Because the difference between 6 to 9 months, or even a day after birth, is not enough of a difference to make a difference to me. I think an extra step should be required before making that choice, as is the case with euthanasia. A simple doctor visit or some paperwork to ensure it's the woman's final decision.
Abortion
- Thread starter Danoff
- 2,611 comments
- 138,173 views
I'm going by a couple of things. I know many who were born at 6 months and are just normal humans. No development time lost (seemingly). Never met a 5-month-born human, although they may exist. The second thing is this:
I've come across many of these in my life and always pointed at the 6 month baby as the cut off point from "developing human" to "unborn human".
It is a little arbitrary, but so is the difference between an abortion 1 week before scheduled labor and the day after birth. They're the same baby. If there's any doctor here who can pinpoint the time where the baby goes from "under construction" to "developed and growing", I'll be happy to change my 6 months cut off to that.
Once again in case anyone quotes me out of context, I fully support an abortion after the cut off. I just want it to involve an extra step that's not too hard to go through. At least filling a form and visiting a doctor.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
One of them is attached to the mother's body, and requires her, the other does not. It's not arbitrary.
Humans are born relatively premature no matter what. Our brains grow substantially after birth, because otherwise our heads would be too big to give birth to. We're "under construction" after birth.
======================================
The US is about to become a very different place, with the difference between states being much more pronounced than it used to be. It's not "wait, is this a right turn on red state?" anymore. Now it's "will I be arrested when I set foot in this state?" and "can I get emergency medical care in this state?".
Even traveling to or through certain states, even a layover in a particular state, might be a risky proposition for women soon. For women, especially some women, it's not going to feel nearly as much like one country as much as it is lots of little countries.
Last edited:
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
It's entirely arbitrary, that's the point. Arbitrary is sometimes the only choice, but in which case one should at least be able to admit that it's arbitrary and not attempt to make excuses to pretend that it isn't.
That's the state of current medical science. Once upon a time being born that premature would have been certain death. In the future it may be possible to remove a 3 month old foetus from a women and provide care that would allow it to successfully survive to grow into an adult.
You gonna move the line to keep up with medical science?
I mean, at 6+ months you're pretty much going to have to visit some sort of medical professional for an abortion unless you're going for a coathanger in an alley. People die from miscarriages that are not treated appropriately.
What benefit is mandating a form and visiting a doctor going to have? Presumably you have some logic for some harm that this would avoid or minimise.
- 2,323
- Michigan
- FuriousDemon
I’d say for minorities certain states and cities within states have already been that way forever, but now we also add women to people who need to watch where they step and live in fear. Hell, I’m starting to avoid going anywhere public just to minimize chances of being shot. Seems like US is not going in the right direction an no amount of thoughts and prayers is helping.
Yes. Laws should always be up to date with progress in science and technology.
I already said it's like euthanasia. Steps have to be taken to ensure it's the woman's final decision and not just an impulsive one. People can get emotional and make rash decisions they later regret. With a baby so far in development that can survive birth, rash decisions need to be taken out of the picture.
As opposed to post-birth babies surviving on their own? lol
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Sort of.
New technology may benefit from new laws, for example, privacy in an age where means of surveillance exist that were previously impossible. But something like murder doesn't change with advances of technology because it's based on fundamental human rights. Murder is murder regardless of technology.
So you need to establish why abortion law is dependent on technology, rather than fundamental human rights.
You said that it's like euthanasia, a complex topic. You didn't explain why. You're not very good at that.
How does a doctor judge what is a rash or impulsive decision?
If a doctor judges the decision to be rash or impulsive but the patient refuses to change her mind, then what? Who gets final say?
I think being worried about rash decisions after someone has already committed to carrying a child for 6 months is ridiculous. People don't suddenly decide to have an abortion at 6 months because they're having a bad day - either something major changed or they were always on the edge of not wanting to have it. But even assuming that this example exists, you're introducing another step where potentially agency is taken away from the woman wanting to have an abortion.
The thing with euthanasia is that unless you're very, very unwell it's relatively easy to "self-medicate". It's usually called suicide. You can mess it up, but if you're committed to it you can probably make sure it happens.
Abortion is much the same in terms of being able to "self-medicate", but worse. You absolutely can abort your own baby if you're dedicated enough, it's just that it'll be painful and dangerous. You may die in the process. You may be permanently injured and unable to ever have children in the future.
Frankly, I'd rather women are able to impulsively get abortions and later regret it, than women are turned away and die/are injured in back alley abortions or are forced to raise children that they didn't want. A little regret over a lost child is by far the least harm here. A woman who got an abortion who decides that she actually does want a child can probably try again. A woman who was denied an abortion is stuck with the consequences of that forever.
You should read more carefully. Post-birth babies require help from someone, not necessarily the mother. Pre-birth they can only be sustained by the mother.
You'll note that even post-birth the carers are still doing so by choice - there are methods for people with children who do not wish to or who cannot care for them to transfer that responsibility to others.
Because as you said, technology today allows the baby to survive without the mother after just X months of pregnancy. Aborting the baby at that point certainly feels like "murder". If an adult is on life support and you pull the plug, does it cease to be murder? At which point does the human go from disposable not fully developed to developed enough to be "murdered"? You'll have to explain why a day before birth and a day after birth is different. In both cases the baby can survive and develop, inside or outside the womb.
Once again, all I would propose is an extra step after X months. Not a ban on abortion or making it unnecessarily difficult or expensive.
That's for one particular case, if the birth would risk the woman's life. For any other reason, such as "can't afford to raise the baby" or "father left me" or "rape", a form needs to be filled and submitted legally followed by an acknowledgement and a mandatory waiting period. Doesn't have to be long or anything, a week or two. No doctor in those cases.
I've seen worse decisions than that. You assume everyone is as measued as you are.
A "potential" that won't be realized if the laws are carefully worded enough. I've not suggested that anyone can legally stop the woman from having an abortion, just delay it.
If these are the choices, of course. I think it's a false choice or strawman (you guys love this word). They should be able to have a safe and free (sorry Americans with no free healthcare) abortion. Just not as a walk-in on the same day.
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Congratulations on realising that the definition of what is and isn't murder is also arbitrary.
Also, lol at the idea that you should submit a form to ask if you can have an abortion after being raped. What the actual ****, dude? Put your privilege away for just one second and show some compassion.
Whatever administrative or legalistic roadblocks you put in the way to make yourself feel better, that's another hurdle for a woman in a difficult situation to have to find the time and energy to deal with. And maybe 99% of them stick with it and work through this more difficult process that you've created, but there's going to be some that can't or won't.
If someone wants to walk into a clinic and get an abortion and the doctor is happy to do that, you've got no business telling either of them otherwise.
But why? An extra step is more difficult and expensive than it would have been without that step.
Who chooses whether or not to give the acknowledgement? What happens if the acknowledgement doesn't come? What gives this other person any right to have any say over what should happen to a woman's body?
Also, lol at the idea that you should submit a form to ask if you can have an abortion after being raped. What the actual ****, dude? Put your privilege away for just one second and show some compassion.
But the potential is there regardless of how carefully the law is worded, because you're introducing more people and processes that can deny the woman an abortion. And for no clear benefit so far, other than making you feel more comfortable.
Any abortion system is a spectrum in how much it allows of those two things, but it's going to be a blend of the two. Shifting away from the ability to have an abortion whenever you want and for any reason is a shift towards people being turned away or forced out of the system altogether.
Whatever administrative or legalistic roadblocks you put in the way to make yourself feel better, that's another hurdle for a woman in a difficult situation to have to find the time and energy to deal with. And maybe 99% of them stick with it and work through this more difficult process that you've created, but there's going to be some that can't or won't.
If someone wants to walk into a clinic and get an abortion and the doctor is happy to do that, you've got no business telling either of them otherwise.
What's yours?
If there's no acknowledgement after X days, you may proceed. Acknowledgement is not the same as approval.
Also:
I'm more lenient on abortion than those countries but **** me for even trying.
Not what I said. I'm starting to believe it's not my English that needs addressing.
Filling an online form and waiting a week or two is considered a hurdle? And I'm supposed to be "privilaged"?
Says you. I'd like to see a poll about late term abortion across different countries. I'm confident you'll find the majority are in favor of more restrictive measures than what I'm proposing. In a democratic system which presumably you're a fan of, those voters are the ones whose business it is to tell them otherwise.
- 7,609
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
I think delaying a medical procedure for no real reason would qualify as a pretty significant hurdle. Especially when there are very obvious physical and mental effects to contend with.
Absolutely not. No one can vote away other people's rights. Democracy does not make other people's business your business.
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
Hmmm, I dunno about this when talking about abortion.
There's been a lot of interest about artificial wombs being a possibility in the future and the impications this could have on the debate, particularly on viability limits. At the moment the technology being trialled (on lambs) is similar to an ECMO device (where blood is taken out and oxygenated outside of the body) with added extras, and so a certain amount of foetal development needs to have happened before it can be used. This means we're unlikely to see that technology extend the limit much earlier than the current 22-24 weeks we have now, but what it will hopefully do is lead to better outcomes for those premature babies in terms of survivability and disability. Human trials are probably at least a decade or so away however.
Where it gets interesting, and more relatable to the discussion, is when we look at more advanced artificial wombs that could carry development from the embryo stage to birth. This could revolutionise what we think of in terms of viability, and if we make the laws dependent on the very latest "science and technology" it could get very messy. If the tecnology developed so that the embryo could be created in vitro (IVF - so, outside of a human body) before being transferred to an artificial womb, or that we could take an embryo from a pregnant mother, then that creates all sorts of questions....
-------
FWIW I'm happy with the limit we (the UK) have at 24 weeks, but I can acknowledge it's built on foundations that are only going to get more shaky as the years roll on.
Last edited:
Agree to disagree on what's a real reason and what's not, as well as contending with an extra week or two of pregnancy being a "hurdle".
Okay this will go into a completely different discussion but let's see. Where do these rights come from, if not agreed on by a group of people? God..?
It gets messy if we don't deal with them and messy if we do. It's better to try and work things out early than create a monster we won't be able to control later.
- 7,609
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
The longer a pregnancy goes on, the more risk for the mother:
Pregnancy Complications | Maternal and Infant Health | CDC
CDC: Reproductive Health - Learn more about what you can do to decrease the risk of pregnancy complications before and during pregnancy.
www.cdc.gov
An extra week or two can influence the rest of one's life.
Rights exist innately and can be found through logic. Do you believe a democracy makes unprovoked killing or slavery moral if it's supported by a majority?
I do agree that this might be better discussed in another thread, and there is one:
Human Rights
What rights do human beings have and why? Guidelines: 1) Try to prevent your list of rights from being inherently conflicting. Example: "I think human beings should have the right to kill people, but also have the right not to be killed" 2) The US bill of rights might help get you started...
www.gtplanet.net
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
I don't think for minorities it has been that way forever.
In certain circumstances, such as having had a recent abortion, or currently having an IUD and for certain emergency medical conditions, such as an ectopic pregnancy, simply setting foot in a certain state could be problematic. Based on some of what is proposed, simply crossing state lines would be enough to get lots of women arrested. A layover in Louisiana that includes emergency abdominal pain could result in a trip to a Louisiana hospital where emergency care is denied, resulting in death. Neither of these is the case for any minorities today. You cannot be arrested simply for setting foot in Texas if you're black. There are millions of black people living in Texas, outside of jail, today. Likewise, the ER is not going to refuse to treat.
I understand your meaning, that certain states carry higher risk of both imprisonment and poor emergency medical care for certain minorities, but this is different. A device that many women carry in their bodies today is considered contraband and carries with it the charge of homicide in some of these proposals. That device is immediately recognizable on x-ray.
As opposed to requiring any of a number of volunteers to care for them. Do try to follow please. One of them is physically attached to, and dependent on, the body of another specific human being. The other is not, and can be freely cared for by anyone who chooses.
It is not arbitrary.
Last edited:
McLaren
Premium
- 45,530
- Texas
Here in Texas, the original "compromise" was allowing abortions up to 6 weeks.
Except the counter-arguments made were that many women don't know they're pregnant by then, & the ones who do are most likely monitoring their cycle in attempt to confirm a desired pregnancy. For the others who do find out in time, it was argued they would likely then only have a week or so make preparations which is where your proposal would definitely become a major hurdle.
Of course, the people who wrote this asinine law know this & that's why they went with 6 weeks to give false hope.
- 29,931
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Big ask.
Big ask.
I'm old enough to remember lengthy discussion on that topic here, and my favorite part of that discussion was the Trumper repeatedly failing to get what others were explaining having a bitchfit and calling one of them a liar due to said failure to get it.
Big ask.
- 11,855
- Marin County
McLaren
Premium
- 45,530
- Texas
I think it was you who told me to stay & vote (which I am), but if this guy wins again, I think I'll have to cut the cord & run. I don't want to see what Texas looks like in 4 years, esp. not if the 2024 election is awarded to some similar demon.
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Yep. Other people doing the same thing doesn't make it right.
Very yes. If there was any doubt, this answer confirms it.
How far do you think you can take the argument "other people do it too so it must be right"?
...did you get into a discussion about abortion without knowing where human rights come from? Did you think all the talk about bodily autonomy was just white noise?
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
So you're all in on "other people do it too so it must be right" is what I'm getting from this.
Just because other people make bad arguments isn't carte blanche for you to do the same. I mean, you can if you want but it's still a bad argument.
Because asking me to personally define exactly where I would draw the line on murder for every circumstance imaginable is unreasonable. I chose not to answer because I think you're trying to use emotional language to try and sway the argument away from reasoned logic.
My personal definition of murder should be irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not a judge so I'm not involved in the legal system, which is the only place where the specific definition of what is and isn't murder matters. What is and isn't murder doesn't really come into it for a general discussion of abortion, which is fundamentally about human rights. Whether someone calls aborting a foetus is murder or not doesn't change anything about the rights of the mother.
Really, you should go read up on these things. They're quite important to understand.
I've explained my position without referring to other people's opinion several times. I'm just pointing out that my opinion is a majority opinion, not a fringe one as it seems (and as some tried to imply) on this board. If anything, you guys are extreme.
What are we discussing then, if not our own personal opinions of what the laws (that judges apply) say?
Oh but it does, because it would infringe on the rights of the baby. Surely you'd consider a 1 day old born baby a human with rights, right? What's the difference between that and a full term fetus?
I have to say, it's quite an achievement that you guys made me sound like an American right winger about anything. In the real world (and no, not just in Bahrain) I'm typically as far to the left as most people have seen. This is the case on other sites as well.
There seems to be a poor understanding between the difference between foetus and baby for some people
Also any females in this thread?
Because hearing non medical professional males opinions on the topic is 🤬 tedious and ain't worth a thing.
Also any females in this thread?
Because hearing non medical professional males opinions on the topic is 🤬 tedious and ain't worth a thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
It's been said several times on this page alone. You even say it yourself later in this post. I think you're just playing dumb now.
You don't have to bring murder into it to discuss rights.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that a foetus is a full human with rights equal to any other. Does that allow them to demand use of a woman's body to live?
Easy answer. No. That's what bodily autonomy is.
Your body belongs to you, and is yours to control. If anyone else forces you to use your body in ways that are against your will, that's a violation of your rights. That means that no one else has the right to demand use of your body against your will, including a foetus.
This is usually pretty well recognised in other areas of medical science. Blood and organ donations. A patient's right to refuse treatment. But for whatever reason people think abortion is different, when it's really not.
Let's say we have two adults, Hank and Sam. They are friends.
Hank is very healthy.
Sam is not. Sam is sick and dying. His organs are unable to support him on their own.
Hank agrees to an operation to link Sam to his organs. He is so healthy, that his organs can keep both him and Sam alive.
The downside is that Hank and Sam are now permanently physically connected, they can never be apart. If they're separated for more than about five minutes, Sam will almost certainly die.
They live like this for many months.
Can Hank choose to withdraw permission for Sam to use his organs?
Absolutely. Any time he wants, for any reason or no reason at all. They're his organs, and it's his body. Hank is not Sam's slave, and Sam has no right to demand use of Hank's body. Hank can choose freely to help Sam or not. If Hank is not free to choose, his rights have been violated.
Now, if you want to live in a world where the rights of women are routinely violated, you'd have a good chance of being with the majority opinion. That seems to matter to you. But if you want to live in a world where people have control of their own bodies to the greatest extent possible, then maybe think about what that means.
See, the thing is that left and right is about economics. The social scale is generally authoritarian and libertarian. Abortion isn't about economics (mostly), it's about social freedoms.
If you're an authoritarian leftist, you'll find that you have a remarkable amount in common with the American far right because they're really into their authoritarianism. That's where anti-abortion comes from, having authority over how other people are allowed to use their bodies.
Your posts don't show much of anything about your economic stance, but there's reasonable evidence there to show you in favour of at least moderate authoritarianism. That's you calling for additional actions and waiting periods before allowing abortion, even in cases where a crime such as rape has occurred. That's why you sound like the American right, because you're repeating their ideas of social control.
If you don't want to sound like the American right, stop advocating for the things they want.
Similar threads
