[News] Alabama - Women's rights

[Goldstone1976]

I think that women should be able to choose what they want to do with their bodies. Raped, incest or not. Is that not a fair argument?

In a rational world, it’s the only sane argument.

Hang on [MENTION=33848]The Clamp[/MENTION]. You agree with DH12 here, but previously you said

A woman can do whatever they want with their own body. Obviously a time limit should be maintained for abortion.

The second sentence places a limit on the first.

I'm confused by your stance. Is it "A woman can do what she wants with her body" or is it "A woman can do what she wants with her body, providing she doesn't choose to do something with it with which I disagree"?

This is not semantics - these types of questions lie at the very heart of the debate surrounding abortion.

 

[The Clamp]

Nah it's not. Just because you can't comprehend some of the ****ed up mindsets involved in this discussion doesn't mean they don't exist.

Even pro-choice women are deeply disturbed by those who want to push for laws that allow basically full term abortions. Laws that are coming into place in NY and Illinois.

Support for abortions drop off significantly as each trimester passes.


Don't talk about warped if you think aborting that late is acceptable.

I think your problem is not so much that you don’t understand things (although you rarely do) it’s that you’re not smart enough to make yourself understood. Does that sound about right?

 

[The Clamp]

Hang on [MENTION=33848]The Clamp[/MENTION]. You agree with DH12 here, but previously you said



The second sentence places a limit on the first.

I'm confused by your stance. Is it "A woman can do what she wants with her body" or is it "A woman can do what she wants with her body, providing she doesn't choose to do something with it with which I disagree"?

This is not semantics - these types of questions lie at the very heart of the debate surrounding abortion.

You’re right. I’ve contradicted myself there. What a minefield.

 

[Pretty Plnk Fairy]

For mine to a certain date should be allowed for abortions.

me to, best would be april 1st as its my birthday

Regards
DR

 

[Gritt23]

To be a pedant for a moment, is it not true that we all ban abortion at one stage or another, but it's just the line we all draw as to when "life" begins. You cannot get an abortion in the UK, at say, 30 weeks.

It would seem ludicrous to allow abortion right up to the end of term, so we all agree that "life" doesn't begin at birth when it comes to this. It's just when during the gestation period we agree that it becomes a "life". When looked at in those terms, all these people are saying is that it becomes a life as soon as nature would otherwise bring about a baby being born, therefore, from fertilisation.

While I'm not an advocate of a complete ban on abortion, I do appreciate they have their views, and it's not for some nasty evil punishment of the mother as some would suggest. They just merely believe life starts at that point, and they are there to protect that unborn child. It's just a shame they don't offer caveats around the health of the mother / child and the circumstances under which the pregnancy came about. The thought of a rape victim having to go through an entire pregnancy and giving birth to the baby that came from such an encounter is truly abhorrent.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I think your problem is not so much that you don’t understand things (although you rarely do) it’s that you’re not smart enough to make yourself understood. Does that sound about right?

Oh you think you're smart?

I find you incredibly simple. I mean I said I support abortion to a point. Yet you take that as being anti-abortion. That highlights you are unable to read and comprehend.

Accepting abortion is a necessity into the first trimester doesn't mean people have to support it into the third.

Plenty of "progressives" are just as ****ed in the head as those who oppose them.

That's pretty easy to understand isn't it?

 

[black & white seagull]

What people seem to be forgetting is that women have always sought abortions, whether the procedure is legal or not. Women in Alabama will continue to seek and obtain abortions even if the law is passed - they'll just be carried out in highly dangerous environments by unqualified individuals.

 

[Machiavelli]

There's an easy answer to that one: pro-lifers claim that life is from conception; pro-choice argue that life is only when a child can support itself outside the womb or when there's a heartbeat. So,you can be anti-capital punishment on the grounds that you don't want to take human life and be pro-choice on the grounds that there's no life to take.

And you can also be capital punishment on practical not ethical grounds, so that argument doesn't even come into it

Yes but, as you indicate, the point at which life starts are just claims (which are disputable), and not facts (which aren't disputable or, at least, shouldn't be). I haven't read [MENTION=8158]Molango's visa[/MENTION]'s response yet, but would agree to his initial point that you can forge a logical argument for pro-choice, but would also insist that you can develop a logical argument for anti-abortion. But logic isn't rationality. The former is a form of reasoning, while the latter wants to universalise their propositions. Neither the propositions of the pro-choicers or anti-abortionists are universalisable (but, then again, nothing about the world is).

 

[Machiavelli]

It is possible to defend this logically - provided you don't bring religion into it.

If you believe that as soon as a sperm fuses with an egg you have life and, thus, a human being, and that the life of that human being is equal with the life of all human beings, then abortion is insupportable. However, this is a religious position, not a scientific one. And a rather partial religious position at that.

The scientific position is that life, after conception, does not define the existence of a human being. Moreover, whether a single cell is a human being or whether an embryo, a foetus or an infant is a human being is clearly meaningful only by invoking a sliding scale. The body destroys and sheds fertilized eggs without the 'mother' even knowing. Is this child-murder by neglect? Someone with the partial religious views noted above would (or should) petition to screen all women after intercourse to ensure they do not murder their 'baby' in utero.

No, there is a sliding scale. We all understand what a baby is, and we all understand what a single cell is. The human being whose life is sacred emerges somewhere in between. This is why we have a cut off date for legal abortion. It is hard to define but it is based around the evidence for what constitutes 'viable' life if the 'baby' were born prematurely. And this does not mean 'alive' in any state and regardless how briefly with the intervention of extreme medical support. You can keep a very premature (weeks) 'child' 'alive' in this state for quite a while. This is why we use reasonable prospect of viability to set the deadline, but this can be varied if, for example, there is a congenital issue, especially a likely lethal mutation.

We don't use sentience in this, by the way. A human is arguably not sentient until it can form and retain memories. How early is your first memory? Mine is aged two. But we would no more use sentience to define the upper abortion limit that we would use it to define a marriagable age (although some cultures would).

The reality is that if you set aside any religious imperative, whether to allow abortion, for what reasons and at what upper time limit are all arbitrary decisions, and the rules will change as we learn more.

If you find the idea of 'killing' abhorent, and feel really bad about abortion, then why not engage with all the education programmes to minimise unwanted pregnancy? Promote safe sex, education, all that stuff.

I would say I find it ironic that sections of society most opposed to abortion are also opposed to sex education and (in some groups) opposed to contraception. Orthodox Catholics, for example. Square that circle.

In my view nobody should advance opinions about medicine, social care, educatation or even moraility using a religious doctrine as their yardstick. And nobody should force other human beings to do anything (or be prevented from doing anything) on the basis of religious doctrine. If your religion has a position on an issue, fine, but you should not try imposing that on others. I appreciate that some religions carry as part of their doctrine the imperative to preach and to convert. That, also, should be illegal, in my view. I have had people in my face about god in my life, and I resent it (and what I experienced back in the day it could now be argued to constitute child abuse).

Perhaps the next phase of human emancipation, following 'allowing' working men, then women and (in the US) black people a vote, and 'allowing' homosexuals to not be thrown in gaol, will be for society to come down hard on public campaigning religion. As we see here, its public manifestation is like a cloak of invincibility that allows those in power to maintain power and control in an unquestionable fashion. Disgusting and wrong.

This is perfectly logical and I agree with most of what you say, although not:
-- the religion versus science binary you establish
-- the sentience bit

 

[Goldstone1976]

Yes but, as you indicate, the point at which life starts are just claims (which are disputable), and not facts (which aren't disputable or, at least, shouldn't be). I haven't read [MENTION=8158]Molango's visa[/MENTION]'s response yet, but would agree to his initial point that you can forge a logical argument for pro-choice, but would also insist that you can develop a logical argument for anti-abortion. But logic isn't rationality. The former is a form of reasoning, while the latter wants to universalise their propositions. Neither the propositions of the pro-choicers or anti-abortionists are universalisable (but, then again, nothing about the world is).

You should teach Ethics & Logic, you should.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh you think you're smart?

I find you incredibly simple. I mean I said I support abortion to a point. Yet you take that as being anti-abortion. That highlights you are unable to read and comprehend.

Accepting abortion is a necessity into the first trimester doesn't mean people have to support it into the third.

Plenty of "progressives" are just as ****ed in the head as those who oppose them.

That's pretty easy to understand isn't it?

Oh, I get that.

 

[Machiavelli]

You should teach Ethics & Logic, you should.

With a name like this. Shurely shume mishtake.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

What people seem to be forgetting is that women have always sought abortions, whether the procedure is legal or not. Women in Alabama will continue to seek and obtain abortions even if the law is passed - they'll just be carried out in highly dangerous environments by unqualified individuals.

Interesting you bring that up.

The laws in Illinois are creating that very same situation but are making it so easy that parental consent isn't even required for a non adult, so it's so lax it creates dangerous situations.

It will allow non Drs to undertake the procedure which could have terrible consequences for the patient if something goes wrong with the procedure.

This is the opposite end of the extreme positions states are taking.

The sensible answer has to be somewhere in the middle.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Genuine question

Is there anyone who thinks it should be legally acceptable to terminate pregnancy at 38 weeks? Or are we unanimous there should be a cut off point?

Abortion should take place as early as possible and as late as is necessary.

Nobody can predict the circumstances that can arise at any time during pregnancy and they should not be legislated for.

The number of late term (third trimester) abortions is minuscule - and the number after 35 weeks almost non-existent. If I remember correctly there was one abortion in Canada at 35 weeks a couple of years ago after severe genetic malformations were found at 28 weeks. She requested an abortion at 30 weeks but was refused - eventually getting the abortion at 35 weeks after a court case.

 

[black & white seagull]

Interesting you bring that up.

The laws in Illinois are creating that very same situation but are making it so easy that parental consent isn't even required for a non adult, so it's so lax it creates dangerous situations.

It will allow non Drs to undertake the procedure which could have terrible consequences for the patient if something goes wrong with the procedure.

This is the opposite end of the extreme positions states are taking.

The sensible answer has to be somewhere in the middle.

However, presumably not any Tom, Dick or Harry can perform an abortion in Illinois? This is from the University of Chicago website. It would appear that doctors perform surgical abortions, while others can provide a medication abortion - which is the administering of tablets.

 

[The Clamp]

Oh you think you're smart?

I find you incredibly simple. I mean I said I support abortion to a point. Yet you take that as being anti-abortion. That highlights you are unable to read and comprehend.

Accepting abortion is a necessity into the first trimester doesn't mean people have to support it into the third.

Plenty of "progressives" are just as ****ed in the head as those who oppose them.

That's pretty easy to understand isn't it?

Your getting in your own way. I have not accused you of taking an anti abortion stance. I revise my last post, I think your problem is that you don’t understand things.

 

[Gwylan]

Yes but, as you indicate, the point at which life starts are just claims (which are disputable), and not facts (which aren't disputable or, at least, shouldn't be). I haven't read [MENTION=8158]Molango's visa[/MENTION]'s response yet, but would agree to his initial point that you can forge a logical argument for pro-choice, but would also insist that you can develop a logical argument for anti-abortion. But logic isn't rationality. The former is a form of reasoning, while the latter wants to universalise their propositions. Neither the propositions of the pro-choicers or anti-abortionists are universalisable (but, then again, nothing about the world is).

I agree that the point at which life begins is not a fact but the argument that all pro-choicers make is that life happens at some point between conception and birth and that there's no ethical inconsistency between being anti-capital punishment and pro-choice. That's not the same thing for anti-abortionists who argue that life begins at conception.

However, if someone believes that life begins at a heartbeat but the legal limit for abortion is 24 weeks then people who are anti-capital punishment should, by consistency, be anti-abortion too.

You should teach Ethics & Logic, you should.

They're very different subjects. I nearly became a lecturer in logic, I was offered a post, but I wouldn't have had the faintest idea how to teach ethics. You're generally one or another

 

[Thunder Bolt]

There's an easy answer to that one: pro-lifers claim that life is from conception; pro-choice argue that life is only when a child can support itself outside the womb or when there's a heartbeat. So,you can be anti-capital punishment on the grounds that you don't want to take human life and be pro-choice on the grounds that there's no life to take.

And you can also be capital punishment on practical not ethical grounds, so that argument doesn't even come into it

A scan can detect a heartbeat at seven weeks pregnant.

 

[The Clamp]

You’re not a human until you’re in my contacts.

 

[Goldstone1976]

They're very different subjects. I nearly became a lecturer in logic, I was offered a post, but I wouldn't have had the faintest idea how to teach ethics. You're generally one or another

Yeah, I know they're different. I included both because there are elements of both his brief reply - at least to my eye. Mind you, I've not been offered a teaching post in either subject.