Abortion

[Dinru]

And, technically speaking, it's not so much women as it is people who own a uterus. Men/non-binary people/genderfluid people can get abortions too, if they own a functioning uterus and create a zygote in it.

 

[Aobaru]

And, technically speaking, it's not so much women as it is people who own a uterus. Men/non-binary people/genderfluid people can get abortions too, if they own a functioning uterus and create a zygote in it.

Exactly, and if the aforementioned were denied abortion, they could use an Equal Protection argument.

Abortion isn't the point. Reproductive freedom is. Denying women access to abortions is denying them reproductive freedom.

I'm not disagreeing with you here. The question is, where is the line between respecting a woman's right to her body, and respecting a baby's right to life? You see, I have a moral dilemma when it comes to late-term abortion. The libertarian in me says "let the woman have the abortion whenever the fuck she feels like it," but I also don't see a difference between a baby (fetus) five minutes before and after birth, developmentally at least.

 

[opaltiger]

I'm not disagreeing with you here. The question is, where is the line between respecting a woman's right to her body, and respecting a baby's right to life? You see, I have a moral dilemma when it comes to late-term abortion. The libertarian in me says "let the woman have the abortion whenever the fuck she feels like it," but I also don't see a difference between a baby (fetus) five minutes before and after birth, developmentally at least.

Er. I think the majority of the pro-choice movement would agree with you? Also, "late-term abortion" just means after the 20th week. Which still isn't anywhere close to birth.

 

[surskitty]

I'm not disagreeing with you here. The question is, where is the line between respecting a woman's right to her body, and respecting a baby's right to life? You see, I have a moral dilemma when it comes to late-term abortion. The libertarian in me says "let the woman have the abortion whenever the fuck she feels like it," but I also don't see a difference between a baby (fetus) five minutes before and after birth, developmentally at least.

That is a really fucking awful argument. Late term abortions are pretty much always cases where either the fetus is not going to survive regardless or the mother is going to die if she does not abort. These are not cases of somebody deciding that they want to abort very late in the pregnancy! Please do not represent them as such.

 

[Phantom]

^

Not to mention they're risky for the patient. It's not, "well I think I am going to have an abortion after all!". There are a lot of health risks involved; heavy bleeding; infection; Sepsis; and the damaging the uterus, somtimes resulting in the need for a hysterectomy if the damage is bad enough. I can't imagine it being an easy choice, especially with that last risk if the woman might want to become a mother later on.

 

[Aobaru]

That is a really fucking awful argument. Late term abortions are pretty much always cases where either the fetus is not going to survive regardless or the mother is going to die if she does not abort. These are not cases of somebody deciding that they want to abort very late in the pregnancy! Please do not represent them as such.

Yes, I actually just looked it up... somewhere around 0.08% are performed after the twenty-fourth week, in the U.S. at least.

Wow, my constitutional law professor has really messed up the facts... he was screaming about partial-birth abortion and how evil it is when it's not even legal in the United States, even for the health of the mother.

 

[surskitty]

And this is the sort of thing that happens because people keep lying about that. Brief summary:

Spoiler: TW for incredibly fucked up shit, reproductive coercion

woman was pregnant, found out that the fetus was going to die regardless and wanted to abort to avoid a painful death, was forced to give birth because late term abortions are illegal in her state, then watched baby die.

Abortions are usually safe, assuming they're not the back-alley sort. Complications can occur, but they're not likely, particularly if it's not a late-term abortion. If it's late-term, something's probably fucked up already.


Also, I'm not sure partial-birth abortions even exist. I'm under the impression they were banned as an attempt to try to outlaw abortion in general.

 

[Automata heart]

my view on abortain is this. one has to think of the child first. if the child's quality of life is going to be so low that it will be in pain, isn't mean to bring it into the world?
(disclaimer. as a female, i don't think i could ever do that. what i said is simply another side of a many sided argument.)

 

[Aobaru]

Also, I'm not sure partial-birth abortions even exist. I'm under the impression they were banned as an attempt to try to outlaw abortion in general.

Yeah... the reason there's no health clause is because they feared health could turn into mental health which could be used for anything.

I mean, I get where they're coming from as far as wanting to ban late-term abortions to prevent mothers from aborting their nearly fully-developed fetuses on a whim (which rarely happens, I've learned), but there needs to be an exemption for fetal death or abnormality, or if the health of the mother is in danger.

 

[Dannichu]

Yeah, 'cause, like, "depression" and stuff - who cares about that? It doesn't hurt or anything!

(I am being bitterly sarcastic to the people who make laws about these things, not towards anybody in this thread)

Related: Abortion Doesn't Increase Mental Health Risk, But Having A Baby Does

Although, Aobaru, I think it's reasonable to say that nobody has an abortion on a whim.

 

[Saith]

Yeah, I found out like, a month ago that my mum's had, like, 3 or 4 more kids than just my brother, sister and I. o.o
She had to go to therapy for, like, a year each time she gave one away for adoption.

 

[Mandibuzz]

I am 100% percent pro-choice- even if I'm not sure I could ever go through with such a thing myself. The basis for my views is very much that if it's not your baby, it's not your business; advocates of illegalising abortion have most likely never had an abortion themselves (if you were in a situation in which abortion was the preferable outcome, for lack of a better word, and you underwent one, I doubt you'd want to illegalise that if it could have meant hypothetically dealing with the far less savoury choice).

I don't believe in using abortion as a form of contraception, for instance, having a "there's no point using a condom, I'll just have an abortion" mentality, however I question how many people actually believe that and would rather go through the motions of having an abortion rather than using preventative contraception. I think that mindset is perpetuated by people who disagree with abortion, because - well, really?! I cannot think of a single swaying argument that would make abortion preferable to using a condom or taking the pill (or both).

 

[Dannichu]

I don't believe in using abortion as a form of contraception, for instance, having a "there's no point using a condom, I'll just have an abortion" mentality, however I question how many people actually believe that and would rather go through the motions of having an abortion rather than using preventative contraception. I think that mindset is perpetuated by people who disagree with abortion, because - well, really?! I cannot think of a single swaying argument that would make abortion preferable to using a condom or taking the pill (or both).

This. This SO MUCH. I cannot understand the "but it could be used like a contraceptive!" argument at all.

 

[Saith]

I am 100% percent pro-choice- even if I'm not sure I could ever go through with such a thing myself. The basis for my views is very much that if it's not your baby, it's not your business; advocates of illegalising abortion have most likely never had an abortion themselves (if you were in a situation in which abortion was the preferable outcome, for lack of a better word, and you underwent one, I doubt you'd want to illegalise that if it could have meant hypothetically dealing with the far less savoury choice).

Playing the devil's advocate here, bit isn't that a bit of a bad outlook? I mean, and I know you're not actually presenting it as an idea, you seem to be saying that it's okay to kill your own kid and it's no one else's business.
I know you're not actually saying that, don't get me wrong, but the thing is, 'pro-lifers' see the foetus as a living baby, and so they think it is their business to save its life.
Or something.
Kind of a pointless post here, actually, but that's pretty much what I do.

 

[surskitty]

Please do not claim devil's advocate on ethical issues. Usually whatever point you're going to make does not need to be made, and it's common for people to claim that they were playing devil's advocate when called out on something they've said. :(

By the time it's born, people other than the mother are invested in its continued survival. That's not really the case when the fetus is undeveloped enough that abortion is still legal.

Anti-abortion people seem to value the life of the fetus over the life of the pregnant woman, and sometimes they value avoiding abortion over avoiding traumatic experiences for no good reason. Seeing the fetus as a living baby doesn't seem to factor into it.

 

[surskitty]

SO ABOUT ADOPTION BEING AN ALTERNATIVE TO ABORTION.

Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), the nonprofit pregnancy-testing facilities set up by antiabortion groups to dissuade women from having abortions, have become fixtures of the antiabortion landscape, buttressed by an estimated $60 million in federal abstinence and marriage-promotion funds. The National Abortion Federation estimates that as many as 4,000 CPCs operate in the United States, often using deceptive tactics like posing as abortion providers and showing women graphic antiabortion films. While there is growing awareness of how CPCs hinder abortion access, the centers have a broader agenda that is less well known: they seek not only to induce women to "choose life" but to choose adoption, either by offering adoption services themselves, as in Bethany's case, or by referring women to Christian adoption agencies. Far more than other adoption agencies, conservative Christian agencies demonstrate a pattern and history of coercing women to relinquish their children.

In 1994 the Village Voice investigated several California CPCs in Care Net, the largest network of centers in the country, and found gross ethical violations at an affiliated adoption agency, where director Bonnie Jo Williams secured adoptions by warning pregnant women about parenthood's painfulness, pressuring them to sign papers under heavy medication and in one case detaining a woman in labor for four hours in a CPC.

From 2000 to 2001, a Midwestern grandmother named Ann Gregory (a pseudonym) fought doggedly for her son, a military enlistee, to retain parental rights over his and his girlfriend's child. When the girlfriend became pregnant, her conservative evangelical parents brought her to a local CPC affiliated with their megachurch. The CPC was located in the same office as an adoption agency: its "sister organization" of eighteen years. The CPC called Gregory's son, who was splitting his time between home and boot camp, pressuring him to "be supportive" of his girlfriend by signing adoption papers. The agency also called Gregory and her ex-husband, quoting Scripture "about how we're all adopted children of Jesus Christ."

What followed, Gregory says, was "six weeks of pure hell," as she felt her son and his girlfriend were "brainwashed" into adoption. She researched coercive adoption and retained a lawyer for her son. When the mother delivered, the attorney had Gregory notify a hospital social worker that parental rights were being contested, so the baby wouldn't be relinquished. Two days later, as the adoption agency was en route to take custody, Gregory filed an emergency restraining order. The matter had to be settled in court, where Gregory's son refused to consent to adoption. The legal bill for two weeks came to $9,000.

Both parents went to college, and though they are no longer together, Gregory praises their cooperation in jointly raising their son, now 8. But she is shaken by what it took to prevail. "You've got to get on it before the child is born, and you'd better have $10,000 sitting around. I can't even imagine how they treat those in a worse position than us. They say they want to help people in a crisis pregnancy, but really they want to help themselves to a baby."

"A lot of those moms from the '50s and '60s were really damaged by losing their child through the maternity homes," says Gregory. "People say those kinds of things don't happen anymore. But they do. It's just not a maternity home on every corner; it's a CPC."

I can't stop thinking "oh my god"

 

[Phantom]

^ I just have to say that is seriously fucked up.

 

[Hiikaru]

Aoboru:

Of course, I would actively support gay marriage in my state, but you have to remember marriage isn't a natural right like sexual or reproductive freedom; it's a completely man-made institution..

Okay, so your view is like "well, yeah, gay people should be allowed to get married, but it's not a natural right, so it's fine to ban them from that," isn't it? (feel free to correct me if that's not it!)

Well, marriage isn't the only thing that you can say isn't a natural right. Like, computers aren't a natural right. You don't need a computer to live. You don't even need a computer to be happy. So, like, would it be fine if a state decided gay people couldn't have computers? I mean, it's not your natural right to use a computer. Humans made up computers.

Or like, what if they took away marriage for black people? Is it still the state's right to do that? Black people don't need marriage. It's not a natural right. It's a man-made institution.

Or what if they gave marriage to only gay people and took it away from straight people? Or what if they took away marriage from people with big noses, or people with yellow hair, or people who can't reach into jars and pull out a thing?

I don't mean to attack your views or anything here, it's just really confusing because it seems like you're like "I think it's bad to persecute gays, yeah, but if others want to do that, that's okay with me!" and that doesn't really make sense to me.

 

[Aobaru]

Okay, so your view is like "well, yeah, gay people should be allowed to get married, but it's not a natural right, so it's fine to ban them from that," isn't it? (feel free to correct me if that's not it!)

Essentially... but I don't think it's "fine" to ban them from it. I hate that gays, and by extension myself, can't get married in the majority of states. Whether or not marriage is a natural right is really irrelevant; there are other methods of attaining marriage equality.

Well, marriage isn't the only thing that you can say isn't a natural right. Like, computers aren't a natural right. You don't need a computer to live. You don't even need a computer to be happy. So, like, would it be fine if a state decided gay people couldn't have computers? I mean, it's not your natural right to use a computer. Humans made up computers.

I'm not sure I'm seeing your argument... computers aren't a natural right? You mean, owning a computer isn't a natural right? Well... that's debatable. Assuming you own the computer, it's your private property and can't be taken. Additionally, some would argue (including myself) that property rights are natural rights. Thomas Locke considered natural rights as "life, liberty, and estate." In any case, it's rather ridiculous to compare a physical item to a legal contract. But...

To answer your question (whether a state could ban a certain group from owning computers): the short answer is no.

Theoretically, yes, it's the states prerogative to ban x behavior, but one of two things would quickly happen:
(1) The ban would be found to violate the Equal Protection Clause; which it does, by not applying the law generally (banning computers to everyone).
(2) Thinking pragmatically, the uproar from the people on such a fascist ban would be unbelievable, thus making such a ban totally improbable ever to happen.

Or like, what if they took away marriage for black people? Is it still the state's right to do that? Black people don't need marriage. It's not a natural right. It's a man-made institution.

The States did ban this... Equal Protection and the democratic process solved this. In 1967 in fact. The outcome of Loving is what I envision to happen with gay marriage.

Or what if they gave marriage to only gay people and took it away from straight people? Or what if they took away marriage from people with big noses, or people with yellow hair, or people who can't reach into jars and pull out a thing?

Making the entrance of a legal contract contingent on race or gender violates Equal Protection (in my opinion). As for making it contingent on physical features such as noses and hair... well, I think that's pretty much never going to happen. BUT if it were, I'm pretty sure that would violate Equal Protection as well.

 

[Minnow]

I used to be pretty strong in favor of pro-choice over pro-life, but recently I haven't been so sure.

The general argument for pro-choice seems to be that it's her body, and the baby isn't really a person yet, and so is equivalent to any other piece of flesh she could choose to remove from her body.

But I've been thinking recently. It's not quite the same. The tissue that's growing steadily into babyhood isn't just a piece of flesh. Mind you, it's not really alive, and definitely not human, yet.

But it has potential. Potential to grow into something more; into a person. Any person they, eventually, choose to be. A person who could potentially change the world. Now, I'm not saying that any of that would definitely happen, or even be prevented by the choice of the mother, but there's the opportunity. There's the chance. And doesn't everything, living or not, human or not, deserve a chance?

Maybe they'll have a tough life, but so what? Who has ever chosen no life over a tough life?

One might say it screws up the life of the mother, especially if they're young, but they don't have to keep the baby. Plenty of couples want kids that can't have them themselves. And if the mom would feel guilty or compelled to have a connection with the kid, well, that's her problem, and it would be mighty selfish to deny them life simply because they don't think they can handle it.

You might say there's enough people in the world already. Okay, I don't know the numbers, but my hunch is that there aren't nearly enough people who could've had abortions that didn't to make that much of an impact. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. But anyway, when has population control ever been a good reason to kill people, or potential people?

I know the growing baby doesn't really have rights of any sort, as it isn't much yet. But the fact is that, unchecked, it will grow into a real person. So isn't preventing that process equivalent to killing the person?

I'm usually extremely reasonable about these kinds of things, so hit me with what you've got.

EDIT:

my view on abortain is this. one has to think of the child first. if the child's quality of life is going to be so low that it will be in pain, isn't mean to bring it into the world?
(disclaimer. as a female, i don't think i could ever do that. what i said is simply another side of a many sided argument.)

Don't you think it's better to live in suffering than to not live at all? Even if it's torturous pain, they're still alive. And as long as they're still alive, there's hope. For a future, for the pain to end. It's not mean; the only thing that's mean is to not give the child a choice.