Can we compromise on abortion?

[Koldo]

It already is regulated. Why do you think it's not?

I am not saying it is not.

 

[Koldo]

But you recognize that no mainstream anti-choice group argues for this, right?

I do myself a favor and tend to refrain from reading what the pro life groups have been saying lately. But yes, I think you are correct.

If the fetus had more rights than a normal person, don't you think this would be expressed in other ways, though?

I mean, set aside things like right to a nationality and inheritance rights (neither of which fetuses enjoy); they don't get to trump the rights of other individuals besides those of the pregnant person. I mean, if a fetus were to surely die without a blood transfusion from the father, the father could still refuse.

I don't know how exactly it works in other countries but deadbeat parents are sent to jail if they don't financially support their children here in Brazil. Meaning that children's rights trump their parents' rights in some circunstamces.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Except that up to 22 weeks is where the vast majority of abortions happened already. Which means one side is getting pretty much what they want, and the other isn't.

...which is fine.

In a free and democratic society, restrictions on freedom need to be justified. If the anti-choicers can't justify further infringements on liberty, then so be it. There's no need to pick the midpoint between the two positions out of some fallacious idea of balance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do myself a favor and tend to refrain from reading what the pro life groups have been saying lately. But yes, I think you are correct.

And this is why I say they dehumanize pregnant people.

I don't know how exactly it works in other countries but deadbeat parents are sent to jail if they don't financially support their children here in Brazil. Meaning that children's rights trump their parents' rights in some circunstamces.

In Brazil, is there any case where the rights of a fetus trump the rights of the non-pregnant person?

Do you have child support for fetuses? Can fathers be compelled to donate blood for a fetus? Can the grandparents screw the father out of his inheritance by naming the fetus as their heir instead of him?

If the only rights that the fetus's interests get to trump are the pregnant person, then it sure doesn't seem to me like the fetus is getting extra rights.

 

[fantome profane]

Nope, not take down that choice just because it directly impacts someone else. I am saying it ceases to be a private/strictly personal matter when it directly involves someone else, and therefore it can be regulated.

I understand what you are saying. And it is nonsense. Not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense.

 

[Koldo]

...which is fine.

In a free and democratic society, restrictions on freedom need to be justified. If the anti-choicers can't justify further infringements on liberty, then so be it. There's no need to pick the midpoint between the two positions out of some fallacious idea of balance.

I don't even think you need to compromise if you don't want to. I am just saying: Let's not pretend that 22 weeks is a compromise or that there used to be a compromise in place.

 

[Kfox]

Obviously it's OK for people to disagree. This is more than simple disagreement though. One side thinks that the other side murders babies and wants to make abortion illegal. The other side disagrees about the murder thing, wants abortion to be legal and tells the other side to butt out. The country is being divided into two "sides" over it, to the point whare elections are being decided on this issue alone.

And there isn't a law in place, is there? Lots of different laws, all conflicting is what I see.

Not everybody is as polar opposite as you describe. Though those views you mentioned do exist, they aren't the only views; there are a lot of other views somewhere in the middle. Perhaps it is those polar opposite views along with the hostility often associated with it is what you are having a problem with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't even think you need to compromise if you don't want to. I am just saying: Let's not pretend that 22 weeks is a compromise or that there used to be a compromise in place.

22 weeks is well short of what it ought to be, so in that sense, it was a compromise.

 

[SomeRandom]

The issue I see with politicians declaring what is and is not acceptable in terms of something like abortion, legally speaking, is the simple fact that they are not medical professionals. They don’t know anything about the ins and outs of specific circumstances of what is literally a medical procedure. Subject to studies that literally rely upon Medical Science specifically. And medical science does not line up with popular opinion. It just doesn’t. Sorry. But science doesn’t care about preconceived notions.

Indeed it is also subject to various nuances that only doctors, who have extensive specific training, are able to make the least dangerous decisions. Not lawyers who only care about money
(Granted I recognise that this can be interfered with in the US health system specifically. But it is my understanding that it’s the insurance companies and not the doctors making that difficult. Apologies if I got that wrong.)

This, I think, highlights why a doctor needs to be advising on this issue. Rather than a lawyer or politician.

Granted I do not like the source very much. But as a non American I work with what I can

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1549116888831098881

The actual literal suffering of this woman could have been extensively lessened if a doctor made the call instead of a lawyer. Like literally.
I’m sorry but that is abjectly despicable

 

[Koldo]

And this is why I say they dehumanize pregnant people.




In Brazil, is there any case where the rights of a fetus trump the rights of the non-pregnant person?

Abortion is essentially illegal here in Brazil, except for certain specific cases such as rape and anencephalic fetuses.

Do you have child support for fetuses?

Hmm... No... But in a way yes.
I mean, there is such a thing called "alimentos gravídicos" which the genitor may be legally forced to pay to financially support the pregnant woman until she gives birth, and it automatically becomes child support once the birth happens.

Can fathers be compelled to donate blood for a fetus?

No.

Can the grandparents screw the father out of his inheritance by naming the fetus as their heir instead of him?

No, but not for the reason you may assume. There are necessary heirs in Brazil. I don't know if there is a proper way to translate this in english...
You can only do as you please in your testament if you leave at least 50% of your patrimony to your necessary heirs (there are a few exceptions to this such but all of them rely on the necessary heir doing something really bad) . And there is a priority list, and children come before grandchildren. But you can leave up to 50% of your patrimony to your grandchild fetus if you want. The pertinent distinction is that when a child dies their parents are their heirs, but the same doesn't happen when a fetus dies.

If the only rights that the fetus's interests get to trump are the pregnant person, then it sure doesn't seem to me like the fetus is getting extra rights.

Even if the pregnant person also gets to have extra rights (despite losing some bodily autonomy)?

 

[Koldo]

I understand what you are saying. And it is nonsense. Not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense.

How so?
Isn't that the exact reason why we find it reasonable to interfer, through the force of the law, with someone's actions or omissions?
If not that, what standard do you use to say it is alright to legally regulate someone's actions?

 

[Koldo]

22 weeks is well short of what it ought to be, so in that sense, it was a compromise.

In practice though, only about 1% of all abortions take place after 20-ish weeks. And it wouldn't surprise me if nearly all of them were medically necessary. In other words, a ban at 22+ weeks would entail nearly no abortion getting banned in practice. That's not a compromise.

 

[Koldo]

The issue I see with politicians declaring what is and is not acceptable in terms of something like abortion, legally speaking, is the simple fact that they are not medical professionals. They don’t know anything about the ins and outs of specific circumstances of what is literally a medical procedure. Subject to studies that literally rely upon Medical Science specifically. And medical science does not line up with popular opinion. It just doesn’t. Sorry. But science doesn’t care about preconceived notions.

Indeed it is also subject to various nuances that only doctors, who have extensive specific training, are able to make the least dangerous decisions. Not lawyers who only care about money
(Granted I recognise that this can be interfered with in the US health system specifically. But it is my understanding that it’s the insurance companies and not the doctors making that difficult. Apologies if I got that wrong.)

This, I think, highlights why a doctor needs to be advising on this issue. Rather than a lawyer or politician.

Granted I do not like the source very much. But as a non American I work with what I can

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1549116888831098881

The actual literal suffering of this woman could have been extensively lessened if a doctor made the call instead of a lawyer. Like literally.
I’m sorry but that is abjectly despicable

Ideally, medical professionals would be involved when creating laws regarding abortion to prevent obvious nonsense from becoming the law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In practice though, only about 1% of all abortions take place after 20-ish weeks. And it wouldn't surprise me if nearly all of them were medically necessary. In other words, a ban at 22+ weeks would entail nearly no abortion getting banned in practice. That's not a compromise.

The way that anti-choicers freak out about the prospect of late-term abortions suggests to me that this is an especially important issue to them even if the number of late-term abortions is small.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Personally, my position is that the pregnant person should have the right to end the pregnancy at any point.

Close to the due date, it's a medical question as to whether it should be terminated by abortion or by inducing a live birth.

Personally, so do I -- a pregnant person who chooses abortion doesn't owe an explanation to anyone.

But... in the interest of compromise, I'm willing to draw a cutoff at 22 weeks.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Except that up to 22 weeks is where the vast majority of abortions happened already. Which means one side is getting pretty much what they want, and the other isn't.

Why should the "6 weeks from the woman's last period" or even the "complete ban without exceptions" crowd get what they want?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I am not saying it is not.

Then we agree that it's regulated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, so do I -- a pregnant person who chooses abortion doesn't owe an explanation to anyone.

But... in the interest of compromise, I'm willing to draw a cutoff at 22 weeks.

My preferred approach would be to make early-term abortion (as well as measures to prevent unplanned pregnancy in the first place) as easy and accessible as possible, which would make late-term elective abortion basically a non-issue.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The problem here is that the mothers are not just chosing for themselves. Their choice impacts someone else directly.

It's still her choice. We make decisions every day that affect other fully developed human beings all the time.

 

[Alien826]

Not everybody is as polar opposite as you describe. Though those views you mentioned do exist, they aren't the only views; there are a lot of other views somewhere in the middle. Perhaps it is those polar opposite views along with the hostility often associated with it is what you are having a problem with.

Correct. But the opposite views are what have caused the disruption. It's the disruption, not the views that I see as a problem. And if you are suggesting that radical pro-life views (to pick one side) represent a small fringe element, I don't know what the actual numbers are but they managed to overturn a 50-year old Supreme Court decision.