Let's Talk About: Abortion

[Coach]

It's a big issue in the past few weeks. I don't really want to get into the Alabama BS, as that's an obvious disgusting troll job to try and overturn existing law and there is plenty of room in the America Is No Good Thread for that.

There are a lot of opinions and emotions involved in this issue, and those opinions include opinions on who should even have an opinion (or at least one that actually affects policy). But it seems pretty rare that I see someone with actual experience share theirs. I'll state my own position and experience first.

I'm a white man pushing 30. Some people think that excludes me from having a meaningful opinion, and I guess that's fine. I've been pro-choice since I was really old enough to critically consider it. That said, I have had experience with abortion myself where a girlfriend of mine got pregnant while we were in our early 20's. She went through all the processes of finding out she was sure before telling me. And even when she did, she was extremely nervous about it. She had no reason to be, we were in a committed relationship and loved each other, but she still spent weeks having symptoms and suspicions that she never discussed with me. When she finally did tell me, I asked her what she wanted to do, she told me "she'd already made the appointment." At the time I won't say I wasn't relieved. That said, there wasn't really a legitimate reason to have the abortion outside of really "no thanks." We loved each other, I did want to marry her, I was starting a stable career, she was just finishing school, we both have families who were more than capable of helping, etc... It would have absolutely changed the direction we thought our lives were going, but babies are what happens when you have lots of unprotected sex...

So I offered to pay for the procedure, or at least split it, when I found out in AB you get "3 for free" which sounded like a really weird deal at WalMart or something. She also told me her sister had had two. Some of this didn't really sit well with me, even as a very liberal progressive person. I'm all for choice and the reasons abortion is necessary, but here I'm sitting in the middle of what is pretty much every conservatives argument against abortion. And not only that, as 1/2 the parent of this zygote, I didn't really have a part of the discussion about whether or not we were going to keep this kid. That was her choice to keep me out of, probably more out of fear than anything. What if I said I wanted to keep it? Did she want me to say that? What if I told her to get rid of it? What would that conversation reveal about me that maybe she didn't want to know? Would it change her mind? These are all questions that, as a man, I will never have to deal with. Or at least, she relieved me of the responsibility of dealing with it. Because, in the end, I could have gone through all those questions, but I'm not the one that would have to carry this child. Yes I would harbour responsibility for her and the baby, but only if she chooses to do so. But what if she wanted to keep it? What are my choices as a parent that maybe doesn't want to be involved? Obviously I can't force an abortion on her, it would be insane to force a medical procedure on someone that they didnt want and that could potentially change them forever... So if she wants to keep it, the options left are raise it responsibly, or be a dirtbag and leave. Not great options, but hey, we had the sex. And leaving is a choice that I could make, no different than her aborting it is a choice that she could make. Both are ####ty choices. But one is an invasive medical procedure, so.... kind of a deal breaker there. And so while, to this day I'm a little disappointed I wasn't included in her thought process in that situation, none of this changed my opinion on whether or not it's absolutely her choice. And to see what she went through in those coming weeks in regards to emotional and physical stress, I can imagine only the rarest of people would want to risk going through that more than necessary.

All this said, I don't think completely excluding men from the conversation is a positive (or even possible) way to go. There should probably have all female panels that draft the laws surrounding these policies, but there will always be men involved in law making, so there's not really a way around that other than to make them understand that a person should have total autonomy over their body and access to proper information and healthcare. I'm a firm believer that you can't stop people from doing the things they want or need to do, regardless of what you personally consider right or moral. Drugs, abortion, polygamy, all types of sexual behavior, etc... outlawing it has never done anything but harm everyone, including those doing the persecuting as they themselves will inevitably be faced with the same questions in their own lives/families.

And (if money is all you care about) the tax dollars spent to enforce policies outlawing these types of activities is monstrous compared to the cost it takes to roll with the problems and invest in preventative care. You'd rather pay an entire justice system to investigate and incriminate millions of people than for a few hundred dollar medical procedure, and the left are the virtue signalers? Whoops, I said this wasn't going to be about the abortion laws in the US, my bad.

Anyways, I encourage people to share their own stories regardless of which way you lean on it, and if the experienced changed your thoughts at all.

[TheScorpion]

Really not a fan of the "No uterus, no opinion" messaging... to me that unnecessarily excludes a huge segment of the population that is in support of women having the right to choose. It also ignores the huge role that men can play in raising children and places the onus for effective parenting entirely upon women, which is just wrong. Both genders should be represented in the fight to preserve abortions, also because people of both genders are fighting against them (there are plenty of female GOPers who have come out against abortion)

[PsYcNeT]

I'm unsure how there are weasels out there like Ben Shapiro that consider themselves Libertarians but oppose a woman's right to body autonomy. It's baffling levels of cognitive dissonance.

[nik-]

Can you go more than two posts without referencing some ####ing youtuber?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm unsure how there are weasels out there like Ben Shapiro that consider themselves Libertarians but oppose a woman's right to body autonomy. It's baffling levels of cognitive dissonance.

It's not baffling. There is no cognitive dissonance. They aren't opposing a woman's right to body autonomy.

They view abortion as killing a baby. It's a fair position. I'm pro choice, but it's really not hard to understand pro lifers' position.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by nik-

Can you go more than two posts without referencing some ####ing youtuber?

I think it's worth mentioning that there is a significant portion of the right-wing zeitgeist in the US that is at odds with itself. The Daily Caller plays a notable role in this discourse.

Touting self-sufficiency FYGM ideals but wanting to control women's bodies/decisions are certainly within the scope of this thread. That, along with the beaten to death talking point of non-support of actual children, and belief that children are the property of their parents (but only after birth) are pretty common, and are absolutely mentionable.

I suppose it's not really on par with starting a death thread about a meme cat but okay.

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's not baffling. There is no cognitive dissonance. They aren't opposing a woman's right to body autonomy.

They view abortion as killing a baby. It's a fair position. I'm pro choice, but it's really not hard to understand pro lifers' position.

There's no way anyone but the ultra-religious truly believe in "at conception" birth. Shapiro and his ilk are supposed to be "rationalists" that put science above superstition, so I have a hard time believing that they think something that would have a 0% chance of surviving outside the womb is a baby.

[peter12]

Bodily autonomy. Completely subsidized and available contraception. Guaranteed and enforced 100% spousal support from absentee fathers. Generous subsidies and tax relief for both single and partnered mothers.

Not sure why this is so hard.

[DownInFlames]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1129474953517129729

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's not baffling. There is no cognitive dissonance. They aren't opposing a woman's right to body autonomy.



They view abortion as killing a baby. It's a fair position. I'm pro choice, but it's really not hard to understand pro lifers' position.

I suspect a segment are just moralistic vs. truly committed to the sanctity of life, but in general I agree with you. If someone truly believes that abortion is murder, which honestly is a valid position though not one I share, then I can see it validating what others would see as extreme responses (excluding illegal acts of course). I’m just glad I was never party to making an abortion decision one way or the other.

[GGG]

I think the distilling down the pro-birth to want to control women’s bodies does a disservice to any discussion of abortion. It’s what immediately invites the 40 week abortion response. Because if you as a pro-choice person are saying this is only about body autonomy and anti abortion laws are only about control and oppression then you would of course need to be fine with c-sections and partial birth to abort babies (even if I’m the real world this never happens). And then the argument goes down a rabbit hole of extremes because neither side is actual long discussing what good policy would look like.

The debate around abortion is a debate between body autonomy and when does something become alive enough to protect legally or ethically.

In the absence of people willing to have real discussion without an agenda based on a difficult topic Canada’s law of trust women seems to be pretty good. Just need to combine it with free birth control, better access to abortions and sex Ed.

[Bonded]

Pro-life is basically pro-fetus. If society decides abortion is not acceptable then it needs to support the babies that are born. Most of the US states that are pro-life do not provide much in the way of benefits or support.



Also, I think it stands to reason, that pro-lifers should be open to subsidizing birth control and effective sex education as well instead of pushing abstinence only viewpoints.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I think it's worth mentioning that there is a significant portion of the right-wing zeitgeist in the US that is at odds with itself. The Daily Caller plays a notable role in this discourse.

Touting self-sufficiency FYGM ideals but wanting to control women's bodies/decisions are certainly within the scope of this thread. That, along with the beaten to death talking point of non-support of actual children, and belief that children are the property of their parents (but only after birth) are pretty common, and are absolutely mentionable.

I suppose it's not really on par with starting a death thread about a meme cat but okay.



There's no way anyone but the ultra-religious truly believe in "at conception" birth. Shapiro and his ilk are supposed to be "rationalists" that put science above superstition, so I have a hard time believing that they think something that would have a 0% chance of surviving outside the womb is a baby.

It’s not an issue of survivability it’s whether the fetus has ‘life’ beyond chemical reactions - e.g. a ‘God-given’ soul. The irony is the human life seems to have low value in a lot of other circumstances like war or even just supporting people who do have children in difficult situations.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the distilling down the pro-birth to want to control women’s bodies does a disservice to any discussion of abortion. It’s what immediately invites the 40 week abortion response. Because if you as a pro-choice person are saying this is only about body autonomy and anti abortion laws are only about control and oppression then you would of course need to be fine with c-sections to abort babies (even if I’m the real world this never happens). And then the argument goes down a rabbit hole of extremes because neither side is actual long discussing what good policy would look like.

The debate around abortion is a debate between body autonomy and when does something become alive enough to protect legally or ethically.

In the absence of people willing to have real discussion without an agenda based on a difficult topic Canada’s law of trust women seems to be pretty good. Just need to combine it with free birth control, better access to abortions and sex Ed.

I'll give the same response as I had given in the last thread:

If you put a gun to my head to place a legal limit on abortion from a moralistic standpoint, the threshold should be 23/24 weeks, which is the approximate period where a fetus' chances of surviving a pre-term birth exceeds 50%.

Originally Posted by edslunch

It’s not an issue of survivability it’s whether the fetus has ‘life’ beyond chemical reactions - e.g. a ‘God-given’ soul. The irony is the human life seems to have low value in a lot of other circumstances like war or even just supporting people who do have children in difficult situations.

Do the non-religious believe in souls?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the distilling down the pro-birth to want to control women’s bodies does a disservice to any discussion of abortion. It’s what immediately invites the 40 week abortion response.

That's like saying because I'm in favour of raising the minimum wage to $15/h I should be in favour of raising it to $100/h. People can have a general principle and still have reasonable discussion about how far-reaching that principle should be.

[TheIronMaiden]

Over population, in my view is a global crisis, and in that context planned parenthood is the solution. I would go so far as to say that no unwanted fetuses should be brought into this world. That being said, abortions are not really the answer, I think that 'up stream' interventions will always result in better health. Appropriate education coupled with good access to contraceptive resources will result in less need for abortions. Obviously this is not a complete solution, rape, accidents, and medical complications do happen.

An issue I have with the pro-lifer side of the debate is that there are large groups of people who are against contraceptives and proper sexual education (that is sex ed that doesn't say abstinence is the only solution). They have every right to their opinion, but if they do not provide adequate resources or solutions to the problem ( children in poverty, or who are unwanted/loved) their argument has no validity.

This is not a debate without consequences on either side, if one is to have a valid opinion then they need to have an argument with utility, not simply an argument of morality.

[Ducay]

I think this is an insanely complex issue with economic and social implications and causation on both sides of the coin. There are also wacko nut jobs on both sides, and sadly, it gets turned into a religious argument which brings in all kinds of biases.

I'd consider myself as one who supports women's rights to manage their own bodies, but at the same time, am pro-life for any abortion after heartbeat, given then you're at the point where you're arguing a mother's convenience (ignoring medically necessary abortions, I think those are still likely needed in cases) over the life of the fetus.


Where you fall in this debate really comes down to if you see the fetus as a person or not.

[peter12]

I don't really care for the debate. I am very happy that Canada has a low abortion rate and at the same time, no law regulating abortion. It's almost like it is a very complicated issue that has more to do on whether or not all you want is an abortion. I mean, that is part of it.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I'd consider myself as one who supports women's rights to manage their own bodies, but at the same time, am pro-life for any abortion after heartbeat, given then you're at the point where you're arguing a mother's convenience (ignoring medically necessary abortions, I think those are still likely needed in cases) over the life of the fetus.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ohio-2019-iowa


Like those kind of bills that basically ban abortion?

[rubecube]

The heartbeat thing sounds like a pretty clear-coded emotional appeal.

[peter12]

Yeah, no abortion after heartbeat is a defacto ban.