Has the Abortion Debate Changed?

[onejayhawk]

Several months ago, Whoopi Goldberg did an interview of Carly Fiorina. The interview touched on abortion. Here are two opposing views of the interview:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419997/Carly-Fiorina-Whoopi-Goldberg-Abortion-The-View
http://thepulse2016.com/joshua-pinh...ldberg-attacks-carly-fiorina-see-whoopi-fail/

Some months ago, this forum discussed the same issue:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=541003

Has the debate morphed into a third Trimester debate? Is the answer the same in any trimester? If not, what is the point where the answer changes?

J

 

[Cutlass]

How are those 2 opposing views? Both are right wing versions of the event.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How are those 2 opposing views? Both are right wing versions of the event.

You say this as if you expected some sort of good faith in the opening post.

Share the dope, because clearly it must be good stuff.

 

[Ajidica]

You say this as if you expected some sort of good faith in the opening post.

Share the dope, because clearly it must be good stuff.

It is better than most abortion OPs. At least this one acknowledges there is a debate and the debate may be changing. That is quite a bit better than the "you are all worse than SS camp guards for allowing the holocaust of untold millions of babies" we usually get.

 

[Kennigit]

I think someone should tell Fiorina to google "implantation" if she wants to talk about zygote DNA

 

[emzie]

Not missing a beat, Fiorina responded, “Abortion is obviously a very delicate subject. I happen to believe that science is proving us right. The DNA in a zygote is the same as the DNA the day you die, we do have common ground on this issue now.”

Science is proving you right because an organism's DNA doesn't change over its life? I'm not quite sure what she thinks is proved here, other than she knows a sciencey word like "zygote."

“The majority of women, the majority of young people, the majority of Americans now think that late-term abortion for any reason at all is a problem,” Fiorina continued. “So what I say is, let’s go find that common ground.”

So because DNA doesn't change, we should compromise and ban abortions after 20 weeks. Okay, since you have brought facts to the table (DNA doesn't change!) I feel I should get to bring facts to the table too. Almost all late term abortions are for women who do not want to have an abortion. These are women who wanted to be mothers, but for a tragic reason, they cannot be right now. Many fatal birth defects cannot be detected before 20 weeks. There are medical conditions which risk the life of the mother to continue a pregnancy. Those are the abortions that you want to ban in the name of "common ground?"

 

[Zkribbler]

Fiorina's argument is internally inconsistent. She begins by make a zygote argument -- life begins at conception -- and the exults because the majority of Americans don't want abortions during the third trimester.

And she does this by relying upon DNA, which is a dopey argument. Following this argument to its logical end would mean that gene therapy is per-meditated murder.

She also sidestepped the question: whether she intends to impose her "Christian" values upon all Americans.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Does this woman have any realistic chance of being elected? Or any reasonable chance of being appointed to any government post that could impact women's rights to abortion and other reproductive health services?

I re-read the thread from 2014, and my views from that time have not changed.


Other than I'm a bit embarrassed by the two or three typos I found.

 

[Bootstoots]

Yeah, it has changed. It used to be like "Roe v. Wade should be overturned! Life begins at conception! Abortion doctors are murderers!"

Now it's like this:

"Women's Health and Safety Act of 2016:

All abortions must be performed by a doctor with admitting privileges for a hospital within a 10-mile radius, who has at least 20 years of experience, who must undergo and pass a drug test before each and every abortion, and the clinic must meet stringent seismic tests and be able to sustain Category 5 hurricane winds, and the mother must see the ultrasound and be played a sound of a beating fetal heart, and following this she must be held in a psychiatric hospital for mandatory counseling for no less than 72 hours, during which she must watch a 4-hour video containing graphic depictions of abortions and dead fetuses, before the abortion. Following the abortion, a statement identifying the mother shall be posted in a newspaper. Doctors who perform an abortion in which one or more of these conditions are not met are guilty of performing an illegal abortion and shall face no less than 25 nor more than 100 years imprisonment with no eligibility for parole."

The latter approach turns out to be much more successful! Who knew that passing burdensome regulations would become a favorite conservative pastime?

 

[Arwon]

Also as far as developed countries go, this is pretty much an exclusively American debate. There's Ireland and Chile and in the context of total bans the debate is different there, and then in the rest of the developed world the availability of abortion is a settled issue.

 

[Cutlass]

The latter approach turns out to be much more successful! Who knew that passing burdensome regulations would become a favorite conservative pastime?

Literally anyone who pays attention to what conservatives are.

 

[Vectors]

I find abortion morally abhorrent however I understand that a very large percent of the time there is quite a bit of pressure on the woman to abort some of which is up to and including have an abortion or become homeless with a large chunk of the remainder having been indoctrinated with the idea that it is just a lump of flesh so I don't judge women who have had abortions as bad people. I personally would prefer to address the causes of abortion because I find it is a symptom of much deeper and darker issues.

 

[Lohrenswald]

the idea that it is just a lump of flesh

Aren't we all though

 

[Cheetah]

I personally would prefer to address the causes of abortion because I find it is a symptom of much deeper and darker issues.

Causes? Like difficult to get/relatively expensive contraceptives, useless sex education, and a culture where one can't talk freely about sexuality?

We've had some great results and seeing a significant drop in abortion numbers in Norway from trials where girls, 15 to 23-year olds IIRC (the largest group of abortion patients), got access to free contraceptives. The bureaucracy is still processing it, but that's something we really should implement.

Would probably help a lot in the US too, if the goal is to minimize abortion numbers.

 

[warpus]

Also as far as developed countries go, this is pretty much an exclusively American debate. There's Ireland and Chile and in the context of total bans the debate is different there, and then in the rest of the developed world the availability of abortion is a settled issue.

You forgot Poland. Current gov't is trying to limit abortions even further there.

Causes? Like difficult to get/relatively expensive contraceptives, useless sex education, and a culture where one can't talk freely about sexuality?

We've had some great results and seeing a significant drop in abortion numbers in Norway from trials where girls, 15 to 23-year olds IIRC (the largest group of abortion patients), got access to free contraceptives. The bureaucracy is still processing it, but that's something we really should implement.

Would probably help a lot in the US too, if the goal is to minimize abortion numbers.

Oh yeah, these are definitely the things to do if you want to lower the number of abortions performed.

The problem is that most people who are viciously fighting against abortion are sort of brainwashed and ignore the facts here. They don't want abortions to happen, they don't want teenagers to have sex, they don't want anybody using contraception... They live in a fantasy world where all these things are possible all at once.

 

[onejayhawk]

Does this woman have any realistic chance of being elected?

She does. She has a nontrivial chance of becoming the winning Vice Presidential candidate.

The thread is about late-term abortions, which is not her position. However, it is a potentially winning position in USA politics. We saw in our own thread that many pro-choice people are willing to draw a line at viability. Likewise, many pro-life people will accept medical necessity. Is there room for something like a consensus?

J

 

[Borachio]

I find abortion morally abhorrent however I understand that a very large percent of the time there is quite a bit of pressure on the woman to abort some of which is up to and including have an abortion or become homeless with a large chunk of the remainder having been indoctrinated with the idea that it is just a lump of flesh so I don't judge women who have had abortions as bad people. I personally would prefer to address the causes of abortion because I find it is a symptom of much deeper and darker issues.

I have really rather mixed feelings on the issue, though I think I understand what you're saying and, with a very very broad brush, I largely agree with you.

However, my bottom line is a little different (though negotiable, since I realize this is a controversial topic).

The causes of abortion are mostly unwanted pregnancies. And the reason why there are unwanted pregnancies in this day and age when contraception (and even the morning after pill - though that counts technically as an early abortion) is freely and cheaply available is a bit of puzzler.

It's not that there is such pressure on a woman to abort (though there is, I agree), but that there's such pressure on a woman to have unprotected sex in the first place.

 

[Nexlev]

Has the debate morphed into a third Trimester debate? Is the answer the same in any trimester? If not, what is the point where the answer changes?J

Yes.

Other questions - who pays? How accessible should it be?

I support 3rd trimester as the cut off because it's roughly the point at which a fetus/baby begins to feel pain and have awareness.

 

[emzie]

Yes.

Other questions - who pays? How accessible should it be?

I support 3rd trimester as the cut off because it's roughly the point at which a fetus/baby begins to feel pain and have awareness.

What would you do about a fetus that had a developmental deformity that was incompatible with life, and caused the fetus pain?

 

[Nexlev]

I don't know.

Let me answer that question like this: when it comes to rhetorical questions, you really don't know what you will do until you are in that situation. If I answered now, I would not be in the emotional state that I would be in that situation. Also, I will never be pregnant.

However, I think what I would choose to do is not entirely relevant to what the laws should be. There are probably some scenarios where I would, rhetorically, commit infanticide which was once common. I still think those should be illegal.