Can we compromise on abortion?

[Kenny]

Another post where you dodge having to answer which sort of hypocrisy you've chosen for yourself. Good job.

your responses are proof enough

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe that is why we are connecting? Are we talking comprise within context of laws?

Laws are a factor, but the conversation is about how we compromise between one side who wants no abortions at all and another side who wants pregnant people to have full rights at all times.

The obvious compromise that ought to be a quick win is to find ways to reduce abortions that still respect the rights of pregnant people... and there are lots of those that we aren't doing right now.

 

[Kenny]

Using the term "baby" for a fetus is an attempt to steer away from a rational discussion and make it emotional. And it works. Every time you do it, I want to change my position to allowing to remove those parasites until the day of birth.

I think that cuts both ways. Using "parasites" is another "hmmmm" moment.

No, you aren't and thought I made that clear.

But you haven't any science to prove they aren't persons.

I.e. personhood (or a fetus becoming a baby) is reached at birth, independent of status of development. An 8 1/2 month fetus is not a person, a 7 month premature born is a person (who may not be viable outside of an incubator).

You might want to readjust time from what is viable...

The world's most premature baby has celebrated his first birthday after beating 0% odds of surviving | CNN

A baby born weighing less than a pound has beaten the odds and celebrated his first birthday, becoming the most premature baby to survive, according to Guinness World Records.

www.cnn.com

131 days.... a still a person.

So where can we find a compromise?

 

[Heyo]

Too general and too many caveats. Oregon has abortion at any time and their "quality of life" isn't that great as drug addictions and homelessness becomes more and more of a problem.

Of course there are exceptions but as a general trend it is clear that reasonable (up to around the 20 week mark legal on demand) abortion laws are connected to fewer abortions, better sex ed and better quality of life overall. The extremists (on both sides) lack in one or more of those categories. Further studies would be necessary to evaluate exactly what went wrong (or better) in the exceptions but I doubt that the extremists are willing to read those studies.

I really don't understand that statement.

It's a direct result of the above. Think practical. Learn from the best. Copy their laws. They work.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You might want to readjust time from what is viable...

Viability is a ridiculous dividing line for abortion: "because the fetus is no longer absolutely dependent on the pregnant person, the person is compelled to continue to provide her body for it." It makes no sense whatsoever.

The world's most premature baby has celebrated his first birthday after beating 0% odds of surviving | CNN

A baby born weighing less than a pound has beaten the odds and celebrated his first birthday, becoming the most premature baby to survive, according to Guinness World Records.

www.cnn.com

131 days.... a still a person.

So where can we find a compromise?

How many days after conception was the point was the point you think Beth Richard lost her personhood?

 

[Kenny]

Of course there are exceptions but as a general trend it is clear that reasonable (up to around the 20 week mark legal on demand) abortion laws are connected to fewer abortions, better sex ed and better quality of life overall. The extremists (on both sides) lack in one or more of those categories. Further studies would be necessary to evaluate exactly what went wrong (or better) in the exceptions but I doubt that the extremists are willing to read those studies.

Can we have supportive unbiased documentation?

 

[Kenny]

Viability is a ridiculous dividing line for abortion: "because the fetus is no longer absolutely dependent on the pregnant person, the person is compelled to continue to provide her body for it." It makes no sense whatsoever.

I find no logic in this statement. Can you expand?

How many days after conception was the point was the point you think Beth Richard lost her personhood?

Have no idea of who, context and application. Call me ignorant if you so desire

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find no logic in this statement. Can you expand?

If the thing you care about is that the fetus lives and is born, then viability - wherever that happens to be for a particular person and pregnancy - should mark the point where inducing a live birth becomes an option. It shouldn't be a point where extra restrictions get added on.

Have no idea of who, context and application. Call me ignorant if you so desire

You didn't read your own article, apparently.

Beth Richard is the mother of that boy who was born at 131 days.

 

[Kenny]

If the thing you care about is that the fetus lives and is born, then viability - wherever that happens to be for a particular person and pregnancy - should mark the point where inducing a live birth becomes an option. It shouldn't be a point where extra restrictions get added on.

We are trying to find compromise and not be at extremes.

You didn't read your own article, apparently.

Beth Richard is the mother of that boy who was born at 131 days.

LOL - I was looking at viability not the mother. LOL

You still lost me... how did she loose her personhood or how does that even fit into the conversation?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We are trying to find compromise and not be at extremes.


LOL - I was looking at viability not the mother. LOL

You still lost me... how did she loose her personhood or how does that even fit into the conversation?

If Beth Richard - or any pregnant person - has her full personhood, she should have all the rights that go along with personhood. Don't you agree?

 

[Kenny]

If Beth Richard - or any pregnant person - has her full personhood, she should have all the rights that go along with personhood. Don't you agree?

Yes, absolutely! But is the fetus/baby her personhood? I think science would favor my side... if we believe in science.

 

[Heyo]

I think that cuts both ways. Using "parasites" is another "hmmmm" moment.

Just to show you how I feel about "baby". I never used "parasite" before and won't again - as long as we can keep it rational.

But you haven't any science to prove they aren't persons.

Person is a legal term, not a scientific one.

So where can we find a compromise?

I refrain from using "parasite" and you from "baby".

We don't have to compromise on "person" as that is not in question and already legally ruled upon (and nobody is seriously trying to change that).

And I think we already agree upon the 20 week mark (or near to that).

We haven't talked about exceptions but my guess is that you would agree that the life of the mother is paramount here and that decisions about when it is in danger should be felled by doctors, not by lawmakers.

I'm myself a bit undecided about rape and incest. That should fall under the 20 week rule and be done. But what if, for what extreme reason ever, a woman couldn't manage to get a date in time (being abducted, in a coma, etc.)?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, absolutely!

I'm glad you agree.

One of the rights of personhood is bodily autonomy: the right to refuse the use of your body or parts of it.

But is the fetus/baby her personhood? I think science would favor my side... if we believe in science.

For argument's sake, let's say yes: let's assume the fetus is a person. You agree that the pregnant person still has the right to bodily autonomy, which means she would have the right to deny her fetus - even if a person - the use of her body.

This is the same as our rights outside of pregnancy: if, say, your adult child will surely die without a bone marrow donation and you're the only match, you still have the right to refuse. Your child is unquestionably a person with all the rights that come with this, and your refusal would unquestionably kill them, but you still have the right to do it.

You don't even have to justify your decision to anyone else with a reason. Your bodily autonomy is your absolute right: nobody else is entitled to your bone marrow, kidney, or even a pint of your blood without your consent.

 

[Kenny]

Just to show you how I feel about "baby". I never used "parasite" before and won't again - as long as we can keep it rational.

OK... can we compromise and use Fetus/Baby and satisfy both sides?

Person is a legal term, not a scientific one.

I think that is another subject.

I refrain from using "parasite" and you from "baby".

We don't have to compromise on "person" as that is not in question and already legally ruled upon (and nobody is seriously trying to change that).

And I think we already agree upon the 20 week mark (or near to that).

We haven't talked about exceptions but my guess is that you would agree that the life of the mother is paramount here and that decisions about when it is in danger should be felled by doctors, not by lawmakers.

I'm myself a bit undecided about rape and incest. That should fall under the 20 week rule and be done. But what if, for what extreme reason ever, a woman couldn't manage to get a date in time (being abducted, in a coma, etc.)?

I wouldn't be happy at 20 week (to be honest as there would also be people that would be unhappy that it isn't 21+).... but stoping 21-39 week would still make me happy.

Absolutely on the life of the mother! Of course, there are mothers who chose the fetus/baby - but it was her decision. Fallopian tube pregnancies/abortions are always for the benefit of the mother.

Rape/incest - yes, very difficult. I tend to think of all the impactful lives that were birthed through the trauma of rape - but a very difficult decision none-the-less.

EDITED:

But that still is addressed within the 20 week rule, right?

 

[Kenny]

For argument's sake, let's say yes: let's assume the fetus is a person. You agree that the pregnant person still has the right to bodily autonomy, which means she would have the right to deny her fetus - even if a person - the use of her body.

I think you extrapolated my statements too far.

Hopefully, people have enough foresight to take preventative measures before paying a doctor for extraction. You know, use the brain.

I basically wouldn't agree with your statement. No more than a mother/father have the right to deny feeding a baby because they have to use their bodies to make the food and feed the baby and not feed the baby on the basis that "I have bodily autonomy".

 

[Heyo]

I wouldn't be happy at 20 week (to be honest as there would also be people that would be unhappy that it isn't 21+).... but stoping 21-39 week would still make me happy.

But that still is addressed within the 20 week rule, right?

It should be. Except for those only hypothetical cases of abduction, coma - they'd give me headaches.

So, who was it that argued for unlimited abortion on demand? Debate me!

 

[metis]

We are trying to find compromise and not be at extremes.

OK, you keep posting "compromise", but I haven't seen your compromise? Maybe I missed it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you extrapolated my statements too far.

Bodily autonomy is part of the rights of personhood. This is the point where you need to decide whether a pregnant person should have all the rights of personhood.

Hopefully the answer is "yes," but if not, then you ought to be honest about your position.

Hopefully, people have enough foresight to take preventative measures before paying a doctor for extraction. You know, use the brain.

If you thought that people would never seek abortion, you wouldn't be calling for it to be outlawed.

I basically wouldn't agree with your statement. No more than a mother/father have the right to deny feeding a baby because they have to use their bodies to make the food and feed the baby and not feed the baby on the basis that "I have bodily autonomy".

But a parent would have the right to refuse the use of their body to feed their child. A parent would be entirely in their rights to feed their baby with formula because they refuse to breastfeed.

 

[Heyo]

Bodily autonomy is part of the rights of personhood. This is the point where you need to decide whether a pregnant person should have all the rights of personhood.

Are you arguing that bodily autonomy should not be curtail at any time? Abortion on demand up to the day of birth?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you arguing that bodily autonomy should not be curtail at any time?

Yes.

Abortion on demand up to the day of birth?

Termination of pregnancy on demand at any time. Near full term, it would be a medical decision as to whether to terminate with an abortion or an induced live birth/cesarean.