Abortion

[Kinsella]

Do they really?

In may not be 'socially acceptable' to say so but...yeah.

I used to be well versed on the various stats regarding abortion, as I did a fair amount of research and thinking on it at the time of the referendum in Ireland, but I'm much less so now. In the UK context I think the proportion of pregnancies that currently end in abortion is just under 25%, which is huge. I can't recall the exact figure for how many of those are for women with no prior abortions, but I think it's somewhere between 30 and 40%.

Given such figures it's safe to assume that it has become a form of birth control for many. I don't like saying it, but there you go.

 

[Wibble]

In may not be 'socially acceptable' to say so but...yeah.

I used to be well versed on the various stats regarding abortion, as I did a fair amount of research and thinking on it at the time of the referendum in Ireland, but I'm much less so now. In the UK context I think the proportion of pregnancies that currently end in abortion is just under 25%, which is huge. I can't recall the exact figure for how many of those are for women with no prior abortions, but I think it's somewhere between 30 and 40%.

Given such figures it's safe to assume that it has become a form of birth control for many. I don't like saying it, but there you go.

Just because contraception education is obviously inadequate that doesn't mean people are using it as contraception. I doubt that there are very many people who don't find it very traumatic.

That said I would have no moral issue if it was except for the impact on the women involved.

 

[Kinsella]

Just because contraception education is obviously inadequate that doesn't mean people are using it as contraception.

You seem to be making a correlation there between sex education (& it's inadequacy in your view) and the abortion rate. Whereas I'd say there's little or no correlation.

I doubt that there are very many people who don't find it very traumatic.

You'd hope so. But I always find it interesting that people rarely mention the trauma of going through with the birth and raising the baby/child.

That said I would have no moral issue if it was except for the impact on the women involved.

Just out of interest...at what point, if any, would the abortion rate become unacceptable to you?

 

[Carolina Red]

You seem to be making a correlation there between sex education (& it's inadequacy in your view) and the abortion rate. Whereas I'd say there's little or no correlation.

Between 2006 and 2015, the abortion rate for girls between 15 and 19 plummeted 54%. Teen pregnancy rates are also down, reaching a record low in 2017.

The CDC says evidence suggests that more teens are abstaining from sex and that more teens who are sexually active are using birth control.

Some experts point to comprehensive sex education, defined as "age-appropriate, medically-accurate information on a broad set of topics related to sexuality," as one factor that may be changing behaviors that put teens at risk of pregnancy.

"If you think about those years, that's when we were putting more funding into comprehensive sex ed. There was more funding available for programs that discussed condoms and contraception," said Jennifer Driver, state policy director at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). "During that period, we were moving away from abstinence-until-marriage programs."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-fewer-women-having-abortions-why/1424236001/

 

[Wibble]

Just out of interest...at what point, if any, would the abortion rate become unacceptable to you?

I'd like it to be zero and if 25% of pregnancies end in abortions is plainly far too high in a women's welfare sense. Abortions are traumatic and many women are mentally scarred for life.

However, I have no moral objection to abortion per se and even if I did it isn't my call to object or impose acceptable/unacceptable limits.

 

[Foxbatt]

Also, I think the whole Catholic Church thing is kind of a good argument against abstinence. Men should empty their balls periodically or they go nuts (ha).

Theoretically the Catholic Church is the biggest problem. Inn The Philippines condoms are frowned upon and finding one is not easy. No divorce and no abortion. millions of poor kids on the street begging for food. The population is expanding uncontrollably. No sex education unless it is of the practical kind in the churches.

 

[calodo2003]

Theoretically the Catholic Church is the biggest problem. Inn The Philippines condoms are frowned upon and finding one is not easy. No divorce and no abortion. millions of poor kids on the street begging for food. The population is expanding uncontrollably. No sex education unless it is of the practical kind in the churches.

South America as well.

 

[Damien]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Damien]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Damien]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Stunningly tone deaf of a woman to say that.

 

[calodo2003]

Fast becoming Gilead.

 

[RedTiger]

Amy the chattel.

 

[calodo2003]

Stunningly tone deaf of a woman to say that.

Ever seen her eyes? She’d boil more than bunnies.

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This would fit seamlessly into the Hypernormalisation thread.

 

[Jericholyte2]

Sweet Jesus!

Here is why the Trump administration was as cancerous as people claimed. His fecking poison will ruin the lives of millions for generations to come!

 

[DJ Jeff]

I can't find a convincing rationale by which it is not a kind of murder, and to be painfully honest I say this as a guy who went through that pain with my gf after she got pregnant and all our ensuing fears about what decision to make before we decided we had to keep it, even as two young people on minimum wage. even more painfully that ended with her losing the child

 

[WI_Red]

I can't find a convincing rationale by which it is not a kind of murder, and to be painfully honest I say this as a guy who went through that pain with my gf after she got pregnant and all our ensuing fears about what decision to make before we decided we had to keep it, even as two young people on minimum wage. even more painfully that ended with her losing the child

By your comment I assume you are making an argument that a fetus is, in some way, a human being and therefore entitled to legal rights. So would a miscarriage be involuntary manslaughter? Would a woman who does not get pre-natal care and has a miscarriage face murder or manslaughter charges?

 

[Penna]

By your comment I assume you are making an argument that a fetus is, in some way, a human being and therefore entitled to legal rights. So would a miscarriage be involuntary manslaughter? Would a woman who does not get pre-natal care and has a miscarriage face murder or manslaughter charges?

I have to pick you up on your first sentence. A fetus is a developing human being. There's nothing else it can be, by definition. So yes, of course it's "in some way" a human being. No woman has ever been pregnant and given birth to anything other than a human being.

Miscarriage/spontaneous abortion is a natural process that some women experience. Some women who get all possible antenatal care also have miscarriages. Women who smoke and drink all through their pregnancies can have perfectly healthy babies - I've seen it myself as a midwife. These things are not clear-cut, as you know.

However, whatever your views on abortion, it can't be compared with any other potentially harmful thing a woman might do during a pregnancy, because the sole purpose of abortion is to end the pregnancy.

 

[WI_Red]

I have to pick you up on your first sentence. A fetus is a developing human being. There's nothing else it can be, by definition. So yes, of course it's "in some way" a human being. No woman has ever been pregnant and given birth to anything other than a human being.

Miscarriage/spontaneous abortion is a natural process that some women experience. Some women who get all possible antenatal care also have miscarriages. Women who smoke and drink all through their pregnancies can have perfectly healthy babies - I've seen it myself as a midwife. These things are not clear-cut, as you know.

However, whatever your views on abortion, it can't be compared with any other potentially harmful thing a woman might do during a pregnancy, because the sole purpose of abortion is to end the pregnancy.

My statements were poorly conveyed, but it was more in response to @DJ Jeff describing it as a kind of murder.

That said, you missed the second part of that sentence which poses if the fetus/baby is entitled to legal protections. At the end of the day what is being decided here is if the baby has legal protections, and if so, at what point those protections start.

 

[calodo2003]

Sweet Jesus!

Here is why the Trump administration was as cancerous as people claimed. His fecking poison will ruin the lives of millions for generations to come!

The judges who were installed at multiple levels will be the biggest impact from his term. And the impact will always be negative.

 

[Penna]

My statements were poorly conveyed, but it was more in response to @DJ Jeff describing it as a kind of murder.

That said, you missed the second part of that sentence which poses if the fetus/baby is entitled to legal protections. At the end of the day what is being decided here is if the baby has legal protections, and if so, at what point those protections start.

Well, the legal gestational limit for terminations (age of viability) varies according to time and place. It also has to be constantly revised. When I was working in England it was 28 weeks. I assisted at a termination which was done just before 28 weeks, it was terrible and (quite honestly) wrong, and I'll never forget it. The reason for the termination was simply that the mother was a teenager.

Now it's down to 24 weeks in the UK, but of course the vast majority of terminations are carried out during the first trimester. Soon that 24 weeks will have to be revised again, because medical advances mean that babies are surviving at 23 weeks. Normally these are the issues which will determine when the fetus is entitled to protection. Viability can't constantly be lowered however, as there comes a point when the baby is just too under-developed. That's due to human biology, of course. I have seen babies born with fused eyelids, they didn't survive.

So, the answer to your point is that legally, protections for the fetus start when the law of that particular land or state say they start.

 

[WI_Red]

Well, the legal gestational limit for terminations (age of viability) varies according to time and place. It also has to be constantly revised. When I was working in England it was 28 weeks. I assisted at a termination which was done just before 28 weeks, it was terrible and (quite honestly) wrong, and I'll never forget it. The reason for the termination was simply that the mother was a teenager.

Now it's down to 24 weeks in the UK, but of course the vast majority of terminations are carried out during the first trimester. Soon that 24 weeks will have to be revised again, because medical advances mean that babies are surviving at 23 weeks. Normally these are the issues which will determine when the fetus is entitled to protection. Viability can't constantly be lowered however, as there comes a point when the baby is just too under-developed. That's due to human biology, of course. I have seen babies born with fused eyelids, they didn't survive.

So, the answer to your point is that legally, protections for the fetus start when the law of that particular land or state say they start.

Exactly, and I think that is what is being decided here in the US at the SC. Personally I could not imagine being present for, or encouraging my partner to get an abortion at any stage.

The topic is difficult to digest. I went to Catholic HS, so I "got " to sit through the horrific Miracle of Life video they show all sophomores in "Health" Class. I also got to watch a classmate in 7th grade, who was essentially raped (no such thing as consensual at that age) by an older boy, be sent to live in shame in the Philippines with relatives. Her parents never allowed her to return to the US as far as I know. While I struggle with how I personally feel about it I do not struggle with my belief that religious based reasoning is toxic and anathema to what a civil society should do. What we are seeing ACB do as a SC justice is proof positive that there is no perceived value in life of a young girl, only the baby. It is disgusting.

 

[Penna]

Exactly, and I think that is what is being decided here in the US at the SC. Personally I could not imagine being present for, or encouraging my partner to get an abortion at any stage.

The topic is difficult to digest. I went to Catholic HS, so I "got " to sit through the horrific Miracle of Life video they show all sophomores in "Health" Class. I also got to watch a classmate in 7th grade, who was essentially raped (no such thing as consensual at that age) by an older boy, be sent to live in shame in the Philippines with relatives. Her parents never allowed her to return to the US as far as I know. While I struggle with how I personally feel about it I do not struggle with my belief that religious based reasoning is toxic and anathema to what a civil society should do. What we are seeing ACB do as a SC justice is proof positive that there is no perceived value in life of a young girl, only the baby. It is disgusting.

I just said to oates that when ACB was appointed, I'm sure she said she wouldn't allow her personal views to interfere with the law of the land. Of course, she is part of a very small group of people who can actually change the laws of the land, so that's not much reassurance.

I try to be objective in these difficult discussions - it's not a secret on here that I'm a Catholic convert and I have my own views. However, unless you live in a country where church and state are one and the same, there will sometimes be differences between a person's own moral compass and what the law of the land says is lawful and permitted. I suppose it comes down to what the role of lawmakers should be and the fact that every legislator (even if they try) will always be influenced by what they personally believe to be right and just. Legislation can't be made by robots, so this will always be a conflict.

The USA Supreme Court is a strange one, as members are not just appointed based on their ability to intelligently and objectively interpret (and set) the law. They are absolutely chosen according to their political persuasion, and along with that political persuasion there is a set of personal values which can often be predicted in advance, if they haven't been obvious beforehand.

If the SC is going to allow states to severely limit terminations of pregnancy, a whole other raft of supportive measures need to be put in place at the same time - but they won't be. You can't force a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy and then do nothing practical to help her.

 

[WI_Red]

I just said to oates that when ACB was appointed, I'm sure she said she wouldn't allow her personal views to interfere with the law of the land. Of course, she is part of a very small group of people who can actually change the laws of the land, so that's not much reassurance.

I try to be objective in these difficult discussions - it's not a secret on here that I'm a Catholic convert and I have my own views. However, unless you live in a country where church and state are one and the same, there will sometimes be differences between a person's own moral compass and what the law of the land says is lawful and permitted. I suppose it comes down to what the role of lawmakers should be and the fact that every legislator (even if they try) will always be influenced by what they personally believe to be right and just. Legislation can't be made by robots, so this will always be a conflict.

The USA Supreme Court is a strange one, as members are not just appointed based on their ability to intelligently and objectively interpret (and set) the law. They are absolutely chosen according to their political persuasion, and along with that political persuasion there is a set of personal values which can often be predicted in advance, if they haven't been obvious beforehand.

If the SC is going to allow states to severely limit terminations of pregnancy, a whole other raft of supportive measures need to be put in place at the same time - but they won't be. You can't force a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy and then do nothing practical to help her.

Thank you for the dialog. I was born and raised Catholic and have struggled with it over the last few years due to many factors but mostly the sexual abuse (and cover up). A priest at my church was one of the abusers and I knew someone who was abused. Thankfully I chose not to be an altar server, so that may have been a saving grace. The Bishop's voting to weaponize Communion was the last straw for me and I have essentially left the Church.

That being said my moral center is based on many of those Catholic teachings, so it makes things like abortion difficult to wrestle with. More so because of the hypocrisy of many in my (old) faith community (pro death penalty, anti universal healthcare and education, etc.). I value life completely, and you will never find me on here wishing for the death or sickness of anyone*. I guess the struggle comes down to defining when life begins (something that is compounded by being a scientist). In the absence of a definitive view on this I guess I fall back on ensuring that the physical and mental health of the mother is preserved.

*drunk posting exempted

 

[adexkola]

It's not about the life of a potential human being, it is about forcing a woman to carry to labor for 9/whatsoever how many months. Once it's viable then sure there's a middle ground. Until then I don't see any thing worth violating someone's control over their own body.

Won't post it here but I like Louis CK's take on it, in relation to what you're allowed to do to strangers in your house (in the US at least).

 

[Wibble]

I can't find a convincing rationale by which it is not a kind of murder, and to be painfully honest I say this as a guy who went through that pain with my gf after she got pregnant and all our ensuing fears about what decision to make before we decided we had to keep it, even as two young people on minimum wage. even more painfully that ended with her losing the child

Because murder happens to people. Specifically people who have been born. Equating a foetus with a person is pure emotion because a foetus increasingly looks like a person.

In reality birth is probably the point where a foetus becomes a baby with the rights if being a person. Obviously, that is never going to happen and we are going to carry in making some imperfect argument for when the rights of a foetus equal those of the mother and thereafter abortion is prohibited. The majority religious view that fertilisation is some magical sacred moment means that debate can rarely be rational.

 

[Wibble]

As a man, knowing very little about the topic I am happy not only to defer to women but to also back what they think is the right approach to dealing with this issue. That doesn't mean as a man I don't understand there is a male element to this but men do not have to bear children and are not the primary care givers. In that sense, at least for me, this is an issue where women should rightfully take the fore. That said I'm also concerned about the limitations on abortion given some premature babies born at 20 and 21 weeks have survived. The earlier the better with regards to contraception or abortion, but the limits need to be reduced and education needs to be increased.

Survival after premature birth is a very poor criteria to use.

I believe just over 21 weeks is the youngest foetus/baby to survive premature birth. The majority born that early die and the few in the 22-26 week range that survive almost all have long term and serious health issues. Advances in medical technology don't equate to when a foetus/baby becomes a person in their own right.

 

[ExoduS]

Abortion is a complicated topic. I am for it when it comes to rape or any sort of act where women did not have consensual sex (not really sure if any condition exists that it isn't rape). I am however opposed to have an abortion easily accessible and an easy option out of pregnancy. Sex has consequences so all parties should enter it carefully so every effort is made that abortion is not needed. Abortion has consequences. Long lasting consequences. Both physical and emotional. Having a child does as well have consequences, however efforts should be made prior to having sex. I don't have any scientific backing for my next opinion but from previous interactions with women who had an abortion ALL regretted it at one point of their life. However, all front google results suggests that nearly all women do not regret having an abortion 5 years after the fact.

I am not religious, I don't have any personal experiences with abortion. I am male. I don't find it right that woman can enter romantic relationship with free will and then decide on her own to get an abortion. "My body, my choice" argument doesn't hold very well for me as multiple parties are effected: Father might want a baby.

It's a very complicated topic and I don't think clear / objective view on abortion will ever get established.

The reason why I am against abortion is because I watched 2 abortion videos. It was hard to watch. Now, would I be against kidney transplant beucase the surgery was hard to watch? Not sure.

 

[George Owen]

Meanwhile, here in Chile, the de-penalization of consented abortion until week 14, got rejected in congress.

We are worse than some of the worse states in the US.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Survival after premature birth is a very poor criteria to use.

I believe just over 21 weeks is the youngest foetus/baby to survive premature birth. The majority born that early die and the few in the 22-26 week range that survive almost all have long term and serious health issues. Advances in medical technology don't equate to when a foetus/baby becomes a person in their own right.

I agree with you in the general sense but the viability is important in the US because that's how Roe v Wade was based at the time so it's the standard that has to be considered in the US based on stare decisis and how SCOTUS functions. If this court upholds the Mississippi law though, they've circumvented that standard and found basically a legal technicality of interpretation where we will soon see states banning abortions sooner and sooner.

 

[Ferguson’s Hairdryer]

If a woman becomes pregnant through rape or the pregnancy is a threat to her well being then it’s a basic medical need.

If it’s ever done because “my body my choice” type of thing… I’ll ask those that support that view one question.
If someone punches a pregnant lady in the stomach and it causes a miscarriage would you want that person to receive an increase sentence or not? Or also in the worse case, someone murders a pregnant woman and baby also dies, would you want that person to receive the standard 15 years minimum (assuming unplanned no motive just random road rage type thing) or would you want extra years added because of the lost baby ?

 

[adexkola]

If a woman becomes pregnant through rape or the pregnancy is a threat to her well being then it’s a basic medical need.

If it’s ever done because “my body my choice” type of thing… I’ll ask those that support that view one question.
If someone punches a pregnant lady in the stomach and it causes a miscarriage would you want that person to receive an increase sentence or not? Or also in the worse case, someone murders a pregnant woman and baby also dies, would you want that person to receive the standard 15 years minimum (assuming unplanned no motive just random road rage type thing) or would you want extra years added because of the lost baby ?

1. Same sentence. You can classify it under "serious bodily harm" if you want to get technical, as that indicates a greater level of harm and warrants a greater penalty.
2. Murder is murder. Usually the penalty for that is a life sentence (15 years for a cold blooded murder seems little). Should be the same whether the victim is pregnant or not.

 

[adexkola]

I agree with you in the general sense but the viability is important in the US because that's how Roe v Wade was based at the time so it's the standard that has to be considered in the US based on stare decisis and how SCOTUS functions. If this court upholds the Mississippi law though, they've circumvented that standard and found basically a legal technicality of interpretation where we will soon see states banning abortions sooner and sooner.

Relying on the courts to uphold Roe v Wade (a ruling that many legal experts on both sides have called shitty from a legal jurisprudence perspective) has always been a dangerous game.

If 48 senators can convince Collins and Sinema to kill the filibuster for this specific issue then abortion can probably be legalized nationwide. Otherwise it's hangers and back alleys in a year or two.

 

[Ferguson’s Hairdryer]

In reality birth is probably the point where a foetus becomes a baby with the rights if being a person.

I get calling a 5 week baby a foetus, but to say birth is where it becomes a baby… what does the fresh air suddenly flick on a switch that gives it the cognitive functions that a new born has?

 

[Adisa]

Murica successfully turning back the clock.

 

[Wibble]

I get calling a 5 week baby a foetus, but to say birth is where it becomes a baby… what does the fresh air suddenly flick on a switch that gives it the cognitive functions that a new born has?

If you want to base personhood on cognitive function it is easy to make the case that it would be well after birth. Birth is when they are a (physically at least) separate entity.

 

[Green_Red]

Survival after premature birth is a very poor criteria to use.

I believe just over 21 weeks is the youngest foetus/baby to survive premature birth. The majority born that early die and the few in the 22-26 week range that survive almost all have long term and serious health issues. Advances in medical technology don't equate to when a foetus/baby becomes a person in their own right.

Well then I understand even less than I realised on that front too.

 

[Wibble]

Well then I understand even less than I realised on that front too.

Itis a complex and confronting issue and there are few easy answers. I don't pretend to have one.

 

[Jericholyte2]

I can't find a convincing rationale by which it is not a kind of murder, and to be painfully honest I say this as a guy who went through that pain with my gf after she got pregnant and all our ensuing fears about what decision to make before we decided we had to keep it, even as two young people on minimum wage. even more painfully that ended with her losing the child

As others have said, what would then happen with miscarriages? What about legal rights for the mother? Would child support payments be due if the father is absent from the point of conception? What about child benefits, would the mother again be able to start claiming from conception?

If a foetus is classed as a human then surely all rights, responsibilities etc would be those of any other person.