Split Thread Legislation to restrict access to abortion and contraception

[Dcdrac]

Its always confused me that extreme US conservatives want small government and the state staying out of things until it comes to peoples personal lives then they want the full weight of the state employed to enforce their morals, religious outlook and doctrines on other people.

What am I missing here?

 

[AvalonXQ]

If the right is so dead-set for forcing women to carry the fetus that is conceived, why don't they also support extensive sex and contraception education to help reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies?

Otherwise it just seems that they don't want to teach young people about sex, and then force them to pay for their ignorance.

If the left is so concerned about the poor, why don't they support an automatic death penalty for the homeless?

Otherwise it seems like they don't really want to address the poverty problem; they just want a large base of people who are dependent on the government as a voter base.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Its always confused me that extreme US conservatives want small government and the state staying out of things until it comes to peoples personal lives then they want the full weight of the state employed to enforce their morals, religious outlook and doctrines on other people.

What am I missing here?

The abortion discussion is a different issue depending on your side.

If you're pro-abortion, it's a reproductive freedom issue.

If you're anti-abortion, it's a child protection issue.

Sort of like the parents who won't let their kids get medical attention -- it's a religious freedom issue on one side, but a child protection issue on the other.

 

[Dessi]

If the left is so concerned about the poor, why don't they support an automatic death penalty for the homeless?

I can see the headlines now, "Obama declares WAR ON POVERTY, full scale assault!"

 

[AvalonXQ]

Not quite the war on poverty they have in mind, dear

Might be more exciting on telly, though.

 

[RandFan]

If the left is so concerned about the poor, why don't they support an automatic death penalty for the homeless?

1. Golden rule: Homeless people are moral agents. I wouldn't want someone to kill me. I shouldn't kill others who wouldn't want to be killed.
2. Homeless people suffer if they know they are going to die.
3. Homeless people are self aware and they value their lives.
4. Cruel and unusual punishment harms society.

Your analogy is seriously and fatally flawed.

 

[RandFan]

If you're anti-abortion, it's a child protection issue.

Conflate and equivocate. (leaving aside late term abortions) Fetuses that can be legally aborted are not children. They are not moral agents. They are not self aware and do not posses a capacity for pain.

Sort of like the parents who won't let their kids get medical attention -- it's a religious freedom issue on one side, but a child protection issue on the other.

False equivalency. Children are capable of suffering. Children are moral agents and possess self awareness.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Potentiality vs. Actuality

I have usually formed my opinion on this subject by looking at the issue of freedom as ascribed to human rights.

Basically, many pro-lifers argue that embryos/fetuses are potential humans. However, I don't think anyone would argue that the pregnant woman is not an actual human (hopefully).

Thus it boils down to a question of potentiality vs. actuality for me: the pregnant woman is an actual human with rights, whereas the embryo/fetus is a potential human.

Therefore, the rights of the pregnant woman trump those of the embryo/fetus. End of story.

If anyone wants to argue the morality of this argument, fine by me; but from a pragmatic point of view, I can find no problem with it. In fact, I find it to be the most pragmatic solution to the entire issue.

 

[Caper]

I have usually formed my opinion on this subject by looking at the issue of freedom as ascribed to human rights.

Basically, many pro-lifers argue that embryos/fetuses are potential humans. However, I don't think anyone would argue that the pregnant woman is not an actual human (hopefully).

Thus it boils down to a question of potentiality vs. actuality for me: the pregnant woman is an actual human with rights, whereas the embryo/fetus is a potential human.

Therefore, the rights of the pregnant woman trump those of the embryo/fetus. End of story.

If anyone wants to argue the morality of this argument, fine by me; but from a pragmatic point of view, I can find no problem with it. In fact, I find it to be the most pragmatic solution to the entire issue.

Yes I know. We are allowed to kill medical students, but not doctors.

For me at a certain point a fetus is a human... Not a potential human... An actual human. You're not wrong with your definition. But its certainly one I do not support. And I would say a large majority 75% or more agree with me.
That is to say that to say a 9 month old fetus with no health problems and does not threaten the life of the mother..... Has a right to live.

 

[Caper]

Conflate and equivocate. (leaving aside late term abortions) Fetuses that can be legally aborted are not children. They are not moral agents. They are not self aware and do not posses a capacity for pain.

False equivalency. Children are capable of suffering. Children are moral agents and possess self awareness.

What's your definition of late term. I don't think there is a clearly defined term. 16 weeks? 20 weeks? 25?

That's the grey area for me. And I have more questions then answers.

But absolutely at some point for me it's about child protection.

 

[Toke]

The whole (making it a) issue is rather foreign to me.

 

[RandFan]

What's your definition of late term. I don't think there is a clearly defined term. 16 weeks? 20 weeks? 25?

That's the grey area for me. And I have more questions then answers.

I'm not sure how many times I can make the same point. Loki's paradox. There is no exact line. However there is zero scientific evidence to suppose that a *16 week fetus is a moral agent or capable of self awareness and an appreciation of pain. Most if not all mammals following their birth have far more cognitive functions than does a 16 week fetus. So no, 16 weeks is not reasonable if you rely on science and you are committed internal consistency. What we do know is which structures of the brain are responsible for awareness and and we know which brain waves indicate self awareness and which ones don't (see persistent vegetative state). All evidence to date points to after viability.

And I have more questions then answers.

How do you know that sperm and ovum aren't aware? Why isn't that a grey area for you? Cognitive neuroscience has identified the bare minimum requirements for cognition. If you don't accept that then why not pass laws to protect sperm?

But absolutely at some point for me it's about child protection.

That's fine. While there is controversy as to whether or not the fetus is capable of an emotional component for pain prior to birth, I'm happy to confer rights to the unborn. If you put stock in science then that's going to be after viability. If science doesn't matter then let's start protecting sperm.

source Throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth week of the pregnancy, the fetus develops the brain very rapidly and the brain is now divided into the left and right brain hemispheres. From the twentieth to the twenty-second week the brain furthers develop and now it is possible to recognize different sounds. In the twenty-third week, the nerve cells join and form the nervous system, and starting from this week, the brain begins to control the other body functions. In the twenty-seventh week, the fetus may even be dreaming and with the twenty-eighth week, the second trimester of the pregnancy is finished, with the brain completely formed.

 

[Ausmerican]

What's your definition of late term. I don't think there is a clearly defined term. 16 weeks? 20 weeks? 25?

That's the grey area for me. And I have more questions then answers.

But absolutely at some point for me it's about child protection.

If it is about child protection you need to have a child involved. That cannot occur until viability. Before that the fetus is a parasitic organism not totally unlike a teratoma (on paper only).

Late term abortion is pretty much a scare term used by the right to imply that people are walking in to their doctors at 38 weeks on a regular basis and saying "Hey, changed my mind. Abort this one too willya?"
By far, most late term abortions are done medical purposes and again, if the fetus is viable then it could be removed alive with pretty much the same risk to the mother so again most late term abortions are still of non viable organisms.

Some facts;
Late term abortions (after 21 weeks) make up about 1% of all abortions.
Late term abortions are restricted by law.
the Supreme Court has held that:

•even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother;”
•“health” in this context includes both physical and mental health;
•only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable; and
•states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk.

So, after viability, the mothers mental and physical health must be at risk to have an abortion.

And if the Supremes dont do it for ya then you will be happy to know that most states restrict late-term abortions.
• 37 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.
• 24 states initiate prohibitions at fetal viability.
• 5 states initiate prohibitions in the third trimester.
• 8 states initiate prohibitions after a certain number of weeks, generally 24.

The circumstances under which procedures are permitted after that point vary from state to state. For example:
•29 states permit abortions to preserve the life or health of the woman;
•4 states permit abortions to save the life or health of the woman, but use a narrow definition of health;
•4 states permit abortions only to save the life of the woman.
Kansas requires two doctors sign off on the procedure.
Basically late term abortion is a bogeyman that has no real place in the abortion debate.

 

[Ausmerican]

What difference does it make to kill a living organism belonging to one taxonomic classification or another?

Well in some cases one is murder and the other food preparation.
Or slightly more seriously; the obvious difference is that one is of our own taxonomic classification and the other isnt.

Are you telling me that, faced with a scenario where you can either prevent a human baby from being ran over with a car or a puppy, you have troubles deciding? If so you are among a very few animals on the planet.
Most animals given that choice will put their kind first and that just make sense from evolutionary and biological perspectives.

 

[not_so_new]

If science doesn't matter then let's start protecting sperm.

Every sperm is sacred don't ya know?

 

[RandFan]

Every sperm is sacred don't ya know?

Gotta love Monty Python.

 

[Dessi]

What difference does it make to kill a living organism belonging to one taxonomic classification or another?

Or slightly more seriously; the obvious difference is that one is of our own taxonomic classification and the other isnt.

So what difference does it make whether one is our own taxonomic classification or another?

Are you telling me that, faced with a scenario where you can either prevent a human baby from being ran over with a car or a puppy, you have troubles deciding?

No, the question is not as easy as you think it is. For a start, do you ever think about the reason why its wrong to take human life in the first place? Or what basis there is to protect non-rational humans? Once we have a good idea why we protect human life, which specific characteristics or criteria we have an interest in protecting, we can instantly resolve the abortion debate by examining whether those criteria are inclusive to unborn humans.

Given your scenario, both organisms have a first-person point of view, same capacity to feel pain, same capacity to feel enjoyment, can form memories, have a personality, and have experiences. In what sense does taxonomic classification have a credible impact on how much either organism is harmed for being run over, what accounts for the difference in harm?

I find the subject interesting because AvalonXQ very strongly believes that we shouldn't take human life, but believes its acceptable to take non-human animal life no matter whether that life has a greater mental level and capacity to suffer than zygotes. Avalon objects to abortion because she believes fetal life is harmed in some tangible way which does not carry over to non-human animals. Something accounts for the harm, its just not immediately obvious why taxonomic classification is tied to harm of being killed at all. That's a problem. How exactly could you make an argument against abortion without spelling out why it causes harm in the first place?

Most animals given that choice will put their kind first and that just make sense from evolutionary and biological perspectives.

mumblethrax made a poignant comment on the subject a while back:

Perhaps the problem here is that Desi draws a distinction between 'human' and 'animal' that I don't think exists. I'm an animal. My particular species is human. I therefore place a priority on the welfare of other humans. Just as a great many other animals will do.

My particular race is white. I therefore place a priority on the welfare of other white people. Just as a great many other races will do.

You aren't justifying speciesism here--you're just trying to pass tribalism off as a self-justifying state of affairs. That doesn't work.

 

[Ausmerican]

So what difference does it make whether one is our own taxonomic classification or another?


No, the question is not as easy as you think it is. For a start, do you ever think about the reason why its wrong to take human life in the first place? Or what basis there is to protect non-rational humans? Once we have a good idea why we protect human life, which specific characteristics or criteria we have an interest in protecting, we can instantly resolve the abortion debate by examining whether those criteria are inclusive to unborn humans.

Given your scenario, both organisms have a first-person point of view, same capacity to feel pain, same capacity to feel enjoyment, can form memories, have a personality, and have experiences. In what sense does taxonomic classification have a credible impact on how much either organism is harmed for being run over, what accounts for the difference in harm?

I find the subject interesting because AvalonXQ very strongly believes that we shouldn't take human life, but believes its acceptable to take non-human animal life no matter whether that life has a greater mental level and capacity to suffer than zygotes. Avalon objects to abortion because she believes fetal life is harmed in some tangible way which does not carry over to non-human animals. Something accounts for the harm, its just not immediately obvious why taxonomic classification is tied to harm of being killed at all. That's a problem. How exactly could you make an argument against abortion without spelling out why it causes harm in the first place?


mumblethrax made a poignant comment on the subject a while back:

To clarify Dessi I never mentioned unborn vs. born in my reply to you because you didn't mention it in the post I quoted. I think comparing a zygote to a baby is as silly as comparing a puppy to a baby. The tribalism argument is incorrect I feel as we are not talking about tribes. A person that sees no difference between having a baby at risk and an animal at risk I would say 1) doesn't have any children and 2) is lacking something that makes us human.
As I have seen in other threads Dessi you support PeTA and you find it regrettable but understandable that they kill animals at their shelters. Seeing that there is no difference between taxonomic classifications would you see it the same if orphanages were killing off kids that they couldn't find homes for in a short time?
Favoring your own species is a simple survival of the species tactic that evolution has probably hard wired into ALL species.
The favoring one species of animal (your own) over another being the same as racism is bunk because it is a false equivalence. Racists have been shown over and over that there are no differences genetically between the races. Has the same been done for man and dog? Or shark? Of course not.
Another example without a cute puppy. A shark is about to eat a swimming child. You could kill the shark and save the child. Since there is no difference between taxonomic classifications would you allow the shark to eat and live?

Nobody that eats meat is going to give any credence that abortion should be okay or not okay based on our dietary habits vis a vis other animals as you seem to be asking Avalon to do. I totally favor abortion at least until viability and after that if necessary but that doesn't mean I think I better not eat chicken anymore.

Finally, Avalon and I agree on very little. Politically, spiritually and probably in a lot of other ways, including this debate we disagree strongly but I have zero problem seeing what spelling out why Avalon thinks " it causes harm in the first place". For the same reason murder is considered wrong. Not just criminally wrong but morally wrong. I personally dont see it that way but even on a more moderate viewpoint there is the case that the zygotes potential was wasted.

 

[Caper]

Most if not all mammals following their birth have far more cognitive functions than does a 16 week fetus. So no, 16 weeks is not reasonable if you rely on science and you are committed internal consistency. What we do know is which structures of the brain are responsible for awareness and and we know which brain waves indicate self awareness and which ones don't (see persistent vegetative state). All evidence to date points to after viability.

I'm sure most animals have more cognitive function (or at least are capable if more) then a human infant. And it is definitely not cool to kill an infant.... and BTW I like most people would probably save the infant if given the choice between the infant and the adult. The infant gets a seat on the titanic... the men, sperm and skin cell have to wait.


And I do rely on science. In my very primitive search this is what I found. It's the very 1st linked I clicked on... and it's geared toward young expecting mothers, so the language is I'm sure... not what you'd hear from an abortion doctor. I never really looked this early. I must say, from reading your posts I was sure I was going to read.... something like. "Just a floating ball of plasma not unlike a pile of floating goo". What I did read was quite different.

In or out of the uterus (womb), babies are playful creatures. Yours may already have discovered her first toy, the umbilical cord, which she'll enjoy pulling and grabbing. Sometimes she may even clutch it so tight that less oxygen gets through. She'll let go of the cord before she starts to go without what she needs.

I didn't expect that. Playing with something? Cutting off it's own oxygen and then making the choice to not cut off it's own oxygen? I didn't expect that..... I know, I know... It's just random neurons firing, or a simply a large collection of atoms, rolling around in the universe... I know... We should be wrapping something we might want to kill in as much scientific language as possible.

But in all seriousness. I originally said 20 weeks, with the willingness to be swayed 2 weeks either way. This has me swinging the other way.

 

[Caper]

If it is about child protection you need to have a child involved. That cannot occur until viability. Before that the fetus is a parasitic organism not totally unlike a teratoma (on paper only).

Unless we redefine child to include a fetus from a certain point on.... Or we simply use the term fetal protection (again from a certain point on). Either one will do... doesn't matter to me.

And if the Supremes dont do it for ya then you will be happy to know that most states restrict late-term abortions.
• 37 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.
• 24 states initiate prohibitions at fetal viability.
• 5 states initiate prohibitions in the third trimester.
• 8 states initiate prohibitions after a certain number of weeks, generally 24.

The circumstances under which procedures are permitted after that point vary from state to state. For example:
•29 states permit abortions to preserve the life or health of the woman;
•4 states permit abortions to save the life or health of the woman, but use a narrow definition of health;
•4 states permit abortions only to save the life of the woman.
Kansas requires two doctors sign off on the procedure.

Thanks for the info.

Basically late term abortion is a bogeyman that has no real place in the abortion debate.

I do kind of agree with that statement but not completely. It does in the sense that, very die-hard pro choice activists want zero restrictions on abortion. I have a lot of questions as too abortions approaching that 22 week mark and like I posted above a 16 week old fetus is capable of much more then I thought. BTW, I'm in Canada, it is absolutely on demand and no time limit. Now, not many women have on demand abortions at 40 weeks (if ever), but the mere fact it's not discussed and it is allowed, I find more then disturbing. In the end I am probably not that far from your position (viability and for good reason after), but on a personal level I can't quite commit to viability.