Author Topic: Alabama  (Read 8011 times)

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4701
Re: Alabama
« Reply #100 on: May 20, 2019, 09:32:36 AM »
I'm still hoping that someone will explain how married Republican women in restrictive states (i.e. super hard to get birth control ...


Is this a serious question?


Birth control is widely available across the united states.  Condoms are for sale at most grocery stores, drug stores, and convenience stores.  Most doctors, and some pharmacists can prescribe BC or sell it to you directly without prescription.  Doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control and pharmacists who refuse to sell it are rare.

Yes I was serious.   

From what I can see the states that want to restrict abortions also restrict contraceptives.
I don't see this.  Do you have a source showing that access is significantly restricted?  Some doctors or pharmacists are allowed to refuse care based on personal beliefs, but are they refusing to prescribe BC?  You think that is widespread, based on .. what?


Quote
Condoms and contraceptive creams have a failure rate.*  In Canada the pill and the IUD are by doctor prescription only.  If an American woman lives in a small town and can't find a doctor who will prescribe this for her, because her state government has cracked down, what is she going to do?  Use a condom and contraceptive cream and  keep a calendar?  Lovely, we are back in the 50's and 60's.  I was in University when "Our bodies, our selves" (https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/our-story/history/obos-timeline-1969-present/) came out - it was revolutionary.  I don't want my daughter and potential grand-daughters stuck in a time warp.

So I was serious in asking how these women manage birth control, given that their moral premise is that birth control and abortion are about equally wrong.**
You originally asked why Republicans in restrictive states aren't having 10+ children, under the assumption that they have difficulty accessing birth control.  The vast majority of them do not have any trouble accessing birth control. 


Quote
* I somehow doubt a rapist will be considerate enough to wear a condom, given the Alabama legislation doesn't allow for abortion of pregnancies due to rape.  A pregnancy is not his problem.


** Seriously, if the only issue were abortion, anti-abortionists would be the strongest proponents of birth control, to prevent unwanted pregnancies that would potentially be ended by abortion.  Since they are not, the larger issue is obviously control of a woman's body and her sexual life.
The pro-life position is that the unborn child is a person, regardless of whether it was conceived with consent.  The rape is evil, but the unborn child is innocent and deserves protection. 

You are jumping to the conclusion that the only purpose of the pro-life movement is to control a woman's body and sexual life.  That is not the intent of the pro-life movement.[/font]
Based on their actions, it certainly appears to be.

OtherJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1322
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Alabama
« Reply #101 on: May 20, 2019, 11:49:03 AM »
You are jumping to the conclusion that the only purpose of the pro-life movement is to control a woman's body and sexual life.  That is not the intent of the pro-life movement.[/font]
Based on their actions, it certainly appears to be.

On an individual basis, someone who identifies as "pro-life" may certainly care about the entire spectrum of life.

On an institutional basis, the GOP has been the "party of life" for my entire 4-decade life. From where I'm sitting, the GOP consistently votes against policies that would benefit born people. Fetuses are a convenient sacred cow because other than legislation, nothing else needs to be done. But I think Methodist pastor Dave Barnhart summed it up better than I could:

Quote
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #102 on: May 20, 2019, 12:32:16 PM »
You are jumping to the conclusion that the only purpose of the pro-life movement is to control a woman's body and sexual life.  That is not the intent of the pro-life movement.[/font]
Based on their actions, it certainly appears to be.

On an individual basis, someone who identifies as "pro-life" may certainly care about the entire spectrum of life.

On an institutional basis, the GOP has been the "party of life" for my entire 4-decade life. From where I'm sitting, the GOP consistently votes against policies that would benefit born people. Fetuses are a convenient sacred cow because other than legislation, nothing else needs to be done. But I think Methodist pastor Dave Barnhart summed it up better than I could:

Quote
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.



Being pro-life doesn't mean you want that unborn person to have a good life.


There are a large number of people who believe that a woman who gets pregnant should be punished for having sex.  The child is the punishment, rendered unto her by God.  To them an abortion is a way of dodging this punishment.  Seen from this lens, it makes perfect sense that someone would be both pro-life and rabidly anti-government programs that help single mothers, children in need, and the poor.  It also explains how someone of the "pro-life" persuasion can favour the death penalty.  The death penalty is punishment for sins, pro-life is punishment for sins.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
Re: Alabama
« Reply #103 on: May 21, 2019, 12:19:34 PM »
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

TVRodriguez

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 487
Re: Alabama
« Reply #104 on: May 21, 2019, 01:37:59 PM »
I am totally on board with @GuitarStv 's kidney-uterus comparison.

Forget about a neighbor.  I am the mother of three minor children.  If I were the only potential kidney donor for any of them, I could legally choose to let him or her die.  You might make a different choice and hey, maybe I'd go to hell when I die, but you couldn't force me to allow someone else the use of my organ without my consent, even my own minor child whom I wanted and chose to have.  Same for my uterus.  The argument about "active interference" is just silly.  It's my organ, I get to decide who uses it besides myself, and anyone else making me grant an easement to my uterus or any other organ is the one "actively interfering" in my autonomy.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 875
Re: Alabama
« Reply #105 on: May 21, 2019, 04:12:02 PM »
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one. But beyond that, it's your immortal soul, and it's between you and whatever god you feel accountable to (or not) and that making it illegal puts people at risk of doing unsafe things to get one... so I support Roe V Wade and, ironically, pray that the right to make that choice remains available to those who think they need it.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
Re: Alabama
« Reply #106 on: May 21, 2019, 04:14:20 PM »
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one. But beyond that, it's your immortal soul, and it's between you and whatever god you feel accountable to (or not) and that making it illegal puts people at risk of doing unsafe things to get one... so I support Roe V Wade and, ironically, pray that the right to make that choice remains available to those who think they need it.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel exactly the same way about fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic that are unused and then discarded?

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #107 on: May 21, 2019, 05:59:00 PM »

They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why....


In my family law class we specifically discussed the distinction between a fertilized egg in storage and a fetus. One of the differences between them we settled on was that the egg was in a condition of stasis (not a living entity) whereas the fetus was a living organism.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #108 on: May 21, 2019, 06:19:38 PM »


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one.

The exclusion of all  state funding for abortion sweeps too broadly.

If a 12-year-old girl living in a state-funded orphanage were impregnated by a rapist I would not object  to state funding of her abortion.

I would argue the same for a woman committed to a state psychiatric hospital.


ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 875
Re: Alabama
« Reply #109 on: May 22, 2019, 08:14:55 AM »
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one. But beyond that, it's your immortal soul, and it's between you and whatever god you feel accountable to (or not) and that making it illegal puts people at risk of doing unsafe things to get one... so I support Roe V Wade and, ironically, pray that the right to make that choice remains available to those who think they need it.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel exactly the same way about fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic that are unused and then discarded?

Nope, I understand why so many eggs are fertilized during the efforts of IVF processes, and that it gives one of those eggs/sperm pairs a chance at life it otherwise would not have had.  I also think the distinction above is valid enough to differentiate frozen embryos from a fetus to eliminate the hypocrisy angle you're trying to push. I hadn't thought to articulate it that way but I think it fits.

By the way, do you guys get your talking points from some central source or something? I've never heard the IVF Embryo/abortion comparison as an attempt to discredit pro-lifers until you said it, then it popped up on facebook as a written "fuck alabama" post from two different people from different social circles. Odd.



 



Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
Re: Alabama
« Reply #110 on: May 22, 2019, 08:19:44 AM »
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one. But beyond that, it's your immortal soul, and it's between you and whatever god you feel accountable to (or not) and that making it illegal puts people at risk of doing unsafe things to get one... so I support Roe V Wade and, ironically, pray that the right to make that choice remains available to those who think they need it.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel exactly the same way about fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic that are unused and then discarded?

Nope, I understand why so many eggs are fertilized during the efforts of IVF processes, and that it gives one of those eggs/sperm pairs a chance at life it otherwise would not have had.  I also think the distinction above is valid enough to differentiate frozen embryos from a fetus to eliminate the hypocrisy angle you're trying to push. I hadn't thought to articulate it that way but I think it fits.

By the way, do you guys get your talking points from some central source or something? I've never heard the IVF Embryo/abortion comparison as an attempt to discredit pro-lifers until you said it, then it popped up on facebook as a written "fuck alabama" post from two different people from different social circles. Odd.

Neil, I have no quibble with you if you think RvW should remain in place. And since no federal funding is currently used in any way to fund abortions, that's a non-issue.

I've thought about the fertility thing for a long time. Probably a lot of other people have, too.

But I honestly don't get the distinction you're making. It's a fertilized egg. Life begins at conception, right? So... shouldn't every one of those "lives" be exactly the same? Isn't it wrong to choose one and throw the rest away? Freezing them shouldn't change their "life"-ness, right? They're lives waiting to happen. And then they are killed.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #111 on: May 22, 2019, 08:23:47 AM »
Wait.

A fertilized egg in a lab is not life and doesn't deserve protection, but a fertilized egg in a woman is life and does deserve protection?  I don't understand this distinction either.

Literally the only differing factor is the woman.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 875
Re: Alabama
« Reply #112 on: May 22, 2019, 08:38:17 AM »
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one. But beyond that, it's your immortal soul, and it's between you and whatever god you feel accountable to (or not) and that making it illegal puts people at risk of doing unsafe things to get one... so I support Roe V Wade and, ironically, pray that the right to make that choice remains available to those who think they need it.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel exactly the same way about fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic that are unused and then discarded?

Nope, I understand why so many eggs are fertilized during the efforts of IVF processes, and that it gives one of those eggs/sperm pairs a chance at life it otherwise would not have had.  I also think the distinction above is valid enough to differentiate frozen embryos from a fetus to eliminate the hypocrisy angle you're trying to push. I hadn't thought to articulate it that way but I think it fits.

By the way, do you guys get your talking points from some central source or something? I've never heard the IVF Embryo/abortion comparison as an attempt to discredit pro-lifers until you said it, then it popped up on facebook as a written "fuck alabama" post from two different people from different social circles. Odd.

Neil, I have no quibble with you if you think RvW should remain in place. And since no federal funding is currently used in any way to fund abortions, that's a non-issue.

I've thought about the fertility thing for a long time. Probably a lot of other people have, too.

But I honestly don't get the distinction you're making. It's a fertilized egg. Life begins at conception, right? So... shouldn't every one of those "lives" be exactly the same? Isn't it wrong to choose one and throw the rest away? Freezing them shouldn't change their "life"-ness, right? They're lives waiting to happen. And then they are killed.

The whole pro-lifer thing is almost entirely an emotional thing. There is an emotional gut-reaction to someone terminating a pregnancy that they don't feel/experience when an embryo that only existed in a petri dish is destroyed, though objectively they are the same thing.  My only quibble with you on this is that for most pro-lifers I know, it's about the life they feel was murdered, not about controlling women.

jeninco

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1016
  • Location: .... duh?
Re: Alabama
« Reply #113 on: May 22, 2019, 09:05:31 AM »
The whole pro-lifer thing is almost entirely an emotional thing. There is an emotional gut-reaction to someone terminating a pregnancy that they don't feel/experience when an embryo that only existed in a petri dish is destroyed, though objectively they are the same thing.  My only quibble with you on this is that for most pro-lifers I know, it's about the life they feel was murdered, not about controlling women.
(From ncornilsen, but I'm too lazy to quote the whole thing)

This is actually bullshit. They may not SAY that it's about controlling women, but it absolutely is. If they don't believe that, they're lying to you and probably to themselves. What else is it to force someone to be pregnant and give birth when they choose not to? And to have that threat hanging over them for their entire adult life? "Oh, by the way, if you get raped, you'll have to spend 9 months being pregnant and then give birth?" Not to mention the whole underlying theme of "you're not actually a full citizen with the entire suite of rights and responsibilities, including the right to make your own decisions about your own health care."

And that's without going into the whole "lack of comprehensive sex education" part that seems to be part and parcel of the evangelical/conservative states package.

There is no possible way to deny another human being the right to make decisions about her own health care and not have it be about controlling women. If I inform you that you can't make decisions about how your doctor will treat anything in your urinary system without my permission, or without governmental interference in any treatment that involves your kidneys on down, you'd find that to be absurd. 

There are a billion reasons why a woman might decide to get an abortion: some of them might be "good" or "legitimate" in your estimation, and some might not, but it's absolutely none of your business what someone else decides to do with her body. As the saying goes, if you don't like abortions, don't have one.

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Location: USA
Re: Alabama
« Reply #114 on: May 22, 2019, 09:18:28 AM »
Wait.

A fertilized egg in a lab is not life and doesn't deserve protection, but a fertilized egg in a woman is life and does deserve protection?  I don't understand this distinction either.

Literally the only differing factor is the woman.

I agree... if you take the view that human life begins at conception, I don't see how it's ethically relevant if it takes place in a lab, or in a uterus.

I happen to not believe that human life begins at conception. It's true that conception is approximately when unique DNA is created, but I don't think that's ethically relevant. There's a guy on youtube whose name escapes me, who recommended that the beginning of brain activity might be where life begins, since the end of brain activity is when we consider that life ends. That seems reasonable to me.

Still, the bodily autonomy argument is very strong... I'd say that I'm probably pro choice, since I don't think the government should force someone to carry and support someone else for 9 months, at significant costs to lifestyle and health. The only caveat is that if the fetus is viable, I think in that case it should be removed intact and medical staff should try and save it as best they can.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #115 on: May 22, 2019, 09:36:17 AM »
The whole pro-lifer thing is almost entirely an emotional thing. There is an emotional gut-reaction to someone terminating a pregnancy that they don't feel/experience when an embryo that only existed in a petri dish is destroyed, though objectively they are the same thing.  My only quibble with you on this is that for most pro-lifers I know, it's about the life they feel was murdered, not about controlling women.

What's confusing is that it's murder when it happens in a woman, but not murder when it happens in a lab.  The exact same event.  The only differing factor between the two is the existence of a woman . . . so it's very hard not to see this as being about controlling women.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Alabama
« Reply #116 on: May 22, 2019, 09:37:11 AM »
While I generally like to give people the benefit of the doubt and to accept what they say their motivations are over my own assumptions, it's pretty hard for even me to accept this...

My only quibble with you on this is that for most pro-lifers I know, it's about the life they feel was murdered, not about controlling women.

When it comes immediately after this...

The whole pro-lifer thing is almost entirely an emotional thing. There is an emotional gut-reaction to someone terminating a pregnancy that they don't feel/experience when an embryo that only existed in a petri dish is destroyed, though objectively they are the same thing.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 09:47:02 AM by shenlong55 »

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4172
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Alabama
« Reply #117 on: May 22, 2019, 10:24:19 AM »
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one. But beyond that, it's your immortal soul, and it's between you and whatever god you feel accountable to (or not) and that making it illegal puts people at risk of doing unsafe things to get one... so I support Roe V Wade and, ironically, pray that the right to make that choice remains available to those who think they need it.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel exactly the same way about fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic that are unused and then discarded?

Nope, I understand why so many eggs are fertilized during the efforts of IVF processes, and that it gives one of those eggs/sperm pairs a chance at life it otherwise would not have had.  I also think the distinction above is valid enough to differentiate frozen embryos from a fetus to eliminate the hypocrisy angle you're trying to push. I hadn't thought to articulate it that way but I think it fits.

It doesn't fit, because the anti-abortion people argue, and base their legislation, on the idea that the actions and intentions of an adult towards a foetus are irrelevant.  Or perhaps they are only irrelevant if they are the actions and intentions of a woman who is pregnant?

The only way out of the hypocrisy that I can see if you are basing your abortion arguments on the embryo/foetus is to say that an IVF embryo hasn't been implanted in a womb and so hasn't started the conditions for life: essentially the same argument as saying that contraceptives which prevent the implantation of a fertilised egg in the womb are not abortifacient (although again there do seem to be anti-abortion people who hold that view).  But you still can't get around the basic problem with the anti-abortion crowd that they are prioritising a foetus over a woman.

By the way, do you guys get your talking points from some central source or something? I've never heard the IVF Embryo/abortion comparison as an attempt to discredit pro-lifers until you said it, then it popped up on facebook as a written "fuck alabama" post from two different people from different social circles. Odd.
No.  We're just coming up with similar responses to the central talking points of the anti-abortion crowd.


Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
Re: Alabama
« Reply #118 on: May 22, 2019, 10:29:36 AM »
I think the GOP stance on sexual education is a really ugly version of the trolley car problem. They could fully fund Planned Parenthood (and parallel organizations) and all of the programs related to sexual and women's health and drastically reduce the abortion rate (this is decisively backed up by data). Or, they could decide that a small percentage of medical procedures are bad and defund the whole thing, along with pretty much any sex ed except for abstinence. This is also decisively shown to increase unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates.

It's almost as if they are just trying to control people and enforce religious dogma. I have zero problem with them leading their own lives this way. I do have a problem with having their religious beliefs hoisted on others. Ugh.

Seems to me that they want to maintain or grow an underclass rooted in ignorance and rumor. Perhaps easier to control, perhaps necessary to staff certain kinds of employment. Money is what it usually comes down to for some of these characters. Its easier for a whole group of people to make a big profit off of under-educated people with few options.

Once upon a time I naively thought the average person might want to (self) educate themselves but as the years have gone by I realize that some people are satisfied not really understanding the world around them. It can be an expensive lifestyle.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #119 on: May 22, 2019, 10:30:58 AM »
The only way out of the hypocrisy that I can see if you are basing your abortion arguments on the embryo/foetus is to say that an IVF embryo hasn't been implanted in a womb and so hasn't started the conditions for life

This is nonsense.  Test tube babies have been around for ages now.  A womb is not a condition for life.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4172
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Alabama
« Reply #120 on: May 22, 2019, 10:33:54 AM »
The only way out of the hypocrisy that I can see if you are basing your abortion arguments on the embryo/foetus is to say that an IVF embryo hasn't been implanted in a womb and so hasn't started the conditions for life

This is nonsense.  Test tube babies have been around for ages now.  A womb is not a condition for life.

I don't think they can grow an embryo past a certain number of cells, though.  (Even Brave New World didn't quite get that far.)

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Alabama
« Reply #121 on: May 22, 2019, 10:41:11 AM »
I don't know, to me the frozen embryo argument is kind of an attempted "aha! gotcha!" argument without that much heft behind it. An inconsistency, but a mild one. Even to a pro choice atheist like myself there is a meaningful distinction between a lab fertilized egg and an implanted embryo several weeks or months into it's development (which is when anyone would realistically get an abortion). One will turn into a person in the absence of outside intervention and the other won't.

I don't see how that would convince anyone not already in the pro choice camp.


OtherJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1322
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Alabama
« Reply #122 on: May 22, 2019, 10:44:40 AM »
"Pro-life" people who aren't doing everything they can to stop fertility clinics from destroying fertilized eggs will never get me to take them seriously. If life begins at conception, there is no difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and a fertilized egg in a womb. So, how come Alabama's law doesn't outlaw destroying those eggs?

Oh, right. Because it's actually about policing women's bodies.

Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


At any rate, I think abortions are a tragedy every time they happen, that so many other choices could and should have been made, and not one single dollar of public money should go anywhere near paying for one. But beyond that, it's your immortal soul, and it's between you and whatever god you feel accountable to (or not) and that making it illegal puts people at risk of doing unsafe things to get one... so I support Roe V Wade and, ironically, pray that the right to make that choice remains available to those who think they need it.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel exactly the same way about fertilized eggs at a fertility clinic that are unused and then discarded?

Nope, I understand why so many eggs are fertilized during the efforts of IVF processes, and that it gives one of those eggs/sperm pairs a chance at life it otherwise would not have had.  I also think the distinction above is valid enough to differentiate frozen embryos from a fetus to eliminate the hypocrisy angle you're trying to push. I hadn't thought to articulate it that way but I think it fits.

By the way, do you guys get your talking points from some central source or something? I've never heard the IVF Embryo/abortion comparison as an attempt to discredit pro-lifers until you said it, then it popped up on facebook as a written "fuck alabama" post from two different people from different social circles. Odd.

Please, I grew up in a church that claims 1 billion+ members worldwide. Said church teaches that life begins at conception, and therefore all artificial reproductive techniques that create embryos outside the uterus are mortal sins. All contraception is a mortal sin, but forms that prevent implantation (morning after pill, standard pill, IUD) are equivalent to abortion, and abortion is far worse than anything that could be done to a born child.

I have no problem if someone wants to apply those rules to their own bodies and lives, but that bullshit is increasingly spilling over into public policy. It’s happening in my state right now, backed by a “Right to life” group supported publicly by the church.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #123 on: May 22, 2019, 10:53:48 AM »
I don't know, to me the frozen embryo argument is kind of an attempted "aha! gotcha!" argument without that much heft behind it. An inconsistency, but a mild one. Even to a pro choice atheist like myself there is a meaningful distinction between a lab fertilized egg and an implanted embryo several weeks or months into it's development (which is when anyone would realistically get an abortion). One will turn into a person in the absence of outside intervention and the other won't.

I don't see how that would convince anyone not already in the pro choice camp.

That's a meaningless distinction.

A fetus in a womb needs constant outside intervention to stay alive . . . intervention that's provided by the mother.  It certainly doesn't just live.  Intervention in the form of oxygen, nutrients, homeostatic control, etc.  If no intervention were required, the fetus wouldn't need the mother and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't understand the argument that a fetus is a person in a woman, but just cells when not in a woman.  It's not logically consistent.  It's not possible for a person to live in ice water conditions, but it's still illegal to kill someone who has decided to go polar dipping . . . because people are alive or not depending on their biological status, not their environment.  Either the collection of cells that make up a fetus are alive, or they are not.  You cannot make a rational argument that where it's located changes that status.

Blueberries

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
Re: Alabama
« Reply #124 on: May 22, 2019, 11:04:02 AM »
Not for the pro-lifers I know. they genuinely consider a fetus to be a human life that should be protected. They would probably say "well, the fertilized eggs are different" and would fail to explain why... but that's more of a matter of them not knowing everything about how fertility clinics work... they may also say it's OK because it helps people conceive who have no other way. I still think as a whole, their desire to stop abortions is centered on protecting that they see as a life, and not on controlling people.


On the Fundamentalist front, this is absolutely true.  The control is completely separate and is often centered around women (control what they wear, what positions they can hold, what they can say and ultimately requiring they be submissive to men), but that's an entirely separate problem.  To most of these people, they do not view abortion as a means of controlling a woman; they view it as protection of human life/one of God's children.

You are jumping to the conclusion that the only purpose of the pro-life movement is to control a woman's body and sexual life.  That is not the intent of the pro-life movement.[/font]
Based on their actions, it certainly appears to be.

On an individual basis, someone who identifies as "pro-life" may certainly care about the entire spectrum of life.

On an institutional basis, the GOP has been the "party of life" for my entire 4-decade life. From where I'm sitting, the GOP consistently votes against policies that would benefit born people. Fetuses are a convenient sacred cow because other than legislation, nothing else needs to be done. But I think Methodist pastor Dave Barnhart summed it up better than I could:

Quote
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.



Being pro-life doesn't mean you want that unborn person to have a good life.


There are a large number of people who believe that a woman who gets pregnant should be punished for having sex.  The child is the punishment, rendered unto her by God.  To them an abortion is a way of dodging this punishment.  Seen from this lens, it makes perfect sense that someone would be both pro-life and rabidly anti-government programs that help single mothers, children in need, and the poor.  It also explains how someone of the "pro-life" persuasion can favour the death penalty.  The death penalty is punishment for sins, pro-life is punishment for sins.

I've never heard such thinking.

I know it doesn't speak for the (traditional) Fundamentalist mindset.  Abstinence is the largest part of their sexual education.  If pregnancy occurs, life begins at conception so you are committing murder regardless of the time frame of the abortion.  Children were seen as a gift from God, not as punishment for premarital sex.  Of course if you had premarital sex, your marriage (if you married) was not "of God" so it was doomed to failure.  As for the original sin, God would punish you, but it wasn't in the form of the child. 
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 11:19:20 AM by Blueberries »

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #125 on: May 22, 2019, 11:27:24 AM »

What else is it to force someone to be pregnant and give birth when they choose not to? And to have that threat hanging over them for their entire adult life? "Oh, by the way, if you get raped, you'll have to spend 9 months being pregnant and then give birth?"

Some states have banned the abortion of a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome.

Rearing a child with Down Syndrome and caring for them in adulthood may be extremely burdensome.

These bans are tyrannical, a word I do not use lightly.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #126 on: May 22, 2019, 11:40:03 AM »
Even to a pro choice atheist like myself there is a meaningful distinction between a lab fertilized egg and an implanted embryo several weeks or months into it's development .

I think of this distinction as a potentiality versus dynamism.

OtherJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1322
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Alabama
« Reply #127 on: May 22, 2019, 11:44:19 AM »

I've never heard such thinking.

I know it doesn't speak for the (traditional) Fundamentalist mindset.  Abstinence is the largest part of their sexual education.  If pregnancy occurs, life begins at conception so you are committing murder regardless of the time frame of the abortion.  Children were seen as a gift from God, not as punishment for premarital sex.  Of course if you had premarital sex, your marriage (if you married) was not "of God" so it was doomed to failure.  As for the original sin, God would punish you, but it wasn't in the form of the child.

Lucky you. I was raised with the attitude that if I were to get pregnant out of wedlock, it would be shameful because everyone would know what I had done and what a bad person I had been. Pregnancy was definitely a punishment for bad behavior.

Blueberries

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
Re: Alabama
« Reply #128 on: May 22, 2019, 11:49:08 AM »

I've never heard such thinking.

I know it doesn't speak for the (traditional) Fundamentalist mindset.  Abstinence is the largest part of their sexual education.  If pregnancy occurs, life begins at conception so you are committing murder regardless of the time frame of the abortion.  Children were seen as a gift from God, not as punishment for premarital sex.  Of course if you had premarital sex, your marriage (if you married) was not "of God" so it was doomed to failure.  As for the original sin, God would punish you, but it wasn't in the form of the child.

Lucky you. I was raised with the attitude that if I were to get pregnant out of wedlock, it would be shameful because everyone would know what I had done and what a bad person I had been. Pregnancy was definitely a punishment for bad behavior.

What I was taught is pregnancy out of wedlock was definitely shameful and everyone would see your sin like a scarlet letter, but the child was not viewed as the punishment.  No, the child is God's child (which, frankly, I think was viewed positively because the child was able to be brainwashed).  Everyone viewing the woman as a piece of shit was part of her punishment (in addition to the real punishment, TBD by God).

Added important qualifier.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 12:15:23 PM by Blueberries »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #129 on: May 22, 2019, 01:03:36 PM »
The only way out of the hypocrisy that I can see if you are basing your abortion arguments on the embryo/foetus is to say that an IVF embryo hasn't been implanted in a womb and so hasn't started the conditions for life

This is nonsense.  Test tube babies have been around for ages now.  A womb is not a condition for life.

I don't think they can grow an embryo past a certain number of cells, though.  (Even Brave New World didn't quite get that far.)

It's coming, and likely soon.

https://www.businessinsider.com/baby-lamb-fetus-inside-artificial-womb-2017-4

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Alabama
« Reply #130 on: May 22, 2019, 02:25:04 PM »
I don't know, to me the frozen embryo argument is kind of an attempted "aha! gotcha!" argument without that much heft behind it. An inconsistency, but a mild one. Even to a pro choice atheist like myself there is a meaningful distinction between a lab fertilized egg and an implanted embryo several weeks or months into it's development (which is when anyone would realistically get an abortion). One will turn into a person in the absence of outside intervention and the other won't.

I don't see how that would convince anyone not already in the pro choice camp.

That's a meaningless distinction.

A fetus in a womb needs constant outside intervention to stay alive . . . intervention that's provided by the mother.  It certainly doesn't just live.  Intervention in the form of oxygen, nutrients, homeostatic control, etc.  If no intervention were required, the fetus wouldn't need the mother and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You're going to argue a pregnant woman's body nourishing an embryo is considered "outside intervention" in the same way a doctor implanting a lab created embryo is? Really?

I don't understand the argument that a fetus is a person in a woman, but just cells when not in a woman.  It's not logically consistent. It's not possible for a person to live in ice water conditions, but it's still illegal to kill someone who has decided to go polar dipping . . . because people are alive or not depending on their biological status, not their environment.  Either the collection of cells that make up a fetus are alive, or they are not.  You cannot make a rational argument that where it's located changes that status.

The pro-lifers have a version of this argument as well. How is it logically consistent to say a 8.5 month old fetus is not a person when it's inside a womb but is a person when it's outside the womb? It can survive in either location. If being removed from the womb alive instantly changes your biological status from non-person to person then why isn't an embryo going from frozen in a petri dish to implanted and growing in a womb also a meaningful change of biological status? The (not totally extreme) pro-lifers just apply the person/not person distinction to a different change of status more in line with their spiritual beliefs.


Honestly, I think chasing logical consistency on any one specific point within such a complicated debate can lead you astray. If you believe life begins at conception then to be logically consistent you shouldn't support any exceptions at all for incest, rape, health of the mother, etc. If it's a person it's a person. If you believe a woman's right to bodily autonomy supersedes any other consideration until the point the fetus is physically removed from her body then to be logically consistent you should be supporting the right to an abortion at any time in the pregnancy (up to and including while in labor) for any reason whatsoever. I personally think both of those logically consistent positions are morally wrong. I wholeheartedly support both elective abortion (earlier in pregnancy) and sensible restrictions to elective abortion (later in pregnancy, particularly past the point of fetal viability).

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1630
Re: Alabama
« Reply #131 on: May 22, 2019, 02:36:25 PM »

The pro-lifers have a version of this argument as well. How is it logically consistent to say a 8.5 month old fetus is not a person when it's inside a womb but is a person when it's outside the womb? It can survive in either location. If being removed from the womb alive instantly changes your biological status from non-person to person then why isn't an embryo going from frozen in a petri dish to implanted and growing in a womb also a meaningful change of biological status? The (not totally extreme) pro-lifers just apply the person/not person distinction to a different change of status more in line with their spiritual beliefs.


Anyone who believes a fertilized embryo is a person would not agree with the bolded. It wouldn't make any sense for them to use an analogy with a premise they do not believe.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 02:38:09 PM by Dabnasty »

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Alabama
« Reply #132 on: May 22, 2019, 03:09:54 PM »

The pro-lifers have a version of this argument as well. How is it logically consistent to say a 8.5 month old fetus is not a person when it's inside a womb but is a person when it's outside the womb? It can survive in either location. If being removed from the womb alive instantly changes your biological status from non-person to person then why isn't an embryo going from frozen in a petri dish to implanted and growing in a womb also a meaningful change of biological status? The (not totally extreme) pro-lifers just apply the person/not person distinction to a different change of status more in line with their spiritual beliefs.

Anyone who believes a fertilized embryo is a person would not agree with the bolded. It wouldn't make any sense for them to use an analogy with a premise they do not believe.

Yeah, reading that again I see I wrote too fast and wasn't perfectly clear. The bolded statement was a formulation of the extreme pro-choice position, that right up until the moment of birth a fetus is not a person and has no rights to be weighed against the woman's right to bodily autonomy. Birth is a pretty clear place to assign personhood, but implantation is too if that is your belief. Both can be logically consistent depending on where you're coming from.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #133 on: May 22, 2019, 03:24:50 PM »
I don't know, to me the frozen embryo argument is kind of an attempted "aha! gotcha!" argument without that much heft behind it. An inconsistency, but a mild one. Even to a pro choice atheist like myself there is a meaningful distinction between a lab fertilized egg and an implanted embryo several weeks or months into it's development (which is when anyone would realistically get an abortion). One will turn into a person in the absence of outside intervention and the other won't.

I don't see how that would convince anyone not already in the pro choice camp.

That's a meaningless distinction.

A fetus in a womb needs constant outside intervention to stay alive . . . intervention that's provided by the mother.  It certainly doesn't just live.  Intervention in the form of oxygen, nutrients, homeostatic control, etc.  If no intervention were required, the fetus wouldn't need the mother and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You're going to argue a pregnant woman's body nourishing an embryo is considered "outside intervention" in the same way a doctor implanting a lab created embryo is? Really?

Yes.  If something needs outside intervention to live, it needs outside intervention to live.  This doesn't magically change in my world because of who provides the intervention.


I don't understand the argument that a fetus is a person in a woman, but just cells when not in a woman.  It's not logically consistent. It's not possible for a person to live in ice water conditions, but it's still illegal to kill someone who has decided to go polar dipping . . . because people are alive or not depending on their biological status, not their environment.  Either the collection of cells that make up a fetus are alive, or they are not.  You cannot make a rational argument that where it's located changes that status.

The pro-lifers have a version of this argument as well. How is it logically consistent to say a 8.5 month old fetus is not a person when it's inside a womb but is a person when it's outside the womb? It can survive in either location. If being removed from the womb alive instantly changes your biological status from non-person to person then why isn't an embryo going from frozen in a petri dish to implanted and growing in a womb also a meaningful change of biological status? The (not totally extreme) pro-lifers just apply the person/not person distinction to a different change of status more in line with their spiritual beliefs.

Is there anyone at all advocating for an abortion of a healthy fetus at 8.5 months?  If so, fuck them.

I've already mentioned in this thread, but my view is that if a fetus can live on it's own, then I'm in favor of removing it from the mother and letting it do that.  An abortion would not be appropriate in that case, as the imposition on a woman is much smaller to safely remove the child at this point.  While a woman's autonomy is obviously very important, it certainly doesn't trump all else.  I don't think anyone has made that case in this thread.


Honestly, I think chasing logical consistency on any one specific point within such a complicated debate can lead you astray. If you believe life begins at conception then to be logically consistent you shouldn't support any exceptions at all for incest, rape, health of the mother, etc. If it's a person it's a person. If you believe a woman's right to bodily autonomy supersedes any other consideration until the point the fetus is physically removed from her body then to be logically consistent you should be supporting the right to an abortion at any time in the pregnancy (up to and including while in labor) for any reason whatsoever. I personally think both of those logically consistent positions are morally wrong. I wholeheartedly support both elective abortion (earlier in pregnancy) and sensible restrictions to elective abortion (later in pregnancy, particularly past the point of fetal viability).

If you start with a mistake (in the case of your example, that a woman's autonomy trumps all else no matter the circumstances) then you get a mistake as your outcome.  That's a great example of why exploring the logic behind a decision is so important.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 03:28:12 PM by GuitarStv »

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10625
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #134 on: May 22, 2019, 04:50:57 PM »
I don't know, to me the frozen embryo argument is kind of an attempted "aha! gotcha!" argument without that much heft behind it. An inconsistency, but a mild one. Even to a pro choice atheist like myself there is a meaningful distinction between a lab fertilized egg and an implanted embryo several weeks or months into it's development (which is when anyone would realistically get an abortion). One will turn into a person in the absence of outside intervention and the other won't.

I don't see how that would convince anyone not already in the pro choice camp.

That's a meaningless distinction.

A fetus in a womb needs constant outside intervention to stay alive . . . intervention that's provided by the mother.  It certainly doesn't just live.  Intervention in the form of oxygen, nutrients, homeostatic control, etc.  If no intervention were required, the fetus wouldn't need the mother and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You're going to argue a pregnant woman's body nourishing an embryo is considered "outside intervention" in the same way a doctor implanting a lab created embryo is? Really?

Yes.  If something needs outside intervention to live, it needs outside intervention to live.  This doesn't magically change in my world because of who provides the intervention.


I don't understand the argument that a fetus is a person in a woman, but just cells when not in a woman.  It's not logically consistent. It's not possible for a person to live in ice water conditions, but it's still illegal to kill someone who has decided to go polar dipping . . . because people are alive or not depending on their biological status, not their environment.  Either the collection of cells that make up a fetus are alive, or they are not.  You cannot make a rational argument that where it's located changes that status.

The pro-lifers have a version of this argument as well. How is it logically consistent to say a 8.5 month old fetus is not a person when it's inside a womb but is a person when it's outside the womb? It can survive in either location. If being removed from the womb alive instantly changes your biological status from non-person to person then why isn't an embryo going from frozen in a petri dish to implanted and growing in a womb also a meaningful change of biological status? The (not totally extreme) pro-lifers just apply the person/not person distinction to a different change of status more in line with their spiritual beliefs.

Is there anyone at all advocating for an abortion of a healthy fetus at 8.5 months?  If so, fuck them.

I've already mentioned in this thread, but my view is that if a fetus can live on it's own, then I'm in favor of removing it from the mother and letting it do that.  An abortion would not be appropriate in that case, as the imposition on a woman is much smaller to safely remove the child at this point.  While a woman's autonomy is obviously very important, it certainly doesn't trump all else.  I don't think anyone has made that case in this thread.


Honestly, I think chasing logical consistency on any one specific point within such a complicated debate can lead you astray. If you believe life begins at conception then to be logically consistent you shouldn't support any exceptions at all for incest, rape, health of the mother, etc. If it's a person it's a person. If you believe a woman's right to bodily autonomy supersedes any other consideration until the point the fetus is physically removed from her body then to be logically consistent you should be supporting the right to an abortion at any time in the pregnancy (up to and including while in labor) for any reason whatsoever. I personally think both of those logically consistent positions are morally wrong. I wholeheartedly support both elective abortion (earlier in pregnancy) and sensible restrictions to elective abortion (later in pregnancy, particularly past the point of fetal viability).

If you start with a mistake (in the case of your example, that a woman's autonomy trumps all else no matter the circumstances) then you get a mistake as your outcome.  That's a great example of why exploring the logic behind a decision is so important.

Isn't this the same mistake as saying that the fetus's survival trumps all else?   Just from the other direction?

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #135 on: May 22, 2019, 05:07:18 PM »



Is there anyone at all advocating for an abortion of a healthy fetus at 8.5 months? 


Counsel for Roe and some amici argued that a woman's right to choose abortion is "absolute" and that "she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time...she alone chooses."

The Court flatly rejected this argument: "With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive."
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 05:12:48 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10625
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #136 on: May 22, 2019, 05:18:28 PM »
This is a balanced view of late-term abortions - which are not generally as late as 8.5 months.  After all, if you are already 6 months pregnant this is a wanted baby.

https://www.verywellfamily.com/termination-of-a-desired-pregnancy-for-medical-reasons-2371777

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #137 on: May 22, 2019, 05:50:17 PM »



Isn't this the same mistake as saying that the fetus's survival trumps all else?   Just from the other direction?

My position is that the sentience of a woman carrying a fetus, with respect to the nexus she has with everything in her world, is a totality that  outweighs the survival of her fetus.

Sugaree

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 436
Re: Alabama
« Reply #138 on: May 23, 2019, 05:47:30 AM »



Is there anyone at all advocating for an abortion of a healthy fetus at 8.5 months? 


Counsel for Roe and some amici argued that a woman's right to choose abortion is "absolute" and that "she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time...she alone chooses."

The Court flatly rejected this argument: "With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive."


That's a strawman.  if you are pregnant and you don't want to be then you take care of that shit ASAP.  The vast, vast majority of "late term" abortions take place after the typical 20 week mark, and are very much wanted, but doomed, pregnancies.  That was one of the major issues I had with my OB when  I was pregnant with my son.  He refused to do any of the early genetic screening tests and put off the anatomy scan until after 20 weeks.  He never came out and said it, but given his views on other issues (for example, he wouldn't insert an IUD because he believed that it prevented a fertilized egg from implanting, but he would give a recommendation for someone who would) I suspect that he was trying to prevent the termination of pregnancies of DS and other abnormalities.  That's not cool.  Especially considering how few OBs are actually in my town.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #139 on: May 23, 2019, 07:00:50 AM »



Is there anyone at all advocating for an abortion of a healthy fetus at 8.5 months? 


Counsel for Roe and some amici argued that a woman's right to choose abortion is "absolute" and that "she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time...she alone chooses."

The Court flatly rejected this argument: "With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive."

Sounds like Roe v Wade took a reasonable middle ground.  So, given that the people concerned about attempts to appeal that reasonable decision, given that virtually no people support 8.5 month abortions, and given that the Roe v Wade doesn't support an 8.5 term abortion anyway . . . maybe the pro-life crowd can stop pretending that this is a real concern?

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10625
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #140 on: May 23, 2019, 07:38:03 AM »



Isn't this the same mistake as saying that the fetus's survival trumps all else?   Just from the other direction?

My position is that the sentience of a woman carrying a fetus, with respect to the nexus she has with everything in her world, is a totality that  outweighs the survival of her fetus.

My quote is out of context, I was quoting GuitarStv's comment about one end of the argument, giving the other end of the argument.
(If you start with a mistake (in the case of your example, that a woman's autonomy trumps all else no matter the circumstances) then you get a mistake as your outcome.  That's a great example of why exploring the logic behind a decision is so important.)

In case you missed it, I am also for a woman's right to control her own body, including her reproduction. 

When I was pregnant, at an age when birth defects were more likely, the geneticist doing the screening asked if I would have an abortion if there was really bad news.  Because they would not do the genetic screening if I would carry to term anyway, because then there was no point in doing the screening.   We did the screening, DD had a lovely karyotype.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4172
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Alabama
« Reply #141 on: May 23, 2019, 07:51:54 AM »



Is there anyone at all advocating for an abortion of a healthy fetus at 8.5 months? 


Counsel for Roe and some amici argued that a woman's right to choose abortion is "absolute" and that "she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time...she alone chooses."

The Court flatly rejected this argument: "With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive."

Sounds like Roe v Wade took a reasonable middle ground.  So, given that the people concerned about attempts to appeal that reasonable decision, given that virtually no people support 8.5 month abortions, and given that the Roe v Wade doesn't support an 8.5 term abortion anyway . . . maybe the pro-life crowd can stop pretending that this is a real concern?

I support 8.5 month terminations, and I wouldn't say that hardly anyone does - you just won't hear people say it very often because it inflames an already inflamed debate.  But there are certainly some health conditions in the foetus where abortion even at that late stage is a kindness to both mother and potential child, and I'm not prepared to rule out that there may be (I assume, very rare, given than inducing a birth at that age would almost always be the better option) circumstances in which even a previously healthy foetus at 8.5 weeks is better terminated for the sake of the woman's life or health - for instance, perhaps, in the case of a bad traffic accident. 

Whatever the circumstances of a potential 8.5 month termination, I'm convinced that they will never be improved by the intervention of the government, politicians and law enforcement in the relationship between woman and medical provider.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #142 on: May 23, 2019, 08:04:22 AM »
I was thinking of 8.5 month terminations of a healthy fetus (and where there's little to no risk to the mother's life in removing the child).  You are certainly correct that there are specific (unusual?) circumstances where it could be appropriate.

Boofinator

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
Re: Alabama
« Reply #143 on: May 23, 2019, 08:15:03 AM »
I'm a firm believer in "Your mama brought you into this world, your mama can take you out!" No age restrictions.

In this I'm backed up by the Bible (Deuteronomy 21:18-21): 18 “Suppose a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him. 19 In such a case, the father and mother must take the son to the elders as they hold court at the town gate. 20 The parents must say to the elders, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his town must stone him to death." Needless to say, all kids will be stubborn and rebellious to some extent, so I take this as open season.

I'm also backed up by Darwin. If only people who want their kids have kids, and people who don't want their kids are allowed to abort, then as generations go by there should be less and less unwanted pregnancies, to the point where abortions will become more rare and perhaps one day become vanishingly small. Thus a self-correcting system which would in the long-term minimize the abortion rate.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
  • Age: 33
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Alabama
« Reply #144 on: May 23, 2019, 09:37:41 AM »
This post rather succinctly summarizes the problem with this discussion.

In my mind, life begins at conception. You can have every bit of research pointing in the other direction (not the case), but I was a father the moment that my wife became pregnant.

"You cannot reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into."

Most people who hold strong pro-life views are not pro-lifers because of some rational, logically-consistent thought process. They hold their pro-live views to be axiomatic, a basic truth (stemming from either religious or emotional reasons) that their other views flow from. There is no amount of discussion, evidence, reasoning, logic, or thought experiments that can ever change their minds.

If someone is willing to get an abortion, that means that they would rather take a life than be a parent. Do you think that person would be a good parent?

They also seem to have little to no respect for anyone who disagrees with them. They sub-humanize them, intentionally and thoroughly. In their mind people who have abortions are not just "unwittingly committing murder", they are murderers, complete with evil intentions and an incapacity to love children.

Thanks DadJokes for pulling back the veil for us.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4701
Re: Alabama
« Reply #145 on: May 23, 2019, 09:47:09 AM »
I was thinking of 8.5 month terminations of a healthy fetus (and where there's little to no risk to the mother's life in removing the child).  You are certainly correct that there are specific (unusual?) circumstances where it could be appropriate.
In that case you could remove the fetus via C-section and still respect the woman's bodily autonomy, just as you could remove a needle from a person who has chosen to stop giving blood.  It does not mean you harm the recipient of the aid, any more than removing a needle from one person would mean you do not attempt to get blood from another person and give the blood transfusion the injured person needs.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #146 on: May 23, 2019, 10:00:25 AM »
I try to stay out of political threads, and I'm probably going to regret wading into this one.

In my mind, life begins at conception. You can have every bit of research pointing in the other direction (not the case), but I was a father the moment that my wife became pregnant. My dog began to defend my wife while she was pregnant in the same way she does for the child now, because dogs knew that a new life is present. Attempting to frame the topic as a matter of a woman's choice is absurd and will never sway those who know that an unborn child is a human life.

That doesn't mean I am opposed to abortion. If someone is willing to get an abortion, that means that they would rather take a life than be a parent. Do you think that person would be a good parent? What quality of life would that child have? He/she would be just like many other children that I see going through my wife's classroom that are ignored by their parents. I would be willing to guess that they don't go on to be productive members of society or particularly happy with their life (huge jump to a conclusion there). Killing them while still an embryo would be a mercy. Add to that concerns about overpopulation, and I just don't see a problem with it.

Alive or not is really beside the point.

See, to me I kinda see life as beginning before conception.  Sperm is alive.  The little tails stop wriggling when it's dead.  An unfertilized egg is alive (it will stop being fertile when it dies).  Both are also made up of human cells . . . which means that not only is it alive, but it's human.  But most people don't get too upset about the millions of human lives killed every time a condom is used or the single life killed every time a woman has a period.  Why is that?  Because although the sperm and egg are certainly alive and made up of human cells, they're not developed enough to be considered worthy of legal rights.

The problem with the whole abortion debate is two fold.

The first part is that we're trying to set a point of development where those legal human rights come into play, not determining whether or not a fetus is alive and human.  Is a human without a fully formed brain really human?  Is a human without a beating heart really human?  Unfortunately, there's a lot of fuzzy area in the question.  Most reasonable people would argue that a fetus at 9 months is pretty much human.  Most reasonable people would argue that a fetus one day after conception isn't.

The second problem is that we have to balance these fuzzy rights against the well known and defined rights of a woman over her own body.  I've heard many good arguments on this issue, from both sides.

But on the question of when life begins . . . meh.  It's not really all that interesting.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13346
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #147 on: May 23, 2019, 10:00:53 AM »
I was thinking of 8.5 month terminations of a healthy fetus (and where there's little to no risk to the mother's life in removing the child).  You are certainly correct that there are specific (unusual?) circumstances where it could be appropriate.
In that case you could remove the fetus via C-section and still respect the woman's bodily autonomy, just as you could remove a needle from a person who has chosen to stop giving blood.  It does not mean you harm the recipient of the aid, any more than removing a needle from one person would mean you do not attempt to get blood from another person and give the blood transfusion the injured person needs.

Agreed.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10625
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Alabama
« Reply #148 on: May 23, 2019, 10:04:14 AM »
I was thinking of 8.5 month terminations of a healthy fetus (and where there's little to no risk to the mother's life in removing the child).  You are certainly correct that there are specific (unusual?) circumstances where it could be appropriate.
In that case you could remove the fetus via C-section and still respect the woman's bodily autonomy, just as you could remove a needle from a person who has chosen to stop giving blood.  It does not mean you harm the recipient of the aid, any more than removing a needle from one person would mean you do not attempt to get blood from another person and give the blood transfusion the injured person needs.

A healthy 8.5 moth fetus in a healthy woman is only 2 weeks from the due date, lots of babies are born this early.  So why an abortion?  Go through with the last 2 weeks and give the baby up for adoption, or much more likely since the pregnancy has already gone on for 8.5 months, this is a wanted pregnancy.

That is why it is silly to talk about an 8.5 month abortion when everyone is healthy. An abortion at this point is gong to be because of a serious medical issue on either the fetus' or the mother's part.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: Alabama
« Reply #149 on: May 23, 2019, 10:15:14 AM »


I support 8.5 month terminations, and I wouldn't say that hardly anyone does - you just won't hear people say it very often because it inflames an already inflamed debate.  But there are certainly some health conditions in the foetus where abortion even at that late stage is a kindness to both mother and potential child, and I'm not prepared to rule out that there may be (I assume, very rare, given than inducing a birth at that age would almost always be the better option) circumstances in which even a previously healthy foetus at 8.5 weeks is better terminated for the sake of the woman's life or health - for instance, perhaps, in the case of a bad traffic accident. 

Given the vicissitudes of life and pregnancy, and the ramifications in the case of each, I too support the choice of very late-term abortion.

Whatever the circumstances of a potential 8.5 month termination, I'm convinced that they will never be improved by the intervention of the government, politicians and law enforcement in the relationship between woman and medical provider.

I agree that the choice of very late-term abortion ought to be a physician-patient matter.