[News] Alabama - Women's rights

[Machiavelli]

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.



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

I think I agree with what you're saying on taking life. In terms of ethics and logic, logic I accept can be very distinct from ethics, and become extremely intricate akin to mathematics (which, for me, is just a sub-set of logic), whereas ethics relies on logical arguments so their difference diminishes there.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

So you think this is the fault of women?

The answer is the same as the answer to the question "why don't moderate labour supporters, supposing they are unhappy with their momentum-supporting elected representatives, vote some moderates into office?". The anser is women/moderates/whatever need to get on the ballot paper first. How many of the red neck good ole boy local parties in sweet home Alabama are likely to back a female (or black) person seeking to stand to be their representative for election? How many moderate labour people are likely to be selected by increasing numbers of local parties hell bent on purging the Blairite 'traitors'?

Blaming the victims is rarely a good look

Victims? Victims of democracy I suppose. I am not taking sides here, nor am I blaming anyone. I think Tyrone answered my question when he said there are plenty of women who support the pro life stance of these candidates. Shall we blame them?

 

[lost in london]

These type of threads always highlight a direct correlation between right wing posters, brexit supporters, islamophobes, and now it seems so called “pro-lifers”.

Not forgetting those located in that well known paradise of tolerance and forward thinking, Australia. Where everyone is looking forward to the 1970’s.

You could thrown in climate change deniers with that lot as well.

 

[Gwylan]

[In terms of ethics and logic, logic I accept can be very distinct from ethics, and become extremely intricate akin to mathematics (which, for me, is just a sub-set of logic)

Ah, a follower of Frege and Russell - there are some major flaws in this theory. It's what I wrote my thesis on

Sadly, it has nothing to with women's rights in Alabama, as interesting as it all is

 

[blue-shifted]

"As late as necessary". So would you be comfortable if the law was that a woman could decide in the early stages of a normal labour that she changed her mind and wanted it aborted?

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.

 

[Machiavelli]

Ah, a follower of Frege and Russell - there are some major flaws in this theory. It's what I wrote my thesis on

Sadly, it has nothing to with women's rights in Alabama, as interesting as it all is

No, but one of Russell's students was rather good, amongst many others that post-date F & R.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

"As late as necessary". So would you be comfortable if the law was that a woman could decide in the early stages of a normal labour that she changed her mind and wanted it aborted?

No I would not 'be comfortable' with it - as I demonstrated with the image I posted earlier, it is not for me to determine when an individual woman should or should not have an abortion. Your question however, demonstrates your approach - that women will simply decide to have an abortion on a whim.

There is zero evidence that any woman - ever - has sought an abortion while in 'normal labour'. As I pointed out already - third trimester abortions are rare - and abortion over 35 weeks are pretty much non-existent. However, it is impossible to determine the circumstances where a woman might require an abortion at that time - and there should be no legal restriction on it.

The hypocrisy of those opposing abortion rights is amply demonstrated in this article - titled 'ABORTION IS IMMORAL, EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO MY MISTRESSES'

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/abortion-is-immoral-except-when-it-comes-to-my-mistresses?fbclid=IwAR0gbxGv3VDDwEvbUid6-WQKUcBAstw3EbgqFZNgmyLsB65PFCmh7UMEiTw

 

[blue-shifted]

No I would not 'be comfortable' with it - as I demonstrated with the image I posted earlier, it is not for me to determine when an individual woman should or should not have an abortion. Your question however, demonstrates your approach - that women will simply decide to have an abortion on a whim.

There is zero evidence that any woman - ever - has sought an abortion while in 'normal labour'. As I pointed out already - third trimester abortions are rare - and abortion over 35 weeks are pretty much non-existent. However, it is impossible to determine the circumstances where a woman might require an abortion at that time - and there should be no legal restriction on it.

The hypocrisy of those opposing abortion rights is amply demonstrated in this article - titled 'ABORTION IS IMMORAL, EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO MY MISTRESSES'

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/abortion-is-immoral-except-when-it-comes-to-my-mistresses?fbclid=IwAR0gbxGv3VDDwEvbUid6-WQKUcBAstw3EbgqFZNgmyLsB65PFCmh7UMEiTw

I suppose im trying to make a point. That point is that there are very few people who don't believe there should be some sort of legal cut off point, (even if yes, it is thankfully highly unusual that a long cut off point of 35 weeks or more would ever be relied upon) . Once there is a general agreement that there should be a cut off point, then you can start to look at medical evidence and seek an ethical consensus as to where that point should be. I can see some logic in the view that any mid term date selected is arbitrary and that the baby could possibly live, so maybe better to take the when the sperm meets the egg view. Maybe this is the least flawed of a potential range of highly flawed outcomes? Im happy to be convinced otherwise

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

I suppose im trying to make a point. That point is that there are very few people who don't believe there should be some sort of legal cut off point, (even if yes, it is thankfully highly unusual that a long cut off point of 35 weeks or more would ever be relied upon) . Once there is a general agreement that there should be a cut off point, then you can start to look at medical evidence and seek an ethical consensus as to where that point should be. I can see some logic in the view that any mid term date selected is arbitrary and that the baby could possibly live, so maybe better to take the when the sperm meets the egg view. Maybe this is the least flawed of a potential range of highly flawed outcomes? Im happy to be convinced otherwise

And you have a valid point - the question is why should there be a legal cut-off point? What interests would such a legal cut-off serve? Would it serve the interests of the pregnant woman?

Most countries have a legal cut-off of some form or another. But there are two problems with a legal cut-off - 1. it serves as a starting point for those who oppose abortion rights to hack away at the cut-off limit and also to attack the legal grounds for abortion (which is exactly what has been happening in Alabama etc.) - 2. it eliminates the possibility of any abortion after that point irrespective of the potential consequences for the woman.

The very people who advocate for 'small government' - the elimination of regulation and government interference in the economy - the removal of interference of the state from all aspects of family life - are invariably the same people who advocate a legal ban on abortion. It is a mechanism of control and it is about controlling women and by extension, wider social, political and economic demands in society.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy should be the decision for the women and the woman alone - with the support of medical professions and counsellors to ensure that she is making the right decision for herself. In my opinion - nobody should have any right to interfere in that decision.

 

[blue-shifted]

And you have a valid point - the question is why should there be a legal cut-off point? What interests would such a legal cut-off serve? Would it serve the interests of the pregnant woman?

Most countries have a legal cut-off of some form or another. But there are two problems with a legal cut-off - 1. it serves as a starting point for those who oppose abortion rights to hack away at the cut-off limit and also to attack the legal grounds for abortion (which is exactly what has been happening in Alabama etc.) - 2. it eliminates the possibility of any abortion after that point irrespective of the potential consequences for the woman.

The very people who advocate for 'small government' - the elimination of regulation and government interference in the economy - the removal of interference of the state from all aspects of family life - are invariably the same people who advocate a legal ban on abortion. It is a mechanism of control and it is about controlling women and by extension, wider social, political and economic demands in society.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy should be the decision for the women and the woman alone - with the support of medical professions and counsellors to ensure that she is making the right decision for herself. In my opinion - nobody should have any right to interfere in that decision.

Thoughtful and measured. But I can't agree. I think there has to be a stage during pregnancy where the unborn baby acquires some rights to be protected.