The Abortion and Vaccination Thread

[Ajidica]

Moderator Action: Split off from the "Is Donald Trump Done For?" thread...

Yea I know farmers who had to wait 35 extra days for checks from papa fed to help bail them out of the trouble Trump put them in. They still would vote for trump over any of the baby killers. If democrats don't think this abortion argument isn't going to keep those "family value" voters in the pillage and plunder republican's camp they got another thing coming.

Instead of protecting abortion in the first two trimesters they've over reached here and allowed a long time contentious argument be used against them with great effect.

Trump did a pow wow with his evangelicals today and they were eating him up.

I have no idea why Democrats think it is a good idea to push so hard on late-term abortions. It isn't a vote winner, mobilizes the evangelicals like nobody's business, and is an area of abortion a lot of people (such as myself) are uncomfortable with. Once you start getting into fetal viability outside the womb I feel making the moral argument for permitting abortion gets dicey outside of your standard severe fetal deformity or life of mother.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I have no idea why Democrats think it is a good idea to push so hard on late-term abortions. It isn't a vote winner, mobilizes the evangelicals like nobody's business, and is an area of abortion a lot of people (such as myself) are uncomfortable with. Once you start getting into fetal viability outside the womb I feel making the moral argument for permitting abortion gets dicey outside of your standard severe fetal deformity or life of mother.

You think that matters to Republicans ? Trump whom is an amoral athiest con-man could have an extra martial affair and then abortion for all the evangelicals care
Evangelicals already sold their souls to Trump (and prosperity bible Evangelicals sold their souls to money long before Trump)

Thats why Republicans LIE about late term abortions, because those are only ever done, when the mother life is at risk. Its a convenient lie and wedge issue

 

[Lexicus]

I have no idea why Democrats think it is a good idea to push so hard on late-term abortions. It isn't a vote winner, mobilizes the evangelicals like nobody's business, and is an area of abortion a lot of people (such as myself) are uncomfortable with. Once you start getting into fetal viability outside the womb I feel making the moral argument for permitting abortion gets dicey outside of your standard severe fetal deformity or life of mother.

Probably because it's unequivocally the right thing to do. "Late-term abortions" that are not necessary for actual medical reasons (which account for the vast majority of them in the first place) are almost always the result of Republican state governments making abortion virtually impossible for people to actually access. So by the time they line up all the ducks in a row it's the third trimester.
The moral argument for women to be allowed to have abortions at any time for any reasons is that they aren't baby factories. They have the right to control their reproduction and by extension their own lives, period. Whether it makes people "uncomfortable" or not. A lot of things other people do make me feel "uncomfortable", like people listening to Post Malone, but it's a free country and they're allowed to do what they want with their lives.

 

[Patine]

Probably because it's unequivocally the right thing to do. "Late-term abortions" that are not necessary for actual medical reasons (which account for the vast majority of them in the first place) are almost always the result of Republican state governments making abortion virtually impossible for people to actually access. So by the time they line up all the ducks in a row it's the third trimester.
The moral argument for women to be allowed to have abortions at any time for any reasons is that they aren't baby factories. They have the right to control their reproduction and by extension their own lives, period. Whether it makes people "uncomfortable" or not. A lot of things other people do make me feel "uncomfortable", like people listening to Post Malone, but it's a free country and they're allowed to do what they want with their lives.

But Evangelical Republicans like to shift down the moral line and distract people with how Iran treats it's women so they look good BY COMPARISON.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's still stupid to draft a contentious law that has a legitimate reading that an accidentally live delivered subject of late term abortion has no right to care as a medical mistake.

I mean, whatever your hot take on the grander issue rather than truly exceptional cases are, that's a collosal ****up of legislative drafting. Or it's evil, I suppose. It's possible. I interpret it as the former though.

 

[metalhead]

It's still stupid to draft a contentious law that has a legitimate reading that an accidentally live delivered subject of late term abortion has no right to care as a medical mistake.

How is this a legitimate reading?

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh! Well, if there's clover I suppose it's good we got that all settled.

 

[El_Machinae]

Probably because it's unequivocally the right thing to do

Not really, the problem is that it's a kluge-fix to other terrible things. It's only a line in the sand because the other terrible things are not available to be fixed. But, I think it's an error to treat it like a line in the sand (given how an incredible number of other countries have figured it out), except when it's used to highlight all of the other problems that it's trying to compensate for.

And so ...

"Late-term abortions" that are not necessary for actual medical reasons (which account for the vast majority of them in the first place) are almost always the result of Republican state governments making abortion virtually impossible for people to actually access. So by the time they line up all the ducks in a row it's the third trimester.

This is basically 100% correct. If late-term abortions are problem morally (and they are), then trimming down the number of them with earlier abortions should be in the solution set. If they're not, then the political opponent is just told that. It's a kluge-fix to a yucky situation, and there're a bunch of ways to unyucky it.

 

[Lexicus]

(given how an incredible number of other countries have figured it out)

What do you mean by this?

(and they are)

Again: I believe women have the right to control their own reproduction, and you don't have the right to call it a moral problem.

 

[Farm Boy]

then trimming down the number of them with earlier abortions should be in the solution set.

Does New York have an abortion rate that would indicate the problem is in access to abortion rather than other social areas? Yucky people are going to be yucky. God Money, man.

 

[El_Machinae]

I mean that other countries have figured out how to provide abortion services while still limiting late-term abortion, without complicating it on a specific reading of a specific right.

Again: I believe women have the right to control their own reproduction, and you don't have the right to call it a moral problem.

Of course I have the right to call it a moral problem, don't be stupid. It's an incredibly difficult problem. You're wrong on both counts, even.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean that other countries have figured out how to provide abortion services while still limiting late-term abortion, without complicating it on a specific reading of a specific right.

That's what I figured.

Of course I have the right to call it a moral problem, don't be stupid. It's an incredibly difficult problem. You're wrong on both counts, even.

Then I have the right to tell you I find it unconscionable that you appear to regard women as baby-factories.

 

[El_Machinae]

Does New York have an abortion rate that would indicate the problem is in access to abortion rather than other social areas? Yucky people are going to be yucky. God Money, man.

I never simplified it to 'access', but you give a good counter-point. I don't know the number of a late-term abortions in New York where we'd agree that the question is much more difficult compared to the number of late-term abortions where 'medically necessary' seems like it gets its due.

Then I have the right to tell you I find it unconscionable that you appear to regard women as baby-factories.

I don't, and I never said that you didn't. I said that late-term abortions are a morally problematic. Maybe there's a syntax thing. I'm not calling them 'evil', I'm saying that the entire topic is difficult.

 

[Estebonrober]

Then I have the right to tell you I find it unconscionable that you appear to regard women as baby-factories.

Define “baby-factory” because if I’m not mistaken women are given the natural burden or gift of carrying babies. Right? I mean if they want out of that there are other ways of addressing that before a 36 week old fetus turns into a baby. Chauvinism aside at some point natural reality comes into play.


Anyways none of the specifics even matter compared to the politics of it. This really hurts liberal chances of making the case that their policies are better for American families across the Midwest and south. The optics of it are bad enough that the effect on people who are effected by optics powerfully in the first place will hurt dem chances. I’m already hearing about it from people. It’s going to be a thing in 2020. It wasn’t necessary. Just decriminalize it and cal it a day.

 

[Lexicus]

It's interesting and illuminating that the only people bemoaning the political effect of this "overreach" are men.

In any case...

Define “baby-factory” because if I’m not mistaken women are given the natural burden or gift of carrying babies. Right? I mean if they want out of that there are other ways of addressing that before a 36 week old fetus turns into a baby. Chauvinism aside at some point natural reality comes into play.

A baby factory is someone who has been robbed of her agency and power to determine the course of their own life by men pretending they care about the welfare of fetuses.

 

[Farm Boy]

I never simplified it to 'access'

Well, the issue certainly is nowhere near that simple, but changes to abortion law are changes to access, not root. Rates can indicate access. It was more a wondering than an argument, though I can sort of guesstimate where it's going to go.

 

[Estebonrober]

It's interesting and illuminating that the only people bemoaning the political effect of this "overreach" are men.

In any case...



A baby factory is someone who has been robbed of her agency and power to determine the course of their own life by men pretending they care about the welfare of fetuses.

My wife was disturbed by it. The hit piece taken out in the Atlantic was written by a woman. The Northam leak of blackface was done by women. I assure you it’s not just men.

Her agency is interesting here. Does she have the agency to kill a baby 3 hours post birth? Two days? I mean my wife is inconvenienced by children daily. So ten years after birth? At some point the agency you are talking about runs into the brick wall of the agency of the person being killed. Post birth I think it’s clear and again politically it’s just stupid. Like stupid stupid.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

The moral argument for women to be allowed to have abortions at any time for any reasons is that they aren't baby factories. They have the right to control their reproduction and by extension their own lives, period. Whether it makes people "uncomfortable" or not. A lot of things other people do make me feel "uncomfortable", like people listening to Post Malone, but it's a free country and they're allowed to do what they want with their lives.

A baby factory is someone who has been robbed of her agency and power to determine the course of their own life by men pretending they care about the welfare of fetuses.

There are many problems with this argument.

The first, is that there is no reason why regarding a 3rd trimester fetus as a person would be in any way dependent upon thinking a women is a baby factory. I'm quite torn about this because I my heart absolutely breaks when I think of a viable fetus - one that might have a beautiful future ahead, and is full of potential, life, and desire - being aborted, but I also truly want women to be as free as they can.

Secondly, is that it assumes that men do not actually care about the welfare of fetuses, without any evidence or justification given. This claim is so strong that it only takes one example to prove it false, and as a father, I can tell you that you are wrong. I already was growing a bond with my son before he was born. I cared deeply about his well-being, I loved the sound of his heart-beat and feeling his little kicks and punches - and so did my wife. We both would have been devastated if anything happened to him.

Thirdly, is that it treats the value of the “thing impacting the life of the women” as irrelevant, when any morally serious person would understand this cannot be the case. For example, if it really was irrelevant, then the following argument would be valid: a parent factory is someone who has been robbed of their agency and power to determine the course of their own lives by men pretending they care about the welfare of children.

Fourthly, it assumes that the an argument against third trimester abortions would somehow be dependent upon making someone feel 'uncomfortable', which is either taking the worst arguments from the other side in order to attack it, or you're simply ignorant of the best ones.

 

[rah]

I really don't see how limiting it in the last few months except for medical reasons intrudes on a woman's right in terms of being considered a baby factory.
As long as there are no obstacles earlier of course. That's plenty of time for a woman to make an decision.

 

[Lexicus]

Secondly, is that it assumes that men do not actually care about the welfare of fetuses, without any evidence or justification given.

The assumption is that people who pass and enforce laws criminalizing abortion do not care about the welfare of fetuses. That is obvious from the fact that they almost all vote for the Republican Party. Anyone who votes for the Republican Party wants children (and adults) to die pretty much by definition, so to claim that they care about the welfare of fetuses is laughable.

Thirdly, is that it treats the value of the “thing impacting the life of the women” as irrelevant, when any morally serious person would understand this cannot be the case.

That is irrelevant, actually. We both agree that you have moral value, and yet if you were to undergo kidney failure you could not legally compel me to donate a kidney to you. You could not legally compel me to donate blood to you, or any other organs, even if you need them to live. That's because the principle of bodily autonomy is considered even more fundamental than your right to life in those cases. And similarly to how you cannot take my organs even if you need them to live, you cannot force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Whatever moral value we assign the fetus is irrelevant to this argument because it cannot, and does not, trump the bodily autonomy of the woman.

Post birth I think it’s clear

Of course. To me it's equally clear pre-birth.

I really don't see how limiting it in the last few months except for medical reasons intrudes on a woman's right in terms of being considered a baby factory.
As long as there are no obstacles earlier of course. That's plenty of time for a woman to make an decision.

What you think is not important. It isn't your decision.

I would have much less of a problem with "late-term abortion" talk if I didn't believe it was a Trojan Horse for attacking abortion rights more broadly, if proponents of banning late-term abortion didn't routinely display ignorance of the actual circumstances under which third-trimester abortions are mostly performed, and if Republican state governments were not denying women in their states meaningful access to abortion.