The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

[Abortion] - it's good as hell, y'all

1356745

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Is there a greater significance to ancient historical views on abortion? Its an interesting topic but I'm not sure if its being tied into a larger point.

    The opposition to abortion is not based on any coherent religious structure and is actually a naked power grab used by regressive forces in society to cement their power.

    To say they lack coherence for not sharing the beliefs of people 2,000 years ago is not particularly reasonable, to say nothing of the fact that many of these people were pagans, not christians.

    They lack coherence because the beliefs aren't actually found in the religious texts being cited.

    So this has nothing to do with what I asked about the relevance of historical thinking on abortion then, its just more "religious people make it all up".

    We are having a conversation because abortion is controversial.

    It's controversial because some people oppose it.

    They claim to oppose it based on their belief in religious texts that they consider infallible.

    An examination of those texts finds their beliefs are not found anywhere in those texts.

    *Those* religious people made *this* up, for specific reasons: It allows them to do monstrously amoral things and still convince their adherents they have moral superiority. If it wasn't abortion, it'd be something else. Anything that reasonable people would have to oppose and they could use as a rallying cry.

    As we've already seen in this thread this is not a fact, its an interpretation.

    That's not a meaningful counter-argument. All readings of all texts are interpretations.

    Then stop making definitive statements about their contents as the basis for accusations?

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    Relevant:

    Maternal Mortality Is Rising in the U.S. As It Declines Elsewhere
    Deaths per 100,000 live births
    86l88vz6x18d.png
    Chart: The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. (26.4) far exceeds that of other developed countries.
    "Global, regional, and national levels of maternal mortality, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015," The Lancet. Only data for 1990, 2000 and 2015 was made available in the journal.

    Vox's health care reporters have done a bunch of stuff on this over the last few years. Here's one:
    https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12001348/more-women-dying-childbirth-america

    While pregnancy related, it is afaik not really abortion related at all and is more due to a variety of public health factors and the general incompetence of the US medical industry at public health issues and large-scale organization.

    An increasing chance that pregnancy will kill you seems very relevant to the choice of whether to carry it to term.

  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    Is there a greater significance to ancient historical views on abortion? Its an interesting topic but I'm not sure if its being tied into a larger point.

    The opposition to abortion is not based on any coherent religious structure and is actually a naked power grab used by regressive forces in society to cement their power.

    To say they lack coherence for not sharing the beliefs of people 2,000 years ago is not particularly reasonable, to say nothing of the fact that many of these people were pagans, not christians.

    They lack coherence because the beliefs aren't actually found in the religious texts being cited.

    So this has nothing to do with what I asked about the relevance of historical thinking on abortion then, its just more "religious people make it all up".

    We are having a conversation because abortion is controversial.

    It's controversial because some people oppose it.

    They claim to oppose it based on their belief in religious texts that they consider infallible.

    An examination of those texts finds their beliefs are not found anywhere in those texts.

    *Those* religious people made *this* up, for specific reasons: It allows them to do monstrously amoral things and still convince their adherents they have moral superiority. If it wasn't abortion, it'd be something else. Anything that reasonable people would have to oppose and they could use as a rallying cry.

    As we've already seen in this thread this is not a fact, its an interpretation.

    That's not a meaningful counter-argument. All readings of all texts are interpretations.

    Then stop making definitive statements about their contents as the basis for accusations?

    No?

    "Judgments exist, therefore stop making judgments" does not make sense. If someone thinks my interpretation is wrong, they're free to believe that.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Regarding silphium, it supposedly died out in the time of Nero, so between the poor state of written records from the time and the general loss of knowledge following the fall of Rome....

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    The argument of "When do life starts?" is a knot of biological, theological and philosophical connotations, so I rather avoid it entirely, since is not the point.

    This is insane to see written in an abortion "debate" thread.

    That's literally the whole point, but it's easier to argue against the strawman of "patriarchy trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant" so you all carry on in your little echo chamber I guess.

  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    The argument of "When do life starts?" is a knot of biological, theological and philosophical connotations, so I rather avoid it entirely, since is not the point.

    This is insane to see written in an abortion "debate" thread.

    That's literally the whole point, but it's easier to argue against the strawman of "patriarchy trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant" so you all carry on in your little echo chamber I guess.

    I find them equally easy to argue against, personally.

    Fetuses very clearly aren't a human life for most of pregnancy and women should have inviolable right to decide what happens within their body.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    The argument of "When do life starts?" is a knot of biological, theological and philosophical connotations, so I rather avoid it entirely, since is not the point.

    This is insane to see written in an abortion "debate" thread.

    That's literally the whole point, but it's easier to argue against the strawman of "patriarchy trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant" so you all carry on in your little echo chamber I guess.

    There's a moral and coherent pro-choice view that still views a fetus as a human life

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • JansonJanson Registered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    Relevant:

    Maternal Mortality Is Rising in the U.S. As It Declines Elsewhere
    Deaths per 100,000 live births
    86l88vz6x18d.png
    Chart: The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. (26.4) far exceeds that of other developed countries.
    "Global, regional, and national levels of maternal mortality, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015," The Lancet. Only data for 1990, 2000 and 2015 was made available in the journal.

    Vox's health care reporters have done a bunch of stuff on this over the last few years. Here's one:
    https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12001348/more-women-dying-childbirth-america

    While pregnancy related, it is afaik not really abortion related at all and is more due to a variety of public health factors and the general incompetence of the US medical industry at public health issues and large-scale organization.

    An increasing chance that pregnancy will kill you seems very relevant to the choice of whether to carry it to term.
    The issue is that, from everything I have read, the women who are dying in childbirth or as a result of childbirth wouldn’t have known they were at an increasing chance of dying.

    Many of them are dying from easily treatable complications and are being let down by a lack of care.

    As someone who has given birth in the US, I have compared my experience with my UK friends and relatives and the amount of care I received after birth was astonishingly lacking compared to theirs. I mean, it was terrible. And I was insured and I am a white woman, so goodness knows how neglected others are.

  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    Janson wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    Relevant:

    Maternal Mortality Is Rising in the U.S. As It Declines Elsewhere
    Deaths per 100,000 live births
    86l88vz6x18d.png
    Chart: The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. (26.4) far exceeds that of other developed countries.
    "Global, regional, and national levels of maternal mortality, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015," The Lancet. Only data for 1990, 2000 and 2015 was made available in the journal.

    Vox's health care reporters have done a bunch of stuff on this over the last few years. Here's one:
    https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12001348/more-women-dying-childbirth-america

    While pregnancy related, it is afaik not really abortion related at all and is more due to a variety of public health factors and the general incompetence of the US medical industry at public health issues and large-scale organization.

    An increasing chance that pregnancy will kill you seems very relevant to the choice of whether to carry it to term.
    The issue is that, from everything I have read, the women who are dying in childbirth or as a result of childbirth wouldn’t have known they were at an increasing chance of dying.

    Many of them are dying from easily treatable complications and are being let down by a lack of care.

    As someone who has given birth in the US, I have compared my experience with my UK friends and relatives and the amount of care I received after birth was astonishingly lacking compared to theirs. I mean, it was terrible. And I was insured and I am a white woman, so goodness knows how neglected others are.

    They may not have had specific information about their health situation, but anyone missing a period can look up the stats and see that things are bad and getting worse, which should factor into the decision-making process.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2019
    Before Christianity defined it as a sin, unwanted babies were generally exposed on a hillside to die, or even smothered. This seems unimaginably cruel to me. Thank heaven for contraception!

    Modern medicine introduces new dilemmas, such as ultrasound scans that can reveal that the baby will be born with a serious and agonizing illness incompatible with life. This is the situation that generally leads to the "late term abortions" that Republicans flip out over. But the alternative, letting the sick baby die naturally, seems rather analogous to exposing a child on a hillside.

    This happened to friends of ours. They estimated the baby, if born, would have a few years to live tops, assuming a massive amount of medical work done just to try and stabilize her. Everything about the whole ordeal was traumatic and really sad. Nobody has late-term abortions for non-serious reasons.

    shryke on
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    The argument of "When do life starts?" is a knot of biological, theological and philosophical connotations, so I rather avoid it entirely, since is not the point.

    This is insane to see written in an abortion "debate" thread.

    That's literally the whole point, but it's easier to argue against the strawman of "patriarchy trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant" so you all carry on in your little echo chamber I guess.

    Eh, accepting that "when does life begin" is the crux of the argument is to start from a compromise passion. If you believe that, you're welcome to argue it, but my intention with the thread wasn't particularly to entertain arguments against abortion so much as about the current state of politics, what the root causes of the problem are, and what might be done - hence the title.

  • JansonJanson Registered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    Janson wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    Relevant:

    Maternal Mortality Is Rising in the U.S. As It Declines Elsewhere
    Deaths per 100,000 live births
    86l88vz6x18d.png
    Chart: The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. (26.4) far exceeds that of other developed countries.
    "Global, regional, and national levels of maternal mortality, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015," The Lancet. Only data for 1990, 2000 and 2015 was made available in the journal.

    Vox's health care reporters have done a bunch of stuff on this over the last few years. Here's one:
    https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12001348/more-women-dying-childbirth-america

    While pregnancy related, it is afaik not really abortion related at all and is more due to a variety of public health factors and the general incompetence of the US medical industry at public health issues and large-scale organization.

    An increasing chance that pregnancy will kill you seems very relevant to the choice of whether to carry it to term.
    The issue is that, from everything I have read, the women who are dying in childbirth or as a result of childbirth wouldn’t have known they were at an increasing chance of dying.

    Many of them are dying from easily treatable complications and are being let down by a lack of care.

    As someone who has given birth in the US, I have compared my experience with my UK friends and relatives and the amount of care I received after birth was astonishingly lacking compared to theirs. I mean, it was terrible. And I was insured and I am a white woman, so goodness knows how neglected others are.

    They may not have had specific information about their health situation, but anyone missing a period can look up the stats and see that things are bad and getting worse, which should factor into the decision-making process.

    Many of these complications are issues that only present themselves immediately after birth, such as post-eclampsia

    Here’s an example of a neo-natal nurse who died from post-eclampsia

    The UK and Europe in general have exceptional post-partum care for mothers

    Many instances of maternal death aren’t foreshadowed by worsening health or bad pregnancies

  • JansonJanson Registered User regular
    Wait, I interpreted your post wrongly.

    Well, maternal death is still statistically rare enough that I very much doubt it’s a big enough factor

  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    Janson wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    Janson wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    Relevant:

    Maternal Mortality Is Rising in the U.S. As It Declines Elsewhere
    Deaths per 100,000 live births
    86l88vz6x18d.png
    Chart: The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. (26.4) far exceeds that of other developed countries.
    "Global, regional, and national levels of maternal mortality, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015," The Lancet. Only data for 1990, 2000 and 2015 was made available in the journal.

    Vox's health care reporters have done a bunch of stuff on this over the last few years. Here's one:
    https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12001348/more-women-dying-childbirth-america

    While pregnancy related, it is afaik not really abortion related at all and is more due to a variety of public health factors and the general incompetence of the US medical industry at public health issues and large-scale organization.

    An increasing chance that pregnancy will kill you seems very relevant to the choice of whether to carry it to term.
    The issue is that, from everything I have read, the women who are dying in childbirth or as a result of childbirth wouldn’t have known they were at an increasing chance of dying.

    Many of them are dying from easily treatable complications and are being let down by a lack of care.

    As someone who has given birth in the US, I have compared my experience with my UK friends and relatives and the amount of care I received after birth was astonishingly lacking compared to theirs. I mean, it was terrible. And I was insured and I am a white woman, so goodness knows how neglected others are.

    They may not have had specific information about their health situation, but anyone missing a period can look up the stats and see that things are bad and getting worse, which should factor into the decision-making process.

    Many of these complications are issues that only present themselves immediately after birth, such as post-eclampsia

    Here’s an example of a neo-natal nurse who died from post-eclampsia

    The UK and Europe in general have exceptional post-partum care for mothers

    Many instances of maternal death aren’t foreshadowed by worsening health or bad pregnancies

    Right, which is an argument for people who don't necessarily present as having any specific health issues to consider pregnancy more risky than they might if they lived in a country with a functioning healthcare system.

    Or am I misunderstanding you?

  • JansonJanson Registered User regular
    No no I was the one who misunderstood you, we’re cool!

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    edited April 2019
    Janson wrote: »
    Wait, I interpreted your post wrongly.

    Well, maternal death is still statistically rare enough that I very much doubt it’s a big enough factor

    Enough women know people who have had injuries and complications from birth and pregnancy that they are very much a factor, even if outright death is rare. It's a running joke on pregnancy forums that as soon as you get pregnant other women will give you unsolicited accounts of their horrific birth injuries and 3 months bed rest and how they were "never the same downstairs" afterwards.

    Did you know your vagina can and usually does rip open during birth?

    CelestialBadger on
  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    edited April 2019
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    The argument of "When do life starts?" is a knot of biological, theological and philosophical connotations, so I rather avoid it entirely, since is not the point.

    This is insane to see written in an abortion "debate" thread.

    That's literally the whole point, but it's easier to argue against the strawman of "patriarchy trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant" so you all carry on in your little echo chamber I guess.

    There's a moral and coherent pro-choice view that still views a fetus as a human life
    What view is this?

    RT800 on
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    edited April 2019
    RT800 wrote: »
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    The argument of "When do life starts?" is a knot of biological, theological and philosophical connotations, so I rather avoid it entirely, since is not the point.

    This is insane to see written in an abortion "debate" thread.

    That's literally the whole point, but it's easier to argue against the strawman of "patriarchy trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant" so you all carry on in your little echo chamber I guess.

    There's a moral and coherent pro-choice view that still views a fetus as a human life
    What view is this?

    That women's bodily autonomy trumps all. You can't force someone to use their body to support another human's life against their will.

    Inkstain82 on
  • JansonJanson Registered User regular
    Janson wrote: »
    Wait, I interpreted your post wrongly.

    Well, maternal death is still statistically rare enough that I very much doubt it’s a big enough factor

    Enough women know people who have had injuries and complications from birth and pregnancy that they are very much a factor, even if outright death is rare. It's a running joke on pregnancy forums that as soon as you get pregnant other women will give you unsolicited accounts of their horrific birth injuries and 3 months bed rest and how they were "never the same downstairs" afterwards.

    The part I am wondering about is how much of a difference that makes in the percentage of women getting an abortion in the US vs another country like the UK, though.

    Like I understand that women get abortions because pregnancy and childbirth is risky and dangerous, I just wonder how many look at the maternal death rates and have that specifically factor into their decision based on location. Whether someone getting an abortion in the US because of the risk factor would have been happy to go ahead and have the baby in the UK.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User, Moderator, Administrator admin
    edited April 2019
    Janson wrote: »
    Wait, I interpreted your post wrongly.

    Well, maternal death is still statistically rare enough that I very much doubt it’s a big enough factor

    Enough women know people who have had injuries and complications from birth and pregnancy that they are very much a factor, even if outright death is rare. It's a running joke on pregnancy forums that as soon as you get pregnant other women will give you unsolicited accounts of their horrific birth injuries and 3 months bed rest and how they were "never the same downstairs" afterwards.

    Did you know your vagina can and usually does rip open during birth?
    Death is just one of the many myriad awful things that can happen to a woman due to pregnancy, even with access to perfect and unlimited health care.

    Hahnsoo1 on
    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    I imagine it would be difficult to say, since that decision also includes things like the state of social programs, jobs and wages, etc

  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    edited April 2019
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    The argument of "When do life starts?" is a knot of biological, theological and philosophical connotations, so I rather avoid it entirely, since is not the point.

    This is insane to see written in an abortion "debate" thread.

    That's literally the whole point, but it's easier to argue against the strawman of "patriarchy trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant" so you all carry on in your little echo chamber I guess.

    There's a moral and coherent pro-choice view that still views a fetus as a human life
    What view is this?

    That women's bodily autonomy trumps all. You can't force someone to use their body to support another human's life against their will.
    I generally agree with this.

    But it does put a damper on the notion that abortions should be considered celebratory.

    RT800 on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    RT800 wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    The argument of "When do life starts?" is a knot of biological, theological and philosophical connotations, so I rather avoid it entirely, since is not the point.

    This is insane to see written in an abortion "debate" thread.

    That's literally the whole point, but it's easier to argue against the strawman of "patriarchy trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant" so you all carry on in your little echo chamber I guess.

    There's a moral and coherent pro-choice view that still views a fetus as a human life
    What view is this?

    That women's bodily autonomy trumps all. You can't force someone to use their body to support another human's life against their will.

    I generally agree with this.

    But it does put a damper on the notion that abortions should be considered celebratory.

    If you believe human life starts at conception then yeah, abortion is an evil that must be allowed to avoid a greater evil. Akin to letting someone die of renal failure because its worse to take organs from people against their will.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • archivistkitsunearchivistkitsune Registered User regular
    I really wish the notion of "women getting abortion for the hell of it" would die in a favor. I think people would be very hard pressed to find a women that goes and gets an abortion just for the hell of it, most it's a rather difficult decision to make. The right absolutely pisses me off on this matter because most of the fuckers aren't arguing in good faith. One protip being, if someone wants to argue they are pro-life, then they damn well better be anti-capital punishment, anti-war, anti-bigotry, pro universal healthcare, pro-vaccine, pro-social welfare (aka not cool with the idea that someone dies in a ditch because they can't get a living wage because some wealthy fucker needs another yacht) & pro-universal education. If someone can't check all of those off, they really shouldn't be claiming the prolife title; especially, if they aren't checking the first 5. Honestly, we shouldn't let the anti-abortion frame themselves as prolife because many are not. At best they are pro-birth, but I suspect a good chunk of just shitty individuals that want to justify being controlling asses.

    In the case of the ones being controlling asses, probably the same group of fuckers that insist that a rapist gets visiting rights on kids born because of their rape (which I recall is a thing in many states). So is it any wonder than many women who are victims, opt to get the child aborted because controlling assholes have pretty much created scenarios where the women cannot get the rapist shit out of her life, if she carries a kid to term.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    Relevant:

    Maternal Mortality Is Rising in the U.S. As It Declines Elsewhere
    Deaths per 100,000 live births
    86l88vz6x18d.png
    Chart: The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. (26.4) far exceeds that of other developed countries.
    "Global, regional, and national levels of maternal mortality, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015," The Lancet. Only data for 1990, 2000 and 2015 was made available in the journal.

    Vox's health care reporters have done a bunch of stuff on this over the last few years. Here's one:
    https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12001348/more-women-dying-childbirth-america

    While pregnancy related, it is afaik not really abortion related at all and is more due to a variety of public health factors and the general incompetence of the US medical industry at public health issues and large-scale organization.

    An increasing chance that pregnancy will kill you seems very relevant to the choice of whether to carry it to term.

    The point was mostly that it's not a result of a lack of access to abortion, it's just general bad healthcare in the US.

  • veritastalpaveritastalpa Registered User regular
    Knight_ wrote: »
    abortion is an odd topic because i'm of the opinion that there is no discussion.

    as a man, my opinion doesn't matter, and even if someone asked, the answer is obviously people should be allowed to choose what is best for them. It's their body, not anyone else's.

    As long as men are on the hook for child support for a kid they may not have wanted, they should be involved in the discussion to at least some degree. Both people had sex knowing a kid was a possibility, both should have a say in what happens afterwards. Admittedly this does get tricky when they have opposing view points.

    The woman wanting to keep it, but the man not is an easy answer. She gets to keep the kid, he isn't responsible for supporting her/it. It was her choice, she has to deal with it.

    The man wanting to keep it, but the woman not wanting to though is a difficult question. Obviously its the woman's body and she shouldn't be forced to give birth to a kid she doesn't want. But at that same time, you are terminating the man's child against his wishes. Assuming we are no longer holding the man responsible for a kid he doesn't want, the best solution here is currently that she doesn't have to keep it. Otherwise there are no good solutions here until technology allows for artificial wombs.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Oh god not the child support argument please

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    I think for the sake of discourse we should let the sleeping dog (child support argument) lie

  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited April 2019
    As pro-choice as I am now, I just cannot get to this "celebrating abortion" point. It's pretty obvious if you look at the data that the point where a fetus has sentience--not to be confused with intelligence--must come sometime before natural childbirth, and that seems a much more useful thing to search for than some unsolvable argument about when something counts as "human life", whatever the hell that means. I don't feel comfortable celebrating any sentient being's death, though I can certainly understand celebrating the increase in women's rights which allows it to occur.

    So, if we accept that sentience doesn't occur at the time of birth, we get into other questions. Such as, women's autonomy. Who gets to make that moral decision of whether to preserve a sentient fetus (Edit: and whether the fetus yet counts as sufficiently sentient that preserving it is the moral decision), and should the government be involved? Or, as I suspect most here would argue, is that moral judgment the woman's decision to make?

    But I'd argue that even before we get to that point in the argument, the act should already be legal and available for purely pragmatic concerns, i.e. it's counterproductive to try to restrict abortion even to the stated goal of reducing the number of abortions, let alone all the damaging aspects to individual women involved and society as a whole. Like, if you actually look at the data, and you compare it with other conservative positions, it's as-stated-in-the-OP extremely obvious that banning abortion is not about preserving sentient life to the people who are in favor of it.

    OremLK on
    My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
  • veritastalpaveritastalpa Registered User regular
    edited April 2019
    Oh god not the child support argument please

    Wether you like it or not, the issues are intertwined. You can't have it both ways and say a woman shouldn't have to spend 9 months for a kid she doesn't want but a man should have to spend 18 years paying for a kid he doesn't want. Both are taking autonomy away from a person.

    I'm not saying women shouldn't be able to get abortions, but this is an issue that needs to be dealt with concurrently.

    veritastalpa on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Oh god not the child support argument please

    Wether you like it or not, the issues are intertwined. You can't have it both ways and say a woman shouldn't have to spend 9 months for a kid she doesn't want but a man should have to spend 18 years paying for a kid he doesn't want. Both are taking autonomy away from a person.

    I'm not saying women shouldn't be able to get abortions, but this is an issue that needs to be dealt with concurrently.

    Does it actually? Is it actually an issue that crops up much if ever?

  • bowenbowen Sup? Registered User regular
    Oh god not the child support argument please

    Wether you like it or not, the issues are intertwined. You can't have it both ways and say a woman shouldn't have to spend 9 months for a kid she doesn't want but a man should have to spend 18 years paying for a kid he doesn't want. Both are taking autonomy away from a person.

    I'm not saying women shouldn't be able to get abortions, but this is an issue that needs to be dealt with concurrently.

    Money doesn't have anything to do with autonomy in the way you're thinking. Women don't necessarily have autonomy this way either. If both parents are present and one says they want to take full custody of the kid (unmarried man let's say), the other parent still has to pay support regardless if they're man or woman.

    The reason women can use abortion for "I don't want to pay for it" is because it's a side effect of their bodily autonomy, not necessarily a reason.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Descendant XDescendant X Skyrim is my god now. Outpost 31Registered User regular
    It’s an issue if you’re an MRA who thinks that simply because you ejaculated in a woman that you have a say in what she does with the results.

    Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    edited April 2019
    I don't think that life begins at conception, but I do think that it emerges at some point before birth.

    Given the blurriness of this line, it seems to me that we should try as hard as possible to reduce the need for an abortion.

    It boggles my mind how often the people railing against abortion are the same people railing against contraception.

    I agree that the best means of preventing pregnancy is abstinence - but I'm also a realist. People are gonna do the sex. Might as well just accept that and try to mitigate the damage.

    RT800 on
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Oh god not the child support argument please

    Wether you like it or not, the issues are intertwined. You can't have it both ways and say a woman shouldn't have to spend 9 months for a kid she doesn't want but a man should have to spend 18 years paying for a kid he doesn't want. Both are taking autonomy away from a person.

    I'm not saying women shouldn't be able to get abortions, but this is an issue that needs to be dealt with concurrently.

    Does it actually? Is it actually an issue that crops up much if ever?

    Yes, there are lots of deadbeat dads out there, and alt-right guys fucking love this argument.

    If the argument was purely financial, abortion would be wrong. It's wrong to destroy a potential life in order to save yourself some dough. But on the woman's side, there's a lot more on the line than a few hundred dollars a month - her health and even life are at risk. Birth is agonizing even if it goes perfectly. This is why surrogacy is such a difficult moral topic.

  • bowenbowen Sup? Registered User regular
    RT800 wrote: »
    I don't think that life begins at conception, but I do think that it emerges at some point before birth.

    Given the blurriness of this line, it seems to me that we should try as hard as possible to reduce the need for an abortion.

    It boggles my mind how often the people railing against abortion are the same people railing against contraception.

    it's because it's thought of as a punishment for women for not keeping their legs closed properly like them and their families

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • BrodyBrody The Watch The First ShoreRegistered User regular
    Knight_ wrote: »
    abortion is an odd topic because i'm of the opinion that there is no discussion.

    as a man, my opinion doesn't matter, and even if someone asked, the answer is obviously people should be allowed to choose what is best for them. It's their body, not anyone else's.

    As long as men are on the hook for child support for a kid they may not have wanted, they should be involved in the discussion to at least some degree. Both people had sex knowing a kid was a possibility, both should have a say in what happens afterwards. Admittedly this does get tricky when they have opposing view points.

    The woman wanting to keep it, but the man not is an easy answer. She gets to keep the kid, he isn't responsible for supporting her/it. It was her choice, she has to deal with it.

    The man wanting to keep it, but the woman not wanting to though is a difficult question. Obviously its the woman's body and she shouldn't be forced to give birth to a kid she doesn't want. But at that same time, you are terminating the man's child against his wishes. Assuming we are no longer holding the man responsible for a kid he doesn't want, the best solution here is currently that she doesn't have to keep it. Otherwise there are no good solutions here until technology allows for artificial wombs.

    The issue is that this is treating either the child as a commodity that the man has ownership of. Until the child is born, you are still talking about what is functionally a part of the woman's body, and she should have control over it.

    "I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."

    The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson

    Steam: Korvalain
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Oh god not the child support argument please

    Wether you like it or not, the issues are intertwined. You can't have it both ways and say a woman shouldn't have to spend 9 months for a kid she doesn't want but a man should have to spend 18 years paying for a kid he doesn't want. Both are taking autonomy away from a person.

    I'm not saying women shouldn't be able to get abortions, but this is an issue that needs to be dealt with concurrently.

    Does it actually? Is it actually an issue that crops up much if ever?

    Yes, there are lots of deadbeat dads out there, and alt-right guys fucking love this argument.

    If the argument was purely financial, abortion would be wrong. It's wrong to destroy a potential life in order to save yourself some dough. But on the woman's side, there's a lot more on the line than a few hundred dollars a month - her health and even life are at risk. Birth is agonizing even if it goes perfectly. This is why surrogacy is such a difficult moral topic.

    I'm saying I'm not sure the number of times where the father was demanding an abortion so he wouldn't have to pay child support and the woman refused is so large as to be meaningful, especially in cases where the situation even existing couldn't have been easily prevented by the man.

  • WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    OremLK wrote: »
    As pro-choice as I am now, I just cannot get to this "celebrating abortion" point. It's pretty obvious if you look at the data that the point where a fetus has sentience--not to be confused with intelligence--must come sometime before natural childbirth, and that seems a much more useful thing to search for than some unsolvable argument about when something counts as "human life", whatever the hell that means. I don't feel comfortable celebrating any sentient being's death, though I can certainly understand celebrating the increase in women's rights which allows it to occur.

    So, if we accept that sentience doesn't occur at the time of birth, we get into other questions. Such as, women's autonomy. Who gets to make that moral decision of whether to preserve a sentient fetus, and should the government be involved? Or, as I suspect most here would argue, is that moral judgment the woman's decision to make?

    But I'd argue that even before we get to that point in the argument, the act should already be legal and available for purely pragmatic concerns, i.e. it's counterproductive to try to restrict abortion even to the stated goal of reducing the number of abortions, let alone all the damaging aspects to individual women involved and society as a whole. Like, if you actually look at the data, and you compare it with other conservative positions, it's as-stated-in-the-OP extremely obvious that banning abortion is not about preserving sentient life to the people who are in favor of it.

    I don't think that preserving life (or preserving sentient life) is a solid basis for moral judgments.

    We really should be focusing on preventing suffering.

  • veritastalpaveritastalpa Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Oh god not the child support argument please

    Wether you like it or not, the issues are intertwined. You can't have it both ways and say a woman shouldn't have to spend 9 months for a kid she doesn't want but a man should have to spend 18 years paying for a kid he doesn't want. Both are taking autonomy away from a person.

    I'm not saying women shouldn't be able to get abortions, but this is an issue that needs to be dealt with concurrently.

    Does it actually? Is it actually an issue that crops up much if ever?

    Yes?

    https://family-law.freeadvice.com/family-law/child_support/one_parent_support.htm
    State of Louisiana v. Frisard, actually ordered a father to pay child support although the mother had allegedly collected his sperm from an act of oral sex and used it to impregnate herself without his consent.

    I'm not sure where to look up exact numbers for women forcing child support from unwilling fathers though, given you are going to get intermingling with divorcee children, which is going to taint the pool for this argument.

Sign In or Register to comment.