Who are you advocating to be aborted?
It's not pro-life/pro-abortion, it's against/for women's rights.
[RD] Abortion, once again
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
It's not pro-life/pro-abortion, it's against/for women's rights.
I've been thinking about this vasectomy thing, and I realized the solution to that dilemma is just to do it to them when they're in the womb. Or sex select against boys. If you don't want teenagers capable of getting girls pregnant, don't make them!
Okay, that's a little dry and maybe dark. That said, if I'm following the discussion ( I'm probably not, given how the pro-choice mantras surprised me during covid ), doesn't the pro-choice movement suggest that snipping male fetuses while they're in the womb is not a violation of basic rights? Like, if the mother wants to make an infertile baby, that's the end of the discussion? Please, no straw men. Like, obviously I know the technology doesn't exist.
Okay, that's a little dry and maybe dark. That said, if I'm following the discussion ( I'm probably not, given how the pro-choice mantras surprised me during covid ), doesn't the pro-choice movement suggest that snipping male fetuses while they're in the womb is not a violation of basic rights? Like, if the mother wants to make an infertile baby, that's the end of the discussion? Please, no straw men. Like, obviously I know the technology doesn't exist.
It doesn't sound like you're following the discussion at all. Did you make this up yourself?
Yes, but you and I have serial miscommunication, so we might need to springboard off of other people's insight. Obviously I invented the idea of reversible vasectomies in the womb. I didn't invent the idea that unwise ejaculation was the main cause of unwanted pregnancies, however.
Remember, our two cultures have different backgrounds on this topic. We literally have different battles and different bulwarks. But my main risk is contagion from the south of damaging memetics
Remember, our two cultures have different backgrounds on this topic. We literally have different battles and different bulwarks. But my main risk is contagion from the south of damaging memetics
João III
King
I follow what you're saying but I still disagree. It's clearly not limited to pro-life-based discourse, that discussion is wildly inconsistent around the world. If there were not questions around it then there wouldn't be any limits on when abortion is permissible during pregnancy nor would there be such disagreement on what those limits should look like
If you're supporting legal abortion, then you have to draw a line at which point a human has a body. You can't just shout "bodily autonomy" and bury your head in sand, like some people. Certainly you at least agree that it's an issue (I won't say "problem") on some level?
I'm well aware of the rationale. But you don't think it strange or odd at all that out of all the rights that can exist, there's only one "right to choose"? Abortion is the "right to choose", despite any number of other rights also existing as a choice to exercise them or not? Neither of us are "pro-choice" when it comes to guns for example
As opposed to framing an argument terms of pro-choice or anti-choice? That's not emotive in any capacity? Not even 1%?
My first thought, though I am not convinced it is relevant, is that it sounds a bit like the Crispr Babies, in that post-conception but pre-birth something was done to them that someone thought was good but probably harmed them. Not many people thought that was a good idea, and I suspect even fewer would like your idea.
I've never heard it suggested. Although the 2 are separate issues in my experience people who are pro-choice are also against parents being able to abort their children on the basis of their sex.
I think most people agree that it isn't a good idea. But it isn't a good idea because it's risky. And everybody understands the risks of putting barriers in people's reproduction, especially from a top down.
However, one of the explicit concerns about imposing reversible vasectomies on young boys is literally the human rights bodily Integrity angle. So, if a mother doesn't want to make a baby capable of accidentally getting other people pregnant, there are a couple options that can be done in the womb, using magical technology, that circumvent the concerns about interference while they are a teenager.
They think it's a bad idea, when conducted at large scale? Or they think that it shouldn't be allowed?
No one seriously wants to sterilize boys. The entire point of that topic is to help men imagine what it's like to have their bodies messed with and controlled by the state.
That it shouldn't be allowed on any scale.
I don't think it's up to anyone here as to whether a mother would prefer a reversibly infertile male baby, though we'll decide if they're (theoretically) allowed to even make that choice. We're talking about the Bell Curve of human preferences and choices, after all. Any person worried about their child causing unwanted pregnancies has incentive to consider a range of options. As it is, we enable (and pressure) teens to get IUDs as a last-ditch defense against accidents, malicious actors, or unwise choices.
You only need to know one teen who couldn't do it, to realize that it's an unfair limitation of options.
But I do think the question really exposes some of the dissonance in the conversation. Ejaculations cause unwanted pregnancies, and few are 'pro-abortion', even if they're pro-Choice. It's a Bell Curve of opinions, so helping people control their ejaculations until they decide they're 'ready' is an obvious way to trim some of the harms.
Keep in mind, this is the Abortion thread, not the American Pro-Choice thread.
I have a terrifically difficult time figuring out why the state should be interfering in a mother's preference to what sex they birth. Obviously, it create the risk of imbalance, but it's society's job to make a variety of sexes desirable choices rather than forcing a mother (and the offspring) to maintain equilibrium. I guess a way of preventing sex selection is to deny that information, but denying information is forcing with just a different paintjob. Keeping a mother in ignorance and then birthing a child into a family that didn't really want them is .... um, problematic.
You only need to know one teen who couldn't do it, to realize that it's an unfair limitation of options.
But I do think the question really exposes some of the dissonance in the conversation. Ejaculations cause unwanted pregnancies, and few are 'pro-abortion', even if they're pro-Choice. It's a Bell Curve of opinions, so helping people control their ejaculations until they decide they're 'ready' is an obvious way to trim some of the harms.
Keep in mind, this is the Abortion thread, not the American Pro-Choice thread.
I have a terrifically difficult time figuring out why the state should be interfering in a mother's preference to what sex they birth. Obviously, it create the risk of imbalance, but it's society's job to make a variety of sexes desirable choices rather than forcing a mother (and the offspring) to maintain equilibrium. I guess a way of preventing sex selection is to deny that information, but denying information is forcing with just a different paintjob. Keeping a mother in ignorance and then birthing a child into a family that didn't really want them is .... um, problematic.
Last edited:
No, you actually do not hey.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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:
- mothers should be able to abort fetuses before a certain point, generally
- mothers should not be able to abort fetuses based on sex before that same point
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.
no living person has to imagine what this is like. everyone here lives it, without exception.
indeed. i like it.
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.
Last edited:
Well, yes, at some point the procedure for removal does become a birth. I would have hoped this was reasonably widely understood even in the American anti abortion movement.
A provocative sounding video, but an interesting watch. Trying to reframe the boogeyman of Nazi Eugenics, to modern screening techniques to avoid birth defects etc.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
i would hope so too, but it's also worth pointing out that doing nothing is itself a choice. if rights exist at all, there must exist a point where people get them. no law of the universe says it has to be before birth, or ever. but if we accept that people get rights at all, there must be a point where they start to count, and a point before which they do not.
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.
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.
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.
