The Right to Abort is the Moral Position

[Atreus21]

It doesnt really solve the basic issue of a woman's rights...medical privacy, reproductive choice, bodily autonomy, etc.

--the woman would still need to consent to the invasive procedure.

She'd have to consent to an invasive procedure to get any abortion.

--who is legally and financially responsible for paying for the procedure and the maintenance of growing the unborn?

--who is legally and financially responsible for the unborn if it is not adopted immediately at birth? What if it isnt 'perfect?' What if isnt the right 'color?'

Suppose someone else sponsors the child, will adopt him or her, warts and all, and take complete charge of all the financial issues.

--is there any moral issue with producing more children with 'nowhere to go?' There are over 100,000 kids available for adoption in the US right now, and over 400,000 in foster care. (I can provide multiple links to support this.)

Killing children isn't exactly a humane approach to foster care shortages.

While I can see such technology being wonderful for couples where the woman cannot carry a pregnancy, what 'issues' do you see this artificial womb solving regarding abortion?

It would supposedly solve the bodily autonomy problem which abortion proponents frequently cite.

 

[Lursa]

Because the risk of death by pregnancy is extremely low by any objective measure. And no one objects to abortion when a pregnancy is life threatening.

Again, it's not predictable or preventable. Every pregnancy is a signficant risk to a woman. Who are you to demand a woman take that risk? The govt realizes it is not. THe COnst. compels the govt to protect the woman's rights, including bodily autonomy. The unborn has no rights.

And who says that quantity is more important than quality of life? You value a heartbeat more than the entirety of the life of a woman. If you are a woman, you are welcome to make that choice for yourself...but man or woman, you cant make that choice for someone else.

So, the 'who says' text are questions. Answers are good in debates.

If the child had a good chance of survival outside the womb (thereby enabling the woman to leave the vicinity, influence, and physical impact of the child), would you oppose abortion?

See my response on your post re: the artificial womb.

Should someone be empowered to end your life because your quality of life doesn't meet their standards?

No one is, I have rights. In certain circumstances, people are not competent to make their own decisions and have legal representatives. The woman certainly is for the unborn, which cant make any decisions and has no rights anyway.

You challenged me to say who I valued more. I value them equally, which is simply true. Both parties have equal rights to life.

No...you are are just taking the route of moral cowardice. Unless you speak for yourself alone, since a person can only decide that 'for themself.' But when it comes to societally, you are taking the route of moral cowardice, since it is not possible to do so "legally" or "ethically."

And the unborn has no right to life. If it does, please provide a source that says so that Americans are obligated to follow.

You didn't answer the question. Should my personal valuation of individual people have any bearing on how the law allows me to treat them? Can I legally discriminate against blacks simply because I value them less than I do whites? Just yes or no.

It all depends. You can lie and cheat and be cruel and insult people in many ways and it's legal. In others, it's not. I dont see any blanket yes or no answer here.

As for discrimination, which is legally defined, that answer is no.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Lursa]

She'd have to consent to an invasive procedure to get any abortion.

So? That doesnt mean she'd consent to what would be a more invasive procedure OR desire to add another kid to the world. 97.5% of all abortions consist of just flushing the womb with a saline solution.

If the woman doesnt consent, it cannot Constitutionally be forced on her anymore than abortion or remaining pregnant.

Suppose someone else sponsors the child, will adopt him or her, warts and all, and take complete charge of all the financial issues.

That's what people looking for private adoptions do. I guess if the technology ever allows it, a woman would have the right to do so. A woman could donate an embryo or eggs now.

Killing children isn't exactly a humane approach to foster care shortages.

However unnecessarily creating MORE kids for that is a diffferent issue. Not only that, it harms the kids already waiting for homes...for each new kid added to that giant pool, it means one less of them gets a home. It means fewer kids WAITING get adopted. THat's actual harm...that's not the case with artificially growing a kid.

It would supposedly solve the bodily autonomy problem which abortion proponents frequently cite.

It does not, the woman still has to consent. And with the issues I've discussed, why would she submit to a more invasive and dangerous procedure to produce a kid no one may even want? That she knows will be a taxpayer burden...unless as you say, she gets someone to sponsor the embryo. Not sure why a couple would do that, when waiting for a baby to adopt from a pregnant woman, they can monitor its health status, etc. The embryo is much more of a crapshoot.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[year2late]

However you want to describe it then.



Did you read my post before you responded? I said, given by whatever technological progress that the fetus could be removed safely, and it would cost no more than an abortion, and that it would be cared for adequately. In other words, if we could satisfy all of your stated concerns, would you then oppose abortion?

As nurse and a woman, I could not see enough technological progress to make this a replacement for abortion. Can you imagine what it would take to extract an intact fetus from the womb of a woman? Some teeny eggs for IVF that have not been fertilized is one issue, a fetus is an entirely different issue. You would have to either dilate the cervix wide enough to extract the fetus intact or a procedure similar to a c-section. Either way, there is substantially more risk than an abortion. Add on to that risk of anesthesia? When this was brought up before....the poster actually indicated that it would be safe because teleportation would be involved in the near future.:lamo I thought he was kidding.

And I did answer. I am pro choice. She can decide whatever procedure she would like . If she wants surgery to transplant her fetus to an artificial womb, that is fine. If she would prefer an abortion that is her decision. How is that not an answer?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Then explain what exactly you meant when you said a zef is not a human being.

It sure doesn't look to me like you considered it a "social construct" then.

Your question makes no sense.

 

[maquiscat]

Because the risk of death by pregnancy is extremely low by any objective measure. And no one objects to abortion when a pregnancy is life threatening.

Actually there are segments of the Pro-life movements that do state no abortion under any circumstances.

If the child had a good chance of survival outside the womb (thereby enabling the woman to leave the vicinity, influence, and physical impact of the child), would you oppose abortion?

No. It's still the woman's body to choose who can and cannot take resources from it.

Should someone be empowered to end your life because your quality of life doesn't meet their standards?

only if I am physically attached to them, using their body as my life support system.

You challenged me to say who I valued more. I value them equally, which is simply true. Both parties have equal rights to life.

Which is all well and good, but since the two parties are physcially attached, one's right has to overrule the others. Both cannot be exercised at the same time

You didn't answer the question. Should my personal valuation of individual people have any bearing on how the law allows me to treat them? Can I legally discriminate against blacks simply because I value them less than I do whites? Just yes or no.

Red herring question that does not parallel the issue at all. The issues stems from the fact that the ZEF is drawing off the woman's life processes directly without other options (e.g. breastfeeding has the alternates of wet nurse and formula feeding.). The value of the life can be there even as the woman decides to end it, simply because no other means of ending the pregnancy exists.

 

[maquiscat]

Did you read my post before you responded? I said, given by whatever technological progress that the fetus could be removed safely, and it would cost no more than an abortion, and that it would be cared for adequately. In other words, if we could satisfy all of your stated concerns, would you then oppose abortion?

That does seem to be the one problem most of the others have when I bring up possible future issues, such as artificial wombs and the procedure being no more invasive or complicated to transfer the ZEF than to terminate it. Basically they want to change the premises of the thought experiment to fit their rhetoric instead of dealing with what is presented to them.

 

[maquiscat]

She'd have to consent to an invasive procedure to get any abortion.

Only certain types of abortions at certain stages of pregnancy. Many abortions can be done chemically, taking a drug of some sort. Not invasive at all.

Suppose someone else sponsors the child, will adopt him or her, warts and all, and take complete charge of all the financial issues.

I would assume that would be part of her decision making process. However, if you are trying to be realistic with in your premises, you cannot deny that pro-life people are going to demand that the ZEF be put into the artificial womb even if there is no one willing to take responsibility for it.

Killing children isn't exactly a humane approach to foster care shortages.

But preventing children from coming into existence is. Your use of emotional falsehood does not change the fact that the vast majority of abortions occur before any body systems that would allow thought or feeling form and develop.

It would supposedly solve the bodily autonomy problem which abortion proponents frequently cite.

It would only do that IF the medical science and technology got to a point where the termination and the transfer of the ZEF were one in the same with the only difference being if the ZEF is terminated or not. Which means it would only apply to later stage pregnancies, since it is unlikely that the chemical/drug methods would go away for the earlier stages when surgical means are not needed.

 

[maquiscat]

As nurse and a woman, I could not see enough technological progress to make this a replacement for abortion. Can you imagine what it would take to extract an intact fetus from the womb of a woman? Some teeny eggs for IVF that have not been fertilized is one issue, a fetus is an entirely different issue. You would have to either dilate the cervix wide enough to extract the fetus intact or a procedure similar to a c-section. Either way, there is substantially more risk than an abortion. Add on to that risk of anesthesia? When this was brought up before....the poster actually indicated that it would be safe because teleportation would be involved in the near future.:lamo I thought he was kidding.

And I did answer. I am pro choice. She can decide whatever procedure she would like . If she wants surgery to transplant her fetus to an artificial womb, that is fine. If she would prefer an abortion that is her decision. How is that not an answer?

At one point in our history, no one could see enough technological progress that would allow us to harvest eggs for the IVF procedure, or even the procedure itself. I forsee a future that not only can egg harvesting be easy and painless to women, but that can have an easy ZEF transference. I was that previous poster, and you and other kept avoiding the questions posed by changing the premise. When presented with this thought experiment, the fact that you cannot imagine how such a procedure can be less invasive or risky. Before, if we needed to see something inside the body, we had to open it up. Now we have CAT and MRI and other methods of seeing inside the body that are less risky and invasive. So to dismiss the possibility of other areas of medicine also developing into less risky and invasive ones, is strawmaning the situation presented to you.

 

[year2late]

At one point in our history, no one could see enough technological progress that would allow us to harvest eggs for the IVF procedure, or even the procedure itself. I forsee a future that not only can egg harvesting be easy and painless to women, but that can have an easy ZEF transference. I was that previous poster, and you and other kept avoiding the questions posed by changing the premise. When presented with this thought experiment, the fact that you cannot imagine how such a procedure can be less invasive or risky. Before, if we needed to see something inside the body, we had to open it up. Now we have CAT and MRI and other methods of seeing inside the body that are less risky and invasive. So to dismiss the possibility of other areas of medicine also developing into less risky and invasive ones, is strawmaning the situation presented to you.

I can foresee a lot of advances....but entering a woman's uterus to safely extract a fetus with minimal pain and potential harm to the woman....I cannot. I can foresee an artificial womb, no problem. But that would be useful in a woman willing to go through significant procedure or even surgery to safely extract the fetus from the womb.

If you look back, a major push for this came from Pro-Life websites. The idea essentially was that if you could extract and grow embryo or fetus from a woman and grow it in an artificial womb, that would push back Row V Wade to that point.

And as a replacement for abortion.....who is going to pay for the extraction? Currently the woman is on the hook for about 400 or so dollars. Clearly the extraction would be a much more expensive procedure. Then who is going to pay for the maintenance and care of the fetus ? Who is going to adopt the born child? We already have over 100,000 in foster care in the US awaiting adoption.

But yes, I can see an artificial womb as a possibility for women who are having trouble maintaining their pregnancy.

As an abortion replacement, no way.

I am a pragmatist at heart. Wouldn't our time be better spent figuring out a way for women who are too rich for Medicaid and too poor for self pay to afford long term contraception - that has been shown to be more reliable and effective than other forms? Or improving contraceptive choices for men and women?

Now, if a woman was given the choice of artificial womb or abortion for ending an unwanted pregnancy.....that would be different.

 

[maquiscat]

I can foresee a lot of advances....but entering a woman's uterus to safely extract a fetus with minimal pain and potential harm to the woman....I cannot. I can foresee an artificial womb, no problem. But that would be useful in a woman willing to go through significant procedure or even surgery to safely extract the fetus from the womb.

We now can do stints without the invasiveness we had before, when at one point medical professionals couldn't even imagine the procedure in any form. Your lack of ability to comprehend how such a procedure could be possible, does not preclude it's possibility, especially at a future point. Now I'm not talking about trying to apply such to current possibilities. But when presented with the premises of such a procedure in a thought experiment, denying the premises is creating a strawman. It's like a thought experiment where the premises is that alien races like we see on sci-fi shows exist to ponder the question of person good, and one claims we have not seen any such aliens.

If you look back, a major push for this came from Pro-Life websites. The idea essentially was that if you could extract and grow embryo or fetus from a woman and grow it in an artificial womb, that would push back Row V Wade to that point.

If they want to be that stupid, that is their problem. RvW covers a scope much larger in it's implications to medical privacy. At best, AW's when couples with procedures that are equal or less traumatic than surgical abortion, might change the status of what happens to the fetus, but not the woman's ability to terminate the pregnancy.

And as a replacement for abortion.....who is going to pay for the extraction? Currently the woman is on the hook for about 400 or so dollars. Clearly the extraction would be a much more expensive procedure. Then who is going to pay for the maintenance and care of the fetus ? Who is going to adopt the born child? We already have over 100,000 in foster care in the US awaiting adoption.

As with all things, it will be expensive in the beginning and will come down in cost. Price gouging issues like idiot boy and his insulin is a different matter, especially since the procedure itself can't be patented or copyrighted. As for the adoption issue, a newborn has an extremely higher chance of being adopted. In fact, there are more people who want to adopt than there are available children. The problem is not in the lack of people wanting to adopt. It's a two fold problem of not enough wanting to adopt older children (who usually enter the system already older), and stupid restrictions on the process. As I've noted before, my one wife was denied because she's diabetics.

But yes, I can see an artificial womb as a possibility for women who are having trouble maintaining their pregnancy.

As an abortion replacement, no way.

There are quite a number of woman out there who would prefer to end their pregnancy without terminating the child, or keeping it.

I am a pragmatist at heart. Wouldn't our time be better spent figuring out a way for women who are too rich for Medicaid and too poor for self pay to afford long term contraception - that has been shown to be more reliable and effective than other forms? Or improving contraceptive choices for men and women?

Why does it have to be either/or?

Now, if a woman was given the choice of artificial womb or abortion for ending an unwanted pregnancy.....that would be different.

I am never going to be one to say that the pregnant person doesn't have a choice between ending a pregnancy or not. Termination of the ZEF, on the assumptions I have noted several times before, is a different matter. I am a firm believer that the father has as much right to the ZEF as the mother does. It is only the lack of technology and knowledge that makes the only possible result of her right to end the pregnancy, the termination of the ZEF as well, thus this rendering any right of his moot. But the right still exists.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Only certain types of abortions at certain stages of pregnancy. Many abortions can be done chemically, taking a drug of some sort. Not invasive at all.



I would assume that would be part of her decision making process. However, if you are trying to be realistic with in your premises, you cannot deny that pro-life people are going to demand that the ZEF be put into the artificial womb even if there is no one willing to take responsibility for it.

But preventing children from coming into existence is. Your use of emotional falsehood does not change the fact that the vast majority of abortions occur before any body systems that would allow thought or feeling form and develop.

It would only do that IF the medical science and technology got to a point where the termination and the transfer of the ZEF were one in the same with the only difference being if the ZEF is terminated or not. Which means it would only apply to later stage pregnancies, since it is unlikely that the chemical/drug methods would go away for the earlier stages when surgical means are not needed.

Excellent points. Esp the bold. And existing kids really would be harmed...in losing out on homes. That part is just basic math.

That point right there demonstrates the difference between valuing quantity over quality of life.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[maquiscat]

Excellent points. Esp the bold. And existing kids really would be harmed...in losing out on homes. That part is just basic math.

That point right there demonstrates the difference between valuing quantity over quality of life.

I'm not so sure about that math. That is where the demographics vs the overall statistics will be important. As I noted earlier, newborns are more likely to be wanted, and the ones who age out of the system are more likely to have entered as older children. I've seen multiple sources estimate the desiring parents as out numbering the available children, but between not willing to take an older child and desiring parents being unfairly rejected, we make no progress in lowering the adoptable children in the system.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

I'm not so sure about that math. That is where the demographics vs the overall statistics will be important. As I noted earlier, newborns are more likely to be wanted, and the ones who age out of the system are more likely to have entered as older children. I've seen multiple sources estimate the desiring parents as out numbering the available children, but between not willing to take an older child and desiring parents being unfairly rejected, we make no progress in lowering the adoptable children in the system.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

The math is indisputable. Whether or not those that want perfect newborns will adopt other kids if none are available is another point. However I'm sure that at least some people adopt older kids when newborns arent available.

 

[it's just me]

Hate to tell you but the last eight abortion threads are all authored by leftwingers.

What about this surprises you?

 

[maquiscat]

The math is indisputable. Whether or not those that want perfect newborns will adopt other kids if none are available is another point. However I'm sure that at least some people adopt older kids when newborns arent available.

Granted, but that makes the argument of abortion being preferable over adoption because of unlikelihood of adoption a questionable one, since an influx would likely result in an increase in desired newborn adoption with no true effect on older child adoption. Mind you, that argument has no impact on the bodily autonomy argument.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Granted, but that makes the argument of abortion being preferable over adoption because of unlikelihood of adoption a questionable one, since an influx would likely result in an increase in desired newborn adoption with no true effect on older child adoption. Mind you, that argument has no impact on the bodily autonomy argument.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

Again...there would be effect on older children. Just harder to quantify. But much easier to demonstrate actual harm.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[maquiscat]

Again...there would be effect on older children. Just harder to quantify. But much easier to demonstrate actual harm.

How so? If a given couple is only going to adopt a newborn and not an older child, how does an increase or decrease in newborns for adoption affect the older children?

The only factor that affects older children would be accessibility of potential parents willing to take older children, to those older children. If they are being denied like my wife was, that is a direct harm.

 

[Lursa]

How so? If a given couple is only going to adopt a newborn and not an older child, how does an increase or decrease in newborns for adoption affect the older children?

The only factor that affects older children would be accessibility of potential parents willing to take older children, to those older children. If they are being denied like my wife was, that is a direct harm.

Again...if there's no newborn or one of the proper 'color', then they may be persuaded to adopt an older child. Who says people wont change their mind?

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa