Can we compromise on abortion?

[SomeRandom]

To an extent, but even with modern medical technology, pregnancy still has significant risks.

We have better maternal and neonatal mortality here in Canada than in the US, on average, but even in my small circle of friends, I know two people who had life-threatening pregnancy complications. I don't know anyone who had no complications from their pregnancies.

Valid point.
I guess in my country and indeed I assume in Canada as well the accusation of “pro birth” doesn’t carry as much weight as it might do in the US. Not many people here, regardless of their views on abortion, would even dream of taking away or indeed infringing upon pre and post natal care. And indeed support for mandatory paternal and maternal leave is strong on both sides as well.
So it kind of seems a bit weird for me to see it in the US dispute, if that makes sense?

I hesitated bringing up risk because it can very quickly get into the weeds into a debate around how low of a risk level justifies violating someone's bodily autonomy. Even having that debate misses the point: the only person who is entitled to say what level of risk is acceptable - and what role factors beside risk should play in the decision - is the person whose body is at issue.

I think that bodily autonomy applies regardless of risk... I mean, donating blood has negligible risk, but we don't compel people to donate blood against their will.

I think the most fitting analogy I can draw is to rape (and I really do feel that anti-choicers are analogous to rapists; the main difference is that rape is typically one perpetrator against one victim, while the anti-choice movement is many perpetrators against many victims): while I recognize that there's a spectrum of how bad rape can be, it's not really like I "think better of" rapists at the least severe end of the range. I'm not approaching the issue in these terms.

Good points. I agree.

That being said, I think that when I look at the anti-choice movement's positions now, it's hard not to infer a blatant disregard for the welfare of pregnant people to the point of it being an expression of deeply-held misogyny. If arguing for better medical care for pregnant people became a standard part of the anti-choice platform, I might have to infer different motives.

Indeed. Actions speak louder than words.
If the pro life side (I’m talking about the US in particular of course) actively tried to raise funds for medicine or argue for maternal benefits even, I might be more inclined to take them at their word that this is about the “sanctity of life.”
I’ve no doubt that that’s what they believe. But their arguments belie an ulterior motive, as they say

 

[crossfire]

Valid point.
I guess in my country and indeed I assume in Canada as well the accusation of “pro birth” doesn’t carry as much weight as it might do in the US. Not many people here, regardless of their views on abortion, would even dream of taking away or indeed infringing upon pre and post natal care. And indeed support for mandatory paternal and maternal leave is strong on both sides as well.
So it kind of seems a bit weird for me to see it in the US dispute, if that makes sense?


Good points. I agree.


Indeed. Actions speak louder than words.
If the pro life side (I’m talking about the US in particular of course) actively tried to raise funds for medicine or argue for maternal benefits even, I might be more inclined to take them at their word that this is about the “sanctity of life.”
I’ve no doubt that that’s what they believe. But their arguments belie an ulterior motive, as they say

The anti-choice states have been busy legislating medical practice away from doctors, making OB/GYN care less available to those in their domain. They are even starting to scare away prospective doctors--the numbers medical students in residency are starting to drop in the anti-choice states.

 

[SomeRandom]

The anti-choice states have been busy legislating medical practice away from doctors, making OB/GYN care less available to those in their domain. They are even starting to scare away prospective doctors--the numbers medical students in residency are starting to drop in the anti-choice states.

Wow. Okay that truly does lend credibility to the “pro birth” or “simply wanting control” motives. Damn!
Although ironically such measures would negatively impact birth rates, I would imagine. In more ways than one.

Like it just seems so incongruent to the slogans. If one truly valued life at the beginning of conception, surely one would be appalled at such measures!!?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Do you see the contradiction? If we were discussing a moral problem, it would be universal. A human life is a human life, in the US and everywhere else. So it is indeed a legal problem.

A moral problem is whether to kill animals for food. If you don't like it, you don't do it. You might argue on RF to convince others but in the end you don't impose your will by governmental force.

We impose our societies will by force on lots of issues if we deem them good to protect life.

The US is not a developed nation. In the US a child can be a financial burden. Developed nations have free healthcare for children and mother, they have long, paid maternal leave with job guarantees, they have child assistance, they have free education.

No such thing as free anything. Look at the US debt. If a child is a financial burden to you then don't have one. I would say it is immoral to have a child you cannot support financially or emotionally etc.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

@Clizby Wampuscat:

"The real-world impact of making abortion illegal​

According to data from the World Health Organization (WHO), the legality of abortion across the world actually has little to no effect on abortion rates throughout the world. Legal or not, abortions can, will, and do take place. The legality of abortion, however, does affect how safe those abortions are. Women who do not have access to a legal abortion frequently turn to illegal or "homemade" abortion options, which are typically much riskier, more dangerous, and less effective than legal options conducted by professional doctors in a clinical setting would be." - from the second link.

Just what I said. Making abortion illegal is not practical. And while legal abortion access is not the only factor, it comes often in a package of practical solutions. Canada, Scandinavia, almost all of western Europe, Australia and India have easy and legal access to abortion and lower abortion rates than the US where it is harder on average.

I provided data you have only provided assertions. Here is a question, when do you think a person has some personal responsibility for their actions? People can harm themselves with any legal services or products with the decisions they make.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You can't force pair-bonding. That power is not within the realm of the State. Likewise, an embryo does not have the magical power to cause pair-bonding.

Parents are obligated to take care of their children that have been born, even if it is just from a business relationship rather than a pair-bonded relationship. However, they do have the option to separate themselves from their children and give up their parental rights, and have their children become wards of the State if they cannot manage a business relationship in regard to raising their children. This would ensure that the children would be taken care of by proxy.

There is no viable option to separate from an embryo and give parental rights to the State for an embryo in the case of a pregnancy. There is no proxy available. Without an available proxy, the State cannot seize control of a woman simply because she is pregnant. Implementing such a policy would interfere with established families who are pair-bonded.

Again, the State has no power to cause pair-bonding, but seizing control of pregnant women will certainly interfere with pair-bonding, which is contrary to the interests of both the State as well as society at large.

Define pair bonding.

 

[Heyo]

If a child is a financial burden to you then don't have one. I would say it is immoral to have a child you cannot support financially or emotionally etc.

I agree. Do you agree that, if it is immoral to have a child you cannot support, it is even more immoral to force people to have children they can't support?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No such thing as free anything. Look at the US debt. If a child is a financial burden to you then don't have one. I would say it is immoral to have a child you cannot support financially or emotionally etc.

So abortion isn't an important enough issue to you for you to support spending some taxpayer money to address its root causes. Interesting.

 

[crossfire]

Define pair bonding.

Source: The neural mechanisms and circuitry of the pair bond - Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Pair bonding is a term used in biology and behavioural sciences to describe a strong social relationship between individuals in a breeding pair in monogamous species.​

 

[Sargonski]

We impose our societies will by force on lots of issues if we deem them good to protect life.

100% True --- but, a horrifying anathema to the founding principle - Rules of Justice - Rule of Law - Constitutional Republic - decent into the Borg Totalitarianism of the Collective ... referred to in both Classical LIberalism and Republicanism as "Tyranny of the Majority" -- hence the anathema as (TOM) is what our system was set up to avoid.

Utilitarianism - Justification for Law soley on the basis of what will increase happiness - / Reduce Harm and her Brother "Fallacious Utilitarianism" where the law does the opposite ... both now at plague proportions in our society .. down so far the slippery slope the mountain top no longer visible

The question of abortion is a question of "Personhood" .. When/ if/ this entity is a Person - and for this we must assess when the soul arrives... and no one can give coherent answer to this question earlier than round 22-24 weeks .. when the wiring of the brain is sufficiently completed to capacitate the "I AM" cause if that capacity is not present then you are NOT

 

[Willamena]

Meh.
The best and most reasonable solution is to not legislate about it at all. Not make it a legal issue. Not make it a moral issue. Leave it the medical issue that it is. Legislation robs us, both men and women, of a choice. I am pro-choice, so against legislation.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I agree. Do you agree that, if it is immoral to have a child you cannot support, it is even more immoral to force people to have children they can't support?

No. I don't agree. The more moral action once the life is created is to take care of that life. If people need help lets do that through government programs that are well regulated and transparent, non profit organizations, volunteers, families etc.

We can both agree I assume that doing things that try to prevent pregnancy should be done as well.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Source: The neural mechanisms and circuitry of the pair bond - Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Pair bonding is a term used in biology and behavioural sciences to describe a strong social relationship between individuals in a breeding pair in monogamous species.​

Thanks,

You can't force pair-bonding. That power is not within the realm of the State. Likewise, an embryo does not have the magical power to cause pair-bonding.

Parents are obligated to take care of their children that have been born, even if it is just from a business relationship rather than a pair-bonded relationship. However, they do have the option to separate themselves from their children and give up their parental rights, and have their children become wards of the State if they cannot manage a business relationship in regard to raising their children. This would ensure that the children would be taken care of by proxy.

There is no viable option to separate from an embryo and give parental rights to the State for an embryo in the case of a pregnancy. There is no proxy available. Without an available proxy, the State cannot seize control of a woman simply because she is pregnant. Implementing such a policy would interfere with established families who are pair-bonded.

Again, the State has no power to cause pair-bonding, but seizing control of pregnant women will certainly interfere with pair-bonding, which is contrary to the interests of both the State as well as society at large.

The women in most cases made a choice and the state has an interest in protecting human life. Just like forced vaccinations in the military, the person made a decision to join and one of the consequences of that choice is forced vaccinations.

 

[fantome profane]

We can both agree I assume that doing things that try to prevent pregnancy should be done as well.

I also think things should be allowed that prevent unwanted children.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

100% True --- but, a horrifying anathema to the founding principle - Rules of Justice - Rule of Law - Constitutional Republic - decent into the Borg Totalitarianism of the Collective ... referred to in both Classical LIberalism and Republicanism as "Tyranny of the Majority" -- hence the anathema as (TOM) is what our system was set up to avoid.

Utilitarianism - Justification for Law soley on the basis of what will increase happiness - / Reduce Harm and her Brother "Fallacious Utilitarianism" where the law does the opposite ... both now at plague proportions in our society .. down so far the slippery slope the mountain top no longer visible

The question of abortion is a question of "Personhood" .. When/ if/ this entity is a Person - and for this we must assess when the soul arrives... and no one can give coherent answer to this question earlier than round 22-24 weeks .. when the wiring of the brain is sufficiently completed to capacitate the "I AM" cause if that capacity is not present then you are NOT

I am not talking about tyranny of the majority, I am talking about speed limits, laws against rape, murder etc.

The argument is if human life should be protected. Also, no one can give a coherent answer to if a soul exists.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I also thing things should be allowed that prevent unwanted children.

Up until what point? Any children? Up to birth?

 

[fantome profane]

Up until what point? Any children? Up to birth?

Yes

 

[crossfire]

Thanks,


The women in most cases made a choice and the state has an interest in protecting human life. Just like forced vaccinations in the military, the person made a decision to join and one of the consequences of that choice is forced vaccinations.

There is a big difference between joining the government controlled military and having mandatory vaccinations and the government forcing a civilian to continue a pregnancy against her will.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The women in most cases made a choice and the state has an interest in protecting human life. Just like forced vaccinations in the military, the person made a decision to join and one of the consequences of that choice is forced vaccinations.

There's that rapist mentality again: "if she consents to this one thing, I can take that as consent to everything I think should come after."

 

[Heyo]

No. I don't agree. The more moral action once the life is created is to take care of that life. If people need help lets do that through government programs that are well regulated and transparent, non profit organizations, volunteers, families etc.

We can both agree I assume that doing things that try to prevent pregnancy should be done as well.

It seems you are pretty alone with your opinion, even in your own camp. None of the states which have restricted abortions have also set up programs to help the women they force into birthing. What about that? Still moral to force pregnancy on women and refusing to help? Is it moral to endanger the life of a woman because an as good as dead fetus is not allowed to be aborted (like happened in Texas)? Is it moral to force a 10 year old rape victim to stay pregnant (or cross state lines for the needed abortion) like happened in Ohio?
Those are the results of anti abortion laws. That is the reality. I think I said it before, the debate is not about the morality of abortions but about the reality of abortion laws.
Would you agree that abortion laws should be formulated so that the life and health of the pregnant person is not endangered? And that abortion restrictions should only be put into law together with a program that ensures health and support for child and mother?