|
Jaxyon posted:Keeping in mind, a woman changing her mind at 8mos is something she should be allowed to do, even if it's not realistic. The actual question about an “8.5 month abortion” is about the legality of inducing delivery or performing a procedure that increases the chance of stillbirth.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
Just forcing a woman to give birth in general - the principle applies up to consented birth (on the mother’s part). To place a cutoff earlier we’d need to move away from principle and into some other balance of rights and risks (and the risks are usually discounted).
Stickman fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 05:20
|
|
|
The trick of it is that everyone who wants to play devil’s advocate inevitably approaches the question from some point of pure abstraction that betrays a fundamental ignorance of why, when, and how people terminate pregnancies. Is it technically possible that someone could decide on a whim to get an abortion a week before they’re set to give birth? Of course, but then the discussion spirals into debating the contours of this hypothetical and everyone forgets that such a thing doesn’t really happen and that there are reasons why. Maybe debate the case of someone not wanting to leave a corpse inside of themselves for two months, as this actually occurs and is regulated by abortion law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 05:29
|
|
|
Keep in mind it would be pretty much impossible to find a Dr. willing to perform an abortion after viability absent a medical emergency affecting the health or well-being of the mother and or fetus. Like it fundamentally is such an outlier, it's why Republicans focus on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
Yes, they force the discussion to focus on absurd hypotheticals or extremely rare edge cases to obfuscate the fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions happen well before viability and those that happen after viability are not being used as birth control. But it's important to remember, as a few people have pointed out, that even after the point of fetal viability a woman still must retain the absolute right to determine what is done with her body. If at any point in a pregnancy we decide that her organs don't belong to her anymore and that she no longer has autonomy over what medical procedures are or are not done to her, then we've conceded the point that women are not equal human beings and begun simply arguing over the semantics of where to draw the line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 11:52
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Exactly. If you need a medical intervention at 8.5 months, it’s either one of these things: Yet that’s not what we’re talking about. The argument was that a woman should have an absolute right to decide what to do with her body throughout the entirety of the pregnancy. Lest she be enslaved. EDIT: That includes weeks 36 through 40. It includes presumably requesting an abortion in lieu of giving birth when contractions have started. It’s not hard to see why all developed societies I’m aware of have decided that enslavement of the mother is the lesser evil. morothar fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 12:36
|
|
|
morothar posted:Yet that’s not what we’re talking about. The argument was that a woman should have an absolute right to decide what to do with her body throughout the entirety of the pregnancy. Lest she be enslaved. Why should the reason matter? What’s the difference between abortion as birth control and abortion to save the life of the mother or prevent her from having to keep a dead fetus inside of her for months? I AM GRANDO fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 12:47
|
|
|
There's a Bill Burr bit that compares a pregnancy to a cake in the oven, and the abortion being pulling the mixture out. And I think that succinctly illustrates the core misconception. A better analogy would be that a guy brings you eggs and flour and sugar, then the state comes into your home and compels you to bake cake for months and then care for it for the rest of its life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 13:14
|
|
|
morothar posted:Yet that’s not what we’re talking about. The argument was that a woman should have an absolute right to decide what to do with her body throughout the entirety of the pregnancy. Lest she be enslaved. Why do you think they did?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 13:25
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Oh that one is easy. They are misogynist societies, OP. Ones who didn't reevaluate their ethics as medicine and society changed. Or maybe it’s that rights aren’t absolute, and personhood isn’t measured by location.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 13:33
|
|
|
morothar posted:Or maybe it’s that rights aren’t absolute, and personhood isn’t measured by location. If you’re making an argument founded on the rights of the fetus, why would the reason for the abortion make any difference?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 14:07
|
|
|
morothar posted:Or maybe it’s that rights aren’t absolute, and personhood isn’t measured by location. You're ignoring that location is not the only factor being considered here, despite many replies establishing what and why. If you're going to debate and discuss, you're going to have to read what people are writing instead of repeating the dismissable hot-takes multiple days in a row.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 14:32
|
|
|
morothar posted:That includes weeks 36 through 40. It includes presumably requesting an abortion in lieu of giving birth when contractions have started. Well, first it is a given that this whole conversation/debate is absurd because this situation basically doesn't even exist in the real world except in the crazed minds of anti-abortion extremists trying to mislead the public into writing bad laws. However, even if we could somehow find that one weird exception where someone somewhere just inexplicably decides they want an abortion at 36 weeks when it is viable, no defects, could be born now, and there is no medical reason to not just simply induce if the pregnancy has to be ended, then I do not think you could find a single doctor anywhere in the entire country who was willing and able to kill the fetus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
morothar posted:Or maybe it’s that rights aren’t absolute, and personhood isn’t measured by location. Sorry, why does the fetus being a person change anything? There is no other condition in which a person has a right to someone else's organs. You are also very clearly repeating your talking points without engaging with any of the responses to your points.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
morothar posted:
drat has someone let Canada know they're an undeveloped society https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada quote:Nationally, abortion is legal through all nine months (40 weeks) of pregnancy
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
quote:In 2022, Colorado enacted a statutory protection for abortion as a fundamental right.[7] It states: (1) Every individual has a fundamental right to make decisions about the individual’s reproductive health care, including the fundamental right to use or refuse contraception. (2) A pregnant individual has a fundamental right to continue a pregnancy and give birth or to have an abortion and to make decisions about how to exercise that right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:drat has someone let Canada know they're an undeveloped society If you scroll down just a little bit further in your link, there are apparently no doctors, hospitals, or clinics in the entire country who will do it after 24 weeks, even though the law at the national level says they could.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Rigel posted:If you scroll down just a little bit further in your link, there are apparently no doctors, hospitals, or clinics in the entire country who will do it after 24 weeks, even though the law at the national level says they could. The discussion is about legality right (this is a legal thread is it not. ) Everyone seems to agree that the 8.5 month "tee-hee I'm a silly woman who loves killing babies" abortion is not a real thing that actually happens and the argument is about whether to prohibit it by statute anyway. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
morothar posted:Or maybe it’s that rights aren’t absolute, and personhood isn’t measured by location. Dameius posted:What's the difference between putting my knife in my drawer and your stomach other than location?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
Rigel posted:If you scroll down just a little bit further in your link, there are apparently no doctors, hospitals, or clinics in the entire country who will do it after 24 weeks, even though the law at the national level says they could. The important thing is that there is no question if a particular medical procedure might be considered a crime by a prosecutor, grand jury and petit jury with no knowledge of medicine or anatomy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
what's personhood measured by i wonder, is there a helpful analogy with the wood used in the knife's handle for example
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The important thing is that there is no question if a particular medical procedure might be considered a crime by a prosecutor, grand jury and petit jury with no knowledge of medicine or anatomy. Yes exactly. There are abortions that late that are medically necessary, if you criminalize it that is going to make doctors wary of doing it because instead of being accountable to a professional board comprising members of his field, he might have to think about whether he can convince some prosecutor to care about the health of a woman. This can only be bad for health outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes exactly. There are abortions that late that are medically necessary, if you criminalize it that is going to make doctors wary of doing it because instead of being accountable to a professional board comprising members of his field, he might have to think about whether he can convince some prosecutor to care about the health of a woman. This can only be bad for health outcomes. You're also retaining that overarching right above the provincial restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
Gerund posted:You're ignoring that location is not the only factor being considered here, despite many replies establishing what and why. Every once in a while you run across one of those arguments that a political team uses back and forth among themselves until it sounds like an absolute slam dunk to them because it supports what they already want to believe. Even if there are obvious counterarguments against it, they never hear those because they only talk to each other and read polemics they already agree with, so when they try out their awesome slam on someone outside their group and hear a rebuttal for the first time, a lot of them bluescreen and just start repeating themselves in a bootloop because they don't know what else to do. E: some of them are capable of taking in new information and revising either their arguments or their beliefs, we'll see what happens here VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 15:35
|
|
|
Rigel posted:If you scroll down just a little bit further in your link, there are apparently no doctors, hospitals, or clinics in the entire country who will do it after 24 weeks, even though the law at the national level says they could. The article doesn't say that, and of the two linked sources for the sentence that says something like that, one says it's now out of date because access to abortion through PCPs has expanded, and the other is explicitly nonexhaustive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
Speaking of, the SC decided yesterday to not hear a case on fetal personhood.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
Waiting for president desantis and a Republican house and senate, no doubt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The article doesn't say that, and of the two linked sources for the sentence that says something like that, one says it's now out of date because access to abortion through PCPs has expanded, and the other is explicitly nonexhaustive. Yes it does, they have a pretty thorough table in the article. Hell the very sentence that was quoted was even cut off. quote:Nationally, abortion is legal through all nine months (40 weeks) of pregnancy, nevertheless no providers in Canada offer care beyond 23 weeks and 6 days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Yes it does, they have a pretty thorough table in the article. Hell the very sentence that was quoted was even cut off. And, as I already said, the linked source tells you that's not accurate; the quotation isn't what's reflected in the text of the article, and the "pretty thorough table" in the article bases all of its numbers on the same two sources.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:And, as I already said, the linked source tells you that's not accurate; the quotation isn't what's reflected in the text of the article, and the "pretty thorough table" in the article bases all of its numbers on the same two sources. Well first, when you say that the linked source is out of date, they are not saying the limit is out of date, but instead that there are more providers now, which was mostly what that source was about. But anyway, this is pretty easy to look up. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2022/abortion-access-canada/ dated August 18th quote:Currently, abortion care at 20 weeks is available only in B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. After 24 weeks, individuals are forced to leave the country to seek safe care – a luxury reserved for a privileged few. https://www.businessinsider.com/abortions-are-legal-in-canada-but-access-is-a-problem-2022-6 Dated July quote:Abortion care cannot be accessed in Canada after 24 weeks. https://time.com/6191400/abortions-canada-roe/ Dated June quote:Some Canadians travel to the US to obtain late-stage abortions — those after 24 weeks. Such a procedure can be difficult to access even in Canada’s big cities because of a lack of physician training.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
“Abortion” after viability is just a delivery induction. They aren’t yanking out a viable fetus and snapping its neck. Typically they are dead, dying or suffering from catastrophic birth defects, and are provided as much care as is possible after delivery—palliative or otherwise. Otherwise it’s to protect the health of the mother, in which case it’s a premature induction and also receives maximal appropriate healthcare. The discussion is *always* disingenuous because abortion is a loaded term and forced birth folks are not interesting in medical accuracy, they are working backwards from a policy goal. Furthermore a loving lawyer or a local insurance salesman turned politician is not an expert and shouldn’t have any place in the discussion between the patients and their doctors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Well first, when you say that the linked source is out of date, they are not saying the limit is out of date, but instead that there are more providers now, which was mostly what that source was about. Rigel posted:https://www.businessinsider.com/abortions-are-legal-in-canada-but-access-is-a-problem-2022-6 I'm having to view the source code for this one since by login isn't working, but the relevant language in this article is "Some Canadians travel to the US to obtain late-stage abortions; those after 24 weeks." Take the L already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:“Abortion” after viability is just a delivery induction. They aren’t yanking out a viable fetus and snapping its neck. To add to this, as I said some posts back, good luck finding a Dr. to perform a month 8 "abortion" of an otherwise viable fetus. As you put it, the procedure no longer resembles an abortion, it is a forced birth and then a murder. Late-term "abortions" are tragedies where there is no other medical alternative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
morothar posted:That same logic could be applied to allow infanticide: “it should be her call if the infant lives or dies, unless you believe it’s acceptable to enslave a woman because she had a child”. An unbirthed fetus requires a gift of flesh and blood from a human. These gifts can only morally be offered with the consent of the host. The instant a human host ceases to consent providing that gift of the body they own, tough poo poo for the fetus if it's not capable of doing without that gift of flesh and blood. Despite the attempts of the right to obfuscate this and wring hands to establish a gray zone, there is no gray zone. In a moral society that recognizes the value of human autonomy and sentience, when the consent ends, the gift ends, period. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Oct 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Take the L already. I have 3 sources from mainstream media and an academic paper from this year all saying abortion is not available in Canada after 24 weeks. To the extent that this even really matters (it probably doesn't), I don't think I have the burden of proof here. Can you come up with at least 1 good, solid source that says it is being provided? My forum honor won't be offended if you can, I'll just shrug and say "OK then, I guess you are right".
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I have 3 sources from mainstream media and an academic paper from this year all saying abortion is not available in Canada after 24 weeks. To the extent that this even really matters (it probably doesn't), I don't think I have the burden of proof here. Can you come up with at least 1 good, solid source that says it is being provided? What is your point? It seems that you have found that there is a state with a legal policy preference that fundamentally erodes the value of human life, human autonomy, ownership, and sentience. Like, good for you, you've found an extant state that violates an extraordinarily broad swath of the principles that underpin the value of human life. Your next and only moral step is to fight that state's policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I have 3 sources from mainstream media and an academic paper from this year all saying abortion is not available in Canada after 24 weeks. To the extent that this even really matters (it probably doesn't), I don't think I have the burden of proof here. Can you come up with at least 1 good, solid source that says it is being provided? When there’s say an infection in the third trimester requiring extremely aggressive interventions to save the mother’s life that may increase the chance of a stillbirth is that an “abortion” in Canada or is that just medical care?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:What is your point? It seems that you have found that there is a state with a legal policy preference that fundamentally erodes the value of human life, human autonomy, ownership, and sentience. I do agree that having to flee Canada and come to loving America of all places for medical care is a bit absurd. I hope whatever restrictions (professional? provincial?) or lack of training causing this gets fixed for at least those very rare and tragic cases where it is necessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I have 3 sources from mainstream media and an academic paper from this year all saying abortion is not available in Canada after 24 weeks. To the extent that this even really matters (it probably doesn't), I don't think I have the burden of proof here. Can you come up with at least 1 good, solid source that says it is being provided? I've demonstrated that the sources you've googled don't say what you're saying. Repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
I feel like I should bring up the Torah again, because even the idea that an infant has moral weight immediately after birth is a cultural statement that a long list of rabbis would disagree with. All this nitpicking about specific weeks, or even the idea that birth itself is some kind of hard switch-over in status, is a really culture-specific thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2022 20:13
|
|
