Let's Talk About: Abortion

[spuzzum]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

If I needed a kidney and we were a match, would it be ok for you to be forced to give me one?

After all, in a 'me me' society, it's not always about me.

Absolutely. And if you have more money than me, give me some. Your question or comparison isn't hypothetically similar.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Peanut

There’s just no point debating it. It’s also offensive to be called stupid so I’m not encouraged to engage. I actually find the debate really upsetting and also I’m on my phone so I’m not my most eloquent..

I didn't call you stupid. I thought your post was stupid. If I thought you were stupid, then it would be silly of me to be annoyed by you making a stupid post - it would be completely expected and unremarkable. I think the vast majority of people who are staunchly pro choice at this moment do not think very hard about their position, or try very hard to justify it in a way that would hold up to even the slightest scrutiny, because they're surrounded by other people who agree with them, and therefore are never called to do so. I do not know you personally, but your post appears to be a quintessential example of that phenomenon. That is what it means to have created a dead dogma, and it bothers the hell out of me.

I think all arguments at some point relegate the woman to a carrier with no or limited rights, because the fetus needs to live. But her rights don’t suddenly become “restored” once she’s had the baby, because it’s now a living being that needs love, care, and support (financial and otherwise) for 18 years. So it’s actually now a lifetime of imposed restrictions that the woman did not actively choose. And you can argue for adoption, but there’s plenty of kids who don’t get adopted and instead live their childhoods in foster care and whatever else less than ideal circumstances.

I think these are completely reasonable concerns, which are factors for me as to why I land on the pro-choice side of the issue as well. I think this paragraph fails to give full weight to the other side of the ledger, however. The foetus "needing to live" is, at least arguably, a valid concern that needs to be addressed, because in the decades this debate has been going on, there has never been a satisfying reason to dismiss it.

Your adoption point is weak (the possibility that a kid is going to live in less than ideal circumstances is not an argument for preventing that kid from being born - this produces a bunch of reductios, e.g. "children born in third world country X are likely to lead difficult lives, therefore it would be moral to sterilize that nation's population", and so on). But I don't believe it's relevant anyway, because the argument at its core is about whether the foetus has rights that (in any circumstance) should compel a mother to carry it to term when she doesn't want to, and if so how far those rights go. What happens afterwards is for the most part a red herring (there are probably some anti-natalists who will want to fight about this but, you know, generally speaking).

To me (at least in our Canadian system) the simplest message really is “if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one”.

It's not quite that simple. I'm pretty sure that no doctor has the ability to simply perform an abortion on request after about 24 weeks - there is a review process involved in late term abortion, which inherently involves the delegation of a moral (and medical) decision to whoever is undertaking that review. But those types of abortions are so rare, the system seems to work quite well in practice.

However, the practical functionality of the system does not answer the question about whether the system is the right one. That's what people are talking about here. And what I'm saying is, there may not be a right system, and everyone should be way less certain that they've figured out what it is. There are no simple bumper sticker axioms that make any sense on this topic, nor anything you could write on a poster to bring to a protest that's going to be insightful. This is a potentially unanswerable moral problem, which is why it creates such a useful wedge issue.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

So again. 39 weeks you're okay with an abortion despite the fact they could remove thr baby via c section and it will likely be totally fine?

I am not OK with abortion at 39 weeks or 35 weeks or even at 23 weeks. That is my personal opinion based on my own ethics and values. But I definitely want the law to allow it, because other people's bodies are not subject to my opinions.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

What do you mean it's "unambiguous" and "not subject to debate"? Whether the baby has left the womb? I agree, that's unambiguous, but why is that the be all end all deciding factor for you? It's equally unambiguous whether or not there's a heartbeat, there's no subjective judgment involved at all, and most people don't seem to think that should be where the line is drawn. Why is it even relevant whether the baby's inside or outside of the womb? That is, what is the morally relevant factor you're relying on to differentiate the baby's status ten minutes after it's been born, as opposed to twenty minutes earlier, and why's it morally relevant?

I'm not making a moral judgment. I'm relying on the only legally clear line that creates no possible moral or "rights of the woman" argument. Every argument about legal rights in utero raises an inherent conflict between the woman and the fetus. The law should not be expected to solve an unsolvable moral/ethical issue.

Originally Posted by Azure

I still think from a legal / scientific standard there is more than enough evidence or strong arguments to suggest that the fetus can be considered a human life much sooner than when it is a born.

From a scientific and moral perspective, I agree. From a legal perspective, I disagree.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by GGG

Now you are engaging in the moral debate rather than ignoring it with a platitude. It is precisely the trade off of rights that creates this disagreements. That was my only criticism with your original post.

Well my platitude doesn’t ignore it, per se. It’s a pretty straightforward statement about who’s rights are more important and who ultimately makes the decision about their own body. If someone else feels abortion is morally or ethically wrong past a certain point (I have opinions about when that would be for myself), then they shouldn’t have an abortion.

I dunno. It seems the opposite of dumb to me and is actually distilling the argument down to fundamentals.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

I'm not making a moral judgment. I'm relying on the only legally clear line that creates no possible moral or "rights of the woman" argument. Every argument about legal rights in utero raises an inherent conflict between the woman and the fetus.

... Yes. That's what the debate is about. If you're just ignoring all of that then you've copped out of the argument entirely and you're not saying anything interesting on this topic.

I'm not sure what you've been trying to demonstrate. Where the line is drawn legally in Canada is not up for debate, this thread would be ten posts long if that was what it was about.

The law should not be expected to solve an unsolvable moral/ethical issue.

Well, the law has to stand somewhere, and obviously people are going to argue about whether it stands in the right place. This statement would appear to entail that it doesn't actually matter what law you have on the books about abortion, and we can pick at random...

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

... Yes. That's what the debate is about. If you're just ignoring all of that then you've copped out of the argument entirely and you're not saying anything interesting on this topic.

No argument there!

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm not sure what you've been trying to demonstrate. Where the line is drawn legally in Canada is not up for debate, this thread would be ten posts long if that was what it was about.

If you don't think we're debating the law (or lack thereof) then I don't think you're paying attention. This thread spawned from the American legal situation, and the are plenty of people he who would like us to move in the same direction. Plenty of people in our (possible) next government think that way. The first step in legislating against something is the formation of broad opinion that "there oughta be a law." I'm specifically arguing that there oughtn'ta be one.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, the law has to stand somewhere, and obviously people are going to argue about whether it stands in the right place. This statement would appear to entail that it doesn't actually matter what law you have on the books about abortion, and we can pick at random...

No, it's the thing that matters most because it affects everyone, and I'm arguing that is in the right place because it's the only place that doesn't cause or exacerbate a moral debate. I'd gladly argue what I think makes a human and how we should balance conflicting rights, but the risk of going down the Alabama path is too great right now. I believe it's important to distinguish the legal question from the ethical/moral question. So that's what I'm trying to do.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by spuzzum

Absolutely. And if you have more money than me, give me some. Your question or comparison isn't hypothetically similar.

You don't believe in bodily autonomy, fair enough.

It would save doctors from having to explain side effects and getting permission to perform tasks.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

"If you think murder is wrong, don't murder anyone. The end."

This is what a dead dogma looks like. I mean, what an obviously stupid thing to say, and yet it gets a bunch of thanks. It's a damn good thing this debate is utterly closed in Canada, because we'd have a hell of a time winning it again given how little people seem to bother with justifying their own viewpoints to themselves.

Murder is a strong comparison.

"If you think vaccinations will hurt your baby, don't get them vaccinated."

We are already looking at scenarios were you require proof of vaccination before you can attend public events, or public settings such as school.

Therefore human life, or the health and safety of human life is more important than your personal choice. How the Supreme Court will rule on that is beyond me, but that is where we are trending as a society.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The first step in legislating against something is the formation of broad opinion that "there oughta be a law." I'm specifically arguing that there oughtn'ta be one.

Okay, so you're basically a hardcore libertarian here - if we can't come up with a clear answer to a difficult problem, we cannot legislate in a way that would prevent any behaviour in that area. That's all well and good, but this is still a moral statement - you're talking about what we ought to do. That's inescapable. Declining to do something is still a decision, and asking whether or not we should decline to do something is still asking a moral question.

I also don't think your position is workable, because there's almost never (I would probably argue that there is never) moral certainty available when presented with the choice as to whether to draft a law or not. There will also usually be corner cases that the law doesn't seem to work perfectly for, or as intended. This is an issue that is particularly uncertain, but there's always some degree of doubt, and suddenly you're trying to draw a line as to how much doubt there has to be before we throw up our hands and say "there oughtn'ta be a law here".

No, it's the thing that matters most because it affects everyone, and I'm arguing that is in the right place because it's the only place that doesn't cause or exacerbate a moral debate.

Of course it does. "Where should the law draw the line" is an inherently moral debate. Drawing the line at birth cannot eliminate the moral element of the topic, because the question remains as to whether the line should be drawn there - a moral question.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I’m sorry, how is it a stupid thing to say? You think, as a 37 year old educated woman who leans feminist, that I haven’t “put any thought” into abortion and bodily autonomy?

It is a stupid thing to say because it downplays the huge significance and importance of the issue.

And also because if we looked at many other issues, like vaccinations that way, we would not be able to advance our society at all.

You can debate when life starts for a fetus. But you can’t debate that the person gestating the fetus is unquestionably alive and has (or is supposed to have) bodily autonomy.

“If you don’t like murder, don’t murder someone” is not equivalent.

I a pregnant mother dies on the hospital bed do the doctors have the right to remove the baby if they feel it could survive even if the mother has not given them the right? Would they? Or does bodily autonomy trump the possibility of saving a life in that instant?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Peanut

There’s just no point debating it. It’s also offensive to be called stupid so I’m not encouraged to engage. I actually find the debate really upsetting and also I’m on my phone so I’m not my most eloquent.. I think all arguments at some point relegate the woman to a carrier with no or limited rights, because the fetus needs to live. But her rights don’t suddenly become “restored” once she’s had the baby, because it’s now a living being that needs love, care, and support (financial and otherwise) for 18 years. So it’s actually now a lifetime of imposed restrictions that the woman did not actively choose. And you can argue for adoption, but there’s plenty of kids who don’t get adopted and instead live their childhoods in foster care and whatever else less than ideal circumstances.

To me (at least in our Canadian system) the simplest message really is “if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one”. I think it includes men in the message - they are involved in birth control decisions (or they should be!) and in the vast majority of cases would be involved in the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

The adoption system has a lot of room for improvement.

Foster care is not ideal, but better than the alternative of living in the streets or being homeless.

I also think pulling in what happens after birth as a way to justify the abortion is a lame and completely morally reprehensible way of looking at it.

Yes, some parents struggle to make ends meet, and yes the government or society as a whole doesn't always provide the care and support that parents need. I think most everyone in this thread would agree with added child support for under privileged mothers, and it IS something that Canada as a country is doing. In fact the Liberal government has now twice increased child support amounts being paid out to families, and I think that is something that is simply being ignored, or worse, not even being acknowledged as something that could help mothers raise their children.

At the end of the day either the fetus is a human life before birth, or it isn't. And if it is, it should be protected under the law. Human life, and the RIGHT to live should be our most cherished and protected right. It is MUCH more important than personal choice.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Okay, so you're basically a hardcore libertarian here ...<snip>

I guess so. If supporting the most minimally disruptive legal alternative makes me so. That's about the same logic as saying atheism is a religion. You decision NOT to believe in God is a belief system!

I've made my point as well as I can. If it's too inconsistent or too simplistic for your liking, I'm sorry. Go on with your day.

[Azure]

I'm probably a hardcore libertarian as well, but I can't move past the personal choice is more important than human life.

Interesting points all around though.

[afc wimbledon]

I think the answer is quite simple, those that oppose abortion should sign up to cover the costs of removing the fetus from a woman, keeping it in pre natal care and then take care of it as their own once it can sustain itself, if there are no volunteers for this on a list then the woman can do what ever the hell she wants

[81MC]

I’m actually pretty surprised at the amount of anti-abortion sentiment I’ve seen. Running with the notion, where would the stance be:
Charge mothers with failure to provide necessaries of life? - Mothers should be on prenatal supplements before they even get pregnant. Should mothers be subject to prosecution if their offspring has issues because she wasn’t providing the baby adequate levels of folate?
Child support - Mothers have full burden to support a fetus during gestation. Should Child support should be required from date of conception.
Reckless Endangerment - mothers who engage in activities which endanger the wellbeing of the fetus. Should they be prosecuted for drug and alcohol use during gestation? Should mothers be held responsible long term if their offspring has FASD or the like? Doesnit extened to risky behaviour, like drinking coffee or eating raw fish or deli meat?
Socially - when a mother miscarries, does society offer the same emotional supports that would be afforded to a mother with deceased 6 month old? In my experience, that’s not the case.

My belief is a fetus is a life when the mother recognizes it as such, or when it would be medically viable outside the womb. If a mother views a fetus as a parasitic biological process and wishes to terminate, I think that’s her call. I think that’s better for society and children.

[Minnie]

I don't "talk about" or "discuss" abortion (aside from this post) online or IRL, not anymore. I haven't had one but AFAIC, this was settled years ago. It is an available medical procedure that is legal in Canada, therefore there is, IMO, absolutely zero reason to talk about it or debate it. It is healthcare.

I also don't think anyone needs to justify their reasoning for having one, or even thinking about having one or believing in the choice to avail themselves of an abortion. It's a matter between a woman and her physician. I am for choice, for any instance/situation/reason, regardless of the time frame. It's not abortion I believe in, it's choice. If If I am going to qualify this with any sort of time frame or "only available for certain reasons/issues" then it's not choice.

ETA: If the gov't decides they want to change things regarding abortion, I will fight tooth & nail at that time, to keep it legal, with no qualifications whatsoever.

[Lanny_McDonald]

This has been a very frustrating thread to read. The abortion debate is not about the sanctity of life. The same asshats that crow about wanting to protect the unborn child are the same ones who go out of their way to make sure society doesn't provide for those who need help the most. The abortion debate is bull####. Plain and simple. All the posturing and garbage presented in this thread is just that, garbage. This is an issue of influence and control, Nothing more.

This issue is framed one way, about protecting life, but it is actually about passing moral judgement and forcing others to live by the standard of a select few, NOT the individual. This is about taking YOUR morality and FORCING it on others. Frankly, I don't give a #### about your morals or your beliefs. Do what you want to do, make your choices, and leave EVERYONE else the hell alone!!! I don't care if you think abortion is murder. It is none of your business what someone else does with their body or what choices they make affecting their life. Unless you are going to step up and personally pay for all of the medical bills, help the mother deal with the psychologically damage from the process of carrying an unwanted child to term, and will immediately adopt the unborn child, then STFU about it and mind your own damn business!!! It's hilarious to have someone claim they are a hardcore libertarian, then say they are in support of restricting the control of someone's free will because of a moral dilemma. That is just the height of hypocrisy.

The abortion issue will only directly affect you when you least want it to, and only then will you have the proper insight into the seriousness of the decision women have to make. It is a terrible decision, one they must wrestle with, but it is their decision to make. They have the right to that choice, just like men have the right to run away from an unwanted pregnancy and not provide the support to the mother and child. The only ones who should ultimately be framing this debate and making the ultimate decision on it are women, as they are the ones who have to deal with the outcome of pregnancy.

[afc wimbledon]

Its all about punishing whores for having sex, nothing more nothing less. Myself I don't see women that way and personally I like to have sex now and then, but I'm weird that way.

[DownInFlames]

If life begins at conception I should be able to date someone who's 17 years 3 months old.

[keratosis]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

If life begins at conception I should be able to date someone who's 17 years 3 months old.

Babies in China are considered a year old at birth, so you'd be in luck.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk