[RD] Abortion, once again

[TheMeInTeam]

Y'all don't need to define a "cutoff time"

actually, you do. unless you're in the "extremist" category that allows for 8+mo abortions, regardless of whether the mother's life is in danger.

if you're not in that category, you actually have a cutoff time after all, and just don't know where it is.

legally you need one though, because at some point a person is a person, and prior to that it is not a person. the law applies to people.

obviously remorseless was referring to the law as is, so what about you drop the just asking questions stuff. for example, provide or reiterate when you believe abortion should be illegal

that's sort of the point though, law "as is" is drawing the line somewhere, and overwhelming majority of people agree that the line is somewhere after conception and before birth. the argument is over where it should be and why, pretty much always has been in terms of policy setting.

 

[Arwon]

actually, you do. unless you're in the "extremist" category that allows for 8+mo abortions, regardless of whether the mother's life is in danger.

if you're not in that category, you actually have a cutoff time after all, and just don't know where it is.

This is a stupid strawman position invented by Americans obsessed with making presciptive abortion laws beyond the needed "they're healthcare, they're permitted and should be carried out by qualified people".

It shouldn't be a question for the law to limit based on some arbitrary number count. It's a question for the individuals involved in obtaining and performing a given termination. Especially since virtually every late term surgical abortion, which are quite invasive procedures that only happen pretty rarely, are done out of medical necessity for people who were intending to carry to term but something went wrong. Busybody obsessives using late term abortions as a bogeyman and wedge should really just butt out.

Where I live, there's no gestation limit defined in law, no punishments for transgressors or whatever other medieval stuff. The only barriers are practical access issues that need to be reduced and removed. This is all how it should be - the "abortion debate" should just be about how we make it fully available to those who need it.

 

[Gorbles]

unless you're in the "extremist" category that allows for 8+mo abortions

This category doesn't exist. It is a made-up position that only benefits those pushing actual, existing extremist legislation at the other end of the pregnancy term.

EDIT: ninja'd.

 

[Angst]

that's sort of the point though, law "as is" is drawing the line somewhere, and overwhelming majority of people agree that the line is somewhere after conception and before birth. the argument is over where it should be and why, pretty much always has been in terms of policy setting.

what a bunch of waffle. i asked you a question?

 

[Angst]

This is a stupid strawman position invented by Americans obsessed with making presciptive abortion laws beyond the needed "they're healthcare, they're permitted and should be carried out by qualified people".

It shouldn't be a question for the law to limit based on some arbitrary number count. It's a question for the individuals involved in obtaining and performing a given termination. Especially since virtually every late term surgical abortion, which are quite invasive procedures that only happen pretty rarely, are done out of medical necessity for people who were intending to carry to term but something went wrong. Busybody obsessives using late term abortions as a bogeyman and wedge should really just butt out.

i have a friend who was removed from the uterus early and carried through medical procedures to be ensured survival. like 3 months before term. he was gonna die otherwise. as far as i understand, this is the state of things, at least in denmark. the rare, rare cases where there is some form of intervention in late pregnancy, there's technology to try and save the kid. was not an abortion per se of course, but this is the state of medicine. there's absolutely no meaningful political support to allow free abortions at 8 months, and you're right, it shouldn't even be brought up. the few cases where (not comparable) things happen, there's a buttload of med tech to try and save the kid, and it's always due to some pregnancy complication that's usually terrifyingly dangerous to everyone relevant involved

 

[EgonSpengler]

I also wonder if the anti-abortion folks who claim to be concerned with preventing deaths are as wound up about the maternal mortality rates in the US. If you don't already know what they are, I'm sure you can take a rough guess. In a quick Google search, words like "worst", "worsening", "dismal", and "embarrassment" crop up. Surely those organizations dedicated to making abortions harder to get are equally committed, if not more so, to improving healthcare for pregnant women and women who've recently given birth.

 

[El_Machinae]

The gestation number won't be arbitrary, and in some ways we are very lucky with regards to Human Nature. It is basically impossible to prove that only medically necessary late term abortions will occur, if there is any type of reasonable privacy standards. But, we live in a world of dilemmas.

Those dilemmas mean that we need to limit the horror, because like squeezing a balloon, being too absolutist in one category will just push all of the horror into another region. It's a bit of a tautology, but if you want to reduce medically unnecessary late term abortions, the best method is to reduce the number of unwanted late-term pregnancies. And, obviously, there is a net benefit in preventing late-term complications as well.

You can talk or you can help. It takes a lot of hubris to think that talking helps. Obviously, it does overall, but there's also personal ego inflating our own perceived contribution relative to actual help

 

[Angst]

I also wonder if the anti-abortion folks who claim to be concerned with preventing deaths are as wound up about the maternal mortality rates in the US. If you don't already know what they are, I'm sure you can take a rough guess. In a quick Google search, words like "worst", "worsening", "dismal", and "embarrassment" crop up. Surely those organizations dedicated to making abortions harder to get are equally committed, if not more so, to improving healthcare for pregnant women and women who've recently given birth.

anti abortion people often can't even get the facts right as to the nature of sex and pregnancy, so eh

 

[TheMeInTeam]

what a bunch of waffle. i asked you a question?

oh. i answered that way earlier in the thread.

something along the lines of fetal viability/prior to 3rd trimester. we don't have a non-arbitrary means of placing the line, and our knowledge of consciousness/experience is limited wrt this topic. so i'd err more on side of freedom and nudge towards prior to 3rd trimester (any time allowed for medically relevant reasons). that said, a huge % (nearly all) elective abortions are < 15wk already (less than 15 actually), so i'm not too fussed when laws set the mark after 15wk or more.

i don't think bans on 1st trimester abortions are justifiable in a logically consistent way, unless one is against contraceptives in general or something else i don't feel like considering in this thread. those are extremists in other direction and i don't think we have anyone around arguing for that at the moment.

It is basically impossible to prove that only medically necessary late term abortions will occur, if there is any type of reasonable privacy standards. But, we live in a world of dilemmas.

you can set the law that only medically necessary late-term is allowed. yes, some will break that law. people break other laws too. i don't think it would be impossible to catch this over time, other things covered by medical privacy requirements get caught.

It shouldn't be a question for the law to limit based on some arbitrary number count. It's a question for the individuals involved in obtaining and performing a given termination. Especially since virtually every late term surgical abortion

this is already implying a line was drawn (late-term, medically necessary etc). at some point prior, it was not late term, and then it became late term. it so happens that this conceptual cutoff point seems to be very, very strongly correlated with gestation time lol

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Surely those organizations dedicated to making abortions harder to get are equally committed, if not more so, to improving healthcare for pregnant women and women who've recently given birth.

That's a joke, right? They're committed to waving signs around and judging pregnant women and girls for being pregnant, no matter what caused the pregnancy. They don't care about the actual baby, just the fetus as long as it exists to be used as a political tool.

Some years ago my current MLA was on the Catholic school board. She approved a "field trip" to bus high school students to an anti-abortion rally in Edmonton. Apparently it's never too early to teach them to be judgmental and hateful and hostile.

 

[Angst]

oh. i answered that way earlier in the thread.

something along the lines of fetal viability/prior to 3rd trimester. we don't have a non-arbitrary means of placing the line, and our knowledge of consciousness/experience is limited wrt this topic. so i'd err more on side of freedom and nudge towards prior to 3rd trimester (any time allowed for medically relevant reasons). that said, a huge % (nearly all) elective abortions are < 15wk already (less than 15 actually), so i'm not too fussed when laws set the mark after 15wk or more.

i don't think bans on 1st trimester abortions are justifiable in a logically consistent way, unless one is against contraceptives in general or something else i don't feel like considering in this thread. those are extremists in other direction and i don't think we have anyone around arguing for that at the moment.

thanks for answering, truly.

well, at least i'll give that you're really trying to reach out beyond your own judgment and trust for the sake of a common judgment here; your own limit is more liberal than most countries with abortions (if i read this correctly). it's sometimes hard to tell with your posting style (not that mine is particularly parseable, i know)

either number also more align with current medical professionals than the public.

 

[Arwon]

More barbarism in America:

Idaho Supreme Court: When women qualify for an abortion exception, doctors must give them a c-section or have them give vaginal birth - rather than use actual abortion procedures - to give a fetus "the best opportunity for survival"

This comes from the Idaho Supreme Court's 'clarification' of the state's abortion ban, where they say even when an abortion is legally allowable, doctors have to try to "remove that unborn child," unless doing so would kill the woman.

Essentially this means that the law requires doctors to force women into medically cruel (and futile!) c-sections and vaginal deliveries so that they can tell the state they did everything they could to save the fetus

 

[Valka D'Ur]

More barbarism in America:

That's insanity. If the abortion occurs before 20-24 weeks' gestation, there is no way the fetus will survive.

 

[Broken_Erika]

That's insanity. If the abortion occurs before 20-24 weeks' gestation, there is no way the fetus will survive.

This isn't about reality. This is about ideology.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Most forced birth abortion laws ignore fetuses with fatal genetic abnormalities that do not manifest until 3-5 years after birth. Such abnormalities can be detected in womb if tested for.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Most forced birth abortion laws ignore fetuses with fatal genetic abnormalities that do not manifest until 3-5 years after birth. Such abnormalities can be detected in womb if tested for.

And with some, the newborn's lifespan can reasonably be measured in hours. At best. In too many cases this is known that it will be the case before birth occurs. Yet some governments or Catholic places insist on putting the woman through added stress because of ideology that may not be hers.

 

[Fippy]

anti abortion people often can't even get the facts right as to the nature of sex and pregnancy, so eh

Well it's always going to extremes in those debates..
if i just say "i don't like abortions when there was no danger or other clear reasons", i can be sure attacks will be inc. already.
It's just so typical for how things go online these days.

 

[Farm Boy]

anti abortion people often can't even get the facts right as to the nature of sex and pregnancy, so eh

Sorry, wasn't concise enough before.

But yes, thank you. We do forget the complexities of dicks and vags. And the sublime societal calling of creating and destroying humans for entertainment and bonding.

 

[Gorbles]

Sorry, wasn't concise enough before.

But yes, thank you. We do forget the complexities of dicks and vags. And the sublime societal calling of creating and destroying humans for entertainment and bonding.

Sounds like you're carrying a lot of baggage there.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's not rocket science.

I mean, it is biology. But it's a rather familiar sort. Like enough that insisting that it's biooooology that's just to haaaard for people to understand is, well, it's... ?zumptin?... I guess?