[RD] Abortion, once again

[Valka D'Ur]

i find it particularly amusing that some making the point "don't tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies" in this thread nevertheless advocated for...say...vaccine mandates.

Oh, please. Pregnancy is not contagious.

 

[Arwon]

Telling men to shut up might not work, strategically.

It will if they learn to shut up lol

 

[Arwon]

i'm well aware. if we don't uphold and protect them, they do not exist. the universe doesn't care. regardless of the "right" in question. yet we agree on a framework to operate in terms of rights, that allows us to function. this framework can't only count at convenience. insofar as they are "rights" at all, they don't get to disappear arbitrarily.



when you cast aside a societal framework that reliably acknowledges a set of rights, it's a matter of practical reality that men get a veto. whether you like it or not. when rights of the individual don't matter consistently and you're in north korea or similar, men do in fact "get a veto", and they "veto" a lot more than abortions.

we have a society that generally manages to avoid most of that, and we have it via codifying individual rights. that is why personhood, despite OP article advocating otherwise, was always a mandatory consideration wrt abortion laws that anybody cares about. there is no basis for abortion restrictions absent the argument of fetal personhood, where the rights of both individuals therefore matter rather than just one person's.

in discarding that rationale, and claiming a huge % of people "need not have an opinion" on what amounts to a question of individual rights, the post i quoted isn't *just* misandry. it actively ignores the question of personhood and rights outright too. that's a hostile position to individual liberty, and to that end i wonder why anybody making it should think their own liberty an exception.

if "men need not have an opinion", try living in a country where yours doesn't even have a means to be heard, let alone compelling anybody to care through a process like voting.



when policy compels people to act, this request stops being reasonable. there are fundamental rights at odds with each other on this topic, which is a big part of why it's emotionally charged and not easy to solve.



in terms of setting abortion policy, neither of these things are useful.



it would be comedy gold if it weren't serious! too bad this alleged affront to individual liberty isn't applied consistently. too bad we're still handwaving the only relevant question to this discussion as if it's already solved (fetal personhood).

in case it isn't obvious: there is a long list of things people can and can't do with their bodies legally, that applies to every person in the country, for every country with a functioning legal framework. i find it particularly amusing that some making the point "don't tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies" in this thread nevertheless advocated for...say...vaccine mandates. or putting people in jail (or even detaining them, legally or otherwise). or compelling people to pay for stuff.

I'm curious if you realise how much of this comes off as a form of threat

 

[Kyriakos]

It will if they learn to shut up lol

If shaming didn't work, you just haven't used enough ^_^

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm curious if you realise how much of this comes off as a form of threat

<snort>

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Oh, please. Pregnancy is not contagious.

i note the handwaving of personhood again here. again.

rights don't only count sometimes. once you codify rights, you have them or you don't.

if you say i don't, don't expect me to agree that you do.

I'm curious if you realise how much of this comes off as a form of threat

depends what you mean by "threat". nobody here is going to personally do anything threatening in this context.

i do see threatening policy preferences. if pointing out the expected outcome of a policy preference sounds like a threat, perhaps it's worth thinking about why it sounds like a threat. either the outcome prediction is wrong for some reason (not detailed thus far), or my post isn't the one presenting a threat.

 

[Gorbles]

in case it isn't obvious: there is a long list of things people can and can't do with their bodies legally, that applies to every person in the country, for every country with a functioning legal framework. i find it particularly amusing that some making the point "don't tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies" in this thread nevertheless advocated for...say...vaccine mandates. or putting people in jail (or even detaining them, legally or otherwise). or compelling people to pay for stuff.

In turn, I find it particularly amusing that some making the point that "people can and can't do certain things with their bodies" nevertheless continue to advocate for the right that a person should be able to physically hold so many guns that you might think they were being hunted by a Predator in some kind of jungle setting.

See, I can change the context and (wrongly) assume that conclusions must align otherwise the person drawing said conclusion is at fault as well!

if you say i don't, don't expect me to agree that you do.

So your position on this isn't actually consistent, it's purely reactionary?

And by "consistent" I mean "you would agree that everybody does, regardless of their position and your disagreement with it".

 

[El_Machinae]

rights don't only count sometimes. once you codify rights, you have them or you don't.

To go a bit full-circle, I have tried to explain to my liberal friends what the libertarian fear of "unelected technocrats" means (with pointing out how inheritance of wealth causes the same thing). It butts up against a natural confusion, because we actually do want experts chosen by a functioning bureaucracy, so there will always be some natural tension.

In Canada, our abortion-access advocates note (among other things) that we shouldn't be pushing for the codification of abortion rights into law, because once it's written into law, it can be chipped away at using the normal checks-and-balances in our system. So, it's protected as a Court ruling of 'medical matter' here, which means that the appropriateness of any specific abortion is going to be a conversation between the person and whatever their doctor is allowed to do from the top-down rulings on the matter. We then have had court cases that enshrine the government's responsibility to provide access. But it's up to the bureaucrats to decide what's appropriate and what's not. There's also a whack-a-mole because there will always be efforts to reduce access, and our defense is in the courts.

Without codification, the Supreme Court rulings provide a pretty aggressive bulwark. But it also means that we have no choice but to help pro-choice doctors gain bureaucratic power, because the process of that bulwark is invisible to most. Our Courts determined that 'live birth' is what triggered the baby's rights, which is a pretty sticky situation, but the troubles are avoided by having proper maternal care. With proper maternal care, the lateness of the triggering matters less because the dilemmas are neutered. One of those arenas where not having the problem is the solution. Of course, the pro-lifers have incentive to neuter proper maternal care, which is the weirdest of incentives to have, in order to score political points.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In Canada, our abortion-access advocates note (among other things) that we shouldn't be pushing for the codification of abortion rights into law, because once it's written into law, it can be chipped away at using the normal checks-and-balances in our system. So, it's protected as a Court ruling of 'medical matter' here, which means that the appropriateness of any specific abortion is going to be a conversation between the person and whatever their doctor is allowed to do from the top-down rulings on the matter. We then have had court cases that enshrine the government's responsibility to provide access. But it's up to the bureaucrats to decide what's appropriate and what's not. There's also a whack-a-mole because there will always be efforts to reduce access, and our defense is in the courts.

"abortion rights" is a wrong-question, legally speaking. the state has no legitimate interest in abortions unless the fetus is legally a person. if the fetus is legally a person, then presumably killing it becomes a non-trivial violation of its charter rights. unless you're talking about situations where the mother's health is in danger and the implied tradeoffs (which can even implicate self defense and such), this is not a "medical matter", but a question of whose rights take priority. it's a matter of when the fetus can/does possess individual rights, legally. that is literally the only thing that can elevate the state to having any business in a person's choice of medical procedures on themselves. that probably should be codified. canada chose "not until born" if i'm not mistaken, one of the few places in the world where that's true. i don't agree with that, but i don't live in canada and they can/will operate that way if they want regardless of my preferences.

i wonder, if a mother is assaulted in canada and the fetus dies, is the criminal charged with murder, or just assault? i presume not, based on the above, and that the criminal should rightly get murder charges tossed in the bin by the judge based on canadian law and only be charged with assault and maybe property damage (???).

i don't think maternal care solves the question of personhood triggering. "good maternal care" is uncontroversially positive, though some people instead disagree on what is "good" vs not.

 

[El_Machinae]

"abortion rights" is a wrong-question, legally speaking. the state has no legitimate interest in abortions unless the fetus is legally a person.

In Canada, we have the right to medical care. Our state definitely has legitimate interest in abortions. All of the battles these days are between politicians and bureaucrats trying to reduce access and the courts providing a backstop

canada chose "not until born" if i'm not mistaken

Kinda. It was imposed by the courts. But the advocacy groups explicitly recommend not working to upset the apple-cart of moving it out of that precedent. And it's not because that they believe "until born" so much as they are being strategic in what actually happens.

i wonder, if a mother is assaulted in canada and the fetus dies, is the criminal charged with murder, or just assault?

It's assault.
I'm vaguely remembering an edge case where an assault then triggered a c-section whereafter the baby died, and the assaulting person triggered the Criminal Code for that death. I will admit that it is shaky, because it then creates the situation where damage that manifests after you're born can create liability if that damage was done during time in the womb. After that, it's a question of expedience rather than law about the best way to reduce those damages. This isn't a legal field I am exposed to, though.

My time is better spent providing actual supports than pontificating about edge cases.

i don't think maternal care solves the question of personhood triggering. "good maternal care" is uncontroversially positive, though some people instead disagree on what is "good" vs not.

It doesn't solve the question, but it solves 99.9% of the problems. A law that's finely delineated to 'solve' 99.9% of the problems has the end-goal of doing so (plus codifying societal norms). But, in practical terms, we care about the outcome.

 

[MaryKB]

Maternal care needs to be improved obviously, but that's a completely separate discussion. Women's healthcare in general needs massive attention.

Abortion rights are strictly about whether or not a woman should have bodily autonomy, and anyone who disagrees is deplorable. This shouldn't even be a discussion.

What we need are mandatory vasectomies for all men at the age of puberty. Once they've settled down, their wife/girlfriend can file a petition and a panel of (women) judges will decide if he's allowed to have children, at which point his procedure will be reversed.
Moderator Action: warned for trolling. Such dehumanizing opinions are not appropriate for this forum. The_J

 

[João III]

That's correct. Some people even claim to support human rights while in fact supporting a regime of unprecedented and near-totalitarian social and legal control of women's behavior.

Whereas others support the wholesale slaughter of innocents under the guise of human rights

i'm well aware. if we don't uphold and protect them, they do not exist. the universe doesn't care. regardless of the "right" in question. yet we agree on a framework to operate in terms of rights, that allows us to function. this framework can't only count at convenience. insofar as they are "rights" at all, they don't get to disappear arbitrarily.

When it's all relative, why not?

Of course, the pro-lifers have incentive to neuter proper maternal care, which is the weirdest of incentives to have, in order to score political points.

What incentive are you referring to here? Is it something specific to Canada?

 

[El_Machinae]

What incentive are you referring to here? Is it something specific to Canada?

I guess the most common example would be arranging delays in maternal care in order to move a mother out of the timeframe in which abortion services are available. A 2nd obvious example would be preventing people from learning things about their fetus (from anything like complications to the sex of the fetus), in order to also take away our ability to make decisions.

The political football (here) is 'late term unnecessary abortions', because that's where too many conversations end up at the dinner table. It's an invented category, unless they can be illusioned into becoming real. No one will explicitly say that they want them, but only one side politically benefits from the concept. And, if you can deny maternal care, there's a greater pool of 'examples' that can be invented. Every late-term abortion that happens is a new opportunity to claim that it's 'medically unnecessary'.

But I should note that the (seemingly) natural allies of the pro-life movement is people who wish to make contraceptives harder to access and limit sex education. There's a reason why they're natural allies and I'm not the one to gainsay them. They have incentive to neuter proper maternal care. I'm only reporting that they do.

 

[Gorbles]

Whereas others support the wholesale slaughter of innocents under the guise of human rights

This is an emotional appeal, and not an argument of any actual substance.

 

[MaryKB]

The political football (here) is 'late term unnecessary abortions', because that's where too many conversations end up at the dinner table. It's an invented category, unless they can be illusioned into becoming real. No one will explicitly say that they want them, but only one side politically benefits from the concept. And, if you can deny maternal care, there's a greater pool of 'examples' that can be invented. Every late-term abortion that happens is a new opportunity to claim that it's 'medically unnecessary'.

This is why dudes need to keep their worthless opinions to themselves. There is no such thing as a late-term abortion that is not medically necessary.

People like Joao demonstrate this by going on when they don't have a clue what they're talking about. There is no such thing as a "pro-lifer" who doesn't hate women (this includes internalized misogyny some women have)
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. The_J

 

[MaryKB]

This is an emotional appeal, and not an argument of any actual substance.

It's a smokescreen/strawman in the extreme, to try and hide misogyny.

 

[João III]

This is an emotional appeal, and not an argument of any actual substance.

Never claimed otherwise, I just thought we were exchanging disingenuous interpretations

People like Joao demonstrate this by going on when they don't have a clue what they're talking about. There is no such thing as a "pro-lifer" who doesn't hate women (this includes internalized misogyny some women have)

Incredible to have these two sentences back to back

 

[Gorbles]

Never claimed otherwise, I just thought we were exchanging disingenuous interpretations

Wrong! You assumed the interpretation was disingenuous and decided to respond in what you thought was in kind. That's on you.

 

[Kyriakos]

Wrong! You assumed the interpretation was disingenuous and decided to respond in what you thought was in kind. That's on you.

Tbf, there is a parallelism to that fabled "all westerners" ^_^

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In Canada, we have the right to medical care. Our state definitely has legitimate interest in abortions.

it is not special at all unless you consider fetal personhood. it is no more a question of rights than basic trauma surgery or routine testing without that. i don't want to get into the weeds of insurance and covered procedure stuff, that's outside thread scope.

I'm vaguely remembering an edge case where an assault then triggered a c-section whereafter the baby died, and the assaulting person triggered the Criminal Code for that death. I will admit that it is shaky, because it then creates the situation where damage that manifests after you're born can create liability if that damage was done during time in the womb.

that would imply inconsistency, though. "shrodinger's personhood" is objectively broken law. but i'll just chalk this up to the actual rules being unclear, since you don't seem sure yourself and think it's broadly assault alone, which is consistent.

It doesn't solve the question, but it solves 99.9% of the problems.

if that were true this would not be a controversial topic with dozens of pages here and years of heavy discussion/strong emotions behind it. "maternal care" simply doesn't and can't track to answering "when should a fetus become a person with rights for the purposes of legal protection". they're not unrelated, but they are nevertheless different things.

Abortion rights are strictly about whether or not a woman should have bodily autonomy

no, there is no avoiding the question of personhood in the question of abortion. it needs to be answered, because if you have personhood there's more than one individual who has bodily autonomy in question.

if you believe someone else's bodily autonomy doesn't matter, you do not give much credible basis for believing your autonomy matters. individual rights apply to more than one individual.

if you want rights, you need a something from which those rights are derived. something that applies to more than just you or any particular group of humans. right now, you are simultaneously trying to argue for and against individual rights, at the same time. it doesn't square.

What we need are mandatory vasectomies for all men at the age of puberty.

case in point. why do you expect your rights to matter, while advocating that others' rights don't matter?

When it's all relative, why not?

because that's not what the word "rights" means, at least not under the definition i'm used to operating under. similar to how we anticipate different things when we hear the word "squid" vs "tire iron". those constrain anticipation to things we expect to see, and things we do not expect to see.

we usually distinguish "rights" from "rules that only count for some people" as separate categories. you don't have to, per se', but it will result in confusion.

This is why dudes need to keep their worthless opinions to themselves.

and i suppose you will ask other "dudes" to compel that for you, which is ironic. nevermind that "dudes" vote on policies too, unless you seek to deny that as well. but that brings us back to:

why do you expect your rights to matter, while advocating that others' rights don't matter?

it's a little strange to make statements with blatant misandry while claiming misogyny too.