Texas bans abortion.

[JoeMorgue]

Prove it.

Prove.. what exactly? That you're wrong? Why? You won't listen.

I COULD link to dozens of studies that show that abortion has no negative effects on women. They exist. It's where those "facts" things I mentioned come from.

But I have no intention of doing that FOR YOU knowing how you will react.

 

[psionl0]

Prove.. what exactly? That you're wrong? Why? You won't listen.

I COULD link to dozens of studies that show that abortion has no negative effects on women. They exist. It's where those "facts" things I mentioned come from.

But I have no intention of doing that FOR YOU knowing how you will react.

I didn't think you could prove it. You are just making up your "facts".

 

[JoeMorgue]

I didn't think you could prove it. You are just making up your "facts".

Okay. I'm devastated.

 

[catsmate]

That's a lie, told knowingly. Abortion does not have meaningful negative psychosocial effects on women. That's a fact, not up for debate or "buh muh opinion because it is subjective ethics with sprinkles."

It's a very common lie for the anti-abortion crowd to push. Like linking terminations to breast cancer.

 

[Hellbound]

So, seems this thread has gone off in the weeds a bit and gotten lost in swamps of detail and the semantic forest.

Let me see if I can offer a potential focus (and feel free to ignore this, but please don’t throw tomatoes).

1. We have basically two views: a fetus has rights of a person, therefore abortion should be illegal or strictly limited.

2. A fetus does not have the rights of a person, so abortion should be the choice of the mother.

Now, my suggestion is let’s focus on side 1. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that a fetus (zygote, blastocyst, whatever) has the same rights as a person. The same rights as you or I now enjoy as functional (mostly, at least - Ed.) adults.

Can you describe ANY scenario, outside pregnancy, where it is acceptable for one person to force another into a potentially risky medical condition, limit their activity for 9 months, force financial costs on that person, and possibly leave them with life-long medical issues? Without any sort of trial at all or consideration of the case?

It seems to me that the arguments about fetal rights aren’t arguing for human rights, but more than human rights. We don’t let adults treat each other this way.

You can’t force me to give you one of my kidneys, even if I’m a perfect match for you and you’ll die without it. I can’t be forced to give blood. You can’t harvest my bone marrow without my consent.

This seems to be the central question, to me. Even granting the fetus rights, why does it apparently get more rights than not only the mother, but any other adult?

And I do agree, to a point, with the anti-abortioners. In a perfect world, any fetus would be allowed to grow up and become whatever human it had the potential to be, and find s loving and nurturing home. Maybe when we develop artificial wombs there’ll be s better option. But right now, we can’t do that without forcing unwanted medical and financial costs on others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[psionl0]

Let me see if I can offer a potential focus (and feel free to ignore this, but please don’t throw tomatoes).

1. We have basically two views: a fetus has rights of a person, therefore abortion should be illegal or strictly limited.

2. A fetus does not have the rights of a person, so abortion should be the choice of the mother.

Another poster put the issue more succinctly. To paraphrase:
1st Trimester: Yeah, whatever.
3rd Trimester: Nuh uh (except where the mother's life/health is at stake).
2nd Trimester: Let the arguments begin.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Can you describe ANY scenario, outside pregnancy, where it is acceptable for one person to force another into a potentially risky medical condition, limit their activity for 9 months, force financial costs on that person, and possibly leave them with life-long medical issues? Without any sort of trial at all or consideration of the case?

It seems to me that the arguments about fetal rights aren’t arguing for human rights, but more than human rights. We don’t let adults treat each other this way.

You can’t force me to give you one of my kidneys, even if I’m a perfect match for you and you’ll die without it. I can’t be forced to give blood. You can’t harvest my bone marrow without my consent.

This seems to be the central question, to me. Even granting the fetus rights, why does it apparently get more rights than not only the mother, but any other adult?

Because having a kidney doesn't mean you were a slut who need to be punis... oh I'm sorry I mean "accept persona accountability" for.

That's the difference. That's the only difference.

It has nothing to do with the rights of the fetal-embyro-zygote because as you say THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

They just won't admit it.

 

[Hellbound]

Because having a kidney doesn't mean you were a slut who need to be punis... oh I'm sorry I mean "accept persona accountability" for.

That's the difference. That's the only difference.

It has nothing to do with the rights of the fetal-embyro-zygote because as you say THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

They just won't admit it.

You are correct for many, but I don’t think all are so black and white. We’re hardwired to care for children and to feel responsibility for our offspring (with some exceptions). I think many people get tied up in that emotion, that children must be protected and nurtured, rather than actively seeking to slut-shame.

Of course, on the other side if that, a lot of the traditional child protection feeling ties into traditional views on women, which complicates it further. Women should be pure, and nurturing, and soft, etc.

While there are many with the worst motives, I think there’s also a large group that are, for lack of a better term, victims of potentially noble ideals.

But as I hinted at earlier, ideals only work in idealized situations. The real world needs practicality, and very few situations involve no shades of grey.

ETA: That was part of the reason for my earlier post. Examining it not as a mother-and-child situation, but as a two equal people situation, can give a framework to evaluate without so much emotional baggage. At least, unless one is determined to bring a carry-on

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeMorgue]

You are correct for many, but I don’t think all are so black and white. We’re hardwired to care for children and to feel responsibility for our offspring (with some exceptions). I think many people get tied up in that emotion, that children must be protected and nurtured, rather than actively seeking to slut-shame.

Again I have a very results based view of morality. If the functional end results are the same, this kind of psychoanalyst is of, at best, minor passing interest.

 

[Hellbound]

Again I have a very results based view of morality. If the functional end results are the same, this kind of psychoanalyst is of, at best, minor passing interest.

When it comes to laws, I definitely agree. However, I do think understanding why someone believes a thing can help in convincing them differently. The hard-liners as you describe are unlikely to change, but lumping the middle ground in with them, I think, does yourself a disservice in trying to get support for a more rational and/or equitable view.

But this is likely one of those “agree to disagree” areas for you and I


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ahhell]

All we have is a strong popular consensus, science, and the concept of medical choice and privacy.

What they have is a screwy electoral map.

So we lose.

As noted and shown by consistent polling, the folks that say there should be no limit on abortions do not have the popular consensus, nor science, and only seem to care about choice and privacy in one thing.

Popular consensus in the US and the rest of the developed world is.
First trimester sure don't care
Second, I care more it should be for a good reason and maybe with some limits.
Third, that ***** creepy as hell, no except for the life and health of the mother.

The reasonable people think a fetus becomes a human sometime between conception and birth and thus it is worth considering it have some competing rights with the mother at some point. This makes sense to the vast majority of humanity. Only 10% of the country thinks its never ok to abort and 20% think it should be legal up until birth. I know blah blah blah don't make it illegal because it almost never happens. That extremist attitude is how you will loose the 70% of the country that would call themselves be on your side but since there's a bunch of you that would be fine with abortion for any reason up till birth and that doctors and hospitals should be required to do so if asked.

I know, I'm the one in some fantasy about souls or something..... Really, the extremists are in a fantasy about what their opposition actually is and what arguments they are actually making. I am constantly reminded of the studies showing that the right understands the left better than the left understands the right.

As Sun Tzu said, know your self and your enemy and you will win every battle, know yourself and not your enemy and you lose half, don't know either and you will never win. I really can't understand how progressives ever win. They clearly have no idea how the opposition thinks and either don't know or don't care about how the vast middle of potential allies think, and barely seem to know how they think.

If you want your way, you are going to have to convince a lot of people who think third trimester abortion is at best a necessary evil and potentially murder that it should be legal. Not just your straw Christians think that because of their imaginary soul.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The reason I keep calling this yet another "Soul" argument is because it is, regardless of terminology, because it's the same problem, the idea that "life/personhood/humanity/whatever" is some singular thing distinct thing that actually exists and that it just "poofs" into existence at one point and "poofs" out at another.

A grown woman is MORE life/person/human/whatever than a fetus/zygote/embryo is really the answer, but that as a statement will never survive the absolute cluster **** of semantics that will bring down from the anti-woman side.

 

[ahhell]

Again I have a very results based view of morality. If the functional end results are the same, this kind of psychoanalyst is of, at best, minor passing interest.

Practically did a spit take when I realize who wrote this.

The reason I keep calling this yet another "Soul" argument is because it is, regardless of terminology, because it's the same problem, the idea that "life/personhood/humanity/whatever" is some singular thing distinct thing that actually exists and that it just "poofs" into existence at one point and "poofs" out at another.

A grown woman is MORE life/person/human/whatever than a fetus/zygote/embryo is really the answer, but that as a statement will never survive the absolute cluster **** of semantics that will bring down from the anti-woman side.

Whatever, just know that almost nobody else sees it that way, and that's basically an argument for murder shouldn't be illegal because what's so special about a person anyway? Almost all humans tend to think humans are in fact special and some if not most think that at some point a fetus becomes a human and thus also special when that happens. The argument over abortion is and should be, "When does a fetus become a human." That is the argument the "antiwomen" side is making. They just think it happens a lot earlier than the antibaby side does. Earlier and probably for different reasons.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Practically did a spit take when I realize who wrote this.

I'd ask you to clarify but then I realized I don't care.

 

[ahhell]

So, seems this thread has gone off in the weeds a bit and gotten lost in swamps of detail and the semantic forest.

Let me see if I can offer a potential focus (and feel free to ignore this, but please don’t throw tomatoes).

1. We have basically two views: a fetus has rights of a person, therefore abortion should be illegal or strictly limited.

2. A fetus does not have the rights of a person, so abortion should be the choice of the mother.

Nope, that leaves out what the vast majority of people think. That's the problem with the debate and its a problem unique to progressives. Even the minority of folks that think a human is a human at conception realize that there is very complex and nuanced spectrum of belief between those two poles, which is why they are more successful than the other extreme. There messaging is mostly aimed at the middle. The pro-choice side mostly sounds like JoeMorgue. Which is to say, that they seem to think there are only two views and one is evil while the other is enlightened.

This is the problem with progressives in general frankly.

 

[Lithrael]

Third, that ***** creepy as hell, no except for the life and health of the mother.

Please remember to include the suffering or just utter pointlessness of delivery of the fetus in this chunk of criteria; sometimes you find out about problems like ‘the lil guy has not grown proper skin and will definitely die horribly after delivery’ really late. Or for instance, you can try to provide care to an anencephalic baby if you really want, sure, it won’t suffer, but I can’t see judging the mother harshly for resorting to a very late term abortion if she either didn’t find out till then or even just changed her mind late about wanting to care for it as long as it would last.

 

[Paul2]

I love it when people's morality is somehow non-Euclidean.

No, it's quantum morality!

 

[ahhell]

Please remember to include the suffering or just utter pointlessness of delivery of the fetus in this chunk of criteria; sometimes you find out about problems like ‘the lil guy has not grown proper skin and will definitely die horribly after delivery’ really late. Or for instance, you can try to provide care to an anencephalic baby if you really want, sure, it won’t suffer, but I can’t see judging the mother harshly for resorting to a very late term abortion if she either didn’t find out till then or even just changed her mind late about wanting to care for it as long as it would last.

I'm sorry, I forgot to include the other reason most people are ok with when it comes to late term abortions

So, most folks thing:
First trimester, no limits
Third trimester no abortion except life and health of the mother and if the child will only live a short miserable life or be nonviable.

Second, some transition from no limits to mostly limited.

There's no point in talking to the folks that think abortion should always be illegal because you can't convince them and they are only about 10% of the population. Really, you should be trying to get the other 70% on your side and stop acting like someone that thinks there ought to be any limits are effectively the same as that 10%.

 

[Hellbound]

Nope, that leaves out what the vast majority of people think. That's the problem with the debate and its a problem unique to progressives. Even the minority of folks that think a human is a human at conception realize that there is very complex and nuanced spectrum of belief between those two poles, which is why they are more successful than the other extreme. There messaging is mostly aimed at the middle. The pro-choice side mostly sounds like JoeMorgue. Which is to say, that they seem to think there are only two views and one is evil while the other is enlightened.

This is the problem with progressives in general frankly.

To be fair, I should have added “or lightly regulated” to my point 2.

I wasn’t trying to include every possible view, as there are as many views as there are people, but those two categories should cover everyone.

And in any case, the question of rights still needs the same sort of conceptual framework to think about them rationally and discuss them. Whether you’re on an extreme, or in the middle, the decision is really about rights. Which ones take precedence and at what times?

A secondary argument is what problem you’re trying to solve, but I left that out to simplify.

I’m one of those middle people, and not a progressive by any means. I am pro-choice, but if you think pro-choice all sounds like Joe then you’re falling into the same trap that he has of thinking everyone against it is a Bible-thumping woman hater (sorry Joe )

Which is easy to do; the Venn diagram of the most passionate, the most fanatic, and the most vocal have far more overlap than they should, on both extremes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeMorgue]

Nope, that leaves out what the vast majority of people think.

No it doesn't. It means we're not pretending to take into account abortions that stastically next to never happen.

Abortions after, I wanna say 11 weeks (something like, I could be off by a week or two but my point stands) are the vast, vast (90+%) majority of abortions and abortions later in pregnancy almost always have legit medical reasons.

Again you're doing the "Shades of grey, not black and white" dance to pretend that the woman who just wakes up and decides to have an abortion just for the ***** and giggles of it all at 39 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds is really a thing that we have to either worry about or acknowledge in the discussion for sake of "completeness" and we don't.

Abortions that are rare and early in the pregnancy, what you are screaming about "Vast majority of people wanting" is exactly what you already get when you leave women alone and don't put restrictive abortion laws on them.