Viability point

[maquiscat]

Character limits are gods way of telling you, you talk to much.

Or those with limited ability saying that can't handle all the necessary information. But it's all a matter of opinion. But in that case it was a matter of I had to put in the other part to ensure I had proper context for my response and that took up the bulk, not my own writing

Yes, that supposedly is what ethics is all about. But no, ethics has no power to stop anyone from ignoring them. A bit like a law has no power to stop anyone from doing an illegal act. That is why I said there should be the opinion of at least two or more doctors. If a 9 month pregnant women arrives at emergency after being in a car crash. Which is more important, what your local politician thinks about abortion or the opinion of a few doctors and nurses.

Which runs outside my hypothetical question, which is looking at a situation where it is not an emergency.

No, that is not honest of you. I gave you a set of reasons in that link and stated as far as america goes they are a set of good reasons. That answers all three why's.

No that does not answer why she needs any reason other than she decides to, nor who gets to determine whether the reason is good or not. And again, we are talking about her right to the abortion, not the forcing of anyone to perform it. Keep the two separate.

No, that comparison does not work. Conversion therapy has no validity in science. It is superstitious nonsense. Where as abortion can be proven to work.

It's a decision between the person and their doctor. How is it any different? And please don't go into people being forced into it, because then the comparison is people being forced into abortion. We are not discussing being forced into a procedure, but the right of a person to choose the procedure at any point it can be done.

 

[maquiscat]

So if the mods, who are probably 1% decide that character limits will be the right of 99% of the users, then that's ok.

The question is not the viability limit. It is who gets to decide when that limit is reached. My supporting a woman's right to choose does not mean I have any influence in that choice.

True so why have one? By the time parliament passed a law we would only end up with them passing a law that is already out of step with technology.

And again my answer is the same, which is. Must suck to be poor, pregnant, and alone in a god fearing capitalist country. Despite the fact that america can boast the best medical technology your health care system is so miserable that any excuse to get an abortion should be acceptable.

Somehow I think that we have been coming towards the same point from two different angles.

I did not bring it up, you assumed it. But if in any way I implied it then my apology, that was not the intention.

Kudos to you. You are a rare one. We both can acknowledge that we may have implied something without intending to. I wish more people here could do that.

 

[maquiscat]

Prior to current attempts to make the variable a constant, the point was the moment of birth. That's a point that cannot be mistaken or misread. It held legal standing because it was clear and difficult to deny. Your example of 18 years old is not a variable or arbitrary. It's a fixed point in time that the courts can see and support.

You might have missed my intended point on that. 18 is not a concrete point at which maturity of adulthood suddenly happens. That point is indeed variable. So we arbitrarily select a concrete point by which to say, "this should work for most cases." Looking the world over, that point ranges from 15 to 21, with some calling for it to be as high as 25. The same can be said for viability. Yes we use birth as the concrete point at which individual rights and personhood begins, but given that we have laws that are intending to prevent abortion based on viability, since viability itself is variable, like maturity of adulthood, we must set a concrete arbitrary point in order to encode it into law.

Personally I have some difficulty with abortion being used as a normal birth control method. I do not have a problem however with abortions due to rape, incest, valid medical problems for the mother. Again, not a one size fits all.

I agree with you, and more so when it is casually done with no other precautions prior. In addition to that you listed above, I throw in that if the woman made the actual effort to prevent her pregnancy, then having an abortion when those method fails, to me, is a valid use of the procedure.

 

[soylentgreen]

So then the right exists, even if hardly anyone exercises it, correct?

As a right is nothing more than an agreement between two or more people then that becomes nothing more than an esoterical point.

 

[soylentgreen]

Somehow I think that we have been coming towards the same point from two different angles.




Kudos to you. You are a rare one. We both can acknowledge that we may have implied something without intending to. I wish more people here could do that.

If that point is that those who call themselves the right to life are actually people who have no interest at all in life then yes. If they did then they would be arguing for a socialist universal health care system where women did not have to beg, borrow or steal money just to get an abortion or a give birth.

 

[weaver2]

Personally I have some difficulty with abortion being used as a normal birth control method. I do not have a problem however with abortions due to rape, incest, valid medical problems for the mother. Again, not a one size fits all.

Alas, it appears that there is no ground on which all can stand and agree from unlimited abortion to never never never.

90% of Americans use birth control. Only 10% of all couples that do not want to become pregnant do not use birth control. Abortion is almost never used in place of birth control devices or medications in the US. (Yes, there are some women who have had 4 and 5 abortions. Those are the very rare exception) Abortion has been used in Russia and Eastern Europe in place of contraception because abortion in most countries was free under medical services and good contraceptives were not readily available and not subsidized by the state. Unfortunately it set a pattern and the abortion rate is still very high still in most of those countries.

There is ground for agreement but it is not going to come from the extremes of either side.

 

[soylentgreen]

Which runs outside my hypothetical question, which is looking at a situation where it is not an emergency.



No that does not answer why she needs any reason other than she decides to, nor who gets to determine whether the reason is good or not. And again, we are talking about her right to the abortion, not the forcing of anyone to perform it. Keep the two separate.



It's a decision between the person and their doctor. How is it any different? And please don't go into people being forced into it, because then the comparison is people being forced into abortion. We are not discussing being forced into a procedure, but the right of a person to choose the procedure at any point it can be done.

The scenario is still the same , emergency or not. Who is better qualified to make decisions of if a late term pregnancy can be saved or needs to be aborted, doctors or politicians? Nor is there any evidence that women get late term abortions on a whim. Late term abortions nearly always are an emergency.

Rights are things every person has. In the case of abortions, doctors also have rights. the right to not cause harm where possible This is an ethical standard that they must adhere to or could face penalties by their own ethics committee. . If doctors are considering a late term abortion then that means something has gone wrong. So it really would not likely be the case that it is anyones decision but instead all parties reacting to a situation.

And again your asking a question that implies that either women are lazy and evil and need to be controlled by good god fearing men. Or there is good reason why a woman is seeking a late term abortion such as the doctors have told her the fetus has ceased functioning and is dead. In which case rights have little to do with this.

 

[choiceone]

Argue against abortion long enough and you eventually realize you're debating very hardened and very selective libertarians.

Trust them? Not in this sense. Schooling, vaccinations, religion, dress codes, medications, and medical treatments aren't abortion. Abortion deliberately kills an innocent human being. If doctors and women consider dealing death to innocents "ethical" and "intelligent" then no, I don't trust them.

When the chips are down and the compulsion is there every last one of us can do unspeakable evil. Laws exist in part to dissuade such things.

I actually think that carrying a pregnancy to term is evil if it comes from rape or incest or the fetus is a fetal anomaly (e.g., anencephalic), but I still support a woman's right to choose giving birth. . .

 

[choiceone]

Prior to current attempts to make the variable a constant, the point was the moment of birth. That's a point that cannot be mistaken or misread.

. . . . What fixed point in time represents a non variable point that all can agree on. Certainly the heartbeat law just passed in Texas . . . . is simply an attempt to push the limits of the defining point to a place where the concept of abortion is impossible. It is not a one size fits all solution.

Personally I have some difficulty with abortion being used as a normal birth control method. I do not have a problem however with abortions due to rape, incest, valid medical problems for the mother. Again, not a one size fits all.

Alas, it appears that there is no ground on which all can stand and agree from unlimited abortion to never never never.

This is more than correct. The point of viability is being challenged by the Mississippi law on the grounds that it is vague and thus unsatisfactory to the state. However, no one can be sure that the duration of a pregnancy or development of an embryo/fetus has been calculated accurately: it is always an approximation.

Viability was supposed to be when the fetus had a 50% chance of surviving outside the woman. The only reasons the point changed was that it became a little easier for them to survive with new technology about a week earlier.

However, a few fetuses - very few - survived when they were determined to have a less than 50% chance. It is likely, though, that some cases just involved imprecise calculation of the duration of pregnancy/ fetal development.

One of the anti-choicers' problems with viability is the same as their problem with pregnancy and fetal development. They can't stand not having a precisely defined world and demand that precise definitions be imposed, if possible by themselves even though they are unqualified. It's like 19th century science. . . .

 

[choiceone]

As a right is nothing more than an agreement between two or more people then that becomes nothing more than an esoterical point.

That agreement is not a right: it is the recognition of a right that already exists. People in the US who were slaves had a right in truth not to be slaves, but not enough people or powerful enough people recognized the right. When that changed, they could make the law recognize it.

 

[soylentgreen]

That agreement is not a right: it is the recognition of a right that already exists. People in the US who were slaves had a right in truth not to be slaves, but not enough people or powerful enough people recognized the right. When that changed, they could make the law recognize it.

An agreement is a right. That is all a right is. As you point out, if enough people do not agree then it is not a right. If enough people do agree then it is a right. I think americans pay to much attention to a right being a law/constitution than to what a right is.

 

[maquiscat]

As a right is nothing more than an agreement between two or more people then that becomes nothing more than an esoterical point.

So my right to bear arms is between me and who else? Who is capable of taking this right from me sans my committing a crime?

 

[maquiscat]

The scenario is still the same , emergency or not. Who is better qualified to make decisions of if a late term pregnancy can be saved or needs to be aborted, doctors or politicians?

The woman is the best qualified to determine if she wants an abortion or not. Not even the doctor gets to tell her that. At most the doctor only gets to determine whether or not they will perform the procedure, not whether or not she is allowed it.

Nor is there any evidence that women get late term abortions on a whim. Late term abortions nearly always are an emergency.

Goal post shifting. We are not talking about whether women do or do not get abortions late term. We are talking about their right to get one late term or not. Most women do not get an abortion late term, sans medical complications, because they knew way before that and had already decided to keep the offspring. But what of the woman who doesn't learn of her pregnancy until say the 8th month, 32 weeks? Are you saying that she has no right to determine that she should no longer be pregnant and seek an abortion, assuming that there is a doctor willing to perform the proceedure?

Rights are things every person has. In the case of abortions, doctors also have rights. the right to not cause harm where possible

I have already noted that a doctor has the right to refuse, even though some pro-life's don't think so or like the idea.

This is an ethical standard that they must adhere to or could face penalties by their own ethics committee. . If doctors are considering a late term abortion then that means something has gone wrong. So it really would not likely be the case that it is anyones decision but instead all parties reacting to a situation.

Ethics are not the law, nor the ethics committees government agencies giving the license to practice. And is completely irrelevant to whether or not the woman has the right to seek an abortion late term, no matter how rare that occasion might be.

And again your asking a question that implies that either women are lazy and evil and need to be controlled by good god fearing men. Or there is good reason why a woman is seeking a late term abortion such as the doctors have told her the fetus has ceased functioning and is dead. In which case rights have little to do with this.

If you have a right, whether your reason for exercising it is good or bad, subjectiveness aside, you still get to exercise it. What I say to someone might be based upon a bad reason (assuming no threat or other harm such as libel/slander), but that right still remains. If a woman has a right to an abortion then that right remains whether she exercises because of health issues, or financial issues, or just because she just doesn't feel like children right now. The odds of her making any given choice for any given reason is irrelevant to whether that right exists or not.

 

[soylentgreen]

So my right to bear arms is between me and who else? Who is capable of taking this right from me sans my committing a crime?

In your country, no one. But that is your own fault for building an indestructible constitution. The way your two political factions behave there is no chance they will get the numbers to agree to any change in the constitution. Your stuck with outdated scrap of paper.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

SO this will be mostly for the pro-choice side, although I am putting some choices for the pro-life because you know that they will chime in regardless.

If you are prochoice, do you feel that abortion should be available on demand at any point, or only before the viability point of development? Why or why not?

Premises:
Viability point is obviously variable, so yes an arbitrary point would have to be decided, much like we use 18 as the arbitrary point of adulthood. That exact point is not important for the question.

The question is assuming that the mother's life is not in imminent danger nor is the fetus in danger of dying in womb or shortly after birth nor is deformed in any manner.

The mother has been aware of the pregnancy since at least 12 weeks (3 months), if not sooner.

These are always such silly thought exercises. Women who want to keep their babies keep them, those that don’t abort early.

This is just men pretending there’s some science to when they get to control our bodies.

 

[maquiscat]

An agreement is a right. That is all a right is. As you point out, if enough people do not agree then it is not a right. If enough people do agree then it is a right. I think americans pay to much attention to a right being a law/constitution than to what a right is.

Ultimately a right is what the law says it is. In the US, that starts at the Constitution. Rights, per that law, can be violated, even by other laws, but the right still exists. It may not exist under a different set of laws in another place. However, as long as that law is in place, the right exists regardless of whether or not the people agree that it is a right.

And yes, rights can be limited by the rights of others. My right to free speech does not get to override your right against harm, i.e. slander/libel. Your private property right does not mean that you can do something to your property that will cause damage to my property. In the case of abortion, on an assumption of any fetal rights, the ZEF is the one taking from the woman, and thus if it is against the woman's will, the ZEF is in violation, whether it did so of it's own violation or not. The woman's right to bodily autonomy supersedes. Now if we ever get to a level of medical technology and knowledge where the ZEF can be removed live with no additional physical trauma to the woman, then the woman's right to end the use of her body by the ZEF can be fulfilled without termination of the ZEF. But until then....

 

[soylentgreen]

The woman is the best qualified to determine if she wants an abortion or not. Not even the doctor gets to tell her that. At most the doctor only gets to determine whether or not they will perform the procedure, not whether or not she is allowed it.



Goal post shifting. We are not talking about whether women do or do not get abortions late term. We are talking about their right to get one late term or not. Most women do not get an abortion late term, sans medical complications, because they knew way before that and had already decided to keep the offspring. But what of the woman who doesn't learn of her pregnancy until say the 8th month, 32 weeks? Are you saying that she has no right to determine that she should no longer be pregnant and seek an abortion, assuming that there is a doctor willing to perform the proceedure?



I have already noted that a doctor has the right to refuse, even though some pro-life's don't think so or like the idea.



Ethics are not the law, nor the ethics committees government agencies giving the license to practice. And is completely irrelevant to whether or not the woman has the right to seek an abortion late term, no matter how rare that occasion might be.



If you have a right, whether your reason for exercising it is good or bad, subjectiveness aside, you still get to exercise it. What I say to someone might be based upon a bad reason (assuming no threat or other harm such as libel/slander), but that right still remains. If a woman has a right to an abortion then that right remains whether she exercises because of health issues, or financial issues, or just because she just doesn't feel like children right now. The odds of her making any given choice for any given reason is irrelevant to whether that right exists or not.

One would hope that again doctors would practice their medical ethics and discuss fully with the woman what her best medical options are. I am not sure about america but in nz that is also a legal requirement.

No goal post shift. I was not saying whether they get an abortion or not but whether they do get an abortion on a whim. She has every right to ask. And again the doctors will explain all the alternatives. Because at 32 weeks it would be unethical to euthanize a potential preemie.

They do not have a right to just refuse. Ethically their job demands they help others .

Ethics are law when doctors have set up their own ethical committee to judge and have the power to remove a doctors legal ability to practice or put them under supervision of another doctor.

Yes, she has a right to seek. But that does not then evolve into she has a right to demand. We are not talking about men with guns here.

When you state that a right must exist regardless of reason then you are talking about how rights work in a legal sense. But that is not what a right is. A right is an agreement between two or more people. In the case of abortion the latter understanding of a right is more useful than the former. Because one is the agreement between the only people qualified to make an agreement, ie. the pregnant woman and the doctors. and the other is what politicians agree to.

 

[soylentgreen]

Ultimately a right is what the law says it is. In the US, that starts at the Constitution. Rights, per that law, can be violated, even by other laws, but the right still exists. It may not exist under a different set of laws in another place. However, as long as that law is in place, the right exists regardless of whether or not the people agree that it is a right.

And yes, rights can be limited by the rights of others. My right to free speech does not get to override your right against harm, i.e. slander/libel. Your private property right does not mean that you can do something to your property that will cause damage to my property. In the case of abortion, on an assumption of any fetal rights, the ZEF is the one taking from the woman, and thus if it is against the woman's will, the ZEF is in violation, whether it did so of it's own violation or not. The woman's right to bodily autonomy supersedes. Now if we ever get to a level of medical technology and knowledge where the ZEF can be removed live with no additional physical trauma to the woman, then the woman's right to end the use of her body by the ZEF can be fulfilled without termination of the ZEF. But until then....

Even your own constitution recognises the fact that not all rights are written within it.

 

[minnie616]

SO this will be mostly for the pro-choice side, although I am putting some choices for the pro-life because you know that they will chime in regardless.

If you are prochoice, do you feel that abortion should be available on demand at any point, or only before the viability point of development? Why or why not?

Premises:
Viability point is obviously variable, so yes an arbitrary point would have to be decided, much like we use 18 as the arbitrary point of adulthood. That exact point is not important for the question.

The question is assuming that the mother's life is not in imminent danger nor is the fetus in danger of dying in womb or shortly after birth nor is deformed in any manner.

The mother has been aware of the pregnancy since at least 12 weeks (3 months), if not sooner.

If you re talking about viability, viability has already been defined as when a premie can survive outside the woman’s uterus.

When Roe was decided the court said viability was usually about 26 weeks but could be as early as 24 weeks.

The infant CPAP had just been invented and was helping 24 weeks gestation infants to survive. By the year 2000 the limit of viability ( when 50 percent of those born at 24 weeks gestation) were surviving even though disabilities remained high. The limit of viability has remained the same the last 20 years.

The youngest ever to survive was 21 weeks and 5 days.

Experts agree that about 21 weeks would be youngest ever to survive even with improved medial technology.

A 20 week gestation premie hs no air sacs in its lungs. The lungs are the consistency of gelatin.[/B]

 

[choiceone]

Even your own constitution recognises the fact that not all rights are written within it.

Yes, but the idea is that rights can be implied by a constitution, and that, when an issue of having or not having a certain right comes up, i.e., people do not agree, careful consideration of the logical implications of a constitution's already stated principles is ideally supposed to reveal whether or not someone has the right.

When the USSC decided Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, the justices each had to do this, but they didn't do it the way the legal laity does it. Each applies his/her particular judicial philosophy and draws conclusions from the stated principles in interaction with the specifics of a case.

Certainly, the decisions can be unanimous, 8 to 1, 7 to 2, 6 to 3, or 5 to 4, and these are all agreements. However, they are not just agreements between people. They are agreements of the varied judicial philosophies professionally applied in a particular case - at any rate, they are supposed to be.

 

[Peter King]

IMO elective abortion until week 16 in normal cases, week 18/19 in case or rape or incest.

Medically necessary abortions only to the save the life of the mother or if the fetus is so deformed that it is incompatible with life/horrible medical issues that give a child no quality of life for the very few weeks/months they are expected to live.

In a perfect world these severely deformed/medical issues that will end up with the death of the child within a very short time, it should be able to allow them to be euthanized in accordance with the wishes of the parents and with agreement of their own doctor and 1 independent doctor. That would stop the practice of late abortions in many cases and still have the same result.

 

[soylentgreen]

Yes, but the idea is that rights can be implied by a constitution, and that, when an issue of having or not having a certain right comes up, i.e., people do not agree, careful consideration of the logical implications of a constitution's already stated principles is ideally supposed to reveal whether or not someone has the right.

When the USSC decided Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, the justices each had to do this, but they didn't do it the way the legal laity does it. Each applies his/her particular judicial philosophy and draws conclusions from the stated principles in interaction with the specifics of a case.

Certainly, the decisions can be unanimous, 8 to 1, 7 to 2, 6 to 3, or 5 to 4, and these are all agreements. However, they are not just agreements between people. They are agreements of the varied judicial philosophies professionally applied in a particular case - at any rate, they are supposed to be.

What an amusing theory. Did the person who thought it up ever choose to consider how people behave rather than how an ideology works.

People have legal rights which may be taken from them. ie. a right to drive or a right to walk the streets. However the constitution of america only deals in constitutional rights which only effect how a government can operate. ie. It is not that a person has a right to own a gun. It is that the government does not have the right to interfere with ownership of a gun.

All you have done here is give another good argument as to why america should put that old useless document of a constitution in a museum where it belongs and do what what some other countries have done. Which is have a unwritten constitution.

 

[soylentgreen]

IMO elective abortion until week 16 in normal cases, week 18/19 in case or rape or incest.

Medically necessary abortions only to the save the life of the mother or if the fetus is so deformed that it is incompatible with life/horrible medical issues that give a child no quality of life for the very few weeks/months they are expected to live.

In a perfect world these severely deformed/medical issues that will end up with the death of the child within a very short time, it should be able to allow them to be euthanized in accordance with the wishes of the parents and with agreement of their own doctor and 1 independent doctor. That would stop the practice of late abortions in many cases and still have the same result.

What practice of late abortion?

 

[minnie616]

Are you opposed to abortion after viability?

What I'm for or against is irrelevant. The question is at what point does the state have an interest in the fetus compelling enough to interject the itself into the decision of whether to abort or not.

I agree.

The Supreme Court decided in Roe vs Wade that medically abortion before viabilly is now safer than childbirth.

From Roe vs Wade edited:

States can create laws to protect citizens from harmful practices, and it can ban medical procedures that are harmful. When abortion was initially banned by most states, it was a dangerous procedure. Medically, ( before viability) it is now safer than childbirth. Therefore there is no longer a good reason for states to ban it ( before viability) as a medical practice.

Roe v Wade - edited text

 

[Peter King]

What practice of late abortion?

Late abortion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy