[RD] Abortion, once again

[TheMeInTeam]

You weren't pointing out an inconsistent position. You were just arguing.

Arguing why a position was and remains inconsistent, yes.

Hm. I recall not being the only one who thought it was valid, and actually not a bad idea. If/when humans finally get into space, how do you think population numbers will be controlled in a closed environment such as a space station, ship, or base on places like the Moon or Mars, where you can't just go outside without taking your environment with you? Uncontrolled reproduction in those scenarios would endanger everyone. It's not too early to think about it (and I suspect NASA has been considering the issue for awhile).

This could be an interesting discussion, but as you've pointed out this isn't the place for it. We are not presently discussing policy decisions under those kinds of constraints.

The thread is 21 pages long. I've already expended many hours reading it and crafting replies. If you want to address a specific post made by someone else, please link to it.

I was talking about my own posts/arguments. If the thread is TL : DR for you that's fine/true for many people. But it's then strange to quote me in discussion and ignore arguments I've already made on which that discussion depends.

Well, so much for Birdjaguar's view that the Red Diamond designation has been respected.

First, you interject in an argument about denial of personhood and the implications of that. Which should presumably be MORE obvious to people who have experienced it, but apparently not. Next, you discuss the poster rather than the argument, as if that's relevant to the discussion or in any way RD conduct.

Now, after pointing out that a victim card does not, in fact, change whether the argument has merits...you call me out as violating RD conduct. While never actually addressing the original discussion/implications of inconsistent law wrt personhood.

If you want RD conduct, be the change you want to see. Don't argue from authority and refuse to address arguments while engaging with someone. Or don't, but then don't expect more.

So enlighten me, then: When were you, or the men of wherever it is you live not considered persons?

When was this relevant to the abortion thread?

I'm aware of Quebec's position on anti-vaxxers, thanks.

It seems you are not, since in saying this you seem willing to extend this argument to people who are willing to get the vaccine, but oppose mandates (since these people are also penalized in both the US and Canada). That's not what "anti-vaxxer" means, no more valid than claiming using contraception = abortion.

Funny how the people who say "my body, my choice" about the vaccine tend to be the same people who dismiss that when it comes to women's reproductive choices.

The purpose of my earlier argumentation was exactly this hypocrisy, that people can somehow simultaneously say that wrt abortions but not vaccine mandate for experimental/emergency use medication. You might notice that since I have said more than once that I'm pro-choice up to the point of personhood (which isn't defined), my position is not self-inconsistent in the way that being pro-mandate and "pro-choice" is self-inconsistent.

No, you don't address my points. You just dismiss them and call that a response.

If that's the stance you want to take, I'm still waiting on addressing/refutations of arguments I made several pages ago.

 

[EgonSpengler]

There's another thing to consider when deciding whether something should be legal, illegal, or 'decriminalized.' If the goal is to reduce the behavior or the availability of the commodity or service, does making it illegal actually discourage the behavior or reduce the availability? In some cases, the answer is no. In some cases, making something illegal only means it's unregulated and turns the market for that service or commodity over to providers who don't care about ethical or safe practices. I think there is at least evidence, if not conclusive proof, that the legal status of abortion doesn't correlate with the frequency of abortions.

I've even heard that the rate of abortions in the United States went down after Roe v Wade, although it also coincides with larger changes in society, so it probably can't be pinned to Roe v. Wade by itself (correlation vs causation). More and better education for women; more and better jobs and careers for women; more and better healthcare generally, not just safer abortions. The benefits that second-wave feminism brought were greater than just Roe v Wade. (Want to shock your friends? Spousal rape was legal in every US state until 1975. I got a little light-headed when I learned that, in college. I think I saw a girl next to me throw up in her mouth a little bit.)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think there is at least evidence, if not conclusive proof, that the legal status of abortion doesn't correlate with the frequency of abortions.

Do you have the data for that? More for curiosity than policy setting, since in this case IMO it shouldn't further inform policy, because it is up to the government to provide evidence for restriction. The reasonable goal is not to "prevent abortions", it's to define when a person becomes such and is protected under law. Before that point, I don't see much difference between morning after pill vs abortion other than cost, and no ethical problems with either...it's the choice of the person in question at that point.

If what you're saying holds, however, it is another good reason to allow them for a substantial % of pregnancy. Though I again emphasize that the evidence burden is the other way around; the government needs to demonstrate evidence why/when it should not be allowed. The default position from a principled perspective is individual freedom, not government constraint. "Most people agree that this is a person now" is the best measure I've seen, so far, because you must then weigh the freedom between two people rather than one person. I'm still open to better ones, or a non-arbitrary means of determining a cutoff point.

 

[El_Machinae]

I can understand, perhaps even agree, with your arguments from a personhood approach, but for me that approach is lacking. I think this is where we may ultimately disagree then. I prefer life, as it is the "right to life", not the "right to personhood". "Personhood" cannot be attained if the right to life is not respected by way of abortion?

As an aside, this solves your question as to why abortion is not misogynistic, given that at least 50% of the abortions are of female fetuses. You were seeing a tension between liberty for mothers and the death of daughters, and were not being answered.

The answer is that while the fetuses are genetically female, they are not girls.

Misogyny is not thought of as the oppression of female tissue, but as the oppression of girls, in the personhood sense. There is nothing we can do to HeLa cells that is misogynistic. But not rewarding Ms. Lacks for here donation was.

Of course, abortion can be used misogynistically, such as to prefer males. But that's not the same thing.

 

[Narz]

If you are serious about wanting to stop abortions from unwanted pregnancies, you need to address the root cause: men impregnating women who don't want to be pregnant.

Pregnancies due to rape are a small percentage. Are you saying a woman knowingly having unprotected sex are unaware of the risks & have zero responsibility for pregnancy?

For someone claiming bemoaning women's lack of agency you don't seem to offer them much yourself.

 

[Narz]

The answer is that while the fetuses are genetically female, they are not girls

?? As soon as you can tell the sex it's a boy or girl.

 

[El_Machinae]

?? As soon as you can tell the sex it's a boy or girl.

No, those two things just correlate. "Sex" is a biological function, "gender" is a function of a sentient organism at a certain stage. We conflate the two, for convenience. But sometimes we need to be more specific. We have male and female sperm. We have female stem cells. But they're not boys and girls.

Heck, even early enough, fetuses don't even have genes active that will actualize their biological sex. Heck, the SRY gene doesn't activate until a few weeks in. Human cells are all just basically bundles of goo with instructions that are wrapped up in specific ways. A HeLa cell is just as female as a female embryo. Neither are girls.

 

[Robo-Star]

"Sex" is a biological function, "gender" is a function of a sentient organism at a certain stage. We conflate the two, for convenience.

Gender is a social construction of sexed individuals; "sentient organism at a certain stage" isn't necessarily "person".

 

[El_Machinae]

True. And not all rectangles are squares. I didn't want to get into whether gender is imposed or discovered, really. The main point is that to be -gynistic, the target needs to affect people.

 

[João III]

The answer is that while the fetuses are genetically female, they are not girls.

Of course, abortion can be used misogynistically, such as to prefer males. But that's not the same thing.

I appreciate your response here but I'm not sure I follow the logic. How is abortion used misogynistically to prefer males but not misogynistically to target females? Sounds kind of like "six of one, half a dozen of the other"

Absolutely not.

You've responded but you haven't really refuted the point.

Do you even know how someone gets pregnant?

Do you even know what agency is?

Please tell me how a woman gets pregnant without a man ejaculating into her. A woman does not make a man ejaculate into her when she doesn't want a baby.

So you're suggesting sex is something that happens to women as opposed to something engaged in as equal partners with men? Why are you asserting that women are less than equal to men? Or am I being disingenuous?

So please explain your ideas for how to solve the problem I stated:

If you are serious about wanting to stop abortions from unwanted pregnancies, you need to address the root cause: men impregnating women who don't want to be pregnant. What is your proposed solution for this problem?

I'm under no obligation to answer someone arguing in bad faith. Respond to the various arguments and refutations you've ignored and then I'll get back to you.

 

[Narz]

No, those two things just correlate. "Sex" is a biological function, "gender" is a function of a sentient organism at a certain stage. We conflate the two, for convenience. But sometimes we need to be more specific. We have male and female sperm. We have female stem cells. But they're not boys and girls.

Heck, even early enough, fetuses don't even have genes active that will actualize their biological sex. Heck, the SRY gene doesn't activate until a few weeks in. Human cells are all just basically bundles of goo with instructions that are wrapped up in specific ways. A HeLa cell is just as female as a female embryo. Neither are girls.

At what point does a female fetus become a girl I'm your eyes?

It's not like the sex will change once it's established (maybe there are rare cases, not sure).

My daughter is viable right now (though I certainly wouldn't want her to be born so premature (24 weeks). Is she not really a girl? Seems a little unscientific like astrology where if I'd been born 2 days earlier I'd be a gemini instead of a cancer (when realisticly I'd have the same traits)

 

[MaryKB]

Or am I being disingenuous?

Yes, very.

I'm under no obligation to answer to someone arguing in bad faith. Respond to the various arguments and refutations you've ignored and then I'll get back to you.

lol, no. I posited this question and knew you wouldn't answer it because you have no interest in doing so. You keep accusing me of what you're doing.

Getting pregnant absolutely is something that is done to me. How do you think conception happens? I literally cannot get pregnant without a sperm that comes from a man. There is no way for me to have an unwanted pregnancy without a man ejaculating his sperm into me.

What about this is so difficult to understand?

 

[El_Machinae]

I appreciate your response here but I'm not sure I follow the logic. How is abortion used misogynistically to prefer males but not misogynistically to target females? Sounds kind of like "six of one, half a dozen of the other"

We're doing separate things here, one is abortion and the other is preferring men.
Take 'fishing'. Regardless of the fact that 50% of the fish I catch are female, it's not 'misogynistic' that I fish. If I were to prefer men with whom to share my catch, that would be misogynistic. If I were to give people fish by matching their sex with the fish's sex, that wouldn't be misogynistic unless I knew there was some systemic imbalance in my catch. If, however, I preferentially caught only male fish and then applied the above rule, it could be misogynistic.

Misogyny requires mistreating (or preferring) a specific gender. Aborting female fetuses is an expression of misogyny, but it's not actually killing girls ... because (as we've established). 'personhood' comes well-after conception.

At what point does a female fetus become a girl I'm your eyes?

That's hard to unpack, but I'd (at least) want them to have sexual differentiation of the associated neuroanatomy and to be sentient.

Remember that I'm incorporating 'sentience' into the concept of personhood, so it's not 'unscientific'. Sentience actually exists.

 

[João III]

Yes, very.

Oh, do you think it unfair when someone is disingenuous in their interpretation of your position?

What about this is so difficult to understand?

Because your premise is fundamentally flawed in its denial of a woman's agency. Which you have still not addressed!

 

[Narz]

]

That's hard to unpack, but I'd (at least) want them to have sexual differentiation of the associated neuroanatomy and to be sentient.

Remember that I'm incorporating 'sentience' into the concept of personhood, so it's not 'unscientific'. Sentience actually exists.

So like 2nd trimester?

 

[Samson]

Spousal rape was legal in every US state until 1975.

1992 in the UK

There is nothing we can do to HeLa cells that is misogynistic. But not rewarding Ms. Lacks for here donation was..

It is an interesting parallel, but I am not sure I agree with your interpretation. It seems to me much more a question of consent than of equitable return. I probably would use them if I thought I could make the world a better place, but the decision would not be without ethical questions.

BTW, do you use them? Do you know how ownership works?

At what point does a female fetus become a girl I'm your eyes?

It's not like the sex will change once it's established (maybe there are rare cases, not sure).

My daughter is viable right now (though I certainly wouldn't want her to be born so premature (24 weeks). Is she not really a girl? Seems a little unscientific like astrology where if I'd been born 2 days earlier I'd be a gemini instead of a cancer (when realisticly I'd have the same traits)

In this day and age you could theoretically tell the genetic sex at the 8 cell stage, and practically pretty early when embryonic genetic material enters the maternal blood stream. It is not restricted to looking for willies on an ultrasound.

 

[Narz]

Because your premise is fundamentally flawed in its denial of a woman's agency. Which you have still not addressed!

Don't hold your breath.

No responsibility, no accountability, all victim, all day.

 

[Narz]

In this day and age you could theoretically tell the genetic sex at the 8 cell stage, and practically pretty early when embryonic genetic material enters the maternal blood stream. It is not restricted to looking for willies on an ultrasound.

Would probably be expensive to do that tho, right?

 

[El_Machinae]

So like 2nd trimester?

Probably slightly later, at the very least. But I am avoiding really unpacking what 'gender' means. I don't know what's the tightest definition that people will accept, but 'personhood' is the minimum I'll accept. Whether people want to wait later until there's willful gender-associated behaviour is a question that's not really part of my remit.

BTW, do you use them? Do you know how ownership works?

All of my direct work involved animal cell lines, and often ones where we didn't owe any money for their usage.

Our team did do a clinical trial involving ESC into the brains of Parkinson's patients. And when we insist of thinking of 'life as life', then those fetuses were still alive and even involved in cognition! But I'd never suggest that the patients get two votes or get a child-tax benefit for carrying around someone else's cells in their brains.

 

[Narz]

Probably slightly later, at the very least. But I am avoiding really unpacking what 'gender' means. I don't know what's the tightest definition that people will accept, but 'personhood' is the minimum I'll accept. Whether people want to wait later until there's willful gender-associated behaviour is a question that's not really part of my remit.

Dunno why you're speaking about gender. It's not a scientific concept and should have zero relevence in regards to sentience

Also behavior is irrelevant to sentience. Wouldn't make sense to have much external behavior besides extending and flexing limbs in the womb but fwiu an older fetues feels and even dreams.