Abortion (again)

[DrZoidberg]

. To avoid it becoming what you fear, we would have to actively provide it for free, such that there would be no advantage to paying for a better version.

We already do in Sweden. If you have a genetic disease the state will pay for IVF to screen them for it. All completely free. We've been doing it for over ten years now. It is regulated what the government will fix. But I see an inevitable expansion of that category.

This cat is out of the bag

 

[fast]

One more thing. To be 'pro-life' usually entails something extra, namely being 'anti-choice' which can arguably involve an additional moral question, which is whether anyone should have the 'right' to deny the choices of others (I mean the parents, as well as foisting life in the world onto the future/potential person who never asked for it). I'm not suggesting we should outlaw protests or lobbying or voting against legalising abortion.

"Entails" is a term of logic. It is not necessarily the case that I am against the opposite just because I'm for something.

Being in support of a yes vote doesn't entail being against a no vote.

 

[ruby sparks]

The slippery slope. What keeps abortion from slipping into eugenics? Parents find the fetus when advanced has genes that are not necessarily debilitating or limiting, but undesirable? Brown Eyes instead of blue. Gees that may be statistically corelated to violence and so on.

First, that has not happened where abortion, contraception and sex education is freely available, as far as I am aware, and in all honesty, I don't see it necessarily happening. Having an abortion is not something that women tend to take lightly. Have an abortion because of brown eyes instead of blue? Why? And then what, get pregnant again to see if they'll be blue? And again if necessary, with all the bodily upset that that entails? I do not know what it's like to get pregnant, but I know second hand from my wife.

As for a hypothetical scenario where something arguably more important is at stake, what do you mean statistically correlated to violence? If, hypothetically, something was identified that was strongly correlated to violence, to the extent that violence was very likely, I would, yes, allow a woman or a couple to abort, early term. But then I would allow anyone to abort early term, whatever their reasons, or at least I would not prevent them. It wouldn't be my business really, imo.

The slippery slope argument is fine, as far as it goes, but unless there is good reason to think that things will slide down it into a mess, then it's difficult to assess. Note that a slippery slope argument can be a form of fallacy if not warranted (if there is not good evidence that the suggested negative consequences of the initial action are likely to occur). In those cases it can effectively be fear-mongering.

As to abortion itself far from any religious concern I find late term abortion grotesque. At some [pint the fetus is functioning and sensing.

I wasn't even talking about late term abortion though.

Do we sterilize people who have a risk of bad parenting or drug addiction or have a high probability of birth defects? Why not prevent the need for abortion in the first place?

Slightly separate question. I would not say that it is inevitable, no.

The height of cynicism is viewing a fetus as noting but a bunch of cells and chemicals.

Do you mean fetus or embryo? Usually embryo is used for 1st term. Certainly it is a bunch of cells early on. It isn't by any reasonable definition a person in 1st term.

By the way, I don't think you've addressed my points. For example, what gives you the right to foist life in the world (and an inevitable mix of happiness and suffering and certain death, probably an unpleasant or painful death) on a future/potential person who never asked for it or consented to it? It's an honest question. What gives you the right to do that? I would genuinely like to know.


Note that this is a question that could in the first instance be asked about all pregnancies, before we ask it when the situation is that you and/or your partner do not want a child (the pregnancy being unintended) because in that instance an anti-abortionist is effectively forcing people, who don't want to have a child, to foist a life in the world on that future person. Not forgetting forcing the woman to go through with what is mostly a traumatic process in order to have it. A related question might be, why do you think that is the best approach?

ps why do you think I'm cynical?

 

[ruby sparks]

"Entails" is a term of logic. It is not necessarily the case.......

Thank you. Consider it switched to 'involves'.

 

[Lion IRC]

An embryo is 100% dependent on the mother. It is her choice. Only her opinion counts.

End of discussion.

You forgot to mention that other playbook argument - they don't feel anything.

So.....
Adults can do non-consensual things to unborn children so long the adult is in a total power position and so long as the child (allegedly) doesn't mind, won't remember.

Hmmm. Sounds like an argument that could be used in many other contexts.

 

[ruby sparks]

So.....
Adults can do non-consensual things to unborn children so long the adult is in a total power position and so long as the child (allegedly) doesn't mind, won't remember.

As in having them born? Yes. Adults can do that. Anti-abortionists would say that they must do it in fact.

 

[Rhea]

An embryo is 100% dependent on the mother. It is her choice. Only her opinion counts.

End of discussion.

You forgot to mention that other playbook argument - they don't feel anything.

So.....
Adults can do non-consensual things to unborn children so long the adult is in a total power position and so long as the child (allegedly) doesn't mind, won't remember.

Hmmm. Sounds like an argument that could be used in many other contexts.

A human can do anything they want with their own blood and organs at any time, including the refusal to donate them to other beings.

NO one has forced you to donate an eye or a kidney or marrow or a piece of your lung or liver or even just a pint of blood at any time in your life, despite the fact that there are living breathing humans dying without your donation.

That's a constitutional right in our country, maybe not in yours?

 

[Rhea]

.
You can reduce the abortion rate by 88% in 12 weeks.

By making long acting, reversible contraceptives (LARCs) freely available to all women at local clinics and doctor offices.


Think about it. reduce abortions by 88% in twelve weeks. That's before Thanksgiving.
You want that? You can have it.
But not by fighting for legislation to ban abortions, only by reducing unwanted pregnancies.

(88% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and these are most likely to be from unwanted pregnancies. The remainder occur later and are from fetal abnormalities)

**IF** and this is the big question, IF reducing abortions is your number one directive.
However, if controlling the sex lives of women is a higher priority for you than reducing abortions, if the idea of women having sex for fun and not getting pregnant flips you out, then you will never reduce abortions. Because even if you make them illegal, they will still happen, ironically killing more often by taking the gestating woman out along with the fetus.

And we will know by your choice, of course, which is actually more important to you; the "sanctity of life" or the control of women's sex lives.

Any person who argues for reducing legal abortions by imposing restrictions and punishments BEFORE agreeing to and promoting and enacting free LARCs has made their position clear: they care more about controlling vaginas than saving the lives of fetuses.

Get your bible out of my vagina.
Colorado’s Effort Against Teenage Pregnancies Is a Startling Success

The results were repeated in St. Louis and Minnesota. Note - the 42% drop in abortions was statewide while the free LARCs were only available in 2 counties, showing an even greater potential if it were a federal program.

WALSENBURG, Colo. — Over the past six years, Colorado has conducted one of the largest experiments with long-acting birth control. If teenagers and poor women were offered free intrauterine devices and implants that prevent pregnancy for years, state officials asked, would those women choose them?

They did in a big way, and the results were startling. The birthrate among teenagers across the state plunged by 40 percent from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school.

“Our demographer came into my office with a chart and said, ‘Greta, look at this, we’ve never seen this before,’ ” said Greta Klingler, the family planning supervisor for the public health department. “The numbers were plummeting.”

There really is a "pro-life" camp and an "Anti-Choice" camp and they are distinguished between whether the Prime Directive is reducing abortions even if it means women can have sex without getting pregnant versus just wanting to punish women for having sex.

 

[Copernicus]

Abortion is such a terrible, personal decision for a pregnant woman. Why is it that so many people seem to want to take that decision out of the hands of the person for whom it has the most serious consequences? None of these do-good meddlers, who put themselves in the shoes of mothers and fetuses, face any consequence whatsoever for making that decision on behalf of a pregnant woman that they do not even know. They understand nothing of the special circumstances that the woman faces regarding health, finances, family, or anything else in that woman's life.

The US Supreme Court asked the right question when they considered Roe v Wade: When does the government have an interest in preserving a pregnancy? What are the consequences for society, not the individual woman, over the outcome of the pregnancy? Because this really is a matter of that woman's personal life and privacy, not her neighbors or legislators or voting public. The court decided that there might be some issues regarding the third term of a pregnancy, although I still don't understand quite what those issues are. Men who debate abortion in late term pregnancies almost always think of such a decision as possibly a frivolous one on the part of the woman. As if she suffered through a pregnancy for six months without seriously wanting a child. Or maybe they have fantasies of a happy short life for fetus with a serious medical condition that was discovered late, so they are just trying to think what they, as an imaginary late term fetus, would want?

The only thing frivolous about a woman's decision to have an abortion is the debate that goes on in the minds of those with no stake in the outcome but still want to second-guess the one person who has the most at stake.

 

[southernhybrid]

I may be a little off topic since I'm not going to argue about abortion. I am going to explain something that some of you may not know. Back in the early 80s, I worked as a public health nurse in Greenville, SC and then later in Raleigh NC. At that time, birth control and abortions were just about fully paid by the US government. Oral contraceptives only cost my patients a dollar a month and other forms, like condoms and IUDs were free. We had a nurse, who was a Christian btw, who counseled every woman that wanted an abortion before the procedure was done. In Greenville, the nurses that worked in family planning took turns counseling those who opted for abortion. There was only one nurse who was against abortion and because we all respected each other and worked well together, another nurse would substitute for her, when it was her turn to do pre abortion counseling. The nurse who was against abortion was an older nurse who had raised a child with Down's syndrome.
I was the only nurse who wasn't a Christian.

I also worked for a year in the small rural maternity clinic in the same district as Greenville. Only one of my patients opted for an abortion and only one opted to give up her baby for adoption. The others, regardless of age, wanted to keep and raise their babies. I have to admit that there were a few that I wish would have given up their babies as it was obvious there were going to be a lot of problems for any infant raised in those homes. All of my maternity patients were poor, but not quite poor enough for Medicaid, which was why the clinic was started. The government also paid for sterilization at that time, if you had at least four pregnancies or at least one high risk pregnancy. You also had to be at least 21. I will never forget the 19 year old who had four children, who sat and cried in my office because she couldn't have a tubal. It seemed stupid and cruel to deny this young woman a tubal ligation. She wasn't very educated and had failed at using various methods of abortion. I called some local doctors and begged them consider making an exception for her, but they all refused. I also knew a very compassionate doctor who did abortions for free before they were legal because he cared so much about women and didn't want them to be harmed by an unqualified abortionist.

These programs were wonderful for women, especially poor women. The family planning clinic was open to all women. Then during the Reagan administration, funds for that type of program were drastically reduced and due to strong lobbying on the part of the religious right, the government stopped paying for abortions for poor women and as things went on, abortions became more difficult to access, as you all know. Sadly, we now have extremists who don't even want women to have affordable or easy access to birth control. I've worked with many very poor women prior to my retirement. Many of them have children that they can barely support and have to depend on other government programs such a SNAP and subsidized housing to feed and house their children. So, it seems in retrospect, that making it difficult to access abortions and birth control has just added to the issue of poverty. A lot of this is due to far right religious zealots inflicting their own beliefs and values on the rest of us.

If you believe that a zygote or early stage embryo is the same as a fully developed human, then don't have an abortion, but not everyone believes that. I fully support the autonomy of a woman to control her own body. Despite what some think, late term abortions are extremely rare. I doubt one would be performed unless the mother's life was in danger or the fetus was not viable. It's sad that we've allowed the minority to control the majority. The last time I checked, which was very recently, the majority of people in the country continue to support Roe v. Wade. Excuse me for rambling but what has happened to women's reproductive choices in the US has become insane.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

.
You can reduce the abortion rate by 88% in 12 weeks.

By making long acting, reversible contraceptives (LARCs) freely available to all women at local clinics and doctor offices.


Think about it. reduce abortions by 88% in twelve weeks. That's before Thanksgiving.
You want that? You can have it.
But not by fighting for legislation to ban abortions, only by reducing unwanted pregnancies.

(88% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and these are most likely to be from unwanted pregnancies. The remainder occur later and are from fetal abnormalities)

1) It's about making recreational sex dangerous. You're not doing that thus it's a total fail.

2) You won't get the 88% because LARCs aren't 100% and not all women can use them.

3) Not all the abortions past 12 weeks are fetal defect. Some are because the woman had a hard time coming up with the money or didn't detect the pregnancy right away. (If one already has an irregular period it's disappearance might not be noticed.)

 

[Rhea]

.
You can reduce the abortion rate by 88% in 12 weeks.

1) It's about making recreational sex dangerous. You're not doing that thus it's a total fail.

Yes. My whole point. We agree. The zealots don’t actually care about abortions when there is danger to be added to recreational sex instead.

2) You won't get the 88% because LARCs aren't 100% and not all women can use them.

Splitting hairs. You have no idea what percentage would be remaining, nor whether the presence of better distribution of birth control would also increase the methods that these women need. Not a reason to not take action. So maybe you get 86% instead of 88%? What’s the point in arguing that? Do it and find out if there are any remaining unwanted pregnancies left to address.

3) Not all the abortions past 12 weeks are fetal defect. Some are because the woman had a hard time coming up with the money or didn't detect the pregnancy right away. (If one already has an irregular period it's disappearance might not be noticed.)

A. They don’t need to come up with money if they aren’t pregnant in teh first place.
B. They won’t detect a pregnancy they don’t have.


So yes, the immediate structure to make LARCs available to all women as easily as possible remains a viable course to reduce abortions by up to 88% by Thanksgiving.

 

[Rhea]

And yes. To emhasize:

The ONLY people who are for abortion restrictions are those for whom creating risk for sex and thereby controlling the sexuality of women is the highest priority.
All others want to actually reduce abortions and know that the only way to do that is to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Lion IRC]

Oh, if only people would keep abortion and contraception as separate issues.
But the words have become synonymous.

 

[Juma]

Oh, if only people would keep abortion and contraception as separate issues.

Separate things, same issue though.

But the words have become synonymous.

Not in my world.

 

[Copernicus]

Oh, if only people would keep abortion and contraception as separate issues.
But the words have become synonymous.

Zygotes are protected, but no rights for gametes!? It just seems hypocritical to me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes. My whole point. We agree. The zealots don’t actually care about abortions when there is danger to be added to recreational sex instead.

2) You won't get the 88% because LARCs aren't 100% and not all women can use them.

Splitting hairs. You have no idea what percentage would be remaining, nor whether the presence of better distribution of birth control would also increase the methods that these women need. Not a reason to not take action. So maybe you get 86% instead of 88%? What’s the point in arguing that? Do it and find out if there are any remaining unwanted pregnancies left to address.

3) Not all the abortions past 12 weeks are fetal defect. Some are because the woman had a hard time coming up with the money or didn't detect the pregnancy right away. (If one already has an irregular period it's disappearance might not be noticed.)

A. They don’t need to come up with money if they aren’t pregnant in teh first place.
B. They won’t detect a pregnancy they don’t have.


So yes, the immediate structure to make LARCs available to all women as easily as possible remains a viable course to reduce abortions by up to 88% by Thanksgiving.

While I think it's a very good idea (while I'm generally opposed to free things as they promote waste in this case the need of a medical provider gets around the problem) I'm just objecting to your 88% number. It would take a big bite out of abortion but I don't think it would be that big. (Not to mention the logistics problem--I seriously doubt the medical system could put in that many that fast.)

 

[Rhea]

Oh, if only people would keep abortion and contraception as separate issues.
But the words have become synonymous.

Why on earth would you want them kept as separate issues when contraception is the number one method of reducing abortions!?


unless...


unless your real objective is not to reduce abortions. It's to regulate women's sex lives?

 

[fast]

What about competing goals?

Let's say Bob is against the killing of human zygotes. He doesn't care if people have sex anymore than if people drop coins into a drink machine. He warns, however, if you do, a drink may pop out below. And he's fine with that. Do what you want to do, have fun, and enjoy. Just don't kill zygotes, embryos, fetuses, or babies. Gametes, sure; slaughter them at your leisure--since they are not developing to become human individuals yet--as fertilization has not yet occurred.

Bad people that take the lives of others (capital punishment, baby!), trespassers that refuse to stay out (forget the wall, use napalm); want to burn the flag after our veterans got drafted, shot and killed (howitzer up the ass). The theme: Save the innocent; slaughter the bad.

He's also against racism, so he is adamantly opposed to anything regarding FREE contraceptives being given out by subsidizing the costs in racially disgusting ways--even if it reduces abortion. Contraceptives, sure. If they prevent zygote creation, no problem. If they destroy zygotes, problem. Free? Nope!

Now, I won't pretend to understand the link Bob is trying to draw between racism and free contraceptives; strange fellow, that Bob, but nowhere in there did I see some flaming desire to regulate women's sex lives. Let them fuck and fuck and fuck. Furthermore (oh wait), Bob is channeling something else ...

He says he would not vote against abortion. He says that he is very much against it and won't do it, but he will not elicit the help of government to prevent it. He won't vote IN FAVOR of outlawing abortion but also won't vote IN FAVOR of allowing it. He's using some fancy word "abstain"--whatever the hell that means.

I guess that kinda changes things a bit, but he still doesn't want this racist crap going on about providing for "free" contraceptives. It's a moot point now since after all that it seems Bob is NOT going to take a stand to disallow women the right to kill, kill, kill, kill, kill what most likely would grow to become a new human individual.

So, does Bob want to reduce abortions? Sure, but not at all costs. He doesn't want it so bad that he's willing to interfere with women's devil given right to kill, and he damn sure isn't going to stand for free contraceptives; in fact, the message is coming in now, he says he will vote against FREE contraceptives; that, he will not stand for. Adamant about that racism thing. Weird.

 

[Rhea]

I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying in that post.

But I will clarify one thing: Anyone who wants to act/vote in a way that makes it more likely for sex to be risky, that is more likely for unwanted pregnancies to occur, IS trying to create a system where women must abstain from sex if they want to abstain from babies. He is trying to control her behaior by making something very risky that does not have to be risky.

Like saying, you can drive in a car, but you can’t wear a seatbelt, and if there’s an accident and you get hurt - it’s your fault, not mine. Because I want your choices to be drive or don’t drive, not drive-and-live vs drive-and-die. I want your best choice to be not-drive, so I will try to remove drive-and-live choice. And blame you for the risk. Also, I get a seatbelt either way.

Because these are the people who want to close planned parenthoods, eliminate contraceptives from insurance plans, allow companies to provide insurance but dictate what your doctor can tell you, force contraceptives to require extra doctor visits and pharmacy hurdles. These are the people who WANT TO ELIMINATE ACCESS to contraceptives all the while claiming that they are against abortions.

In other words,, these are people who want to do everything they can to ensure sex creates pregnancies that women are then forced to complete. End goal is not reducing abortions, it is controlling sex.