[RD] Abortion, once again

[Samson]

Forced sterilization has a proud history. You suggest it, it gets considered. I'd consider it a policy suggestion.

It is very much an active policy in some bits of the world.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I precipitated the creation of a consciousness, then created a risky environment for him and myself, and then killed him after he was conscious in order to save myself. It is an imperfect analogy, but it's also not easy to say that creating the situation then gives me permission to kill him.

Even if I claim that it was the only way to get him to the island with me, something I wanted, I think to say that the allocation of risk and harms isn't fair.

This is why I made the point earlier that pregnancy doesn't analogize that well. The guy swimming in the lake, with the coma, and the hacksaw and all that... it has nothing to do with pregnancy. These abstract comparisons don't translate well and don't add up. In fact I think you said explicitly as a disclaimer that "every analogy fails" and that your analogy didn't take a bunch of highly relevant factors into account. So I'm trying hard to stay rooted in the subject matter than getting into the weeds arguing analogies.

 

[Lexicus]

FWIW Mary, I got your point re: forced vasectomies and I started to type a post saying "Duh Mary is being sarcastic to make the point that..." but then it occurred to me that folks posturing as if they didn't already get that we're just arguing in bad faith, so I said forget it.

I'm actually not even sarcastically in favor of this. I am perfectly fine with trading criminalization of abortion for mandatory vasectomies, unironically. The problem is that no pro-lifer will take that trade.

 

[Birdjaguar]

IIRC sperm freezes pretty well and is easily collected in ones teenage years. State sponsored sperm banks should make vasectomy reversal unnecessary.

 

[Samson]

IIRC sperm freezes pretty well and is easily collected in ones teenage years. State sponsored sperm banks should make vasectomy reversal unnecessary.

I am not sure how much you are expecting to collect, but sperm donation success rates are even lower

Spoiler Succes rates :

• If you’re under 35, the success rate is around 14%
• If you’re 35-39, the success rate is around 11%
• If you’re 40-42, the success rate is around 4-5%

 

[Birdjaguar]

What is "donation rate success"?

 

[Lexicus]

I am not sure how much you are expecting to collect, but sperm donation success rates are even lower

Spoiler Succes rates :

• If you’re under 35, the success rate is around 14%
• If you’re 35-39, the success rate is around 11%
• If you’re 40-42, the success rate is around 4-5%

And who is "you" here?

 

[Sommerswerd]

It's just a fact of nature that we force people into existence.

No. It's not and comparing the correctness of your personal conception/choice of the word "force" in this context, to the law of gravity is... let's just say flawed.

There are many opportunities to prevent forcing a fetus into personhood, and the imposition of barriers are the problem.

Yes and by referencing those "opportunities" and the failure, in the case of pregnancy, to take advantage of them, the argument circles back again to the consequences ie., punishments for that failure. The mother was too irresponsible to take advantage of the "opportunities" to avoid pregnancy... like celibacy for instance, so now she has to pay the price for her irresponsible conduct, which is a baby. Is that right?

The risks of pregnancy can't be fairly allocated and there is massive misogyny around it. But reassignment of risks from the creators to the created doesn't work.

Again, I don't think your use of "risk" makes sense here, but if we are really talking about the subjugation and/or prioritization of rights, then giving priority to the "creator", ie mother absolutely "works"... she gets an abortion if she does not want to be pregnant. The question is why folks think its justified to deny her that priority? Because that's what she "deserves" for her irresponsible, ie sexually immoral/negligent behavior? The fetus is her punishment? And she shouldn't be allowed to get out of it?

 

[Samson]

What is "donation rate success"?

I cannot find the details. The stats are from the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

The point is that it is very far from certain that a couple relying on vasectomy reversal and/or frozen sperm will be able to make babies, and that rate is likely to depend on wealth.

And who is "you" here?

You is a woman. The stats are around women who use donor sperm.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I cannot find the details. The stats are from the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

The point is that it is very far from certain that a couple relying on vasectomy reversal and/or frozen sperm will be able to make babies, and that rate is likely to depend on wealth.

You is a woman. The stats are around women who use donor sperm.

I wonder what the fertilization rate (per event ) is for two people baby making efforts or for fresh sperm use without a man there.

EDIT:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/264550#1

http://www.choicemoms.org/fresh_or_frozen_sperm/

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-frozen-is-a-huge-success-2014-4?op=1

 

[Lexicus]

The point is that it is very far from certain that a couple relying on vasectomy reversal and/or frozen sperm will be able to make babies, and that rate is likely to depend on wealth.

I think that, whatever you and I may think, pro-life people are kind of obligated to take a "better to have 1000 couples who can't have a child than to have 1 baby murdered because someone had a child they didn't want" approach to this kind of question. Otherwise it would show them up as hypocrites who only want to intervene to prevent child-murder when the interventions inconvenience or restrict women in some way.

 

[El_Machinae]

For one thing, you have to exist first, before you can be "forced" to do anything. So your use of "force" here does not apply. More importantly, a woman does not "force" a fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child into existence, nor does a man. The egg travels down the fallopian tube on its own, the woman can't control it. The man ejaculates and after that, he has no control of where the sperm goes or whether they fertilize the egg or not, nor does the woman. The parents certainly play the primary role in causing the pregnancy, but they by no means "force" it. They can't. The thousands upon thousands of couples struggling with fertility can attest to that.

It takes a lot more than an ejaculation to force a fetus into personhood. It takes a lot more than intentional sex, even. Your first sentence is weirdly pedantic. We're slaves to our history. We're currently eroding the ecosystem, and we're forcing a worse environment on future people. To say that we're not hurting them is weird. To say that we're not intentionally subjecting them to it is weird. We're doing it to them. But, I also agree that harms committed before your existence are different from ones that occur after - if we're talking about this line about fetal rights, then the important killing is being done after they exist, not before. (We then run into a weirdness where being poisoned before you exist should probably be acknowledged as 'bad').

here is where my argument about the vis heuristic kicks in. The fact that an embryo is alive does not make it magic, and thinking that we don't control its biology (at least partially) is to just deny that it's a natural process we have insight into. All it is doing is simply following the rules of thermodynamics, dissimilar from Gravity only that it's more complex. If you pick up a bowling ball, move it to the top of stairs, and then push it over, you forced the ball to fall to the bottom of the stairs. It's not like you can blame gravity. Gravity happens, and you know it happens. When I release a ball, I lose control over it. The fact that I cannot account for every air molecule being displaced doesn't change that I had a causal impact. If it hits someone that I knew would be there, we still follow the story.

I want to distinguish early pregnancy from later pregnancy as well, just in case anyone thinks otherwise. And, reiterating, I know that compromising with the pro-life crowd is impossible, so bulwarks need to be made.

Also, what is the "risk" here? Being alive? Existing? The mother had a principal role in causing the fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child to exist, so her rights must be subordinated to theirs? Why? Why isn't it the other way around? The mother is the one who caused the fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child to exist, so she is the one it has to thank for its existence, it wouldn't, and couldn't exist without her, so its rights are subordinated to hers. She is the creator, she is the one carrying... so she is in charge, not the fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child. Why is that not your view?

The idea that the Creator gets sole discretion over the Created, and has no superior moral obligation it is beholden to, is a Judeo-Christian view. And of course the mother is in charge. The more empowerment we create, the more practical control she has. But the risk to the (late) fetus is being harmed. And, in general, the person creating the risks has a higher burden than the person who isn't. We even include mens rea in that discussion.

Yes and by referencing those "opportunities" and the failure, in the case of pregnancy, to take advantage of them, the argument circles back again to the consequences ie., punishments for that failure.

Conflating punishments with consequences doesn't really work, so pushing them together will not work (especially since you are intentionally evoking a moral disgust to the concept). The consequences are being borne by someone in this story. Calling a late-term abortion a 'punishment' to the fetus for daring to grow is non-sensical (though some will, I admit). Calling being poisoned with alcohol during development a 'punishment' doesn't work. 'Punishment' is just a weird word itself. Sometimes we mean 'because they intended to hurt me and did'. And sometimes we mean 'because they hurt me'. So, obviously I can poison a fetus in order to punish the person who cares about it having offended me, but 'punishing' something without mens rea doesn't make sense in many uses of the term. But it doesn't matter that you're not punishing the fetus, the fetus bears the consequences of choices it has no input into.

But yes, we expect people to mitigate the harms of their behaviors if their behaviors will affect others. I'm not allowed to drive drunk. A bartender is not allowed to serve me past intoxication. There's an entirely different story as to if I was slipped a roofie at the bar. Suggesting that 'asking people to take a cab if they've accidentally drunk too much' is too much of a burden because of people being roofied might be a necessary compromise, but it's not just automatically true. I'm not objecting to the idea of severely punishing the bar-tender. I'm not objecting to the idea that the bar tender undergo rigorous credentialing. I'm not objecting to paying for her cab. I'm not even objecting to getting drunk. We still ask that people don't drink and drive and ask that they take a cab. And, if they're driving drunk, to stop before they hit someone.

Because that's what she "deserves" for her irresponsible, ie sexually immoral/negligent behavior? The fetus is her punishment? And she shouldn't be allowed to get out of it?

As long as we understand that I am not implying any of these things.

 

[Lexicus]

The point is that it is very far from certain that a couple relying on vasectomy reversal and/or frozen sperm will be able to make babies, and that rate is likely to depend on wealth.

Wow, all sorts of interesting parallels between this and the criminalization of abortion, isn't there?

 

[João III]

Everyone at one point or another has to repeat themselves. I agree it's tiring, but it's necessary especially in threads that go for tens of pages or more.

As for "snide remarks", again, we're 66 pages deep (on this thread alone, nevermind any other). Everyone has an idea of each others' positions. If there's a misrepresentation and you're not interested in clearing it up for whatever reason, then it's going to remain misrepresented.

The point is that it doesn't matter if I write an in-depth post or something more pithy. The remarks tend to be the same either way

A better phrasing of this example would be (substituting "I" for "you" here): "Say I respect human life more than a parent's choice to abort, I'd have incentive to redefine life as beginning at conception. That could then be problematic if I wanted to support other rights relating to the birth parent. But if I'm more interested in respecting abortion than human life, I'd have incentive to redefine life as beginning at birth."

In your opinion, it is "better phrasing". It might be an example, but it's not my example I used my example because part of the reason the pro-life movement is against abortion stems from a belief in life beginning at conception. The position proceeds from the definition.

The pro-abortion pro-choice crowd prefers to focus on access to abortion with the definition of when life begins as secondary and in service of allowing for abortion. The definition's secondary status is partly why limits on abortions where they are legal are so inconsistent. Here, conversely, the definition proceeds from the position.

You keep on missing out parts of the comparison(s), parts of the analogies. You may not like how I'm rephrasing your words, you may find it in poor faith, or taste, or whatever.

You're assuming I made some sort of mistake when I said precisely what I wanted to say. I'm not comparing—I'm contrasting. The two parts are intentionally different because the approaches are different. But no, I don't think you're doing it in poor faith

But I'm trying to illustrate how the two halves of the argument are being given different weight (by you). People have incentive for any number of given positions to define the terminology and framing in a way that benefits them. People do this all the time. By weighting one "side" with an incentive to modify language, but not weighting the other side to do the same (when they absolutely do have incentive) you give the impression that you perceive it as one-sided in that regard. Am I misrepresenting you? Is this not fair criticism?

I wouldn't say you're "misrepresenting" me but you are assuming I made a mistake where I did not. Clearly discussion on abortion is all over the place with propagandists championing both positions. See how the language has shifted from pro-life to anti-abortion because "anti-" has negative connotations and obviously pro-life folks are bad. Or how it's "pro-choice", "reproductive rights", or whatever else and not pro-abortion purely because abortion has (or maybe had?) negative connotations. If abortion had more positive connotations, without a doubt it'd be pro-abortion instead of the vague "right to choose". And I'm sure you could come up with pro-life examples but I think we both have an understanding.

However, if you're to suggest both positions have equal incentive specifically related to defining when life begins, I think that'd be silly. The abortion side clearly has a stronger incentive because it's much more problematic for them

 

[TheMeInTeam]

My problem with this approach, is that it ignores the practical reality of what a pregnancy is and how it works. You have one living thing existing totally inside the mother. The degree to which that living thing is separate from the mother can certainly vary, depending on numerous factors, but the notion that the rights of the mother would be subordinate to the thing living entirely inside her

it's not merely "subordinating rights". you're balancing right to life vs bodily autonomy, specifically. the other rights of the woman are not in question (at least not unless one is callous enough to deny her when she's in danger), and are not relevant for the fetus.

So it really does not matter if the fertilized egg/fetus/unborn child is a "person", all that's doing is just renaming it, in order to, by simple semantic declaration, obfuscate

no, you are not "just renaming". no matter where you draw the line for legal purposes, you're still going to draw it. at some point, you can't kill the thing you previously could, legally. that's not obfuscation, that's reality. i would prefer if we could have a good/consensus reason for where to put that line, but unfortunately there's no easy answer for it.

 

[Hygro]

*not all men

 

[Gorbles]

The point is that it doesn't matter if I write an in-depth post or something more pithy. The remarks tend to be the same either way

Not to be pithy, but welcome to being online. I sat through and participated in both of the multi (multi) page "woke" threads (as someone frequently characterised as such). I hope you can therefore understand when I say "it happens".

The pro-abortion pro-choice crowd prefers to focus on access to abortion with the definition of when life begins as secondary and in service of allowing for abortion.

The definition of "where life begins" has been made necessary by anti-choice folk focusing on life beginning at conception and therefore equating abortion with murder, or slaughter, or the like. One followed the other. This is why we keep coming back to pro / anti-choice, because the designation of personhood and where life begins is a framing that anti-choice groups started. Does that follow?

On top of that, the definition of life beginning as being "in service of allowing for abortion" is incorrect. We have no incentive to define when life begins unless the verbal arena dictates the need for it. A lot of this stuff is regrettably about optics, when the core position is bodily autonomy and the right to choose.

If abortion had more positive connotations, without a doubt it'd be pro-abortion instead of the vague "right to choose". And I'm sure you could come up with pro-life examples but I think we both have an understanding.

A large part of it being "pro choice" is because advocates do not mandate, or even necessarily want, abortions (to be a thing). They simply want the birth parent to have that choice, instead of having that choice taken away from them.

However, if you're to suggest both positions have equal incentive specifically related to defining when life begins, I think that'd be silly. The abortion side clearly has a stronger incentive because it's much more problematic for them

As already argued, it isn't more problematic at all. But it's core to anti-choice campaigners (at least from what I have seen), in that they can define the actions of the birth parent in the context of having an abortion as murder. Without that lynchpin, the entire (emotive) argument (slash accusation) falls apart.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

i can work with what is posted, not with things that aren't. can call it something other than handwaving, but it still wasn't addressed despite me saying it is the only thing that can justifiably make this procedure special, and the thing that made the comparison relevant (compelled action to the alleged benefit of others). 100% chance of dying vs extremely tiny is a different cost/risk proposition, too.



consistency of argumentative position.



i just pointed out a stance that (somewhat poorly) squares the reasoning they're using (depending on their precise stance wrt abortion), which you didn't address. it didn't go away a moment later. that argument is still central to this discussion.



that's not what makes the comparison relevant.



the problem is that answering "who gets to decide" with "the state" tends to result in atrocity. the usa went down that path once, and those rulings were used as inspiration/justification for ww2 era eugenics of the worst kind. even the state doing literally nothing at all in this sphere is an improvement over that.



it happens all the time, but at the end of the day words still need to have meaning that constrains anticipation. i get that people try to change definitions to create confusion though.



this isn't true in a practical sense, and this definitely isn't the place to detail why that is.

WHATEVER.

I've noticed that you love to argue past all reasonable reason, when it seems you think you can pull out a GOTCHA!

In this instance, you've noticed that I reference the Charter of Rights as a very crucial thing in Canada that determines what rights and freedoms we have in this country and that the government is not allowed to discriminate against people in a list of areas (though they regularly do anyway, and the provincial government of Alberta is planning an end run around part of it and not very many people I've noticed are even speaking up about it).

You keep expecting me to agree that compelling people to get a covid vaccination is as abhorrent as forcing a woman or girl to commit to a 9-month pregnancy and 18 years of raising a child because of the "my body, my choice" mantra that the mostly anti-choice anti-vaxxers have co-opted.

It's not going to happen. The situations are not remotely the same. Millions of people around the world died because they caught covid by whatever means; they were either in the wrong place at the wrong time, or they were stupid and went to superspreader events without taking precautions and then brought it home or to work and spread it further.

Tell me the last time a woman got pregnant, went home or to work and got everyone else in her household pregnant by breathing on them or touch-contaminating surfaces that others touched and then introduced the pregnancy into themselves via a mucous membrane.

Obviously they never did that, because it's not how pregnancy works.

I've never made a secret of my stance on abortion. I'm pro-choice, and the decision lies with the woman, her doctor, and her own conscience. What she decides (to keep or abort) is none of my business and it's none of your business.

 

[MaryKB]

WHATEVER.

I've noticed that you love to argue past all reasonable reason, when it seems you think you can pull out a GOTCHA!

In this instance, you've noticed that I reference the Charter of Rights as a very crucial thing in Canada that determines what rights and freedoms we have in this country and that the government is not allowed to discriminate against people in a list of areas (though they regularly do anyway, and the provincial government of Alberta is planning an end run around part of it and not very many people I've noticed are even speaking up about it).

You keep expecting me to agree that compelling people to get a covid vaccination is as abhorrent as forcing a woman or girl to commit to a 9-month pregnancy and 18 years of raising a child because of the "my body, my choice" mantra that the mostly anti-choice anti-vaxxers have co-opted.

It's not going to happen. The situations are not remotely the same. Millions of people around the world died because they caught covid by whatever means; they were either in the wrong place at the wrong time, or they were stupid and went to superspreader events without taking precautions and then brought it home or to work and spread it further.

Tell me the last time a woman got pregnant, went home or to work and got everyone else in her household pregnant by breathing on them or touch-contaminating surfaces that others touched and then introduced the pregnancy into themselves via a mucous membrane.

Obviously they never did that, because it's not how pregnancy works.

I've never made a secret of my stance on abortion. I'm pro-choice, and the decision lies with the woman, her doctor, and her own conscience. What she decides (to keep or abort) is none of my business and it's none of your business.

Vaccines aren't even universally mandatory, only if you wish to physically participate in society, because, as you know, we haveva right to protect our lives.

But there are people who don't believe COVID was a real problem, and object to the need for society to take protective measures. There's no point trying to reason with the unreasonable.

 

[Zardnaar]

For the CFC record I'm pro abortion.

BUT online some people are essentially denying the other viewpoint. It's an abhorrent viewpoint imho but it's happening, it's legal and I pointed out a long time ago the constitution doesn't mention it as.

It's gone beyond the point one can stick their head in the sand and go la la la.

Not sure how it's gonna play out politically.