SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Chonogo]

My limits are defined by medical ethical standards, not arbitrary legal limits, though. I'm attacking the arbitrariness of those legal limits.



Canada has no legal limits on abortion, dude, and it's basically not a political issue here at all outside of a very fringe far-right conservative set of nuts. Like, "no significant presence in the Conservative Party" level fringe.

And sure; doctors can decide an abortion's not ethically justifiable. We aren't talking about medical ethics. We're talking about fundamentally arbitrary limits that ignore medical ethical standards.

My comments were from an medical ethics standard POV. Apologies for not being specific in that regard. I wasn't intending to make it political, far from it. I was intending to state that abortion at some level of gestation, with no other underlying complication involved, is unacceptable to even pro-choice people. Even if it's arbitrary, I don't think it harms our integrity by saying that a 40-week "abortion on demand" choice is wrong.

Hopefully that made sense. It's hard to untangle politics from abortion here in the states. I try my best to avoid the political aspect, but sometimes don't realize people I talk to are looking at the discussion from a political aspect. For defensive purposes, I'll restate my apprehension towards arbitrary abortion laws.

Which is why I rely on those ethical standards, not baseless opinions. And why I oppose any and all attempts to push arbitrary limits that ignore those medical standards.

And "looking at it as a malicious procedure" is indefensible. That's where we're either talking religious extremism or straight-up misogyny. Again, never had anyone make an argument for that which didn't boil down to one or both of those things.



That's not at all how medical ethics work. If a fetus is viable, a pregnancy will generally be ended by inducing birth or otherwise removing the fetus healthy. If it's a question of the pregnant person or the fetus, though, they'll save the pregnant person. These kinds of things happen pretty regularly, unless there's bans on abortions. There, you just get needless suffering. No one benefits from abortion bans.



The problem with the laws is they're always arbitrary, and ignore medical ethics, because they seek to supercede those ethical principles. The laws are either so limited they're unnecessary because no abortions that occur cross the line the law sets, or they draw the line too narrowly and create needless suffering. We already have laws covering medical malpractice and so forth; I don't see any even possible value in laws limiting abortions, beyond what laws we already have regarding medical ethics in general.

I don't think I disagree with you here. Probably just the tone of abortion conversations that we disagree on, especially when people are attempting to lower the tone. I'll also freely admit that I have the tendency to assume I'm not being trolled/played/baited into thinking I'm discussing this with rational actors. But until it becomes obvious or is admitted by the other party, my naivete tends to hold longer than it should.

- - - Updated - - -

I think we understand each other.

You're certainly an optimist on the possibility of building up non-antagonistic discussions surrounding abortion. I'll note you can't even escape abuse for the offense of believing that I mean what I say. But we do need more optimists in this world, so I won't deny you that outlook.

Experience has borne that out. I'll admit it's really fucking difficult to have conversations with most pro-life people. Many think any abortion is murder and wants it outlawed. Others think because I'm pro-choice that I want abortions to happen. So when someone who is pro-life gives me a reasonable solution that we can hash out/work towards, it would seem to be contrary to the purpose of discussion to dismiss it out of hand.

I'll bow out for now, as I don't have solutions that frequenters in this thread would find acceptable given our current societal/political climate. The things you discuss as potential solutions to avoid "problematic" abortions are already hotly debated topics in the US, even if you remove abortions from the equation.

[Endus]

My comments were from an medical ethics standard POV. Apologies for not being specific in that regard. I wasn't intending to make it political, far from it. I was intending to state that abortion at some level of gestation, with no other underlying complication involved, is unacceptable to even pro-choice people. Even if it's arbitrary, I don't think it harms our integrity by saying that a 40-week "abortion on demand" choice is wrong.

Wrong in terms of medical ethics? Probably. Does that mean you need a whole separate arbitrarily-defined law to limit abortions at that point? Absolutely not. Such laws will invariably get things wrong on fringe cases and contribute nothing of value that wasn't already covered by the ethical standards. That's simply not what the laws are intended to accomplish.

I don't think I disagree with you here. Probably just the tone of abortion conversations that we disagree on, especially when people are attempting to lower the tone. I'll also freely admit that I have the tendency to assume I'm not being trolled/played/baited into thinking I'm discussing this with rational actors. But until it becomes obvious or is admitted by the other party, my naivete tends to hold longer than it should.

Let's recall that the tone is set by pro-life advocates starting at "doctors are murdering literal babies!"

If the response is antagonistic, there's a reason.

[unfilteredJW]

Let's recall that the tone is set by pro-life advocates starting at "doctors are murdering literal babies!"

If the response is antagonistic, there's a reason.

This is the really important bit.

You get back what you put in.

Being nice led to how many COVID deaths and the slow erosion of rights for disenfranchised Americans?

[Adamas102]

Rape, incest, severe fetal anomaly, and the life of the pregnant woman. State representatives can debate on the various state aid programs to assist women that have environmental, monetary, and access issues. By all means. For medical and availability, have your state-funded programs to assist medically and with available clinics. Early labor and delivery, state aid for full-term delivery, and no obligation to keep and raise the child.

Those are the surrounding laws to value life and protect the mother. The decision to kill should be confined to a period where the unborn baby doesn't have a chance outside; its rights being wholly overridden by mom's and justly so. Let's handle the other factors in ways that don't necessitate killing a viable life.

You say that, but I assume you don't actually expect medical experts to make that assessment on a case by case basis and instead base this belief of yours on a simple chart you found on Wikipedia that references a single study conducted at some of the most state of the art facilities in the US (AMC's that are designed to handle the most challenging and complex cases)?

I imagine you have no idea how the age and health of the mother affect the development, and hence the viability, of the fetus? I'm guessing you have no idea the risks that extreme preterm babies face?

But hey, let's put it at 32 weeks. The point at which things like the ability to breathe, eat, and to even just be conscious USUALLY have developed sufficiently enough. Half of babies born at or below this point die without proper medical care. It's also the point at which abortion becomes increasingly risky and even the most abortion absolutist doctor you yourself could find avoids the procedure without additional medically significant factors. Seems like a natural point where sufficient fetal development and a self-imposed limit for elective abortion meet. That SHOULD give you peace of mind without needing legislation to get in the way of the doctors and patients who face catastrophic medical issues and have to tackle the exponentially growing risks of abortion in those last couple of months.

[Muzjhath]

The discussion should be about determining when bodily autonomy is overcome by right to life. At some point the baby in the womb has that right. Again, I rely on doctors to tell us that, not lawmakers.

I think the main sticking point, if people on both sides would talk about it reasonably, is whether or not laws should be enacted to protect this fungible determination. I lean towards limited laws. Pro-life people find more offense to the procedure, and want more limits. I can't find the rationale for the latter. That doesn't mean pro-life people want women in chains, and certainly doesn't mean you and I are okay with aborting a 40-week old fetus.

I thought tehdang's latest post regarding the framework of how he'd like to see abortion is a fresh take, and very low on the vitriol we're used to in this thread. Maybe it's just me.

The thing is this line of thinking must open up another. Where does someone else right to life trump the bodily autonomy of organ donation?
We need half your liver to save the life of Billy over here, you are a perfect match. You don't need half your liver, it will grow back. Billy needs it or Billy will die.

That is the obvious ethical question this opens up.

[LilSaihah]

The thing is this line of thinking must open up another. Where does someone else right to life trump the bodily autonomy of organ donation?
We need half your liver to save the life of Billy over here, you are a perfect match. You don't need half your liver, it will grow back. Billy needs it or Billy will die.

That is the obvious ethical question this opens up.

That honestly seems like a pretty straightforward question to me: when your actions were the ones that put that life at risk.
If Billy's in the hospital and needs a liver because you poisoned him, intentionally and knowingly, it's wholly reasonable for someone to say 'hey this is your responsibility, your liver is now his'.
Similarly, the conception of a child is (hopefully) the result of an action that was voluntary & with knowledge of the potential consequences.

I dunno about other peoples' positions but for me that's where "abortion in the circumstance of rape & life" comes from. If you were raped, that responsibility isn't yours. If somebody's going to die, that's not a reasonable outcome to expect from sex.

[Endus]

That honestly seems like a pretty straightforward question to me: when your actions were the ones that put that life at risk.
If Billy's in the hospital and needs a liver because you poisoned him, intentionally and knowingly, it's wholly reasonable for someone to say 'hey this is your responsibility, your liver is now his'.

Literally no legal system on the planet agrees with you, here. It's a monstrous violation of basic human rights. You're advocating for atrocity. Literally Nazi type stuff.

Similarly, the conception of a child is (hopefully) the result of an action that was voluntary & with knowledge of the potential consequences.

Consent to sex is not consent to carrying a child to term. The existence of abortion as an option all by itself precludes that, because continuing that pregnancy isn't an unavoidable outcome. You're trying to make an argument to deny that choice, and your argument is only a pretension that said choice doesn't exist.

Well, it does.

I dunno about other peoples' positions but for me that's where "abortion in the circumstance of rape & life" comes from. If you were raped, that responsibility isn't yours. If somebody's going to die, that's not a reasonable outcome to expect from sex.

Good news; there's no "somebody" who's gonna "die" in an abortion.

Now, you're free to have religious views otherwise, but you're not free to force all of society to abide by your personal religious views.

[PosPosPos]

If Billy's in the hospital and needs a liver because you poisoned him, intentionally and knowingly, it's wholly reasonable for someone to say 'hey this is your responsibility, your liver is now his'.

Enforced organ harvesting, even if from convicted criminals, is not reasonable in the slightest, and the way you confidently and wholeheartedly believe it is speaks volumes about how twisted you conservatives think.

[Muzjhath]

That honestly seems like a pretty straightforward question to me: when your actions were the ones that put that life at risk.
If Billy's in the hospital and needs a liver because you poisoned him, intentionally and knowingly, it's wholly reasonable for someone to say 'hey this is your responsibility, your liver is now his'.
Similarly, the conception of a child is (hopefully) the result of an action that was voluntary & with knowledge of the potential consequences.

I dunno about other peoples' positions but for me that's where "abortion in the circumstance of rape & life" comes from. If you were raped, that responsibility isn't yours. If somebody's going to die, that's not a reasonable outcome to expect from sex.

What if it was in a consensual relationship yet BC failed?

Same as the laws made by GOP in the US don't allow for cases where the mother will die because of how they are written.

[PosPosPos]

Literally no legal system on the planet agrees with you, here.

Other than China, maybe. But even for them, organ harvesting is illegal on paper.

[LilSaihah]

Literally no legal system on the planet agrees with you, here. It's a monstrous violation of basic human rights. You're advocating for atrocity. Literally Nazi type stuff.

My point is that the "Billy needs a bit of liver" case where the second person is completely unrelated is not really fair, IMO. "Billy needs a piece of liver and Jimmy is responsible" is different.
"Jimmy give him your liver" is certainly an extreme version, possibly excessively so, of the general principle that someone should try to fix the problems they cause.

Also, yeah, China.

Consent to sex is not consent to carrying a child to term. The existence of abortion as an option all by itself precludes that, because continuing that pregnancy isn't an unavoidable outcome. You're trying to make an argument to deny that choice, and your argument is only a pretension that said choice doesn't exist.

Well, it does.

I don't like this circular logic, you can just close the loop by saying "abortion isn't an option" and then bam, consensual sex is consent to carrying a child to term.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that consent to sex isn't consent to carrying to term, but the logic doesn't work.

Good news; there's no "somebody" who's gonna "die" in an abortion.

Now, you're free to have religious views otherwise, but you're not free to force all of society to abide by your personal religious views.

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything! I'm posting on an internet forum.

What if it was in a consensual relationship yet BC failed?

Same as the laws made by GOP in the US don't allow for cases where the mother will die because of how they are written.

I don't know about where all the specificities come down. The entire "rape & risk to life" argument fundamentally assumes that you have a crystal ball: that you can reasonably convict someone of rape before the child would come to term, when rape is notoriously hard to convict for; and that you can divine whether or not a pregnancy puts a woman's health at risk, when every pregnancy fundamentally carries with it some degree of risk.

Very specifically in this case of 'consensual sex but the BC failed', this is a pretty good case for why 'rape' as the point where you draw the line is not going to work in practice. In this situation, the woman's incentivized to accuse their partner of rape, which would likely create drastically worse outcomes than an abortion.

[Edge-]

My point is that the "Billy needs a bit of liver" case where the second person is completely unrelated is not really fair, IMO. "Billy needs a piece of liver and Jimmy is responsible" is different.

I'm unsure how or why it's different. Bodily autonomy is bodily autonomy. Period.

A parent is responsible for their child, no? A parent cannot be forced, against their will, to offer an organ like a kidney to save their child's life. If the parent does not want to be a donor, the state literally cannot force the parent to become a donor. They cannot even force the parent to donate blood to save their own child, based on my understanding. They can sure ask and pressure and try, but there is no legal mechanism that removes the parents right to bodily autonomy.

[Muzjhath]

My point is that the "Billy needs a bit of liver" case where the second person is completely unrelated is not really fair, IMO. "Billy needs a piece of liver and Jimmy is responsible" is different.
"Jimmy give him your liver" is certainly an extreme version, possibly excessively so, of the general principle that someone should try to fix the problems they cause.

Also, yeah, China.



I don't like this circular logic, you can just close the loop by saying "abortion isn't an option" and then bam, consensual sex is consent to carrying a child to term.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that consent to sex isn't consent to carrying to term, but the logic doesn't work.



I'm not forcing anyone to do anything! I'm posting on an internet forum.



I don't know about where all the specificities come down. The entire "rape & risk to life" argument fundamentally assumes that you have a crystal ball: that you can reasonably convict someone of rape before the child would come to term, when rape is notoriously hard to convict for; and that you can divine whether or not a pregnancy puts a woman's health at risk, when every pregnancy fundamentally carries with it some degree of risk.

Very specifically in this case of 'consensual sex but the BC failed', this is a pretty good case for why 'rape' as the point where you draw the line is not going to work in practice. In this situation, the woman's incentivized to accuse their partner of rape, which would likely create drastically worse outcomes than an abortion.

And there you see the problem when you open this up!

This isn't a special case. It's a bodily autonomy case and the moment it stops being that it opens so many cans.
Late-Term if there's a risk to the life of the mother induced birth or a cesarian are vastly more common than an abortion To such a degree that you don't abort a 36 week pregnancy if the mothers life is in danger and the now baby is viable. You induce birth or do a cesarian section. As those are the safer options!

But if it's because the fetus died for one reason or another at week 36 you still need to remove it, or the mother will die. Then it would most likely fall under one form or another of abortion, medically speaking. And carrying it for 2-4 weeks more would likely be engangering the mother.

[Endus]

My point is that the "Billy needs a bit of liver" case where the second person is completely unrelated is not really fair, IMO. "Billy needs a piece of liver and Jimmy is responsible" is different.

The question of "responsibility" is completely irrelevant, because it can only be a factor if abortion is already off the table as an option.

If abortion's on the table, getting an abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy is literally taking responsibility for your actions.

You're trying to end-run around the central issue. You need to establish your premises first.

I don't like this circular logic, you can just close the loop by saying "abortion isn't an option" and then bam, consensual sex is consent to carrying a child to term.

There's no "circular logic" there.

And no, you can't just declare that "abortion isn't an option". That's the conclusion you're trying to reach. Presuming your conclusion as one of your premises is the fallacy "begging the question".

I don't have to justify abortion being permitted. Legal systems generally function on the principle that if a thing is not legislated against, it is legal. You pass laws to make things illegal, rather than presuming all actions are illegal unless specifically permitted by the law. This means the burden of proof is entirely on the pro-life side, here; you have to justify the existence of a law. All the pro-choice side is obliged to do is demonstrate the weaknesses in those arguments.

In this case, the claim was "consent to sex is consent to carry to term". If a pregnancy can be aborted, however, there's no reason for that statement to be true. If you want to argue that abortion shouldn't be an option, you need to build that up separately, trying to just slap it in there is begging the question.

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything! I'm posting on an internet forum.

If you're arguing for law to be X, you're arguing for society to enforce X. If X is your religious views, then you're talking about forcing people to live under your religious rules.

Pointing out you don't have the support to achieve that doesn't change what your argument is.

I don't know about where all the specificities come down. The entire "rape & risk to life" argument fundamentally assumes that you have a crystal ball: that you can reasonably convict someone of rape before the child would come to term, when rape is notoriously hard to convict for; and that you can divine whether or not a pregnancy puts a woman's health at risk, when every pregnancy fundamentally carries with it some degree of risk.

Very specifically in this case of 'consensual sex but the BC failed', this is a pretty good case for why 'rape' as the point where you draw the line is not going to work in practice. In this situation, the woman's incentivized to accuse their partner of rape, which would likely create drastically worse outcomes than an abortion.

Rape exceptions are wildly irrational, to the point that it's legitimately infuriating when pro-lifers make them.

Your premises are as follows, I presume (feel free to correct me, these are pretty standard);

1> A fetus is a human life.
2> Ending a human life without just cause is "wrong".
3> Aborting a fetus ends a human life.
C> Thus, abortion is wrong.

Now, you say you want to allow exceptions for rape? The only premise that affects is #2; you're arguing that being the result of rape is "just cause" to abort.

But it's still, in this structure, a human life. Can you freely kill a child who was conceived in rape when they're 5 years old? 30? Because the logic is identical to the rape exception.

The only way it isn't is if you're going to tell me that obviously, a fetus isn't the same thing as a 5-year-old child or a 30-year-old adult human being.

And if you tell me that, you've admitted you do not actually believe Premise #1 to be true. A fetus is not the same as any actual human life.

And that's why this is infuriating. It's an explicit internal contradiction, which means you've either never put much thought into this and are just repeating bullshit rhetoric someone else fed you that you literally never thought critically about, or you're intentionally lying to me this whole time. In the case of the former, you shouldn't be engaging with discussion/debate unless you understand your own position, and in the case of the latter, you're engaging maliciously. And those are the two options. No third option.

[LilSaihah]

Rape exceptions are wildly irrational, to the point that it's legitimately infuriating when pro-lifers make them.

Your premises are as follows, I presume (feel free to correct me, these are pretty standard);

1> A fetus is a human life.
2> Ending a human life without just cause is "wrong".
3> Aborting a fetus ends a human life.
C> Thus, abortion is wrong.

No, this is not correct.

Abortion is in lieu of deprivation of resources. If we could remove a baby without killing it, we would, but we can't.

Death by deprivation of resources is not ending a human life. It is failing to assist in the continuation of a human life.
To use the Justin Bieber example, you're not killing Justin Bieber, but if he does not find assistance he will die. Key words: you're not killing Justin Bieber.
The key issue is whether or not you are responsible for continuing Justin Bieber's life. You are not.

If you're having consensual sex, knowing that a child can be the consequence of that sex, you are responsible for the children that come of it & you have an obligation to support them.
This is not really contested either morally or legally; child negligence laws, child support, etc etc.
The only thing we'd have to discuss at this point is whether that obligation begins at conception or at birth or at some other point.

The distinction in the circumstance of rape is that the fetus is not, and never was, the responsibility of the woman because they did not voluntarily engage in the action that put it there.
You do have Justin Bieber in your womb, and you can give him your liver or decide not to.

But it's still, in this structure, a human life. Can you freely kill a child who was conceived in rape when they're 5 years old? 30? Because the logic is identical to the rape exception.

The only way it isn't is if you're going to tell me that obviously, a fetus isn't the same thing as a 5-year-old child or a 30-year-old adult human being.

The difference between the fetus and the 5-year-old is that you've made a conscious decision to not abort & to not give the child up for adoption.

Your 30 year old manchild can get a job and buy his own chicken tendies. You can 'abort' him as much as you like.

[Endus]

No, this is not correct.

Abortion is in lieu of deprivation of resources. If we could remove a baby without killing it, we would, but we can't.

Death by deprivation of resources is not ending a human life. It is failing to assist in the continuation of a human life.
To use the Justin Bieber example, you're not killing Justin Bieber, but if he does not find assistance he will die. Key words: you're not killing Justin Bieber.
The key issue is whether or not you are responsible for continuing Justin Bieber's life. You are not.

Cool. So denying resources to the fetus just lets it die, and neither the doctor hor the pregnant host is responsible. You've debunked your own argument.

If you're having consensual sex, knowing that a child can be the consequence of that sex, you are responsible for the children that come of it & you have an obligation to support them.
This is not really contested either morally or legally; child negligence laws, child support, etc etc.
The only thing we'd have to discuss at this point is whether that obligation begins at conception or at birth or at some other point.

It clearly begins at birth, because there is no child until birth. A fetus is owed no such obligations, and you've made no such argument to establish otherwise.

You're predicating this on a legal standard that states you are wrong on the base facts. No one pays child support for a fetus or faces negligence charges while pregnant. Because there's no child.

The distinction in the circumstance of rape is that the fetus is not, and never was, the responsibility of the woman because they did not voluntarily engage in the action that put it there.

No such "responsibility" exists. It's an attack on women's rights, nothing more. This claim of yours has no basis; you're making it up based on nothing but an apparent desire to harm women for having non-procreative sex.

The difference between the fetus and the 5-year-old is that you've made a conscious decision to not abort & to not give the child up for adoption.

Your 30 year old manchild can get a job and buy his own chicken tendies. You can 'abort' him as much as you like.

Well, now you're literally stating you don't think people fathered by rape are "people" and anyone can just kill them for funsies. Cool beans, but doesn't make you come off as reasonable.

[unfilteredJW]

Just seeing the phrase "conception is the consequence of sex" is such misogynistic bullshit.

[Captain N]

Just seeing the phrase "conception is the consequence of sex" is such misogynistic bullshit.

Those are just words spoken by incels as if it's a woman's problem they can't get laid....so the desire...no need to punish them runs strong.

[PosPosPos]

Those are just words spoken by incels as if it's a woman's problem they can't get laid....so the desire...no need to punish them runs strong.

There are many good reasons why women are more likely to stay single these days, and incels don't seem to understand the more they hate women the more they push them away.

[tehdang]

Abortion is in lieu of deprivation of resources. If we could remove a baby without killing it, we would, but we can't.

The fact of premature delivery and survival really represents a change in "remov[ing] a baby without killing it." That's when the second bodily autonomy, that of the baby, gets a little more force. That's not the mother's body, or some subservient organ like a liver, it's a human baby, and capable of independent survival.

If you're having consensual sex, knowing that a child can be the consequence of that sex, you are responsible for the children that come of it & you have an obligation to support them.
This is not really contested either morally or legally; child negligence laws, child support, etc etc.
The only thing we'd have to discuss at this point is whether that obligation begins at conception or at birth or at some other point.

In an extremely overgeneralized framework, there is implied responsibility. But the cases where it's failed birth control (let's pretend 7% or 10%) or a drunken encounter, I say the moral balance is a state or private org taking on the responsibility on the person's behalf after birth. Then the compassionate case on bad decision making makes possible a transfer of responsibility for the sake of the child, who in no way bears a moral burden for the poor choices of the conceiving parents. These are born out in safe surrender locations and welfare programs for parents of young children.