The Abortion and Vaccination Thread

[Timsup2nothin]

You seem new to this debate!

Lots of people disagree with Lexicus on this moral point and use it as a line in the sand.

The line in the sand is, as it always is, demonstrated by @ulyssesSgrant in their post. "If the fetus was of person status..." has always been the core of the issue. Conservatives want to give it person status, so they can use it as a club to bat uncooperative women over the head with. Or so it usually appears to me. Most of them don't seem to give a damn about children, or adults, that obviously have person status, so this huge concern about a maybe person is obvious theater of some sort.

I suspect that's why @Lexicus didn't answer. It's like "if you believed that monkeys could fly would you still be sure it's raining?" To answer the question at all invites the flying monkey faithful to start raving and gibbering. The question is moot because I'm just not gonna buy into the flying monkeys. I'm actually not thinking that our new friend USG is trying to set something like that up, but you know our local trolls would be all over it.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

The line in the sand is, as it always is, demonstrated by @ulyssesSgrant in their post. "If the fetus was of person status..." has always been the core of the issue. Conservatives want to give it person status, so they can use it as a club to bat uncooperative women over the head with. Or so it usually appears to me. Most of them don't seem to give a damn about children, or adults, that obviously have person status, so this huge concern about a maybe person is obvious theater of some sort.

I suspect that's why @Lexicus didn't answer. It's like "if you believed that monkeys could fly would you still be sure it's raining?" To answer the question at all invites the flying monkey faithful to start raving and gibbering. The question is moot because I'm just not gonna buy into the flying monkeys. I'm actually not thinking that our new friend USG is trying to set something like that up, but you know our local trolls would be all over it.

Well my understanding of what @Lexicus said is that it didn't matter if it was a person or not, he specifically said it was irrelevant how much value it had. I think I disagree with that.

 

[metalhead]

Except the other children have the right not to be exposed to the dangerous consequences of "someone's" stupidity.

A fetus that has developed to the point it can survive outside the womb has rights, too. Millions of women right now are 8 months pregnant. Millions of babies conceived 8 months ago currently exist outside of a womb, alive and healthy, in one place or another.

Nobody disputes the right to life of the ones outside the womb I don't think (though one could, I suppose). Do the ones in a womb, at the same stage of development, fully capable of surviving removal from the womb, have no such rights? That would seem like a nonsensical standard if they didn't.

If one's bodily autonomy can be checked to prevent harm to other people in the case of vaccinations, then I don't think it makes much sense to posit that the woman's bodily autonomy is the only consideration here.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Not being allowed to have (or perform) an abortion without abiding by anti-abortion legislation doesn't constitute a violation of bodily autonomy

When they legalise Cannibis at the Federal level and you states places numerous restrictions so that its not avaliable anywhere in your state
You wont be a Hypocrite and scream like a Farmer for bailout money ?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well my understanding of what @Lexicus said is that it didn't matter if it was a person or not, he specifically said it was irrelevant how much value it had. I think I disagree with that.

Well, he has stated his position often enough to know that he has no "if or not" about it, he's going with not. Unless someone comes up with a convincing new point he's probably sticking with that. The perhaps even more radical view is mine I guess, because I said not too long ago that I'm not totally convinced that a newborn is a person. It is certainly an additional step along the path in that it has a degree of 'survive on its own' about it, though even that is not complete. But I've worked for a long time with the concept that identity forms in language, and there is more to language than recognizing sounds. Until the first time a thought, in words, starts with "I..." there is a question for me whether we are dealing with a person, or just a potential person.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

@Timsup2nothin, yeah there are others similar to you who will at least be consistent and say a baby isn't a person until it is self-conscious. I find this disgusting, but it is in my opinion at least an internally consistent position. I think viability outside the womb is a big deal, so is being sentient. If you want to assign it less value than a self-conscious person I'm fine with that, I would too. I don't think every adult person has the same value either, but it might be a good idea to act as if they do. I don't know why people are so hung up on binaries, there isn't a magical moment a fetus becomes a person. It's a process. I might even be on board with the idea that a women should be able to remove it from their body at any point. But killing a viable human life, 'person' or not, with that much potential, I don't think that is right.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@Timsup2nothin, yeah there are others similar to you who will at least be consistent and say a baby isn't a person until it is self-conscious. I find this disgusting, but it is in my opinion at least an internally consistent position. I think viability outside the womb is a big deal, so is being sentient. If you want to assign it less value than a self-conscious person I'm fine with that, I would too. I don't think every adult person has the same value either, but it might be a good idea to act as if they do. I don't know why people are so hung up on binaries, there isn't a magical moment a fetus becomes a person. It's a process. I might even be on board with the idea that a women should be able to remove it from their body at any point. But killing a viable human life, 'person' or not, with that much potential, I don't think that is right.

Well, neither do I. I'm certainly not advocating for legalization of infanticide. But I do get the whole "if it's in my body it's my call, not subject to some clown that couldn't really care less if they tried but needs the political points."

I also knew a guy who lived the vast majority of his adult life inside the question "how to care for my son." When I knew him he was fifty two, in a job he absolutely hated, and his career choices were dictated by available health care coverage for his twenty-four year old child. His housing choices were dictated by how to contain his six foot four, two hundred and forty pound son with the mind and maturity of a three year old and the strength of a linebacker. His social life didn't involve going out, and it didn't involve having people over...to the best of my knowledge he didn't have one. His views on retirement were colored by finally being able to give his wife some relief, and questions of whether he actually could stand being around his son 24/7. His biggest concern in life was "what happens to him if we die?" and as they passed the fifty mark "if" was turning into "when." And every bit of his life, from the age of twenty-seven forward, was completely predictable the day his son was born.

Again, I'm not advocating infanticide. But rather than say what an amazingly noble sacrifice this guy and his wife made, how about we acknowledge the fact that no one really had any alternative to offer them?

And is that right? Is that their 'just punishment' for a bad break of biology?

 

[Estebonrober]

Well, neither do I. I'm certainly not advocating for legalization of infanticide. But I do get the whole "if it's in my body it's my call, not subject to some clown that couldn't really care less if they tried but needs the political points."

I also knew a guy who lived the vast majority of his adult life inside the question "how to care for my son." When I knew him he was fifty two, in a job he absolutely hated, and his career choices were dictated by available health care coverage for his twenty-four year old child. His housing choices were dictated by how to contain his six foot four, two hundred and forty pound son with the mind and maturity of a three year old and the strength of a linebacker. His social life didn't involve going out, and it didn't involve having people over...to the best of my knowledge he didn't have one. His views on retirement were colored by finally being able to give his wife some relief, and questions of whether he actually could stand being around his son 24/7. His biggest concern in life was "what happens to him if we die?" and as they passed the fifty mark "if" was turning into "when." And every bit of his life, from the age of twenty-seven forward, was completely predictable the day his son was born.

Again, I'm not advocating infanticide. But rather than say what an amazingly noble sacrifice this guy and his wife made, how about we acknowledge the fact that no one really had any alternative to offer them?

And is that right? Is that their 'just punishment' for a bad break of biology?

Yea you are in murky waters here that basically no one can follow you on, they could make him a ward to the state right? I mean I realize the implication there, but at least they'd have help.

What is a person has a stroke? Do they lose person hood until they get their wits about them again?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yea you are in murky waters here that basically no one can follow you on, they could make him a ward to the state right? I mean I realize the implication there, but at least they'd have help.

What is a person has a stroke? Do they lose person hood until they get their wits about them again?

At this point I have to mention that, yes, the murky waters are limitless. We could bounce examples of murky waters back and forth all day, but since neither of us are suggesting answers it may be pointless.

My father didn't have a stroke, he just had some physically debilitating diseases that didn't kill him for almost twenty years. For most of that time he was just as fully functional an asshat as he had been his entire life. When he got to be too much for my mom my brother helped her take care of him for six months and said "I'll be back when he's dead, not before." I told him that I was there because taking care of him would kill my mom, but if anything happened to her he better have a backup plan for his next meal...and took care of him until he died three years later.

Is continuing 'personhood' earned? If you can't take care of yourself and have made a lifetime out of making yourself hated are the people who hate you really obligated to provide for you when you are no longer capable of sustaining your own life? Is the state, which may also be made up of people you've made a lifetime out of antagonizing?

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

But rather than say what an amazingly noble sacrifice this guy and his wife made, how about we acknowledge the fact that no one really had any alternative to offer them?

And is that right? Is that their 'just punishment' for a bad break of biology?

Life is hard, especially for people like that who just got unlucky. The cynical side of me says it is the risk you take when you decide to have a child, but that isn't a satisfying answer, and not something I would dare mention to someone actually in that situation. If the alternative is rightfully something we need to avoid, then commending the noble sacrifice might be the only thing we can do. If there is an alternative outside of the psalm 137:9 option, I'm all ears. I guess we are all like sisyphus in a way, trying to find some meaning and beauty in our struggles.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Is it hypocritical to commend the noble sacrifice if you are also saying "yeah, if you had done anything else I'd call you a monster and be demanding that you be imprisoned or worse"? I mean, that's basically where most people stand, right?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I have to point out that "The Abortion and Vaccination Thread" sort of implies, at first glance, that there is some vaccination against pregnancy available.

Dratted anti-vaxxers!

 

[Broken_Erika]

I have to point out that "The Abortion and Vaccination Thread" sort of implies, at first glance, that there is some vaccination against pregnancy available.

Dratted anti-vaxxers!

Sort-of. It's made from latex.

 

[Farm Boy]

How would you force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? Tie her down in a bed?

We do significantly worse for significantly less.

I have to point out that "The Abortion and Vaccination Thread" sort of implies, at first glance, that there is some vaccination against pregnancy available.

There's a 3 month shot that works for most people more reliably than condoms. Causes mood swings in some people, causes weight gain in some people. So not quite as clean as say an MMR shot, but in the same general sort of neighborhood. Sort of. More in some ways. Less in others.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not being allowed to have (or perform) an abortion without abiding by anti-abortion legislation doesn't constitute a violation of bodily autonomy

Forcing a woman to carry a foetus to term against her will does, in fact, constitute a violation of bodily autonomy.

If your wretched baker doesn't want to play by the rules, he can go home and not bake. A pregnant woman can't go home and not be pregnant. That's the difference.

 

[Bootstoots]

What if we say that women should have the autonomy to go into induced labor or have a C-section at any point in the pregnancy, but if the fetus has passed the point of viability (c. 24 weeks), then it must be delivered alive if possible and receive neonatal care like any other premature birth? This would solve the bodily autonomy problem without also forcing the killing of a viable fetus.

Of course, it wouldn't be great for babies to be born prematurely for no medical reason, but it does seem to be the best compromise between the two conflicting moral principles.

 

[Kaitzilla]

If anyone thinks all abortions are murder, keep in mind that 1 in 4 women in the US over age 45 have had abortions.

Each moral compass was checked individually in our free choice system and that was the outcome on balance.

On the other end of the spectrum, anyone who says, "we don't use birth control, we just get abortions" is a bit horrifying.

It is a tough issue.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

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.

The contention is not that individual men don't care about babies, it is that the Republican party does not. This is the party that has resisted parental leave, equal pay for mothers, free primary education, healthcare and welfare for struggling mothers and families. It is as if the care for fetuses the GOP affects were cover for their attempts to rob women of body autonomy because once the baby's delivered, they don't want to pay a dime to make sure it's given a fair shake at life.

A fetus that has developed to the point it can survive outside the womb has rights, too. Millions of women right now are 8 months pregnant. Millions of babies conceived 8 months ago currently exist outside of a womb, alive and healthy, in one place or another.

Nobody disputes the right to life of the ones outside the womb I don't think (though one could, I suppose). Do the ones in a womb, at the same stage of development, fully capable of surviving removal from the womb, have no such rights? That would seem like a nonsensical standard if they didn't.

If one's bodily autonomy can be checked to prevent harm to other people in the case of vaccinations, then I don't think it makes much sense to posit that the woman's bodily autonomy is the only consideration here.

What if we say that women should have the autonomy to go into induced labor or have a C-section at any point in the pregnancy, but if the fetus has passed the point of viability (c. 24 weeks), then it must be delivered alive if possible and receive neonatal care like any other premature birth? This would solve the bodily autonomy problem without also forcing the killing of a viable fetus.

Of course, it wouldn't be great for babies to be born prematurely for no medical reason, but it does seem to be the best compromise between the two conflicting moral principles.

The problem with all of this is that the point of viability has been a shifting target. At some point we will know how to artificially gestate humans, pushing back what counts as viable all the way to the moment of conception so long as neonatal care is available. Our technology has already pushed the window back by weeks.

 

[Ajidica]

I also knew a guy who lived the vast majority of his adult life inside the question "how to care for my son." When I knew him he was fifty two, in a job he absolutely hated, and his career choices were dictated by available health care coverage for his twenty-four year old child. His housing choices were dictated by how to contain his six foot four, two hundred and forty pound son with the mind and maturity of a three year old and the strength of a linebacker. His social life didn't involve going out, and it didn't involve having people over...to the best of my knowledge he didn't have one. His views on retirement were colored by finally being able to give his wife some relief, and questions of whether he actually could stand being around his son 24/7. His biggest concern in life was "what happens to him if we die?" and as they passed the fifty mark "if" was turning into "when." And every bit of his life, from the age of twenty-seven forward, was completely predictable the day his son was born.

Again, I'm not advocating infanticide. But rather than say what an amazingly noble sacrifice this guy and his wife made, how about we acknowledge the fact that no one really had any alternative to offer them?

And is that right? Is that their 'just punishment' for a bad break of biology?

What you described seems more to reflect on the sorry state of American health care - and long-term care- than on US abortion policy.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Oh and the parental leave plan that Trump talked about -

Well we don't have any details because he hasn't actually announced a plan. But it's likely he's going to back a plan by a GOP congresswoman which does not provide paid parental leave through new taxes. Instead, workers would be allowed to borrow against their social security benefits.

Because borrowing against future income to self-finance college has worked out so well...

 

[Traitorfish]

If anyone thinks all abortions are murder, keep in mind that 1 in 4 women in the US over age 45 have had abortions.

We ran that past Dommy once, in the way back when. He was huffing and puffing that women who have abortions should be subject to capital punishment. I asked him how he planned to execute some twenty million people.

He didn't have an answer.