Abortion

[Jimmy Higgins]

I just wanted to comment on "my body my choice"....

I think the baby is inside the woman's body but isn't part of their body. It is the baby's body.

You still seem to agree that it is in the woman's body though.

Apparently in some abortions the baby is able to survive, at least for a while, outside of the womb. I think that makes the "my body my choice" argument even weaker.

Some abortions? Try just about none of them.

Then there is the talk about abortion being a "right" - which I don't really follow.

The whole self-autonomy thing... a woman having a right to her own existence.

 

[Rhea]

If an embryo were really "just a clump of cells", why would we want getting rid of it to be rare?

Because it is a medical procedure that costs time and money and has risks that, while much lower than childbirth are still higher than not being pregnant.

 

[excreationist]

Apparently in some abortions the baby is able to survive, at least for a while, outside of the womb. I think that makes the "my body my choice" argument even weaker.

Some abortions? Try just about none of them.

The latest point in pregnancy you can get an abortion in all 50 states

The Supreme Court overturning the protections in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling would leave abortion policy entirely up to the states.

www.businessinsider.com

"Six states and the District of Columbia have no limit"

Late termination of pregnancy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"no limit (Canada, some states in the United States, China, and North Korea)"
This might be outdated but it seems that some places allow abortions even when the foetus is "viable".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"no limit (Canada, some states in the United States, China, and North Korea)"
This might be outdated but it seems that some places allow abortions even when the foetus is "viable".

From a practical standpoint the US has always had a limit--nobody is going to do a third-trimester abortion for non-medical reasons.

 

[Bomb#20]

If an embryo were really "just a clump of cells", why would we want getting rid of it to be rare?

Because it is a medical procedure that costs time and money and has risks that, while much lower than childbirth are still higher than not being pregnant.

And that answer sounds perfectly reasonable in our ears. In their ears it sounds like a lame rationalization. There is no tactical benefit to using that discourse in debates.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If an embryo were really "just a clump of cells", why would we want getting rid of it to be rare?

Because it is a medical procedure that costs time and money and has risks that, while much lower than childbirth are still higher than not being pregnant.

And that answer sounds perfectly reasonable in our ears. In their ears it sounds like a lame rationalization. There is no tactical benefit to using that discourse in debates.

Especially when they have already moved on to birth control and gay sex. I mean those that won't continue on making a formal ban nationwide. Which exposes the hollowness that is the anti-abortion movement. You still think this is about the fetus. You haven't been paying attention.

But please, continue to coddle the "pro-life" movement. I'm sure something will come from it. I mean yes, despite it being publicly supported by a plurality (or majority based on the question) abortion is now illegal (or effectively impossible) in several states in the US already, including mine. But please, remain atop that pedestal, searching for a common ground. I'm sure that woman in near hysterical tears in the bathroom, staring down the pregnancy test indicator is hopeful you'll have a breakthrough.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "

 

[Jarhyn]

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "

And the numbers would be more heavily skewed to ≤ 13wk if it was not so damn difficult in some places to get it arranged within 13 weeks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "

Disagree--either it's a person (and abortion should only be permitted in situations that would justify deadly force in self defense) or it's not a person (and thus compelling reasons to force her to carry.) There's no middle ground to warrant the middle ground they created for the second trimester. Age cutoff, yes, restrictions within an age, no.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "

Disagree--either it's a person (and abortion should only be permitted in situations that would justify deadly force in self defense) or it's not a person (and thus compelling reasons to force her to carry.) There's no middle ground to warrant the middle ground they created for the second trimester. Age cutoff, yes, restrictions within an age, no.

I'm not sure that I follow what you're saying. You seem to be agreeing with the age cutoff at the end of the first trimester. I agree with that as well, on the ground that the fetus cannot reasonably be called a "person" at that point. I've heard it suggested that it is a "potential" person, but then so is every sperm and every egg.

In the second trimester, even if the fetus is considered a person, it is much less of a person than the woman carrying it. Her right to satisfy her desire to cease carrying it, for whatever her personal reasons, is respected by Roe.

It is only in the third trimester that the infant's stake in the game becomes significant, but even then the mother's health takes precedence over the baby's life.

It is only after birth that it is considered a citizen with a right to life that is equal to that of the mother.

Roe seems a well-reasoned compromise solution to the moral issue.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "

Disagree--either it's a person (and abortion should only be permitted in situations that would justify deadly force in self defense) or it's not a person (and thus compelling reasons to force her to carry.) There's no middle ground to warrant the middle ground they created for the second trimester. Age cutoff, yes, restrictions within an age, no.

Or we treat it like a fetus and, like adults, we try to come to a reasonable conclusion about the limits for abortion.

This is real life, not some mythical fantasy world where everything is binary. A fetus is developing into a functional baby human being, there are no hard deadlines. The question is at what point of development does it cross a transition line into being more baby than undeveloped fetus that can't be told from other mammalian fetuses. That is of course, when we also weigh in the self-autonomy of the woman and the State's interests to even be allowed to butt into her uterus.

So yes, it is arbitrary. Like age of consent, right to vote, drinking age, working age, when people are allowed to serve in the military. So much of our civilization and legal code is arbitrary. What matters is that it is applied equally, and preferably with compassion.

 

[Bomb#20]

But please, continue to coddle the "pro-life" movement. I'm sure something will come from it.

How's the whole confront-them-with-inflammatory-accusations-at-every-opportunity approach working out for you? If nothing comes of coddling them, that will be an improvement on the current trajectory.

But please, remain atop that pedestal, searching for a common ground.

Where the bejesus do you see me searching for common ground? I'm searching for an approach that will incline them to refocus their attention on stuff that actually affects their lives.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "

Disagree--either it's a person (and abortion should only be permitted in situations that would justify deadly force in self defense) or it's not a person (and thus compelling reasons to force her to carry.) There's no middle ground to warrant the middle ground they created for the second trimester. Age cutoff, yes, restrictions within an age, no.

I'm not sure that I follow what you're saying. You seem to be agreeing with the age cutoff at the end of the first trimester. I agree with that as well, on the ground that the fetus cannot reasonably be called a "person" at that point. I've heard it suggested that it is a "potential" person, but then so is every sperm and every egg.

I'm not attempting to address where the line is.

In the second trimester, even if the fetus is considered a person, it is much less of a person than the woman carrying it. Her right to satisfy her desire to cease carrying it, for whatever her personal reasons, is respected by Roe.

Disagree-if it's a person then abortion should be limited to cases that would be considered justifiable homicide. (Note, however, that I do not think it's a person in the second trimester.)

It is only in the third trimester that the infant's stake in the game becomes significant, but even then the mother's health takes precedence over the baby's life.

As far as I'm concerned the court is playing doctor in setting the age thresholds. That's a medical call, not a legal call.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "

Disagree--either it's a person (and abortion should only be permitted in situations that would justify deadly force in self defense) or it's not a person (and thus compelling reasons to force her to carry.) There's no middle ground to warrant the middle ground they created for the second trimester. Age cutoff, yes, restrictions within an age, no.

I'm not sure that I follow what you're saying. You seem to be agreeing with the age cutoff at the end of the first trimester. I agree with that as well, on the ground that the fetus cannot reasonably be called a "person" at that point. I've heard it suggested that it is a "potential" person, but then so is every sperm and every egg.

I'm not attempting to address where the line is.

In the second trimester, even if the fetus is considered a person, it is much less of a person than the woman carrying it. Her right to satisfy her desire to cease carrying it, for whatever her personal reasons, is respected by Roe.

Disagree-if it's a person then abortion should be limited to cases that would be considered justifiable homicide. (Note, however, that I do not think it's a person in the second trimester.)

It is only in the third trimester that the infant's stake in the game becomes significant, but even then the mother's health takes precedence over the baby's life.

As far as I'm concerned the court is playing doctor in setting the age thresholds. That's a medical call, not a legal call.

I think the "justifiable homicide" question is a matter of moral and legal justification. Abortion has essentially been considered a justifiable homicide up to a certain point in development. Whether it is in a legal court or a matter of conscience, the question is when the destruction of the fetus can be justified.

 

[Bomb#20]

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "

Disagree--either it's a person (and abortion should only be permitted in situations that would justify deadly force in self defense) or it's not a person (and thus compelling reasons to force her to carry.) There's no middle ground to warrant the middle ground they created for the second trimester. Age cutoff, yes, restrictions within an age, no.

It sounds like you're assuming permitting the second trimester restrictions was for the sake of some sort of consideration of the fetus's increasing interests. That's not what Roe v Wade said.

From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.​

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Morality seeks the best good and the least harm for everyone. In the question of abortion there are two interested parties, the baby and the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court made a reasonable decision. In the first trimester, the fetus is not yet developed enough to be considered a "person", that is, a thinking and feeling entity with an interest in its own life. In the third trimester, the baby has a stake in the outcome, because it can experience and suffer harm, and could, if delivered and cared for, survive outside the womb.

In practice, the CDC's Abortion Surveillance System FAQs indicate that nearly all abortions fall within the first trimester: "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "

Disagree--either it's a person (and abortion should only be permitted in situations that would justify deadly force in self defense) or it's not a person (and thus compelling reasons to force her to carry.) There's no middle ground to warrant the middle ground they created for the second trimester. Age cutoff, yes, restrictions within an age, no.

It sounds like you're assuming permitting the second trimester restrictions was for the sake of some sort of consideration of the fetus's increasing interests. That's not what Roe v Wade said.

From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.​

I'm objecting to them creating a middle ground here. It's binary--either the fetus is a person or it isn't. Before that threshold this is simply a medical issue that should be handled by the medical board.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I'm objecting to them creating a middle ground here. It's binary--either the fetus is a person or it isn't. Before that threshold this is simply a medical issue that should be handled by the medical board.

The problem is that conception produces a one celled organism that cannot reasonably be called a person. The cell splits and each part doubles. But it is hard to call 24 or 48 or 96 cells a person. Basically the DNA is building the structure that will eventually be inhabited by a person, but the structure isn't exactly a person either. A person is aware of itself and its environment. A person can suffer pain. But for a fetus this is usually after at least 26 weeks or later. Here's a FactCheck.org article: "Does a Fetus Feel Pain at 20 Weeks?"

 

[TomC]

I'm objecting to them creating a middle ground here. It's binary--either the fetus is a person or it isn't. Before that threshold this is simply a medical issue that should be handled by the medical board.

The problem is that conception produces a one celled organism that cannot reasonably be called a person. The cell splits and each part doubles. But it is hard to call 24 or 48 or 96 cells a person. Basically the DNA is building the structure that will eventually be inhabited by a person, but the structure isn't exactly a person either. A person is aware of itself and its environment. A person can suffer pain. But for a fetus this is usually after at least 26 weeks or later. Here's a FactCheck.org article: "Does a Fetus Feel Pain at 20 Weeks?"

Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".

Both are too subjective. People are too prone to using the words in vague, colloquial, ways. Ways more inclined to support their ideology or world view.

Person usually means "human being I care about". Murder usually means "killing of humans that I do not approve happening". Rather vague and subjective, so I stick to "human being" and "killing" because those are more objective terms.
Tom

 

[bilby]

I'm objecting to them creating a middle ground here. It's binary--either the fetus is a person or it isn't. Before that threshold this is simply a medical issue that should be handled by the medical board.

The problem is that conception produces a one celled organism that cannot reasonably be called a person. The cell splits and each part doubles. But it is hard to call 24 or 48 or 96 cells a person. Basically the DNA is building the structure that will eventually be inhabited by a person, but the structure isn't exactly a person either. A person is aware of itself and its environment. A person can suffer pain. But for a fetus this is usually after at least 26 weeks or later. Here's a FactCheck.org article: "Does a Fetus Feel Pain at 20 Weeks?"

Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".

Both are too subjective. People are too prone to using the words in vague, colloquial, ways. Ways more inclined to support their ideology or world view.

Person usually means "human being I care about". Murder usually means "killing of humans that I do not approve happening". Rather vague and subjective, so I stick to "human being" and "killing" because those are more objective terms.
Tom

“Human being” usually means “individual with self awareness and agency”, but you, very subjectively, extend the meaning to include collections of cells that have neither - and indeed that it is dubious to even assign individuality (you cannot tell how many individuals will result from a fertilised ovum, with zero, one and two all being common, and three or more not unheard of. It’s passing strange to refer to identical twins as ‘an individual’).

“Killing” might be less emotive than “murder”, but both are emotionally charged words; Technically you are “killing human life” if you have a mole removed, but to refer to this as “killing” would be ridiculously emotive.

It looks to me like you are using these words to support your ideology or world view, and that your claim to objectivity is nonsense; and I think that you are deeply hypocritical to complain that others do likewise with different words.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm objecting to them creating a middle ground here. It's binary--either the fetus is a person or it isn't. Before that threshold this is simply a medical issue that should be handled by the medical board.

The problem is that conception produces a one celled organism that cannot reasonably be called a person. The cell splits and each part doubles. But it is hard to call 24 or 48 or 96 cells a person. Basically the DNA is building the structure that will eventually be inhabited by a person, but the structure isn't exactly a person either. A person is aware of itself and its environment. A person can suffer pain. But for a fetus this is usually after at least 26 weeks or later. Here's a FactCheck.org article: "Does a Fetus Feel Pain at 20 Weeks?"

Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".

Both are too subjective. People are too prone to using the words in vague, colloquial, ways. Ways more inclined to support their ideology or world view.

Person usually means "human being I care about". Murder usually means "killing of humans that I do not approve happening". Rather vague and subjective, so I stick to "human being" and "killing" because those are more objective terms.
Tom

“Human being” usually means “individual with self awareness and agency”, but you, very subjectively, extend the meaning to include collections of cells that have neither - and indeed that it is dubious to even assign individuality (you cannot tell how many individuals will result from a fertilised ovum, with zero, one and two all being common, and three or more not unheard of. It’s passing strange to refer to identical twins as ‘an individual’).

“Killing” might be less emotive than “murder”, but both are emotionally charged words; Technically you are “killing human life” if you have a mole removed, but to refer to this as “killing” would be ridiculously emotive.

It looks to me like you are using these words to support your ideology or world view, and that your claim to objectivity is nonsense; and I think that you are deeply hypocritical to complain that others do likewise with different words.

And I think neither killing nor murder applies. Stopping doing something that is keeping something alive is not killing it, it is letting it die. There is a substantive difference between a death resulting from a revocation of "mercy" in unplugging a 'vegetable', and injecting someone with a cocktail that will kill them.

And even then not all killings are unethical.

Abortions are not necessarily "killings" for this reason, though, and we can dispense with the connotations that brings. They DO necessarily lead to a death, but the death is not generally the goal.

The removal is the goal, and the death is secondary to that.