Wow... Shit escalated, then abruptly died...

I sense all hell is gonna break loose soon...

Don't get me wrong, I anxiously await. Lol.

 

[PhysBang]

What reason is there NOT to set a late (third trimester) limit, since apparently this isn't a problem to begin with?

Because people ought to have the right to what they do with their bodies and not be forced to use their body in the service of another.

 

[PhysBang]

Case in point. Your argument is wholly superficial. It has zero depth.

Yes, when the question is the rights of women, it is often perceived as zero depth.

 

[Kittamaru]

Because people ought to have the right to what they do with their bodies and not be forced to use their body in the service of another.

Except you are assuming they are being forced to use their body in the service of another... they are not. They have six months from the time of conception to decide, for any reason what so ever, to abort the pregnancy. After that, unless some sort of extenuating circumstance, such as abuse or a health concern crops up, they should carry it through as, by that point, the abortion is much more difficult AND the fetus is capable of being harmed by it.

 

[GeoffP]

I know someone who found out she was pregnant when she was about 30 weeks into her pregnancy. She was over-weight, which hid the pregnancy, she never once stopped menstruating, she didn't have any symptoms that would otherwise raise her suspicions. Should she have been denied an abortion because she found out so late?

Is the cutoff date - which exists in most countries, just to be clear - established for benefit of mother or embryo?

What about women who are made to wait several weeks, by law, before they are allowed to access an abortion? Such laws are designed to try and force women to get past the 'cut off date' where abortions are legally obtainable.

Actually such laws are designed to provide some protection to a human organism which is viable outside the womb. In a related question, do you think the mother must have it terminated? What about simply removing it from her body? It's not her property at this point. If someone trespasses on my lawn, I'm obligated to give them a chance to clear off before opening fire. I can't just snipe them.

This is why I object to rules like the 27 week bans, and the like. Because women who desperately need them after those dates will get them regardless and if there is no way for them to do it safely, then the results are disastrous. Why? As history shows, women who cannot access safe and legal abortions will simply obtain an unsafe and illegal abortion. Prior to Roe vs Wade, the reality for women in the US was frankly horrific.

Your second article is on abortion, itself, not late-term abortion. As for the first, how is need being assessed here? Can these children not be adopted? Are you advancing an economic reason for late term abortion? This is conceivable.

To put it into some perspective, and I figure GeoffP will use analogies about murder once more to counter these figures, but yeah, the WHO deems the risk from unsafe and illegal abortions to be so high and the number of deaths and illness from them is so high that the WHO state it is a pandemic.

And these are late-term abortions? If not, why do you bring it up? Or are these numbers intended to elicit an emotional reaction out of proportion to the subject being discussed? That's morally bankrupt. Come on. Reasonability.

When I see people like GeoffP and the countless politicians and religious pro-lifer's demand that restrictions be imposed, that like GeoffP states, cut off points be put in place to make it illegal for a woman to access an abortion in the 3rd trimester if there is no health issues or rape issues involved, for example, I think about these reports.

If you want to introduce poverty as a condition, why not just say so instead of constructing a straw man?

Do people actually think that if a woman really needs an abortion that she won't get one? Let's just say a line is drawn in the sand at GeoffP's 27 weeks. Wonderful. No non-medically 3rd trimester abortions will ever happen again, right? Do people actually believe this will be the case?

So the object of protection is inviable, you say.

---

That's not just irrational, it's flat out dishonest.

And why would he do that?

I'm very glad you asked. Let's see if you understood.

"My definition is a simple and biologically valid one: late-term infants are rapidly getting to the state of cogitation. Even the 95% of the time they appear to spend in sleep-state is still... sleep-state."​

Quite simply because his definition trumps any consideration of law.

That's a fascinating concept. Let's continue.

Now, I don't think even Bells - or even you - could pretend that my proposed deadline has been anything other than around 27 weeks. I'm amenable to argument on this point; it's not as though I'm some kind of extremist like some people. I have no personal investment in the debate, and neither do I have any need to dissemble. Yet late-term abortions are usually defined as those somewhere between an astounding 14-21 weeks, up to three or four months later than the legal deadline. My concept only trumps the consideration of law if Tiassa intends that that law be used to push the deadline for legal termination past my deadline. Otherwise, my deadline could only be considerably more liberal than currently considered legally acceptable. It amazes me that you don't seem to be conversant with this fact.

Dryfoot is a bright line, both existentially and ontologically. That's the point. Any earlier line one wishes to declare inherently runs into this question of what happens when one person's rights must necessarily assert governance over the inside of another person's body.

And until that question is resolved, that but our neighbor proposes is just another excuse to suspend a woman's human rights, thus curtailing and denigrating her humanity.

DF is a bright line only from the standpoint of physical location. Most fetuses are viable well before birth, and some are not viable afterwards. Your sole consideration in DF is that you feel it protects the mother's rights; enter then the abject shrilling that I am subverting women's rights by actually being liberal and basing my consideration on biological lines. For you see, by your standard women's rights are then already suspended to the order of 7-14 weeks or so. My 27-week deadline then must surely appear as a saviour to the pro-choice movement, maybe even to the militant pro-choice wing. But please: your adoration is not required.

I was amused by your portrayal of my desire to suspend women's rights: I have no interest in that. Are you incapable of discussing the merits of your own argument without demonisation of the opponent?

And unlike you, I give weight to the rights of both individuals in this process; you, on observation, utterly do not. You are an absolutist, in fact: the fetus has no legal or moral standing in your eyes at all, which still astounds me even after long association with you. By being moderate - liberal, in fact - I have become illiberal, and extremist, apparently. This surely must also astound the rest of those writing in here, who also express this moderation of view. And the rest of society too, seemingly. Are they all extremists, Tiassa? It was funny to see you attempt to juxtapose me with the South Carolina proposition above: talk about slight of hand.

Good thing you're keeping a weather eye on those militant atheists. Things might get out of hand.

 

[billvon]

Because people ought to have the right to what they do with their bodies and not be forced to use their body in the service of another.

Agreed there, and they should always have the right to end that service. In my opinion, that right does not extend to choosing to kill the fetus that is removed from their body. Thus the difficult issue of late term abortions.

 

[quinnsong]

So damn her right to access to health care and prosecute her if she is desperate enough to get an abortion past that arbitrary line..

68,000 women dead, millions maimed every single year. Over 21 million women you think should be prosecuted for breaking the law because they feel they should have rights over their bodies.

The dry foot policy determines that while the baby is inside the mother, then the mother's rights are paramount. That's the crux of it. And you believe this is horrendous and extreme and harmful to the pro-choice movement? That is what the pro-choice movement is about. The right of women to determine for themselves what is right for themselves and their bodies. It's about bodily integrity and choice.

It's not that I don't think this limit is good enough. It's that I know such limits will result in so many women dying.

So which is better? Allowing women to die and be permanently scarred and maimed and doing this knowingly with the knowledge that if they survive the procedure, they can just be arrested and prosecuted and that makes it all better? Or providing women with safe options which more often than not, involve counseling and help for these women to try and find different options? I'd rather try and save these women's lives by providing them with choices and safe and legal options. Personally, I find the 68,000+ figure of deaths and millions more scarred for life to be unacceptable. But apparently, this is acceptable to some.

Yes, Bells, I can live with my position as a woman, as you can live with yours. Would your DF position change if just women decided the abortion issue? What if the majority of women agreed with my position? If you were arguing the DF position as an exception, I would have no problem, but you're not. Are you saying that 21 million women opted for a late term abortion? Why?

 

[Kittamaru]

Because people ought to have the right to what they do with their bodies and not be forced to use their body in the service of another.

If we want to give people the right to do whatever they want with their bodies... then we may as well abolish drug laws cause, oh look, that's doing something to their own bodies. We may as well abolish a fair number of laws actually... and remove a lot of warning labels while we're at it - you want to huff that can of paint to get high? Sure, why not, it's YOUR body, right?

 

[Aqueous Id]

(to quinn) Uh oh. You don't agree with the approved consensus (on abortion). Prepare to feel the wrath of the moral majority here.

Actually I've been advised by the standards committee (at least Tiassa and Yazata) that policy matters like abortion have nothing to do with the subject at hand. However, as an ardent fan of yours in all things technical & ethical, and being of a like mind on this issue, I support you in your bid to remind the committee them that they do.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Doctors in the UK are forbidden to grant abortions to women on the grounds of gender.
In some communities they do not want female babies. Not until they have a male anyway.
Should women be allowed to abort girls so that they can get the much preferred male baby.

 

[Randwolf]

Actually such laws are designed to provide some protection to a human organism which is viable outside the womb. In a related question, do you think the mother must have it terminated? What about simply removing it from her body?

Geoff, your the first person I've seen mention this facet in this context. Or, perhaps, the first one I happened to have cognizance of.

In any event, I've pondered the sticky wicket this thread's subject has transformed into from many points of view over many years. How does society balance the competing interests here? (Correct me if I'm wrong, but even the staunchest defenders of abortion rights would admit there are competing interests here, at least in the later stages of pregnancy. At the moment, I believe women's rights over their bodies trump an unborn foetus's rights to potential birth any day.

Except perhaps the day before their natural birth after being carried to term for nine months, which no woman would ever desire an abortion at that point, unless her life was threatened or maybe she was insane, but there are no realistic examples of this ever happening, but it conceivable could, but, but, but... Who cares? Let's concentrate on the rule at the moment, not the exception which illustrates it...


I submit that balance is not achievable at the moment but will almost certainly be in the future. As time of viability inches ever backwards, what would society's (or for that matter any given individual's) position be if technology offered the alternative of "extraction" (in lieu of abortion) of the fetus at any time after, oh, say, three days from implantation? By the way, did I mention said "extraction" allows for the survival of the zygote/foetus/"child"? How would this change things? Would it? After all, women's rights and sovereignty over their bodies would remain unimpugned, the "child" would survive, life would be grand...

We all know how well hypotheticals go over regarding this particular topic, but I would like to think mine is more appealing than "Turducken" . What if it was just as easy, safe and simple to "extract" the undesired (for whatever reason) foetus as it would be to "abort"? Why, then, would anyone opt to "kill the fetus" (billvon)? Would this whole debate just disappear?

I think not, but I do believe the very nature of the underlying issue would transform. Read on...

Are you advancing an economic reason for late term abortion? This is conceivable.

I would submit that the question could be raised without advocating it. In my "hypothetical", who would be responsible for paying? Society as a whole? Or the parents in particular, since they conceived in the first place? I predict the "economic" issue will become more front and center as technology reels the viability timeframe ever back...

 

[Gremmie]

Doctors in the UK are forbidden to grant abortions to women on the grounds of gender.
In some communities they do not want female babies. Not until they have a male anyway.
Should women be allowed to abort girls so that they can get the much preferred male baby.

C'mon now Cap'n K... You're a highly intelligent man. Why would you pose that query?.

What it comes down to, is pro-choice, against religion.

The theists, especially Catholics, (I was raised RC, even an alter boy, holy hell.) Believe every sperm is sacred.

The only reason to have sex, is to procreate...

Fuck that... Sex feels good, so we engage in it as much as possible.

But, then we have the pregnancy issue... I believe in a woman's choice to not have to suffer for 18 years, because she had some fun for a night.

I'm a dude, and I wouldn't want to have to pay child support, for that one night of fun either.

I realize a life is a life... But, were human, and as such we are selfish. Do I suffer for 18 years for that 5 mins of fun, or this unborn embryo, or fetus?

Do the math... But, I do think if you don't want a child, please use contraception.

 

[billvon]

As time of viability inches ever backwards, what would society's (or for that matter any given individual's) position be if technology offered the alternative of "extraction" (in lieu of abortion) of the fetus at any time after, oh, say, three days from implantation? By the way, did I mention said "extraction" allows for the survival of the zygote/foetus/"child"? How would this change things? Would it?

A very similar question -

How would such ethical questions change if we were marsupial? 30 days "pregnancy" then birth, then a short trip to the pouch, where it sits for the next eight months. If the mother did not want to care for it, preventing it from reaching the pouch (even giving it to another mother) would be easy. After the joey latches on to the teat it is still possible to remove and transfer it; since it does not rely on the environment of the womb, artificial pouches would be much easier to construct and maintain.

In many ways this would remove the ethical dilemma from society and place it squarely on the mother, since the mother would be able to "terminate" or transfer her own pregnancy at any time without serious health risk to the mother. It would also greatly reduce the risks of pregnancy and ease prenatal care considerably.