[RD] Abortion, once again

[Arwon]

Most of the new state laws do not allow an abortion for a discovered, fatal, genetic impairment that has no cure but does not manifest until way after birth. Forced birth of a dying child.

And cases where the child is dying and there is a risk of septic shock. (Case is in Poland, but same same)

 

[Estebonrober]

i also expect anybody who wants to benefit from a document which codifies "rights" to uphold those rights self-consistently.

No TMIT does not actually believe this, this is borne out by his long history of defending his side repeatedly in violating those rights and responsibilities while he plays the team game when the other side violates those rights and responsibilities.

it's probably worth reminding that i am too, at least for ~24wk. but that doesn't mean i will accept bad process, because using bad process gives bad results more often on average.

from the guy who defends the US Constitution as the epitome of good processes in 2020ce.

its not even clear lockdowns saved more lives than they've costed (recent life insurance data is pretty rough too). it's similarly not clear to what extent 15 wk vs 24wk vs later abortion laws matter, when > 90% of cases are before 15wk and the ones after are usually for medical reasons.

I'd love to see some studies justifying this garbage. I guess Italy and NY did not happen? It was all just a psyop program. Can someone challenge this logic lord on this for me please?

when you claim "reasonable", you must have some basis/actually use reasoning. that rings hollow when not consistently applying a concept of individual rights, while demanding individual rights.

see above, this poster takes this position over and over again but then refuses to acknowledge this is constantly violated in the current construct under current law.

just over half the fetuses in question are women. or will be, depending on how far along. you know, that legal personhood thing again. that thing that gives this discussion about rights a need to pin down whether you're considering 1 vs 2 people (legally) for the purposes of applying those rights.



depends on whether you're willing to assign individual rights yet or not. if you're legally allowed to kill the fetus, i don't see why you wouldn't be legally allowed to do this, as a matter of consistency.

it also implies fully-allowed genetic manipulation, to the extent that becomes possible, prior to legal personhood.

if the fetus is already a person legally, then presumably whatever you're doing to it in the womb would be the same as giving the procedure to a 5 year old child or something. before that, any restrictions are being solely considered against the autonomy/wishes of the mother/parents.

Yes, we all understand arbitrary lines have been, are currently being, and will continue to be drawn. Unfortunately, this is not even largely on the table for the time being what we are arguing about is human rights. Human rights cannot be determined by states or else they are not universal human rights.

that phrase always both amuses and annoys me a little, at the same time. "unwanted" by whom? i ask, because in our system that matters, and it matters a great deal.

This portion stinks of divorced dad syndrome. There are some youtube hellholes you could slide down with beliefs like this hot take.
Moderator Action: Please don't troll other users. The_J

while true, i'm not sure we have a sound basis to prevent individuals from doing it wrt individual freedom. on its face, it seems to be that any pro-choice argument implies this too. if it's the mother/parents making the choice and not the state, i can live with them choosing to attempt designer babies. i fully expect others who are pro-choice to answer the same, up to whatever point they're still pro-choice, because that is what is implied. to argue otherwise is itself anti-choice.



i don't think it's possible for that to square, logically:

1. mothers should be able to abort fetuses before a certain point, generally
2. mothers should not be able to abort fetuses based on sex before that same point

if by "against" you just meant "they don't like the idea but wouldn't act/vote to stop it, instead simply disagreeing with that reason for the choice" then that's different/*is* consistent.

otherwise, if someone genuinely believes #1, it is impossible for a coherent person to also believe #2. it's no more worthy of consideration than allowing or preventing human abortions because of the rhino population in africa. complete looney tunes. if a person believes 1, they can't actually believe 2. it's not a thing.

So, this is more of a social problem in the relative values of boy vs. girl? I'm assuming this is more of an India/China phenomenon as I doubt it's a consideration here in this decision. I'm not sure of the solution other than better education and better social standards for women writ large. Someone will have to help me here as I'm not very familiar with this line of "logic lording".

no, you really do. if you make no restrictions, that line drawn defaults to "birth". at least presumably. i guess technically a state could opt to confer nobody rights at any point. but i think we're trying to operate within frameworks where this discussion can possibly have meaning.

whose rights though? which nation? black American rights? white American rights? Indian women's rights? this seems very fudgeable in practice even under strict logic lord definitions.

 

[Farm Boy]

Most of the new state laws do not allow an abortion for a discovered, fatal, genetic impairment that has no cure but does not manifest until way after birth. Forced birth of a dying child.

Oh, gee.

I'm aware who is considered better dead early than late.

 

[El_Machinae]

Amalekite babies!

 

[Lexicus]

This portion stinks of divorced dad syndrome.

Can you actually imagine anything more hellish than being forced to carry through an unwanted pregnancy because your spouse wants it?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Bearing a child one knows will degenerate and die before age 5 should be optional.

 

[Farm Boy]

Gotta make sure they get up to a nice vintage first. Something classy. With the right undertones.

 

[Samson]

I'd love to see some studies justifying this garbage. I guess Italy and NY did not happen? It was all just a psyop program. Can someone challenge this logic lord on this for me please?

It is non-trivial to really get numbers, but it is not even close to being supported. I am sure I remember a nature special on it fairly recently, but I failed to find it. There are a few papers, this is the easy line but it would need a bit of time and effort to make a convincing argument:

Finally, estimation of the pandemic peak by individual countries at the start of a pandemic with limited epidemiological case data remains a significant challenge for public health officials. Accurately timing lockdowns to achieve a “tunneling effect” is vital to maximize its benefits. We can see the results of this study are not sensitive qualitatively to changes in the contact matrices while quantitatively sensitive.
Our results endorse that hypothetical lockdown scenarios for representative countries (Canada, China, Mexico, and Niger) spanning a continuum of increasing rates of social contact can all benefit from well-timed lockdown interventions.
​

From Modeling the effect of lockdown timing as a COVID-19 control measure in countries with differing social contacts

Also: Epidemiological and economic impact of COVID-19 in the US
And: Disease-economy trade-offs under alternative epidemic control strategies
And: Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government intervention

 

[Estebonrober]

It is non-trivial to really get numbers, but it is not even close to being supported. I am sure I remember a nature special on it fairly recently, but I failed to find it. There are a few papers, this is the easy line but it would need a bit of time and effort to make a convincing argument:

Finally, estimation of the pandemic peak by individual countries at the start of a pandemic with limited epidemiological case data remains a significant challenge for public health officials. Accurately timing lockdowns to achieve a “tunneling effect” is vital to maximize its benefits. We can see the results of this study are not sensitive qualitatively to changes in the contact matrices while quantitatively sensitive.
Our results endorse that hypothetical lockdown scenarios for representative countries (Canada, China, Mexico, and Niger) spanning a continuum of increasing rates of social contact can all benefit from well-timed lockdown interventions.
​

From Modeling the effect of lockdown timing as a COVID-19 control measure in countries with differing social contacts

Also: Epidemiological and economic impact of COVID-19 in the US
And: Disease-economy trade-offs under alternative epidemic control strategies
And: Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government intervention

ty sam, I appreciate the effort. I know the data is hard to tease out, but I'm very aware of what it generally says and since TMIT has had me on ignore for years I jsut wanted someone to point out the idiocy involved here. Anytime the logic lord shows the gaping holes that his logic fails to comprehend I think it should be pointed out as a service to the community.

 

[El_Machinae]

Most people hold some logically incoherent beliefs, probably even you, although I'm sure you believe you don't.
Beliefs are usually the result of emotional responses as well as logic, and people have an ability to place more weight on evidence that confirms what they believe than contradicts it.
This doesn't make them insane, just human.

Yeah, that's why I noticed the dissonance. The pro-life people hear all the reasoning, and then wonder why it doesn't apply to this case. It's a function of the internal memes being spread around and forwarded to the political opponents as not quite being what people mean. So, if someone believes what people are saying, they have a hard time understanding. The only alternative is empathy, with either better explaining or better understanding.

Abortions occurring anywhere near to birth are virtually all occurring due to unexpected medical difficulties, except perhaps in some situations where anti abortion policies have impeded more timely action by limiting access and inflating costs.

Banning the abortions that address those late complications just inflicts extra suffering on parents who are already going through the pain of losing their wanted pregnancy and in some cases also other serious issues (one example is the discovery of cancer and the need to start chemo). This isn't a real dilemma.

We are lucky that it's not a significant dilemma, although I guess it's a real one, for anybody worried about balancing two bad things. That first paragraph of yours really matters. There is a lot of work required to prevent it from becoming a significant dilemma.

And, if anybody cares, reducing the dilemma elsewhere

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yeah, that's why I noticed the dissonance. The pro-life people hear all the reasoning, and then wonder why it doesn't apply to this case. It's a function of the internal memes being spread around and forwarded to the political opponents as not quite being what people mean. So, if someone believes what people are saying, they have a hard time understanding. The only alternative is empathy, with either better explaining or better understanding.

Yes, I'd allow abortion on demand up to 22 weeks (and the exact number of weeks isn't the important issue) and afterwards only for specific reasons like rape, risk to health of the mother but certainly not sex of the fetus.
TMIT might see that as contradictory and maybe he is right but I think I can justify those positions, to myself if not to him.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Most people hold some logically incoherent beliefs, probably even you, although I'm sure you believe you don't.

i would love if i didn't, but while i might come off as arrogant, i'm not quite *that* arrogant to believe that i have no incoherent beliefs. kind of like how i wish i could easily lift as much weight as professional athletes, but know better than to act on a belief that i could.

the main thing here is to update to the best of our ability when it's pointed out.

Abortions occurring anywhere near to birth are virtually all occurring due to unexpected medical difficulties

when i looked up stats earlier i mentioned that this actually becomes true even during 2nd trimester, as a %. there just aren't many people who randomly opt into abortions w/o medical reasons after 12-14wk, if you look at present/near-past abortion rates. that's why it was interesting to me that people gave florida so much crap over its 15wk law; not only is that later than many countries by a couple weeks, it more or less doesn't change what will actually happen (since fl still allows medical exceptions after 15wk even under new law).

this also implies that moving it between 15 and 24wk won't make much difference, calling into question the point of changing it too. everyone wants to "do something" i guess.

Most of the new state laws do not allow an abortion for a discovered, fatal, genetic impairment that has no cure but does not manifest until way after birth. Forced birth of a dying child.

unfortunately, it looks like some (most?) of the laws prior to roe being overturned also have no provisions for this circumstance, should it be discovered in 3rd trimester. it seems like something that should fall under valid medical reasons, but it doesn't look like it's been there.

(Case is in Poland, but same same)

most states in US that are even semi-sane allow the procedure when the mother's life is at risk. as i mentioned earlier, it's ridiculous to prevent abortions in the context where "self defense" would be a relevant claim for one being performed.

Yes, I'd allow abortion on demand up to 22 weeks (and the exact number of weeks isn't the important issue) and afterwards only for specific reasons like rape, risk to health of the mother but certainly not sex of the fetus.
TMIT might see that as contradictory and maybe he is right but I think I can justify those positions, to myself if not to him.

what you say in this quote is not contradictory, and doesn't do what i said in my example.

per my above example, the position would contradictory if you allow "on demand abortion" but then move to block pre-22wk abortions with sex of fetus being the reason, not post-22wk where the reasons become much more restricted.

 

[AmazonQueen]

i would love if i didn't, but while i might come off as arrogant, i'm not quite *that* arrogant to believe that i have no incoherent beliefs. kind of like how i wish i could easily lift as much weight as professional athletes, but know better than to act on the belief that i could.

the main thing here is to update to the best of our ability when it's pointed out.

That was rather snide of me I admit, I apologise.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That was rather snide of me I admit, I apologise.

no worries. i know this topic is emotionally charged, more than most even. i also wish i could honestly say that i reliably take emotion as a factor in making judgment, and not make them based on emotion alone too sometimes haha. not quite that strong every time, sadly.

and actually this sort of discussion i like. main source of frustration in these threads, at least for me personally, is more along the lines of talking past. lots of quotes but then not addressing what was said (or changing it deliberately or through misunderstanding), that sort of thing.

policy-wise, our preferences are pretty similar on this one. though our outlook/processes that get us there seem different.

 

[Zardnaar]

Who are you advocating to be aborted?

It's not pro-life/pro-abortion, it's against/for women's rights.

Moral choice by the women involved none of my business.

You were one of the ones not so long ago who said it couldn't happen. Even though the US constitution doesn't mention abortion anywhere.

Reading comprehension not a strong point in USA?

I'm not arguing about what's wrong or right it's a moot point and I'm not American (thankfully).

Here we don't have a constitution. The closest things to it can be revoked or rewrittenwith a simple act of parliament for any government with the numbers.

Sort of feeds back into my previous positions about winning power. If your side wins and does nothing that's still better than other side winning and doing things you don't like.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

ad hominem. "gotchas" are mostly done in context of demonstrating why an argument does not work as presented, and they do their job in that capacity. from there, there is opportunity to either acknowledge mistake (rarely happens but w/e) or re-frame the argument in a way where it does not imply ridiculous things or even refutes my stance instead (less rare/actually happens sometimes, though still not common).

Don't quote your latin forum-argument-speak at me. I did not attack you.

My arguments work fine with other people, at least I can make that assumption based on the number of "likes" received.

i notice this, because a charter of rights implies rights. you correctly note that these rights are not consistently upheld. this calls into question the extent to which they are actually rights. it also makes it worth pointing out that allowing violation of any of those rights without amending the document to remove said violated rights risks all of them, period.

Canada is not the U.S. American rights and constitutional matters baffle me, as nearly everything political about your country baffles me. It would really be appreciated it you would not lecture me on the rights and constitutional matters of Canada because you don't live under this system and I really doubt you're part of the demographic who would even be affected when the government shrugs at the times when they're violating their own rules.

actually, what i expect you to do is to (at some point, if you keep engaging with my posts) not duck the argument that the charter must start counting for a 2nd person at some point (in canada that point seems to be "birth", and that makes it pretty exceptional), and that the question of where this point should be is central to abortion policy. i don't know how many times/different ways i can write this. we're either considering one person for rights or two people, legally speaking. which one of those two mutually exclusive things it is completely changes downstream conclusions.

I "ducked" nothing. I stated that I don't know, and I tagged a Canadian member of CFCOT to ask if she can answer this. If she hasn't, that means she either hasn't noticed, has noticed and is looking for the answer, or just doesn't want to participate. Her Charter right of "freedom of expression" means she has the choice to answer or not, within the rules of this forum.

So while you might be obsessing about 2 people, I'm not. It would be great if you'd stop harping on this.

i also expect anybody who wants to benefit from a document which codifies "rights" to uphold those rights self-consistently.



in both cases, the ostensible justification for compelled action is the protection/benefit of someone other than the person compelled. though in the case of abortion, the consequences of having it vs not do have much higher probabilities involved.



not sure why you're fixating on this or think it's relevant. i never made this assertion, and it's not necessary for my point.

YOU are the one who brought up vaccine mandates. You seem to think that getting one little shot that will help you, your immediate household, your co-workers, and others with whom you might interact with to be safe from a virus that has killed millions of people worldwide is the equivalent of forcing a woman or child (kids as young as 9 have been known to get pregnant).

THEY ARE NOT EQUIVALENT.

when you claim "reasonable", you must have some basis/actually use reasoning. that rings hollow when not consistently applying a concept of individual rights, while demanding individual rights.

Just stop this. Honestly, you are trying to compare unrelated things. I've given my well-reasoned explanation already and pretending to misunderstand isn't doing you favors. All you are accomplishing by this point is annoying me.

 

[El_Machinae]

when i looked up stats earlier i mentioned that this actually becomes true even during 2nd trimester, as a %. there just aren't many people who randomly opt into abortions w/o medical reasons after 12-14wk, if you look at present/near-past abortion rates. that's why it was interesting to me that people gave florida so much crap over its 15wk law; not only is that later than many countries by a couple weeks, it more or less doesn't change what will actually happen (since fl still allows medical exceptions after 15wk even under new law).

this also implies that moving it between 15 and 24wk won't make much difference, calling into question the point of changing it too. everyone wants to "do something" i guess.

I think there are a number of reasons why nobody mentions other countries with tighter restrictions, which is why I was glad it was brought up. I mean, normally I'm looking around in regions where there are incredible distress levels, but I was startled by Germany being mentioned, especially given how easy it is to support German pro-choice efforts (at least in the token slacktivism sense).

There are a couple reasons to be 'upset' at the 15 week limit being imposed. Firstly, obviously it's bad momentum in general. Secondly, if anybody thinks it's unnecessarily early, then obviously they'll care. But, the most important risk (imo) is that a tight timepoint allows institutional delays to become a key strategic battleground - and that is one we have a lot less insight or control over. So, it shifts the battlelines on a much harder fight. I think it's passingly obvious when stated, but the majority of early cases (making post 14 weeks 'rare') is because early access was available ... so those statistics are hard to judge in comparison to the presumption that efforts to delay access are ongoing.

I know a person here that missed local deadlines and then couldn't access distant services due to resources, and the spread between 15 weeks and 24 weeks would have mattered. In two different timelines, she shows up in your statistics as someone who made use of services before 15 weeks but didn't afterwards.

 

[Arwon]

A lot of those "restrictions" in a lot of countries are minor administrative tickboxes, not actual prohibitions.

Like if you look it up here you'll see some named timeframe for "on demand" abortions, ie when you can just take a pill or do a quick day surgery. But then after that point, in most states you need doctor sign off which is built into the process of accessing complex surgical abortions anyway (performing doctor and clinic or hospital are going to sign off on doing the thing they're going to do, aren't they?).

 

[El_Machinae]

Are you missing a link (at 'look it up here')? It looks like you're missing a link.

 

[Arwon]

No I mean if you look it up for here, the Australian Capital Territory or Australia more broadly, on global lists you'll see some limit mentioned, but access after that still exists. Which can lead people without context who are used to "gestational limits" being a hard red line that is followed by prohibition, to get the wrong idea. The real barriers here are practical matters of cost and travel, not the shift from one administrative treatment to another.

And it means the "rights" discourse really misses the mark because that's not the salient issue. For a long time much of this country had abortion on the criminal books in unenforceable ways with near total exemptions (common law decisions decades ago defined "unlawful abortion" into near non-existence by deferring to a doctor's honest belief that it was necessary), and I think there were one or two prosecutions in Queensland in recent decades based more on rules around obtaining certain medications without authorisation.

So there was no "right" to an abortion, but it was quite readily accessible on a practical level.

But here in the ACT, where it's been decriminalised for longer (the crimes act sections were removed in 2002) and officially there's no listed "gestational limits" on big comparative maps and charts... it's still had accessibility issues because there's no specialist closer than Sydney that performs complex surgical abortions. So at a practical level, even though there was long officially more of a "right" to abortion, it was less accessible than places where it was officially (unenforcably) criminalised until 2019.

Similarly, about a decade ago, Tasmania removed abortion criminalisation laws from its books, but since then, the only provider of surgical abortions in the state closed so people need to travel to the mainland - in the last decade therefore the "right" has been gained but actual access diminished.