Roe Overturned?
-
@Copper said in Roe Overturned?:
An additional leak, an illustration, from the scotus opinion.
I know it was a joke, but this really is why there is a divide. For me, I cannot NOT see the fetus as another human being (which I think it obviously is), so it's hard for me to understand the position (and honestly, the passion) that it should be legal to end that separate, growing, human life.
Regardless of my opinion, I'd imagine the appropriate legality (whether at the state or federal level) would be that abortion is allowed before there is a beating heart (around 6-8 weeks) or at the worst before the 2nd trimester, and only otherwise allowed for health risks to the mother, child, or unviable pregnancies.
wrote on 6 May 2022, 13:26 last edited by@89th said in Roe Overturned?:
I cannot NOT see the fetus as another human being (which I think it obviously is), so it's hard for me to understand the position (and honestly, the passion) that it should be legal to end that separate, growing, human life.
I think there are only two logically coherent point of views on the issue.
Either at the moment of conception you have a life that is morally equivalent to a fully grown human. Abortion at any point and under any circumstance is murder and should be punished as such. That would include, for instance, the usage of IUDs. It's not my position, but I think it is at least logically coherent.
Or you have a grey area, a spectrum of "humanhood". In this point of view it makes a big difference whether an abortion takes place on day 0 (IUDs, morning-after pill), week 4, week 12, or week 35. That would be my position on the issue.
The "it's my body until birth" position, on the other hand, is incoherent. The location of a body is obviously irrelevant when considering how bad it would be to abort/kill it.
-
@89th said in Roe Overturned?:
I cannot NOT see the fetus as another human being (which I think it obviously is), so it's hard for me to understand the position (and honestly, the passion) that it should be legal to end that separate, growing, human life.
I think there are only two logically coherent point of views on the issue.
Either at the moment of conception you have a life that is morally equivalent to a fully grown human. Abortion at any point and under any circumstance is murder and should be punished as such. That would include, for instance, the usage of IUDs. It's not my position, but I think it is at least logically coherent.
Or you have a grey area, a spectrum of "humanhood". In this point of view it makes a big difference whether an abortion takes place on day 0 (IUDs, morning-after pill), week 4, week 12, or week 35. That would be my position on the issue.
The "it's my body until birth" position, on the other hand, is incoherent. The location of a body is obviously irrelevant when considering how bad it would be to abort/kill it.
wrote on 6 May 2022, 14:18 last edited by@Klaus said in Roe Overturned?:
The "it's my body until birth" position, on the other hand, is incoherent. The location of a body is obviously irrelevant when considering how bad it would be to abort/kill it.
Yes but it seems the pro-choice side do not consider it to be a(nother) body, they consider it to be the fetus to be THE woman's body. Certainly the fetus is attached to the mother's body, but indeed I agree it's hard to ignore the fetus is a separate human body (that is growing within, and nourished by, the woman's body).
-
@Klaus said in Roe Overturned?:
The "it's my body until birth" position, on the other hand, is incoherent. The location of a body is obviously irrelevant when considering how bad it would be to abort/kill it.
Yes but it seems the pro-choice side do not consider it to be a(nother) body, they consider it to be the fetus to be THE woman's body. Certainly the fetus is attached to the mother's body, but indeed I agree it's hard to ignore the fetus is a separate human body (that is growing within, and nourished by, the woman's body).
wrote on 6 May 2022, 14:37 last edited by Jolly 5 Jun 2022, 14:38@89th said in Roe Overturned?:
@Klaus said in Roe Overturned?:
The "it's my body until birth" position, on the other hand, is incoherent. The location of a body is obviously irrelevant when considering how bad it would be to abort/kill it.
Yes but it seems the pro-choice side do not consider it to be a(nother) body, they consider it to be the fetus to be THE woman's body. Certainly the fetus is attached to the mother's body, but indeed I agree it's hard to ignore the fetus is a separate human body (that is growing within, and nourished by, the woman's body).
- The new baby does not have the same DNA as the mother. It is its own distinct person.
- If the baby can live outside of the womb, is it ethical to kill it inside of the womb? If not, the argument resolves to 23 weeks (youngest preemie to survive) for even the most ardent abortionist.
As medical science progresses, it is inevitable that the age of viability will lower. Abortionists are left with less and less ground to stand on...
-
@89th said in Roe Overturned?:
I cannot NOT see the fetus as another human being (which I think it obviously is), so it's hard for me to understand the position (and honestly, the passion) that it should be legal to end that separate, growing, human life.
I think there are only two logically coherent point of views on the issue.
Either at the moment of conception you have a life that is morally equivalent to a fully grown human. Abortion at any point and under any circumstance is murder and should be punished as such. That would include, for instance, the usage of IUDs. It's not my position, but I think it is at least logically coherent.
Or you have a grey area, a spectrum of "humanhood". In this point of view it makes a big difference whether an abortion takes place on day 0 (IUDs, morning-after pill), week 4, week 12, or week 35. That would be my position on the issue.
The "it's my body until birth" position, on the other hand, is incoherent. The location of a body is obviously irrelevant when considering how bad it would be to abort/kill it.
wrote on 6 May 2022, 14:51 last edited by@Klaus said in Roe Overturned?:
The location of a body is obviously irrelevant when considering how bad it would be to abort/kill it.
The location of the body is very much relevant. Imagine having an “artificial womb” where one can gestate fetuses completely outside of another human’s body — whatever happens to that fetus in the artificial womb will pose no danger to another human, the gestation will pose no restriction on another human’s freedom of movement, it will induce no discomfort, no impact on schooling or career development — then “abortion” can be completely absolutely outlawed because the fetus as a body can pose no adverse risk to any other separate body. But we are far from perfecting the artificial womb nor the transference of the fetus from one womb to another womb (supposedly a volunteer’s^), so one body (the fetus) must still impose on another body (the one with the womb gestating said fetus) to survive, and we continue to struggle with balancing between the wellbeing of the fetus vs. the wellbeing of its gestating host, keep arguing over exceptions for “health of the mother,” rape, incest, etc.
Side note ^ : wouldn’t it be nice if we have the technology to safely transfer a fetus from one womb to another? Then all the well-meaning “save the babies” crowd can volunteer to “adopt” and continue to gestate the fetuses from the other pregnant women who are unfit or unwilling to carry the fetuses to term.
Hey Elon, start working on “artificial womb” and “safe fetus transfer” technologies, solve the abortion problem with tech!
-
wrote on 6 May 2022, 15:00 last edited by
I fail to get your argument, Ax. Are you saying because the fetus cannot survive without the mother it is the women's right to abort him/her as she pleases, until the day the baby is born?
It is quite normal that there are such dependencies between humans. A baby also cannot survive on its own. I don't see why that plays a role, or why the existence of a hypothetical artificial womb would change anything. When there's a tradeoff to be made between the health of the mother and the health of the baby, sometimes a difficult choice needs to be made, but that's not what the abortion debate is about.
-
@89th said in Roe Overturned?:
@Klaus said in Roe Overturned?:
The "it's my body until birth" position, on the other hand, is incoherent. The location of a body is obviously irrelevant when considering how bad it would be to abort/kill it.
Yes but it seems the pro-choice side do not consider it to be a(nother) body, they consider it to be the fetus to be THE woman's body. Certainly the fetus is attached to the mother's body, but indeed I agree it's hard to ignore the fetus is a separate human body (that is growing within, and nourished by, the woman's body).
- The new baby does not have the same DNA as the mother. It is its own distinct person.
- If the baby can live outside of the womb, is it ethical to kill it inside of the womb? If not, the argument resolves to 23 weeks (youngest preemie to survive) for even the most ardent abortionist.
As medical science progresses, it is inevitable that the age of viability will lower. Abortionists are left with less and less ground to stand on...
wrote on 6 May 2022, 15:06 last edited by@Jolly said in Roe Overturned?:
- The new baby does not have the same DNA as the mother. It is its own distinct person.
- If the baby can live outside of the womb, is it ethical to kill it inside of the womb? If not, the argument resolves to 23 weeks (youngest preemie to survive) for even the most ardent abortionist.
As medical science progresses, it is inevitable that the age of viability will lower. Abortionists are left with less and less ground to stand on...
The “viability” argument as presented today is problematic. If a “viable” preemie is truly “viable” then simply induce early labor or C-section any post-“viable” preemie from its unwilling (or unfit) host who is seeking an abortion then transfer the preemie’s custody to the state’s adoption agency and you’re done. But instead the anti-abortion crowd often choose to insist that the unwilling (or unfit) host of the fetuses to carry the fetuses to term. If you want to be realistic about this, if a preemie does not have a realistic alternative outside its original womb to survive, than it’s not really “viable”.
-
I fail to get your argument, Ax. Are you saying because the fetus cannot survive without the mother it is the women's right to abort him/her as she pleases, until the day the baby is born?
It is quite normal that there are such dependencies between humans. A baby also cannot survive on its own. I don't see why that plays a role, or why the existence of a hypothetical artificial womb would change anything. When there's a tradeoff to be made between the health of the mother and the health of the baby, sometimes a difficult choice needs to be made, but that's not what the abortion debate is about.
wrote on 6 May 2022, 15:43 last edited by@Klaus said in Roe Overturned?:
I fail to get your argument, Ax.
Then you are free to build your own argument.
-
wrote on 6 May 2022, 15:44 last edited by
-
I fail to get your argument, Ax. Are you saying because the fetus cannot survive without the mother it is the women's right to abort him/her as she pleases, until the day the baby is born?
It is quite normal that there are such dependencies between humans. A baby also cannot survive on its own. I don't see why that plays a role, or why the existence of a hypothetical artificial womb would change anything. When there's a tradeoff to be made between the health of the mother and the health of the baby, sometimes a difficult choice needs to be made, but that's not what the abortion debate is about.
wrote on 6 May 2022, 16:20 last edited by@Klaus said in Roe Overturned?:
I fail to get your argument, Ax. Are you saying because the fetus cannot survive without the mother it is the women's right to abort him/her as she pleases, until the day the baby is born?
It is quite normal that there are such dependencies between humans. A baby also cannot survive on its own. I don't see why that plays a role, or why the existence of a hypothetical artificial womb would change anything. When there's a tradeoff to be made between the health of the mother and the health of the baby, sometimes a difficult choice needs to be made, but that's not what the abortion debate is about.
Most inter-dependencies between any two humans are transferable. E.g., post birth, a baby can depend on just about any adult to provide it with whatever he needs to survive, that adult need not be a specific human being -- parent, aunt/uncle, older sibling, older cousin, grandparent, state welfare worker, charitable volunteer, foster parent ... any of them will do. One "parent" doesn't want to do it? Fine, let one or more of the other willing alternatives pick up the slack. This is when you can say "location does not matter" -- for indeed you can easily relocate a child post-birth to just about anywhere to be cared for by just about anyone independent of any specific person.
But not so for a fetus pre-birth. There is as yet no viable alternative to continue gestating a pre-birth fetus other that the original gestating host. That's why the wellbeing of the fetus and the wellbeing of the gestating host are intertwined in ways that are fundamentally different from other human inter-dependencies. In modeling terms, the difference is as fundamental as "one to one" vs. "one to any." All the risk and burden that comes with gestating a fetus can only call onto the original gestating host, they cannot be transferred to anyone else -- that is also key to recognizing that the gestating host therefore has unique and outsized voice on what can happen to the fetus (as long as the fetus is uniquely dependent on the gestating host).
As for "difficult choices" needing to be made, that is practically the bulk of the abortion debate. Practically nearly all abortion-related choices are difficult choices, practically no one wants to go through abortion for fun. In that sense, "difficult choices" are the norm rather than the exception in abortion debates.
-
@Klaus said in Roe Overturned?:
I fail to get your argument, Ax. Are you saying because the fetus cannot survive without the mother it is the women's right to abort him/her as she pleases, until the day the baby is born?
It is quite normal that there are such dependencies between humans. A baby also cannot survive on its own. I don't see why that plays a role, or why the existence of a hypothetical artificial womb would change anything. When there's a tradeoff to be made between the health of the mother and the health of the baby, sometimes a difficult choice needs to be made, but that's not what the abortion debate is about.
Most inter-dependencies between any two humans are transferable. E.g., post birth, a baby can depend on just about any adult to provide it with whatever he needs to survive, that adult need not be a specific human being -- parent, aunt/uncle, older sibling, older cousin, grandparent, state welfare worker, charitable volunteer, foster parent ... any of them will do. One "parent" doesn't want to do it? Fine, let one or more of the other willing alternatives pick up the slack. This is when you can say "location does not matter" -- for indeed you can easily relocate a child post-birth to just about anywhere to be cared for by just about anyone independent of any specific person.
But not so for a fetus pre-birth. There is as yet no viable alternative to continue gestating a pre-birth fetus other that the original gestating host. That's why the wellbeing of the fetus and the wellbeing of the gestating host are intertwined in ways that are fundamentally different from other human inter-dependencies. In modeling terms, the difference is as fundamental as "one to one" vs. "one to any." All the risk and burden that comes with gestating a fetus can only call onto the original gestating host, they cannot be transferred to anyone else -- that is also key to recognizing that the gestating host therefore has unique and outsized voice on what can happen to the fetus (as long as the fetus is uniquely dependent on the gestating host).
As for "difficult choices" needing to be made, that is practically the bulk of the abortion debate. Practically nearly all abortion-related choices are difficult choices, practically no one wants to go through abortion for fun. In that sense, "difficult choices" are the norm rather than the exception in abortion debates.
wrote on 6 May 2022, 16:32 last edited by@Axtremus said in Roe Overturned?:
As for "difficult choices" needing to be made, that is practically the bulk of the abortion debate. Practically nearly all abortion-related choices are difficult choices, practically no one wants to go through abortion for fun. In that sense, "difficult choices" are the norm rather than the exception in abortion debates.
And there is the biggest fallacy with the whole pro choice argument. If it’s just a clump of cells than having an abortion is no more a difficult choice as getting a pedicure… The “safe, legal, and rare” argument is blindingly hypocritical.
-
wrote on 6 May 2022, 16:33 last edited by
I will make allowances for medical necessities. I will make allowances for victims of rape. For everyone else, ship up about your rights and consider your responsibilities.
-
I will make allowances for medical necessities. I will make allowances for victims of rape. For everyone else, ship up about your rights and consider your responsibilities.
wrote on 6 May 2022, 16:51 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Roe Overturned?:
I will make allowances for medical necessities. I will make allowances for victims of rape.
Yeah, that would sustain some semblance of "safe, legal, and rare."
-
wrote on 6 May 2022, 16:55 last edited by
If someone truly considers the fetus to be a human with rights then the rape and incest exception makes no sense.
-
If someone truly considers the fetus to be a human with rights then the rape and incest exception makes no sense.
wrote on 6 May 2022, 17:00 last edited by@jon-nyc as also ectopic pregnancy
-
wrote on 6 May 2022, 17:00 last edited by
"WE MUST PROTECT A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!!"
- Birth control pills are extremely reliable, and readily available.
- Morning after pills are extremely reliable, and readily available.
This means that unless the woman is dumber than dirt, most all women are fully aware that the way you get pregnant is to let a guy fuck you bareback, and they can CHOOSE to not get pregnant by spending a few bucks ahead of time on birth control pills.
But let's say the woman is an irresponsible asshat, and she wakes up the next day and says "oh shit - I got drunk and let Bobby fuck me last night, and I'm not on birth control pilks!! She can CHOOSE to get a morning after pill.
But you say "YEAH, BUT WHAT ABOUT RAPE??"
- If I walked up behind you and beat the hell out of you, where is the first place you'll go? To see a doctor.
- If you are a woman and you get raped, are you not going to go to the doctor?
- Less than 1% of abortions are due to rape and incest
But let's say the woman is such a self centered, irresponsible little shit that she just can't be bothered with stupid stuff like TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER ACTIONS AND DECISIONS.... She refuses to plan ahead, and she refuses to do anything after the fact.... and boom - a month later she misses her period. "Oops!! I might be pregnant! I need 8 more months to decide if I want a baby or not....."
Meanwhile, it's only been a month... It's just a lump of cells right now. It's tiny, easy to remove... Nah, I haven't decided yet. .. another full month goes by, the self centered, irresponsible little shit STILL can't decide, and now that lump of cells has fingers and toes. Another full month goes by. The irresponsible, self centered little bitch STILL says she can't decide... meanwhile, the former clump of cells has a head, a face, hands and feet, a butt..... in another couple of weeks it will be able to suck its thumb, laugh, smile, cry...
And all of a sudden, self centered, irresponsible little bitch decides she doesn't want a baby. Tell me - what other life altering situation gives you THREE FUCKING MONTHS TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT, AS WELL AS A BEFORE AND AFTER SOLUTION TO AVOID IT ALL TOGETHER?????
FUCK her "right to choose". This isn't about choice, it's about enabling self centered, irresponsible little shits for political gain.
-
wrote on 6 May 2022, 17:05 last edited by
Oh - and for what it's worth....
A majority of abortions are black women aborting black babies.
But the majority of women screaming about "a woman's right to choose" and fighting o continue killing babies are white leftwing women. -
If someone truly considers the fetus to be a human with rights then the rape and incest exception makes no sense.
wrote on 6 May 2022, 17:33 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Roe Overturned?:
If someone truly considers the fetus to be a human with rights then the rape and incest exception makes no sense.
I do try to balance my ideals with pragmatism. Taking an all or nothing approach will likely result in nothing. Under current laws there were about 600K abortions in the us last year. If medical and rape exceptions are necessary to get a broader ban against abortion as after the fact birth control, and that gets those numbers down to say 100k abortions? That’s 500,000 babies you save per year.
Of course, it is absolutely a necessity to revamp and improve our adoption and foster care systems as well as support systems for poor young mothers and their children…
You want Universal Healthcare? Want more expansive welfare? Fine. Ban abortion as birth control and get your ideology out of our school curriculum and it’s all yours.
-
If someone truly considers the fetus to be a human with rights then the rape and incest exception makes no sense.
wrote on 6 May 2022, 17:40 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Roe Overturned?:
If someone truly considers the fetus to be a human with rights then the rape and incest exception makes no sense.
Yes, obviously
OK, so why does this argument persist?
Because if you don't agree with the idea that abortion is OK in the case of rape or incest, then the liberal has clearance to scream and yell as much as they want.
If you do agree that abortion is OK in the case of rape or incest then a brief period of civil discourse might ensue.
At least that seems like it's practical effect to me.
-
@Jolly said in Roe Overturned?:
- The new baby does not have the same DNA as the mother. It is its own distinct person.
- If the baby can live outside of the womb, is it ethical to kill it inside of the womb? If not, the argument resolves to 23 weeks (youngest preemie to survive) for even the most ardent abortionist.
As medical science progresses, it is inevitable that the age of viability will lower. Abortionists are left with less and less ground to stand on...
The “viability” argument as presented today is problematic. If a “viable” preemie is truly “viable” then simply induce early labor or C-section any post-“viable” preemie from its unwilling (or unfit) host who is seeking an abortion then transfer the preemie’s custody to the state’s adoption agency and you’re done. But instead the anti-abortion crowd often choose to insist that the unwilling (or unfit) host of the fetuses to carry the fetuses to term. If you want to be realistic about this, if a preemie does not have a realistic alternative outside its original womb to survive, than it’s not really “viable”.
wrote on 6 May 2022, 17:43 last edited by@Axtremus said in Roe Overturned?:
@Jolly said in Roe Overturned?:
- The new baby does not have the same DNA as the mother. It is its own distinct person.
- If the baby can live outside of the womb, is it ethical to kill it inside of the womb? If not, the argument resolves to 23 weeks (youngest preemie to survive) for even the most ardent abortionist.
As medical science progresses, it is inevitable that the age of viability will lower. Abortionists are left with less and less ground to stand on...
The “viability” argument as presented today is problematic. If a “viable” preemie is truly “viable” then simply induce early labor or C-section any post-“viable” preemie from its unwilling (or unfit) host who is seeking an abortion then transfer the preemie’s custody to the state’s adoption agency and you’re done. But instead the anti-abortion crowd often choose to insist that the unwilling (or unfit) host of the fetuses to carry the fetuses to term. If you want to be realistic about this, if a preemie does not have a realistic alternative outside its original womb to survive, than it’s not really “viable”.
My body, my choice!
I laugh in your face, inducible boy!
-
wrote on 7 May 2022, 18:55 last edited by
