How do you feel about abortion?

[PrettyFly]

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that as a man, I shouldn't be asked this question.
I'll never have to grow a baby inside me, and if I want, I can abandon my family (more men than women do that) without a lot of consequences.

So this debate about abortion must be done, yes, but only between women.
Women only, as a whole, should debate, decide and legislate about this issue (and other women only issues).

Even if you were a woman. You will never be *that* woman.

Which is why the law should stay out of most things and abortion is solely the choice of the woman who’s pregnant.

 

[AkGBA]

Society in itself can legislate on it, I would think. Can, not must.
But let's, as men, just shut the f up about it.

 

[Vhestal]

Abortion is murder. Discussions about legalizing abortion are discussions about legalizing murder. Except in cases where carrying the child puts the mother's life in jeopardy, in which case it's self defense.

Exactly. I can't fathom others would say otherwise. It's an act against morality and coincidentally an act against rights, a draconian act pre se.

 

[PrettyFly]

Society in itself can legislate on it, I would think. Can, not must.
But let's, as men, just shut the f up about it.

That’s sexism yo.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Exactly. I can't fathom others would say otherwise. It's an act against morality and coincidentally an act against rights, a draconian act pre se.

That line of reasoning leads to the dumb Catholic Church stances such as condoms being murder.

 

[FAST6191]

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that as a man, I shouldn't be asked this question.
I'll never have to grow a baby inside me, and if I want, I can abandon my family (more men than women do that) without a lot of consequences.

So this debate about abortion must be done, yes, but only between women.
Women only, as a whole, should debate, decide and legislate about this issue (and other women only issues).

Ultimately I would leave any ultimate legal decision it to the individual woman (pending fun and games with artificial wombs in the coming decades anyway -- https://www.newscientist.com/articl...elps-premature-lamb-fetuses-grow-for-4-weeks/ ) or their medical proxy, even in cases of surrogacy, but I still maintain you can ask the question for the concept as a whole.
Said question being what does the act of abortion entail, what rights/status do we reckon the foetus is accorded, does the destruction of said same represent anything that would be contrary to said rights or general morality/law making concepts, and the things that follow from all of those as far as timeframes and medical conditions that might modify things as there are many. None of that need be exclusive to owners of functioning womb (or the female sex as a whole if for some reason those that can not undergo it somehow need a place at that debate table despite it not applying to them).
In the end I would agree with most of the nicer places to live in the world in making it readily available and considering it a bunch of parasitic cells happily able to be scraped out or have some fun with chemistry but the morality and logic underpinning it all is something that the species as a whole can debate, and should be allowed to do so. Restricting it to one sex... don't see why I would.

Walking away from the results is an option for everybody though (ish, the law still says some things if it catches up to you), stats here being of marginal interest at best (it is far from unheard of for the woman to bugger off, and even if it was an absolutely minute fraction it is still eminently possible under the laws of physics), so that is largely immaterial.

Edit

Exactly. I can't fathom others would say otherwise. It's an act against morality and coincidentally an act against rights, a draconian act pre se.

What rights? Where did a foetus gain rights and by what virtue did it accomplish such a feat? Might its rights conflict with those of the host?

If I delicately extract a foetus before a certain timeframe then even with the finest medical science available it is not going to grow into a human, under general care of the average human it definitely won't. It will probably even lack a central nervous system capable of processing pain and can't then be said to suffer. Why would I accord it any rights over a fully grown human?

"but potential" you might say. https://www.thoughtco.com/chemical-composition-of-the-human-body-603995 for the chemical composition of the human body. I can assemble all those well enough from a basic chemical supply company, same proportions even, indeed I can probably do that with my kitchen cabinet. If I decide to have a little burning session instead then have I just murdered someone? We have been able to turn inert chemicals into life forms for nearly a decade at this point https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form , and depending upon what you want to count viruses as then the better part of two decades https://www.nature.com/news/2003/031114/full/news031110-17.html
You do also have the what do you count IUDs as? The prevent implantation of things which are very possibly a fertilised egg (zygote) which is starting to divide, and you can happily induce a period in a woman that might even take out an implanted embyro. By similar token you were already asked what do we count barrier contraception as?

 

[notimp]

Makes me smile. You are pitching sexism (social concept) against morality (social concept) against law (shouldnt be too restrictive), most of them because those are popular buzzword concepts you grew up with, but still its a beginning. You guys are politically interested. And you are arguing again.

Law usually is seen as something thats not "overly intrusive", but a state of undebatable guidelines thats hard to change "too fast" and that on the flipside "doesnt change fast enough". Without law you have no rights. Without rights you have no protections. Rule of law is actually a pretty good thing.

Prevents to have to beg your chiefton for intervention personally all the time. But usually law isnt supposed to be "moral" (in a public opinion sense) thats the thing. You hardly ever have both of those on the same side..

 

[Clydefrosch]

there should be some limit (as there generally is literally everywhere) but it shouldn't be as early as constantly proposed in certain us states that you literally couldn't get one by the time you have a chance to realize you're pregnant.
where you'd need to get an abortion every other week just to make sure there's nothing growing in there.

and i love how you all bring in adoption as an alternative, when at least the us adoption system is pretty much a hellhole of child abuse, child molestation and child neglect.
too few adoptions, too many for profit foster homes and only in for the money foster families.

 

[PrettyFly]

there should be some limit (as there generally is literally everywhere) but it shouldn't be as early as constantly proposed in certain us states that you literally couldn't get one by the time you have a chance to realize you're pregnant.
where you'd need to get an abortion every other week just to make sure there's nothing growing in there.

and i love how you all bring in adoption as an alternative, when at least the us adoption system is pretty much a hellhole of child abuse, child molestation and child neglect.
too few adoptions, too many for profit foster homes and only in for the money foster families.

The limit should be at birth. Before then it's should have no more rights than a tick does.

 

[notimp]

The limit should be at birth. Before then it's should have no more rights than a tick does.

And what does speak against giving women a reasonable time for their decision (first three months of a pregnancy), that also allows them to catch that they are pregnant by reasonable standards, that allows them to make informed decisions ("counceling sessions" are mandatory in my country for women seeking an abortion), but also the time to actually deliberate and make a decision. But then to also look at the unborn and also make some provisions there to protect "life" thats unable to do so on its own.

You will never change the sentiments of people that children have to be protected, and you will never change the sentiments, that as soon as a human being can feel distress, or pain - going forward with an abortion is akin to "killing". I dont totally agree, but those feelings are out there and they are probably in the majority.

The time when most western countries outlaw abortion is linked to when the fetus develops most of its sensory perception. Luckily enough, this still gives the mother some time to decide.

Here you really look at all the parties involved, and try to minimize harm all around. Thats a compromise, actually worth of holding the term.

Not every past law in the book is worth being challenged, just because someone thinks his feels are superior and starts lobbying for his/her side.

All this has been from my perspective is people wanting to change perceived issues, when most of them havent actually properly thought about the problem an all positions involved. Arguments have to be very refined, and very precise - to hold an informed discussion, because they already were in the past. You are adding nothing new. You were just born later..

Thats part of the crux I have with this generation. It has plenty of new issues to tackle (and yes I include climate change in there, but only as one of many... take economic developments, demographic developments, globalization, change in global power structures, ...), and it chooses the most bland emotional outrage baits to argue about, while ignoring whats actually happening to them as societies.

Why on earth, do we have to hold religious conservative debates, over something that was decided decades ago, and hasn't changed one bit - just because the religious conservatives have been one of the power groups, that helped to decide past elections.

Pick any of the "newer" issues instead, and preferably get educated about those. There some real change probably would be needed. Istead you are fighting teath and nail over issues of the past, no one has a real interest in changing at all. (I bet not even the people who are igniting the debates.)

Reason "to save the babies". How moral and honest. And then, as always you try to win by voicing your feelings.. Its a good example to learn from at least..

All imho of course.

 

[Clydefrosch]

The limit should be at birth. Before then it's should have no more rights than a tick does.

so you're one of those 10 comment sockpuppets just in it to disrupt any actual discussion eh?

 

[PrettyFly]

And what does speak against giving women a reasonable time for their decision (first three months of a pregnancy), that also allows them to catch that they are pregnant by reasonable standards, that allows them to make informed decisions

False. Most women wont "show" a pregnancy until second trimester. In particular younger women with no previous pregnancies will show late. Chances are of the 1 in 10 women who gets pregnant a year using the oral contraceptive pill, none of them would know in the first trimester unless they have morning sickness.

The time when most western countries outlaw abortion is linked to when the fetus develops most of its sensory perception

False. The most common period abortion is allowed for is up to 12 weeks (3 months because it is a round number) and 24 weeks (6 months rationalised as being the point at which live birth is reasonably possible "50% survival").

None base it on "Sensory perception" bullshit.


The issue is you provide long messages but they are mostly non-sense. As though you need to hit a word limit for a presentation you have to give at school that day.



How I imagine you write your replies on here.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

so you're one of those 10 comment sockpuppets just in it to disrupt any actual discussion eh?

Says the guy who provides no rebuttal.

 

[FAST6191]

The limit should be at birth. Before then it's should have no more rights than a tick does.

Don't know if I would go that far. I quite like the without serious medical intervention thing with extensions for medical necessity (host or eventual life of the parasite) we have now, and see no issue with the overlap between premature births either. If you stand a decent chance (75% for an initial position but open to change there) of a normal life with the equipment potentially carried in the back of an ambulance (oxygen/nasal cannula, IV and/or feeding tube, heating lamp and light box to sort jaundice sort of thing) if delivered by C section at that point in time then medical necessity or late diagnosis of something shitty would be the limits I go with. Where things go as far as demanding said c section for a "normal" pregnancy I am not sure.

As far as "showing" or not then I would have gone with the lack of periods probably being a good starter. While not flawless, especially if people want to be as fat as they presently seem to be, it works as a baseline.

 

[notimp]

False. Most women wont "show" a pregnancy until second trimester. In particular younger women with no previous pregnancies will show late. Chances are of the 1 in 10 women who gets pregnant a year using the oral contraceptive pill, none of them would know in the first trimester unless they have morning sickness.

They would be missing their period at least twice. Here I'm starting to talk out of my depth so if you can present any studies, or factualized statements, I will look at them.

What I gleaned in a few minutes of googling is that many women dont realize that they are pregnant until six weeks into the pregnancy (src: https://www.bustle.com/p/when-do-wo...-would-severely-limit-abortion-access-3195694 ) this still allows for some time to act - if you draw the arbitrary three months line.

On the individual level, this doesnt help and things can be different - but afaik the three months line in many western countries is drawn with the concept in mind, that most women could catch that the are pregnant, and act within the timeframe - if they decide on having an abortion.

On the second point - most sensory development kicks in in the second trimester (see: https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-brain-nervous-system/ ) - but the survival rate argument is actually pretty astonishing, if thats actually what people argued for having the hard line of legal abortion set. Because it would play with the concept of induced birth - which I dont want to even think about in that context. Sounds too pragmatic to me. Surely someone packaged that with better arguments..

But you have a point in that abortion is legal in the west up to the first or second trimester (in normal cases), depending on which country you are in. So yes, thats a thing.

I used the first trimester mark to argue for a minimum timeframe to begin with. (Before most women know that they are pregnant, its hard for them to decide, If they want to have an abortion. Pragmatically.)

 

[WeedZ]

You know what would solve a lot of problems including abortion? If they made contraception legally mandatory. Then you had to apply, obtain a license, get background checks and be held financially to a loan in order to have a child. I need a license to carry a gun, drive a car, even operate certain equipment, but anyone can bring people into the world?

 

[notimp]

Wouldnt help with birth rates in the west. Wouldnt be accepted in poorer countries, where - again, part of the reason to have children is to have someone to care about you when you are older. (This goes hand in hand with different family structures, different values around the role of families, ...)

Also the decision to want to have a child is a personal one, not one the state will ever have a role on deciding. (Even china, allowed everyone at least one. Two or more if you paid.) People will never accept that.

And then there is the fact, that in most cases forced sterilization was thought about in the past - the actual arguing was actually pretty off. Meaning - you mostly made sure, that societal problem groups wouldnt replicate - and alienated them even more.

Incentive structures are the solutions (marketing and easing taxes) for the numbers issue. The rest you can hopefully catch with societal programs.

Solution for having a poor foster care program in a country > make a better one.

 

[PrettyFly]

They would be missing their period at least twice. Here I'm starting to talk out of my depth so if you can present any studies, or factualized statements, I will look at them.

On the pill... No periods on a pill, if you have a 21/7 contraceptive pill then you will have a 7 day withdrawal bleed that 1) is not a period 2) does not mean you are not pregnant 3) will not effect a pregnancy if you do bleed.

The 6th week of pregnancy rule applies to all pregnancies, of which the vast majority are not on birth control.

If you are on birth control pregnancies are discovered far later.

i.e. the people who might want to have an abortion are typically those who will be the last to find out.


Just to reiterate. If you are on the pill with a 7 day "off" phase you will have a bleed (most women think of this as a "period") and it does not mean you are not pregnant.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You know what would solve a lot of problems including abortion? If they made contraception legally mandatory. Then you had to apply, obtain a license, get background checks and be held financially to a loan in order to have a child. I need a license to carry a gun, drive a car, even operate certain equipment, but anyone can bring people into the world?

Nah abortions solve the problem far better without interfering with sex and without causing everyone constantly taking the pill and having pregnancy tests anyways.

 

[blahkamehameha]

 

[PrettyFly]

Don't know if I would go that far. I quite like the without serious medical intervention thing with extensions for medical necessity (host or eventual life of the parasite) we have now, and see no issue with the overlap between premature births either. If you stand a decent chance (75% for an initial position but open to change there) of a normal life with the equipment potentially carried in the back of an ambulance (oxygen/nasal cannula, IV and/or feeding tube, heating lamp and light box to sort jaundice sort of thing) if delivered by C section at that point in time then medical necessity or late diagnosis of something shitty would be the limits I go with. Where things go as far as demanding said c section for a "normal" pregnancy I am not sure.

As far as "showing" or not then I would have gone with the lack of periods probably being a good starter. While not flawless, especially if people want to be as fat as they presently seem to be, it works as a baseline.

The problem is that birth control means that periods either don't really happen (progesterone only will cause random bleeds or suppress them entirely) and combined pills will either fully supress a period or force bleeds during the off phase which does not stop a pregnancy or mean you are not pregnant.

Obviously if you are fat you might not spot a pregnancy at all.

But if you've ever seen a fit woman pregnant you might notice that actually they show very late as their abs are tight and haven't been split by previous pregnancies and the baby tends to be smaller due the mum's better metabolic control.

Really I would say we need a rule that works and is not based on changing science and not based on vague ideas like risk to mothers life (women have died in Ireland as the doctors did not agree the process that killed the mother was enough of a risk to her life).

All those systems are broken and don't work.

Really until the foetus is born it's just part of the mum. It's not even as sentient as say a pig is when slaughtered.

Given that the woman can just get pregnant again and the world is already set for the number of humans...

Why all this faff about abortions? The shocking fact is people seem to get more riled up about abortions than interest in providing money for already born living people.

 

[notimp]

On the pill... No periods on a pill, if you have a 21/7 contraceptive pill then you will have a 7 day withdrawal bleed that 1) is not a period 2) does not mean you are not pregnant 3) will not effect a pregnancy if you do bleed.

The 6th week of pregnancy rule applies to all pregnancies, of which the vast majority are not on birth control.

If you are on birth control pregnancies are discovered far later.

i.e. the people who might want to have an abortion are typically those who will be the last to find out.


Just to reiterate. If you are on the pill with a 7 day "off" phase you will have a bleed (most women think of this as a "period") and it does not mean you are not pregnant.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Nah abortions solve the problem far better without interfering with sex and without causing everyone constantly taking the pill and having pregnancy tests anyways.

I thought of that as a "period" as well. Thank you for the correction then. Also I was not aware, that you can have a withdrawal bleed and still be pregnant. As I said, completely out of my depth on this one. (And not proud of it. )

edit: Closed that embarrassing knowledge gap just now. If anyone else wants to read up on it:
https://www.healthline.com/health/withdrawal-bleeding#Why-does-withdrawal-bleeding-occur?

 

[FAST6191]

The problem is that birth control means that periods either don't really happen (progesterone only will cause random bleeds or suppress them entirely) and combined pills will either fully supress a period or force bleeds during the off phase which does not stop a pregnancy or mean you are not pregnant.

Obviously if you are fat you might not spot a pregnancy at all.

But if you've ever seen a fit woman pregnant you might notice that actually they show very late as their abs are tight and haven't been split by previous pregnancies and the baby tends to be smaller due the mum's better metabolic control.

Really I would say we need a rule that works and is not based on changing science and not based on vague ideas like risk to mothers life (women have died in Ireland as the doctors did not agree the process that killed the mother was enough of a risk to her life).

All those systems are broken and don't work.

Really until the foetus is born it's just part of the mum. It's not even as sentient as say a pig is when slaughtered.

Given that the woman can just get pregnant again and the world is already set for the number of humans...

Why all this faff about abortions? The shocking fact is people seem to get more riled up about abortions than interest in providing money for already born living people.

You would not be the first person to note the odd quirk with the , however we linked George Carlin way back at the start of the thread

I am not sure the Republic of Ireland makes for a great case study here -- their general history and reluctance with the concept speaking to much there. It is much akin to looking at how vaccinations fare in the middle east and assuming that applies to the population at large.

As far as sentience then the same applies to a 1 day old baby as well -- human developmental milestones, and the general human pregnancy timings as far as pelvis to head ratios and all that.

I am not sold on the "until it pops out of you" concept. I will continue to defer to existing concepts in the UK for this one as far as time limits, guided by the baseline meds and probability thing I mentioned before. Whether that means you can elect to have a c section at your chosen point either privately or not probably then being the next position for me. Effects of hormone driven birth control are a complicating factor but not one I reckon wants to override other things.