Abortion and Slavery equal?[W:1136]

[choiceone]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

Here in Canada, we have no laws prohibiting abortion at any stage, yet doctors will not do elective ones past viability, actually most if not all won't do them much past 20 weeks. I'm not overly knowledgeable about laws in the USA, but don't most states prohibit it past viability? Are elective abortions really happening en masse in the 3rd trimester?

Elective abortions are not illegal past viability at the federal level. The Supreme Court decided that the states could prohibit abortion in the third trimester as long as they made exceptions in cases of imminent threat to the woman's life or imminent threat to the woman's health, which has been interpreted to mean threat of major permanent injury, e.g., paralysis from the neck down, or permanent psychosis (cases which would usually render the woman legally incompetent and thus deprive her of fundamental rights other than life). Many states did make such prohibitions, but not all states did. Some abortions are performed in the last trimester to remove dead fetuses, but this is not controversial except for a tiny minority, and in cases of severe fetal deformity, which is controversial for a small minority. Apparently, some deformities and disabilities of fetuses are not sufficient to meet some people's criteria. But doctors can also refuse to perform abortions, so the final decision in late term cases is made by the woman, or the person responsible for making decisions on her behalf when she cannot, in consultation with her doctor.

 

[choiceone]

Re: Abortion and Slavery equal?

My comparison of slavery and abortion is from the sense that slavery was obviously wrong and there were those that knew it. And because it was wrong, it's days were numbered. Yet, for some bewildering reason, you don't see the evil of abortion. All the clues are out there for you to see, but you turn a blind eye to it.

But it doesn't really matter because there are those of us that do see the evil of it. And when people have had enough of it, they will strike it from the books.

I don't know when abortion will be illegal, but it will be. One day....soon....

....bye bye abortion....

Abortion

I urge you to peruse the polls on the above site, especially those that ask whether or not Roe v Wade should be supported and those that divide their questions on whether or not abortion should be legal into four parts: legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, and illegal in all cases. You will find, if you analyze the polls as I did, that roughly 54%-58% have believed that abortion should be legal in all or most cases for close to forty years and have fluctuated very little. Abortion is not going to become illegal in the US.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

Let me Google that for you:

Quoted from the first 2 hits:


***

In Ohio the fetus has to be at least 20 weeks old,

Fetal Death Certificate
Definition of "Fetal death" means death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of human conception of at least twenty weeks of gestation, which after such expulsion or extraction does not breathe.

Fetal Death Certificate

From the Iowa public heath site:

For an unitened fetal death occurring after a gestational period of 20 weeks or an unintened fetal death of a fetus with a weight of 350 or more grams.

http://www.idph.state.ia.us/genetics/common/pdf/fetal_death_evaluation_protocol.pdf

 

[Moot]

Re: Abortion and Slavery equal?

My comparison of slavery and abortion is from the sense that slavery was obviously wrong and there were those that knew it. And because it was wrong, it's days were numbered. Yet, for some bewildering reason, you don't see the evil of abortion. All the clues are out there for you to see, but you turn a blind eye to it.

So because slavery is wrong, you don't understand why women have abortions? Even though there hundreds of threads of women telling you why? There seems to be a cognitive disconnect in your thinking.

But it doesn't really matter because there are those of us that do see the evil of it. And when people have had enough of it, they will strike it from the books.

I don't know when abortion will be illegal, but it will be. One day....soon....

....bye bye abortion....

Abortion will always exist for as long as women find it neccessary to have one. But if you and pro-lifers were really serious about ending abortion you would focus more on preventing unwanted pregnancies before they happen instead of criminalizing it after the fact. Which means funding for sex education and contraception, both of which are proven methods for lowering the abortion rate. But with the reaction to insurance funded birth control its pretty obvious that pro-lifers aren't really serious about ending abortion. Besides, if conservatives didn't have abortion to rally around they would become irrelevant and I doubt they want that especially considering the amount of money getting funneled to their organizations and websites.

 

[Daktoria]

Re: Abortion and Slavery equal?

But if you and pro-lifers were really serious about ending abortion you would focus more on preventing unwanted pregnancies before they happen instead of criminalizing it after the fact. Which means funding for sex education and contraception, both of which are proven methods for lowering the abortion rate.

Are you claiming contraception is perfect?

 

[minnie616]

Re: Abortion and Slavery equal?

....

Abortion will always exist for as long as women find it neccessary to have one. But if you and pro-lifers were really serious about ending abortion you would focus more on preventing unwanted pregnancies before they happen instead of criminalizing it after the fact. Which means funding for sex education and contraception, both of which are proven methods for lowering the abortion rate. ....

I agree.
Making abortions illegal will not stop abortions.

Abortions are illegal in Latin America but the abortion rate is very high.
In fact "Latin America continues to experience abortion rates that are much higher than most countries where it is legal.

There are an estimated 4 million abortions every year across the region. Up to 200,000 clandestine abortions take place in Chile every year--twice as many as in Canada, which has 100,000 a year--and Chile has half the population."

Illegal Abortions Rampant in Latin America | Womens eNews

 

[nota bene]

Re: Abortion and Slavery equal?

What makes previable ZEFs different from everyone else is that they do not have life in themselves, but only in the body of someone who has life in herself. If they are removed before viability, they cannot live even with intensive medical help because they do not have the equipment to live in the open, to live as genuine live persons live.

No. They do have life within themselves--are alive. And they are as genuinely human as you and I are whether they are able yet to "live in the open" or not.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Abortion and Slavery equal?

No. They do have life within themselves--are alive. And they are as genuinely human as you and I are whether they are able yet to "live in the open" or not.

You are objectively correct. Her statement was out of touch with reality and established scientific knowledge.

 

[Daktoria]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

Viability is not maturity. It is a precondition of proof that you are capable of having life in yourself and are not just having it in someone else's body.

...but I didn't say viability. I said maturity. Society is built on meetings of the mind, not meetings of the body.

People don't ask to be brought into the world, so they're entitled to rectification.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

...but I didn't say viability. I said maturity. Society is built on meetings of the mind, not meetings of the body.

People don't ask to be brought into the world, so they're entitled to rectification.

In that case, we're talking about something WAY beyond fetal viability. An infant is one of the most helpless newborn animals in all mammalia, both physically and intellectually. Optimally, it should be born months later than it is. It is the limitations of a pelvis designed for upright, bipedal locomotion that force gestation to be as short as 9 months. And make no mistake, for a being a complex as a human, 9 months is extremely short. Even a slightly premature baby can have severe difficulties, because there's so little wiggle room.

Because of that, it takes (compared to most other mammals) a very, very long time for a human infant to become at all intellectually aware or physically competent. An infant can't even control its limbs, head, or eyes. Most other infant mammals can walk.

So if you're going to talk about maturity - even at the most minimal level - talking about the rights of a fetus is insane. Even an infant is completely immature, compared against what humans eventually grow into, or even compared to other mammals. If you're going to talk about maturity, talking about anything younger than 1-2 years is ridiculous, and even that's pretty generous. A fetus doesn't even come close.

 

[Jerry]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

In Ohio the fetus has to be at least 20 weeks old,

Yup...not sure what your point is, but....yup.....

 

[Daktoria]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

In that case, we're talking about something WAY beyond fetal viability. An infant is one of the most helpless newborn animals in all mammalia, both physically and intellectually. Optimally, it should be born months later than it is. It is the limitations of a pelvis designed for upright, bipedal locomotion that force gestation to be as short as 9 months. And make no mistake, for a being a complex as a human, 9 months is extremely short. Even a slightly premature baby can have severe difficulties, because there's so little wiggle room.

Because of that, it takes (compared to most other mammals) a very, very long time for a human infant to become at all intellectually aware or physically competent. An infant can't even control its limbs, head, or eyes. Most other infant mammals can walk.

So if you're going to talk about maturity - even at the most minimal level - talking about the rights of a fetus is insane. Even an infant is completely immature, compared against what humans eventually grow into, or even compared to other mammals. If you're going to talk about maturity, talking about anything younger than 1-2 years is ridiculous, and even that's pretty generous. A fetus doesn't even come close.

Nice to see you're starting to understand.

This is also why we send kids to school and expect parents to exercise duty of care rather than tolerating child abuse and child labor.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

Nice to see you're starting to understand.

This is also why we send kids to school and expect parents to exercise duty of care rather than tolerating child abuse and child labor.

Dak, believe me, you've yet to help me "understand" anything. I just don't see what this has to do with abortion. Talking about maturity is only relevant to humans who have not only been born, but are already several years old. So what does that have to do with debate at hand?

A child who is old enough to be in school possesses a degree of maturity already. A child as young as 7 is capable of being more or less self-sufficient.

We don't tolerate adult abuse either. Again, how does this apply?

 

[Daktoria]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

Dak, believe me, you've yet to help me "understand" anything. I just don't see what this has to do with abortion. Talking about maturity is only relevant to humans who have no only been born, but are already several years old. So what does that have to do with debate at hand?

A child who is old enough to be in school possesses a degree of maturity already. A child as young as 7 is capable of being more or less self-sufficient.

We don't tolerate adult abuse either. Again, how does this apply?

Why are you being ageist?

That mentality is no different from people who believe you have to be so and so old in order to understand what you're talking about.

Likewise, when we're talking about preborns who can't talk, it's no different from people who believe those who don't talk are stupid.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

Why are you being ageist?

That mentality is no different from people who believe you have to be so and so old in order to understand what you're talking about.

Likewise, when we're talking about preborns who can't talk, it's no different from people who believe those who don't talk are stupid.

I'm not. You're the one who picked the parameter and named it as being relevant to a discussion of value, not me.

Yes, it's very different. Fetuses (I get so tired of this "preborn" nonsense, as though a non-viable fetus is in any way comparable to living people) are not simply mute. They are completely dependent, intellectually void, and physically totally incapable due to the fact that most of their organs aren't even functional and they rely totally on the body of another to exist.

A better comparison might be those who are mute due to brain death. But even that is giving a non-viable fetus too much credit, honestly.

 

[Daktoria]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

I'm not. You're the one who picked the parameter and named it as being relevant to a discussion of value, not me.

Yes, it's very different. Fetuses (I get so tired of this "preborn" nonsense, as though a non-viable fetus is in any way comparable to living people) are not simply mute. They are completely dependent, intellectually void, and physically totally incapable due to the fact that most of their organs aren't even functional and they rely totally on the body of another to exist.

Preborns don't ask to be made dependent though. That's like saying if I get you addicted to drugs, then you have to serve me.

This is the entire point you keep ignoring. Why are people obligated to earn others' intellectual "credit" to be treated with respect?

It's like you have no concept of procedural justice, so all you care about is substantive justice.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

Preborns don't ask to be made dependent though. That's like saying if I get you addicted to drugs, then you have to serve me.

This is the entire point you keep ignoring. Why are people obligated to earn others' intellectual "credit" to be treated with respect?

It's like you have no concept of procedural justice, so all you care about is substantive justice.

Fetuses don't ask for anything any more than a chair does. Consent arguments only apply to those capable of consenting.

While I would agree with you that the non-consent problem is an issue, it is only an issue for those who make it past birth and into intellectual awareness. Before that, it's not an issue, because there is no awareness, just like it's not an issue what you do with a chair.

And if you're going to argue consent is an issue to be considered in reproduction, then the only logical position is anti-natalism, and you should be not only supportive but enthusiastic about legal abortion.

It's like you have no idea what the arguments you make even mean.

 

[Daktoria]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

Fetuses don't ask for anything any more than a chair does. Consent arguments only apply to those capable of consenting.

Hahaha...

...no, chairs don't bear personhood. If consent only applied to those capable, then there would be nothing wrong with exploiting the incapacitated. You could incapacitate someone, and then do whatever you want with someone after the fact.

While I would agree with you that the non-consent problem is an issue, it is only an issue for those who make it past birth and into intellectual awareness. Before that, it's not an issue, because there is no awareness, just like it's not an issue what you do with a chair.

How do you know this?

And if you're going to argue consent is an issue to be considered in reproduction, then the only logical position is anti-natalism, and you should be not only supportive but enthusiastic about legal abortion.

Hahaha...

...I actually have a friend on another forum who argues that all the time. He gets made fun of all the time for supporting the extinction of humanity.

Anyway, it's OK to reproduce as long as you have due diligence in mind. That way, negligence can be corrected, and victims are related with.

It's like you have no idea what the arguments you make even mean.

I know what they mean. I just also know that it takes due diligence to prevent bad outcomes.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

Consent is a relevant issue in reproduction.

The offspring had no role to play in determining their creation. Their presence or absence is not due to their own deliberate action but entirely due to the actions of their parents. Therefore, the parents are to be held responsible for that action; if harm is done through pregnancy, as so many here constantly state (and exaggerate) then the harm is not only consented to, it is self-inflicted.

Through a consensual act that almost always has a chance of creating offspring, men and women sometimes create offspring. That was the moment consent was involved and achieved from the would-be parents. Shortly thereafter, a new human being is created.

If that human is stated to lack rights due a lack of the higher order intellect or awareness that are a hallmark of our species, then that same argument applies to humans at a much older age as well.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

Hahaha...

...no, chairs don't bear personhood. If consent only applied to those capable, then there would be nothing wrong with exploiting the incapacitated. You could incapacitate someone, and then do whatever you want with someone after the fact.

Neither do fetuses, and for pretty much the same reason. Neither do the braindead, despite the fact that they're actually far more functional than a non-viable fetus.

How do you know this?

I would say an incomplete (or absent, if it's very early) brain is a fairly obvious signal. Even an infant is mostly unaware of its existence, and it has much more use of its brain than a non-viable fetus.

Hahaha...

...I actually have a friend on another forum who argues that all the time. He gets made fun of all the time for supporting the extinction of humanity.

Anyway, it's OK to reproduce as long as you have due diligence in mind. That way, negligence can be corrected, and victims are related with.

And yet you don't see how this is the only logical conclusion of your argument...?

If it's unfair to prevent a life that doesn't currently exist from being, then how is it fair to force a life into being?

Even if you're as diligent as you can be, how can you say for sure whether that life will want to exist, once it is capable of deciding? You can't. There's no way to guarantee that. So, if you're going to argue that consent is the tantamount issue, then anti-natalism is the only solution.

You can't just argue that consent only matters for those who might want to live. If you're going to make this the central issue, then it must also consider those who might not want to live.

I know what they mean. I just also know that it takes due diligence to prevent bad outcomes.

No, you quite obviously don't.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

Consent is a relevant issue in reproduction.

The offspring had no role to play in determining their creation. Their presence or absence is not due to their own deliberate action but entirely due to the actions of their parents. Therefore, the parents are to be held responsible for that action; if harm is done through pregnancy, as so many here constantly state (and exaggerate) then the harm is not only consented to, it is self-inflicted.

Through a consensual act that almost always has a chance of creating offspring, men and women sometimes create offspring. That was the moment consent was involved and achieved from the would-be parents. Shortly thereafter, a new human being is created.

If that human is stated to lack rights due a lack of the higher order intellect or awareness that are a hallmark of our species, then that same argument applies to humans at a much older age as well.

Same problem Dak: you're arguing that consent is central, but ONLY for those who might want to live.

What about those who might not? What about the consent of the woman?

Why does only one form of consent matter to you, and only at a point in time where the thing in question has no interest in its existence one way or the other?

If consent matters, then consent of all types matters. You're simply manipulating the argument to serve your own purposes.

 

[Daktoria]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

Consent is a relevant issue in reproduction.

The offspring had no role to play in determining their creation. Their presence or absence is not due to their own deliberate action but entirely due to the actions of their parents. Therefore, the parents are to be held responsible for that action; if harm is done through pregnancy, as so many here constantly state (and exaggerate) then the harm is not only consented to, it is self-inflicted.

Through a consensual act that almost always has a chance of creating offspring, men and women sometimes create offspring. That was the moment consent was involved and achieved from the would-be parents. Shortly thereafter, a new human being is created.

If that human is stated to lack rights due a lack of the higher order intellect or awareness that are a hallmark of our species, then that same argument applies to humans at a much older age as well.

In short:

Assumption of risk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Daktoria]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

I would say an incomplete (or absent, if it's very early) brain is a fairly obvious signal. Even an infant is mostly unaware of its existence, and it has much more use of its brain than a non-viable fetus.

Yes, YOU would say, but that's psychological projection.

People are subjects, not objects. Appearances can be deceiving.

And yet you don't see how this is the only logical conclusion of your argument...?

If it's unfair to prevent a life than isn't from being, then how is it not unfair to force a life into being?

Even if you're as diligent as you can be, how can you say for sure whether that life will want to exist, once it is capable of deciding? You can't. There's no way to guarantee that. So, if you're going to argue that consent is the tantamount issue, then anti-natalism is the only solution.

You can't just argue that consent only matters for those who might want to live. If you're going to make this the central issue, then it must also consider those who might not want to live.

There's also the solution that parents are obligated to accommodate their children until their children identify with the world.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

Yes, YOU would say, but that's psychological projection.

People are subjects, not objects. Appearances can be deceiving.

Magic voodoo soul, huh? So I guess the braindead are only pretending?

Sorry, it's impossible to have a worth-while debate involving things like magic voodoo soul, because the concept itself is designed to kill the debate.

There's also the solution that parents are obligated to accommodate their children until their children identify with the world.

That is not a solution. What if the child becomes ill, physically or mentally? What if the parents die in an accident? The parents cannot protect their children from the world. And even if they could, they can't protect them from what may happen to the child from within their own bodies or minds.

 

[Daktoria]

Re: Abotion and Slavery equal?

Magic voodoo soul, huh? So I guess the braindead are only pretending?

Sorry, it's impossible to have a worth-while debate involving things like magic voodoo soul, because the concept itself is designed to kill the debate.

It's because we're obligated to give others the benefit of the doubt. We are not entitled to live vicariously through others' titles.

Those who have titles are entitled to them rather than expressing their titles to our satisfaction, so we have to leave them be.

Are you saying people are obligated to check other people's titles, and punish them if unsatisfied?

That is not a solution. What if the child becomes ill, physically or mentally? What if the parents die in an accident? The parents cannot protect their children from the world. And even if they could, they can't protect them from what may happen to the child from within their own bodies or minds.

I'm not sure why said parents should be having children.

Due diligence entails associating your children with what you do so they understand how you exist. Your life should be safe enough to accommodate them, and you should teach them in steps (with prepared instructions) so they can continue onwards in case you're incapacitated.