[RD] Abortion, once again

[Lexicus]

Nearly all abortions after like 10 weeks are surgical, not medical, so I'm not sure what this is trying to say

This may be an example of differing terminology; in US english the opposite of "medical" in this context would be "elective."

 

[Ajidica]

Let me remind you that you began this exchange by pointing out an apparent logical contradiction in that I oppose laws banning late-term abortion for non-medical reasons while also insisting that medically-unnecessary late-term abortions do not happen. I am simply explaining why I actually oppose those laws. I oppose those laws not because I secretly think it's funny that a woman might get pregnant and then deliberately wait until the third trimester to abort the baby for the evulz, but, as I said, because these laws are in fact simply used to inflict physical and emotional torture on women.

I just find it strange you (general you) stridently insist that non-medical late term abortions don't happen, but the moment someone even on an internet forum who suggests prohibiting them you treat it (it being something that you says never happens) as if it it is some attempt to strip women of all their civil rights.

 

[Lexicus]

as if it it is some attempt to strip women of all their civil rights.

I regard it as the thin end of the wedge.

 

[Crezth]

I mean have the mouth-breathing reprobates repeating their churches' war propaganda ever offered a cogent argument why a "late-term abortion" is actually so much obviously worse than an early-term one?

 

[Arwon]

This may be an example of differing terminology; in US english the opposite of "medical" in this context would be "elective."

What a cruel and ugly distinction to make.

 

[Gorbles]

I just find it strange you (general you) stridently insist that non-medical late term abortions don't happen, but the moment someone even on an internet forum who suggests prohibiting them you treat it (it being something that you says never happens) as if it it is some attempt to strip women of all their civil rights.

If it helps, I provided two links that go into some detail why "late term" is a conservative fiction.

 

[EgonSpengler]

What a cruel and ugly distinction to make.

That comes from the dumb[stink] American healthcare system, not so much our battles over abortion. In the US, insurance companies govern access to healthcare, and of course it's in the interest of insurance companies to figure out when and how they can deny a claim.

 

[Farm Boy]

I mean have the mouth-breathing reprobates repeating their churches' war propaganda ever offered a cogent argument why a "late-term abortion" is actually so much obviously worse than an early-term one?

Sapience.

 

[Senethro]

Sapience.

If sapience matters at all, it would matter when one party has all of it and the other party has none of it, and you don't think it does.

 

[Lexicus]

What a cruel and ugly distinction to make.

I mostly agree with you though I think Kylie Jenner getting a new jawline is meaningfully different than like a burn victim getting skin grafts or whatever. Those are edge cases though; @EgonSpengler is correct that this is a bureaucratic distinction invented to give insurance companies an excuse to deny claims.

 

[Farm Boy]

If sapience matters at all, it would matter when one party has all of it and the other party has none of it, and you don't think it does.

We aren't talking early term(for which I will adopt Bill Clinton's safe/legal/rare), and I'm getting the development process of sapience from El_Mac's terms. Which, from what I can tell, are better than anyone else here's knowledge. So I'm not replacing them with inferior versions.

I can remove sapience from the equation. I farm. I've killed a lot of mammals, piecemeal, they possess no human sapience or potential. But they're otherwise mostly the same. Groundhogs, squirrels, deer, mice, opossums, coyotes, racoons, birds: lots of varmits over the years. You can trap or poison them, and it's easier, but then you kill things you didn't intend. So depending on backdrop, birdshot or a .22 is more labor, but less destructive. They all died hard. They all fought. I've watched that hundreds of times, I did it. I watched it happen to the reason I live, too. Tasted the breath. They all die more similarly than they live. The overlap is pretty extreme*. So yeah, I can remove the sapience, if it doesn't matter at all, but it changes my moral calculus on a lot. For example, if I don't care about that much, anymore, I think we should be scratching "made in USA" off our biggest most obsolete dumb bombs and giving them to the only people willing right now to "manage" a longstanding problem population of varmints.

*I'm reminded of a park ranger needing to explain why they don't bear-proof garbage harder when they have a problem with bears getting into garbage. It went something like: "Our garbage recepticles need to be accessible to 100% of humans. The top 20% of bears and the bottom 20% of humans have a lot more in common than you think."

 

[Senethro]

Sure, so I guess I'm just saying that I'm distrustful of secondary/dependent arguments the proponent would never even have to stand by if they got their way on the primary/originating arguments.

 

[Crezth]

We aren't talking early term(for which I will adopt Bill Clinton's safe/legal/rare), and I'm getting the development process of sapience from El_Mac's terms. Which, from what I can tell, are better than anyone else here's knowledge. So I'm not replacing them with inferior versions.

I can remove sapience from the equation. I farm. I've killed a lot of mammals, piecemeal, they possess no human sapience or potential. But they're otherwise mostly the same. Groundhogs, squirrels, deer, mice, opossums, coyotes, racoons, birds: lots of varmits over the years. You can trap or poison them, and it's easier, but then you kill things you didn't intend. So depending on backdrop, birdshot or a .22 is more labor, but less destructive. They all died hard. They all fought. I've watched that hundreds of times, I did it. I watched it happen to the reason I live, too. Tasted the breath. They all die more similarly than they live. The overlap is pretty extreme*. So yeah, I can remove the sapience, if it doesn't matter at all, but it changes my moral calculus on a lot. For example, if I don't care about that much, anymore, I think we should be scratching "made in USA" off our biggest most obsolete dumb bombs and giving them to the only people willing right now to "manage" a longstanding problem population of varmints.

*I'm reminded of a park ranger needing to explain why they don't bear-proof garbage harder when they have a problem with bears getting into garbage. It went something like: "Our garbage recepticles need to be accessible to 100% of humans. The top 20% of bears and the bottom 20% of humans have a lot more in common than you think."

Exactly. The only way to not treat humans as animals is not to take collective ownership of their wombs. Otherwise, it really shouldn’t matter who we kill, right?

At least killing animals has a purpose. Forcing a child to be born, in this world, to a mom who doesn’t want them? It’s just feckless arrogance.

 

[Farm Boy]

This particular argument is over the viable, that have bodies that can exist without thier birth mother's womb(and our communal duty to provide vs simply expose infants). And in context of this I think it's safe to say the parent to be offered better not be the same. But indeed. The question is if sapience is sufficient to make a human not a varmint. Gaza indicates "no" to the worldview in power in our country now.

 

[sophie]

I mean if sapience was the defining attribute then we also probably shouldn’t be slaughtering pigs or cows or subjecting apes to arbitrary confinement or abuse

If the standard is about not inflicting unnecessary suffering or death on humans specifically then we should probably abolish most of our carceral practices, corporal punishment, and impose stronger mandates for housing and food subsidies.

But we don’t, because abortion isn’t actually about preserving life or preventing the inflicting of unnecessary suffering on creatures capable of understanding pain or possessing human-like intelligence. It’s about controlling and punishing women.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, yeah. I mean, if we can't be perfect, we might as well just eat everything.

Gonna anyways, right?

 

[Lexicus]

Well, yeah. I mean, if we can't be perfect, we might as well just eat everything.

Gonna anyways, right?

Dude, these same red state governors thundering about how abortion needs to be illegal are leaving federal money on the table because they don't want to expand medicaid. This is not really a "let the perfect be the enemy of the good" situation.

 

[Farm Boy]

Thank you for the offer of discussion Lex. I'll pass.

 

[Lexicus]

I am providing commentary on your posts for the edification of third parties.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Dude, these same red state governors thundering about how abortion needs to be illegal are leaving federal money on the table because they don't want to expand medicaid. This is not really a "let the perfect be the enemy of the good" situation.

I'll take this up since my friend declined. I don't see it as a "perfect be the enemy of the good" argument, although I understand why you characterized it that way.... rather I see it as identifying and rejecting a "whataboutism"-based argument. It's similar to rejecting the "if you are going to complain about Ukraine and Palestine, you have to care equally about Sudan, or Myanmar" argument.

Sure, so I guess I'm just saying that I'm distrustful of secondary/dependent arguments the proponent would never even have to stand by if they got their way on the primary/originating arguments.

I'd agree that "saving human lives", as a cause, is going to be subject to a lot more complex counterpoints than, "discouraging/disincentivizing women from having extramarital sex".