Restrictions on Abortion

Author: thett3

Posts

Total: 329
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Danielle
I think it's permissible to kill a fully grown adult human if it's living inside of another person's body that doesn't want it. A good percentage of the population believes it's permissible to kill a human just for walking on someone's property against their will let alone inhabiting their insides.
great point
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,333
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Queen Danielle is backkkk yay
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,567
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
yesssssssssssss
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Again we have a situation with the men aren't listening to what the women are saying because they think women are too stupid to make these decisions and to discuss these topics. But you know are about f****** women's bodies. Almost any late term abortion is being done because either the mothers at great risk or there's something seriously wrong with the fetus. Again these are situations where a woman is in the hospital talking to a doctor and they're trying to make what decision is best for them. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,381
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
No. It is you, Witch, who didnt listen to the woman Danielle.

Danielle supports non-emergency slaughter of 8-month-in fetuses if the mother has a whimsical change of heart.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Danielle
In your view, is there no point where the right to choose has been exercised? If the fetus is viable, the woman has had four complete months where she knew she was pregnant and for four months she chose to keep it.  You and others have compared it to how people have the right to remove people from their house or property but a landlord breaking a lease to evict a good tenant carries a consequence. Seems like that’s relevant if we are making this comparison and the cost of “evicting” the other person means they DIE. At some point the right to choose has been exercised and what you are others are arguing for is the right to change your mind until the last moment. 

It seems completely disgusting and barbaric to allow elective abortions of healthy fetuses up to the moment of birth, no matter how rare something like that would be. The fetus is a human being that has moral value, and the woman’s autonomy is something that has moral value. The trick is pulling of the balancing act. 
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Danielle's free to have that opinion. Very few if any states allow a late-term abortion because mother doesn't want the child. In most states there has to be some kind of risk to the mother to the fetus or there has to be some kind of medical condition that would leave the fetus compromised. The doctor that they found was doing late-term abortions for other reasons than that was incarcerated. There are very few women deciding at after 21 weeks that they just don't want to be a mother now and are having elective abortions at that point. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,381
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I am not your enemy just because I have different genitalia.

You and I have nearly identical stances here, Danielle is actually further from your stance than I am.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Danielle
I think it's permissible to kill a fully grown adult human if it's living inside of another person's body that doesn't want it.
Really? Does this apply to just one's body?

A good percentage of the population believes it's permissible to kill a human just for walking on someone's property against their will let alone inhabiting their insides.
Who are these people who comprise this "good percentage" of the population?

You should stop using dramatic words like "slaughter" to make up for the inability to articulate a better argument. 
Agreed.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
breaking a lease to evict 
at what point did the deadbeat baby sign a lease agreement that includes free rent ?
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Danielle
In a free society, it is not the place of some to impose their moral standards on others any more than is required for the society to reasonably function. The right to be left alone and free to do what we want (so long as nobody else's rights are being violated) is something our country values quite a bit and built into various aspects of our constitution.
It should, but unfortunately it doesn't. And that is the consequence of having that which are deemed "inalienable" subject to the interpretation of nine government goons.

Some people are disgusted by anal sex
Understandable.

but that doesn't mean those who choose to have it should be treated as criminals (see Lawrence v Texas).
There's no consistency when it comes to legislating "sexual propriety."

I'm starting to see that there is likely never a justification to force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will.
Good.

But at the very least abortion should be legal until viability which seems obvious.  
Didn't you just state that you were starting to see that there was no justification to coerce a pregnancy's being carried to term? Why then would you implicate an allegedly obvious restriction?

It would be ridiculous to treat fetuses as people under the law in terms of equal rights.
It is ridiculous, but it doesn't mean that it can't be done. Infants, toddlers, tykes, sluggers, champs are offered protection even if it's not under "equal rights."

In that case, would a woman who suffered a miscarriage be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
No, but the State can employ resources in having physicians submit reports if they suspect "foul play." (Not that they should, but they "can.")

Can we file habeas petitions on behalf of the illegally incarcerated fetus of every pregnant woman in custody?
No, but one can file for a temporary stay on imprisonment--i.e. mother will be placed under arrest after her baby is born. (Not that they should, but they "can.")

Are we going to start fighting for a fetus' right to own property and to vote?
No more than one would for children ages one second and older.

I just realized that I could have used voting as another example of rights that children don't have. 
Exactly.

If the argument is that the state can force childbirth on the basis of  an interest in growing the population, does that mean there would be justification to compel women into becoming baby making machines Handmaid's Tale style should an interest ever arise? Scary stuff. 
Yes. And that's the point: ridiculous =/= impossible, especially as it concerns the State's assumed authority.



Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
at what point did the deadbeat baby sign a lease agreement that includes free rent ?
And that's a point I'd criticize among the so-called "pro-life" position. That is, the suggestion that a "contractual agreement" is anything other than a slave contract where the State maintains the fetus's proxy.

bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@oromagi
Overgeneralization.  Just because I have decided upon this outlook towards on one uniquely sensitive and family-level private and gender-specific policy question does not give you warrant to assume I'd advocate the same approach for other, very different public policy issues.   Please be disabused of your presumptions.  You assume further that I would not regulate abortions but that is false, I would regulate abortions the same as any other standardized medical procedure.  The making of the decision should not be regulated by the state according to the majority will, or any other will except the pregnant mothers, by biological dictate- the same rights afforded any patient seeking heart surgery or knee replacement.

Well no, I'm just calling it what it is, not overgeneralizing. It is simply faulty logic. Either being an expert is important or it isn't. Either being personally affected is important or it isn't. I don't think that any coherent conception of a functioning democracy can allow for such exceptions that radically change the qualifications for having a voice on issues.

But now you reject majority will on an issue as important as defining personhood and the protection of life, while absurdly pretending it is in any way comparable to a knee surgery.
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
i will love you forever

Love you too <3

you will never have to worry about anyone hurting you as long as we're together

Then never leave ^_^

Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe that adults telling lies to another adult isn't predatory in the same way as manipulating people under the influence of mind-altering drugs or tricking minors.

Adults to some extent should have expectations of making rational choices.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
Adults to some extent should have expectations of making rational choices.
"adult" is a bit of a fuzzy description for people in their 20's

do you perhaps believe abortion should be available for women under the age of 18 ?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Well no, I'm just calling it what it is, not overgeneralizing. It is simply faulty logic.
Yes you are overgeneralizing my approach to public policy decisions.   Some public policy is best handled by the Federal Govt.  Some by the State some by local government.  Some public policy is best handled by a vote.  Some public policy is best left alone for people to self-manage.  Some public policy is best left to the experts.  This is just obvious shit you are calling faulty logic.

Either being an expert is important or it isn't.
Bullshit.  When you fuck your girlfriend on Friday, do you need or want an expert opinion?  No.  But if you wake up on Saturday with a burning sensation in your dick, do you want an expert opinion then?  Sometimes an expert opinion is useful. Sometimes it ain't.  

Your right to do something ends where it infringes on my right to do something and only then is government intervention ever justified.  Women say the right to decide what to do with a pregnancy must be theirs alone and I am inclined to accept that default because I can discover no rights of mine at stake.  Yes, I understand that fathers have some stake but in the balance of responsibility and grief, the father's say must come second.  You would argue that the fetus has human rights that must be respected but again, a mother knows better than any government official or voter how human the thing in her belly is and the mothers say leave it to them.  I think we men must leave it to the mothers.  That's the way God set it up- who are we to pretend to know better?

Either being personally affected is important or it isn't. I don't think that any coherent conception of a functioning democracy can allow for such exceptions that radically change the qualifications for having a voice on issues.
But I am not personally affected by a stranger's choice about whether to give herself over to growing a fetus to full term or not.

But now you reject majority will on an issue as important as defining personhood and the protection of life,
I beg your pardon but the majority will agrees with me.

Pew Report, May 6th: "Among Americans overall, most people (72%) say that “the decision about whether to have an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant woman.”  More than seven out of ten Americans beg you to mind your own business.

while absurdly pretending it is in any way comparable to a knee surgery.
Benjamin Franklin put his recipe for home abortions between his advice for treating gout and  kidney stones, if you prefer.  You are entitled to your religious feelings about the subject but the most effective, rational, and freedom-loving approach for governments to the questions of pregnancy and family planning should be no more interventionist than that same government's approach to knee surgery.





Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
Not everything that tugs on our heart strings warrants government intervention. Why don't you find it completely disgusting and barbaric to shrug off immigrants, abandon refugees, and ignore others in life or death situations that might rely on help from the U.S. government to intervene and save their lives? I'm not trying to sound snarky here - just showing that the prioritization of American lives is morally arbitrary and rooted in pragmatism. There is only so much we can and should police. 

Politically this is an issue of privacy and government power. Why should the government be authorized to prosecute people on behalf of humans in utero that have not been born and have no rights at all (including no right to bodily autonomy) at the expense of born women that do have said rights?  Should we force all government mandated vaccines on everyone? How about forced sterilization of some for the good of society? Should the government be able to force a father to donate a kidney to his daughter in need? 

As I said, I used to agree with using viability as a point in time in which the government's interests could theoretically override the value of bodily autonomy. But I cannot think of a scenario in which the government controlling people's bodies in such an invasive way could ever be justified, even if the fetus is 9 months old.

I haven't even brought up pertinent issues like IVF and genetic testing. Ultimately,  it goes back to the issue of privacy and government power regardless of people's personal feelings on abortion and how viscerally grotesque they imagine it to be. Late term abortions are extremely rare; most choose to have an abortion as soon as they are able. The decision that goes into each abortion is very different and extremely complex and personal. You have to separate your feelings on what you consider abhorrent to look at the what role the government ought to play.

Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@thett3
RE: Late term abortion, I think Pete Buttigieg did a good job articulating my position on it in one of the presidential debates.


Buttigieg: I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on where you draw the line that we’ve gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line and I trust women to draw the line when it’s their own health.

Chris Wallace: So just to be clear, you’re saying you would be okay with a woman, well into the third trimester deciding to abort her pregnancy.

Buttigieg: Look, these hypotheticals are usually set up in order to provoke a strong emotional --

Wallace: It’s not hypothetical - there are 6,000 women a year who get abortions in the third trimester.

Buttigieg: That’s right, representing less than 1 percent of cases. So let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it’s that late in your pregnancy, then almost by definition, you’ve been expecting to carry it to term. We’re talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Athias
Who are these people who comprise this "good percentage" of the population?

Anyone who supports Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine laws which are legal in the majority of states. 


And that is the consequence of having that which are deemed "inalienable" subject to the interpretation of nine government goons.
Rights are a product of society and culture (government). They are not inherent or innate. Only within a society which recognizes them are they of any value.  I realize this presents many opportunities for inconsistencies that frustrate you, but thankfully most people see the utility in reasonable distinctions. There's an obvious difference between forcing someone to endure pregnancy and childbirth vs. expecting citizens to pay taxes, just like there's an obvious difference between regulating sex between consenting adults vs. adults having sex with children (re: your point on legislating sexual propriety) although admittedly not everything is black and white and society is not perfect. 

I think you realize that the overwhelming majority of people throughout human history have never lived nor wanted to live in a voluntary society, so I don't find utility in using the NAP as a metric for public policy. It's a hypothetical ideal with a lot of philosophical and practical problems that will never have any  significance in the real world. Even if I did find value in it as an insurmountable moral ideal (I do not), as a matter of U.S. law there should be deference to Supreme Court precedent and not a theoretical universe with no government power over the individual. 

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
Benjamin Franklin put his recipe for home abortions between his advice for treating gout and  kidney stones,
"original intent" indeed
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Danielle
And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance,
great point
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Danielle
Ultimately,  it goes back to the issue of privacy and government power regardless of people's personal feelings on late term abortion and how viscerally grotesque they imagine it to be. You have to separate your feelings on what you consider abhorrent to look at the what role the government ought to play. The decision that goes into each abortion is very different and extremely complex and personal. 
well stated
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Danielle
Anyone who supports Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine laws which are legal in the majority of states. 
Isn't that a gross exaggeration? Does Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine really describe one's capacity to kill someone for just walking on their property without their permission?

Rights are a product of society and culture (government).
First, society & culture =/= government; second, rights are moral concepts. They're primarily a product of reason, which analyzes action within a society and its culture.

 They are not inherent or innate.
But they are uniquely "human."

Only within a society which recognizes them are they of any value.
A society can apply them uniformly or not, but "value" is individual.

I realize this presents many opportunities for inconsistencies that frustrate you, but thankfully most people see the utility in reasonable distinctions. There's an obvious difference between forcing someone to endure pregnancy and childbirth vs. expecting citizens to pay taxes, just like there's an obvious difference between regulating sex between consenting adults vs. adults having sex with children (re: your point on legislating sexual propriety) although admittedly not everything is black and white and society is not perfect. 
Except the distinctions aren't reasonable. I've stated numerous times on this forum that I considered myself a "true" pro-choicer; I've argued against age of consent laws; and though I've never seen the topic brought up before your commentary, it would be reasonable to presume that I'm against the prohibition of sodomy. Because, there's a single principle on which all these arguments are premised: self-ownership. So I ask: when does a one's body stop being one's body? Why would one, who's presumably pro-choice, support any restriction on one's capacity to exercise an abortion if in fact, her body is her body?

I think you realize that the overwhelming majority of people throughout human history have never lived nor wanted to live in a voluntary society, so I don't find utility in using the NAP as a metric for public policy.
That is not within the realm of your epistemological limit.

It's a hypothetical ideal with a lot of philosophical and practical problems that will never have any  significance in the real world.
All political ideologies are hypothetical ideals. Pragmatism is arbitrary execution.

Even if I did find value in it as an insurmountable moral ideal (I do not), as a matter of U.S. law
What is law without moral economy? Legal arbitration? Then you have no dog in this race since your stake is rooted in legal decision, the policy it favors notwithstanding.

there should be deference to Supreme Court precedent and not a theoretical universe with no government power over the individual. 
Because the interpretation of nine government goons "matters more" than the individual, even if the burden of that concern rests solely on said individual?
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@thett3
Moreover a woman has an obligation to her *child in a way we don’t for strangers. 
*born. There is no inherent obligation between a woman and the contents of her womb.

I can understand how someone could support abortion up to the point of viability even though I don’t really but after that it’s completely monstrous. It boggles my mind that you think that a viable fetus is a living human being that carries moral weight but the woman’s right to choose is more important.
Personal sovereignty is more important than creating special rights to use the body of others against their will. 

But since you aren’t an ancap you obviously have other values so I’m curious why bodily autonomy is so paramount in this case and no other. Five months into a pregnancy that right to choose has been exercised, and she chose to keep it. What you’re arguing for is the right to change your mind until literally the last moment 
Bodily autonomy is the only right actually at play here. If someone (even a born person) lives in or off of my body, I have the right to evict. Not one of us has a right to use any body other than our own without consent.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Danielle
Not everything that tugs on our heart strings warrants government intervention. Why don't you find it completely disgusting and barbaric to shrug off immigrants, abandon refugees, and ignore others in life or death situations that might rely on help from the U.S. government to intervene and save their lives? I'm not trying to sound snarky here - just showing that the prioritization of American lives is morally arbitrary and rooted in pragmatism. There is only so much we can and should police. 
Because it’s like you said, it’s rooted in pragmatism. Taking in endless refugees without destroying our country is hard, banning elective third trimester abortions of healthy fetuses is easy. I don’t know if there is any another country where something like that is allowed 

As I said, I used to agree with using viability as a point in time in which the government's interests could theoretically override the value of bodily autonomy. But I cannot think of a scenario in which the government controlling people's bodies in such an invasive way could ever be justified, even if the fetus is 9 months old.
Why not? I don’t think you dodged the question but you didn’t directly answer it either.  Is there not a point where the right to choose has been exercised? If a tenant and a landlord agree on a lease there’s a consequence for breaking it. The tenant has the right to use the landlords property even if he withdraws consent, at least for a time, and if the landlord forces the issue there’s a penalty.  Choosing not to get an abortion for two full trimesters obviously reflects consent even if it isn’t written down. The autonomy of someone who had five months to choose and chose not to isn't valuable to me. “Sorry you had five months to do this and didn’t, now the baby is so developed it can live outside of you, we aren’t killing it” is an easy judgement call. 

It’s just weird because I know that every single person who has responded and said that yes they support elective abortions of healthy fetuses up to the moment of birth also supports taxes and other types of government policy. Except Athias who I think is an actual ancap. But bodily autonomy is the only value we should care about here, but not other issues. Why?
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
*born. There is no inherent obligation between a woman and the contents of her womb.
Why not?

Bodily autonomy is the only right actually at play here. If someone (even a born person) lives in or off of my body, I have the right to evict. Not one of us has a right to use any body other than our own without consent.
I’m glad you brought that up. If a landlord breaks a lease on a good tenant because he changed his mind there’s a penalty. Do you agree that this is morally justified? If you do you agree that there are restrictions on the right to “evict”
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@thett3
Why not?
The monthly cycle would be a tragic and mournful event if women did have an obligation to the contents of their wombs, don't you think? Instead of a first period being a sign a feminine maturity, it would the first in a long line of failures to uphold this imagined obligation. It might be better to ask why you think reality should be different.

I’m glad you brought that up. If a landlord breaks a lease on a good tenant because he changed his mind there’s a penalty. Do you agree that this is morally justified? If you do you agree that there are restrictions on the right to “evict”

What lease exists between a woman and the contents of her womb? Is a squatter a 'good tenant'?  Your scenario has no relevance.
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
The monthly cycle would be a tragic and mournful event if women did have an obligation to the contents of their wombs, don't you think? Instead of a first period being a sign a feminine maturity, it would the first in a long line of failures to uphold this imagined obligation. It might be better to ask why you think reality should be different.
No, an unfertilized egg is different from a fetus. I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make here…obviously a miscarriage is a tragedy in a way that a period isn’t. 

The highlighted bit is uncalled for. You’re smart enough to understand the difference between a menstrual cycle and a pregnancy. Don’t be snarky when the point being made is dumb lol

What lease exists between a woman and the contents of her womb? Is a squatter a 'good tenant'?  Your scenario has no relevance.
Having two full trimesters to abort and choosing to keep it is the consent. After consent is given we have a precedent of forcing people to keep their word even if they change their mind. What you’re arguing for is the right to change your mind for any reason and at any time, even though the consequences for the other party are dire. Which is my question…is there truly no point where the “right to choose” has been exercised? Why not? 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
from my perspective this is the same "right to self-ownership" and "right to medical privacy" as the fight over MANDATORY vaccines
(IFF) "life (and the rights of citizenship) begins at conception" (THEN) miscarriage = manslaughter (AND) in-vitro fertilization = murder

AND,

personal privacy and medical privacy goes out the window completely

(IFF) "life (and the rights of citizenship) begins at conception" (THEN) every single CONCEPTION must be REGISTERED WITH THE STATE which would basically make it mandatory for all women to immediately report a positive pregnancy test in order to receive a "(pre)birth certificate"

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@thett3
It’s just weird because I know that every single person who has responded and said that yes they support elective abortions of healthy fetuses up to the moment of birth also supports taxes and other types of government policy. 
please explain the apparently "anti-all-forms-of-government-policy" (AAFOGP) that you seem to think is somehow intrinsically intertwined with "late-term-abortion-choice" (LTAC)