Viability point

[ecofarm]

You people talking about the age of adulthood seem to be on the wrong forum. This forum is about the point of viability in the abortion debate.

I can and have addressed a claim in the original post of this thread. Therefore, your gripe is full of shit. Try reading.

But we do have new questions. Why are you so intent on protecting the disgusting, wrong and apologetic claim that the age of adulthood is "arbitrary and 11 or 12 would do".

What's your investment there? Why are you protecting that claim? How does it serve you? Please, do tell us about how 11 year olds should be considered adults and why.

 

[Felis Leo]

It's because women were property and the younger, thus less experienced, the more valuable. It wasn't because kids were so grown up.

I am also going to presume it had a great deal to do with the shockingly high level of infant mortality and how common death from disease was at every rung of the socioeconomic ladder during the times when adulthood was between 11 and 13. The moment human beings could begin reproducing, they had to do so if they intended to pass down their biological legacy, because sheer volume was the only way to guarantee it. Indoor plumbing and public sanitation seemed to cure a lot of those problems. That is why civilizations that discovered and developed things such as sewers, aqueducts and public baths had longer lifespans and ages of adulthood we consider more reasonable (Rome, China, Persia, etc.), but things quickly went to pot after the knowledge about how to maintain these structures left or died.

 

[ecofarm]

I am also going to presume it had a great deal to do with the shockingly high level of infant mortality and how common death from disease was at every rung of the socioeconomic ladder during the times when adulthood was between 11 and 13. The moment human beings could begin reproducing, they had to do so if they intended to pass down their biological legacy, because sheer volume was the only way to guarantee it. Indoor plumbing and public sanitation seemed to cure a lot of those problems.

Birthing years were few but it was about the value of property. You're looking for the exception of young people in love or a man desperate to have a child. That was and remains the very rare exception. People popped out plenty of kids. The birth rate was staggering. Women were property and the younger the more valuable. That's really all there was to it. Market value.

Several factors determined that market value, but the value of property set the age.

 

[Felis Leo]

Birthing years were few but it was about the value of property. You're looking for the exception of people in love or the man desperate to have a child. That was and remains the very rare exception. Women were property and the younger the more valuable. That's really all there was to it. Market value.

Oh, I am not even looking at the aspect of romantic love. In spite of their many advancements in science, engineering, law and philosophy, the average Roman or Persian patriarch was just as uncaring about his son's (and certainly not his daughter's) personal feelings as any Medieval European's. And their daughter's fertility and expected ability to bear children was just as much a topic of importance in deal-making and alliance building as those in less-advanced times and places.

 

[ecofarm]

Oh, I am not even looking at the aspect of romantic love. In spite of their many advancements in science, engineering, law and philosophy, the average Roman or Persian patriarch was just as uncaring about his daughter's personal feelings as any Medieval European's. And their daughter's fertility and expected ability to bear children was just as much a topic of importance in deal-making and alliance building as those in less-advanced times and places.

I edited to clarify. Several factors determined the market value but that value, of property, set the age. If a 13 year old female was as valuable as 11, 13 would be the age.

Women were property and not people. No rights observed. The market made the rules. That is not a time to harken back to as the glory days of child treatment (as the OP did, not you).

 

[Atreus21]

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 don't think it's irrelevant. I'd like to know if viability makes a difference to your position on abortion.

 

[Atreus21]

Actually doctors are opposed to abortion when there is viability. There own medical ethics standard does not allow abortion after viability unless more than one doctor agrees the child will not survive.

Would you be in favor of an abortion ban after viability then? Say 24 weeks?

 

[maquiscat]

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.

Actually that is not the question. @Atreus21 was closer. I was asking for individual opinions. So what is yours?

 

[maquiscat]

Actually doctors are opposed to abortion when there is viability. There own medical ethics standard does not allow abortion after viability unless more than one doctor agrees the child will not survive.

I'm not interested in the doctors' opinions either. I want the ones for the people on this forum. Also, I accounted for the doctors' opinions in the wording of the 3rd choice.

 

[maquiscat]

I can and have addressed a claim in the original post of this thread. Therefore, your gripe is full of shit. Try reading.

But we do have new questions. Why are you so intent on protecting the disgusting, wrong and apologetic claim that the age of adulthood is "arbitrary and 11 or 12 would do".

What's your investment there? Why are you protecting that claim? How does it serve you? Please, do tell us about how 11 year olds should be considered adults and why.

It's an arbitrary line, because it does not take into account any actual criteria of maturity. The current age is notably, more researched than it was before, but the point of becoming an adult still varies from person to person. We also have to choose criteria for what we consider adulthood. The best that such will get us is a bell curve, with probably 3 or 4 ages being the most likely point for reaching adulthood per the current criteria (which has changed in the past and can change in the future). So we have to pick one for the tipping point in law. We could have as easily chosen 17 or 19, or even 20 for a nice round number. We actually had 21 as the age for a while, but then pulled it back down to 18.

The same principle applies to viability. A fetus doesn't magically turn viable at 22 weeks, at the moment that it moves from then end of week 21 to the beginning of week 22. When each fetus becomes viable will vary. And again while we can develop a bell curve, we will still have to arbitrarily pick a point to encode into law.

 

[maquiscat]

I edited to clarify. Several factors determined the market value but that value, of property, set the age. If a 13 year old female was as valuable as 11, 13 would be the age.

Women were property and not people. No rights observed. The market made the rules. That is not a time to harken back to as the glory days of child treatment (as the OP did, not you).

You are failing to look at history overall. In many cultures, being able to breed was being an adult. Among the historic Jewish communities, age 12 was adulthood for females, and 13 for males. While they are still celebrated at those ages, modern Jews recognize that adulthood now is much later in life. Even today adulthood ranges from 15 to 21, with Iran placing females at 9 lunar years. The 15 for males is also lunar in Iran. Age of adulthood is arbitrarily selected, as is point of viability. Now can we get back to the topic at hand?

 

[choiceone]

I can and have addressed a claim in the original post of this thread. Therefore, your gripe is full of shit. Try reading.

But we do have new questions. Why are you so intent on protecting the disgusting, wrong and apologetic claim that the age of adulthood is "arbitrary and 11 or 12 would do".

What's your investment there? Why are you protecting that claim? How does it serve you? Please, do tell us about how 11 year olds should be considered adults and why.

My apologies. I see your first point.

We do have to have an age of adulthood and I agree it really should not be 11 or 12.

 

[choiceone]

I'm not interested in the doctors' opinions either. I want the ones for the people on this forum. Also, I accounted for the doctors' opinions in the wording of the 3rd choice.

But some of us may consider the doctors' opinions relevant. If people are going to make someone else's private abortion their business at all, how is it realistic for them to do so before viability? Viability really is not arbitrary.

Even if artificial wombs were developed to the point that the fetus could be moved before adequate lung development, I would still think that, not just being outside the woman's body, but having the ability to live by breathing one's own oxygen was non-arbitrary in relation to being a person.

 

[soylentgreen]

Would you be in favor of an abortion ban after viability then? Say 24 weeks?

FFS. As I have already said. There is no need for such a conversation as there is no evidence that women get abortions in third trimester on a whim. This is an issue that is only of concern to a doctor and the women. If doctors think that a child can survive they will insist on doing everything they can to make it survive and will only abort when two or more doctors agree the child cannot be saved. And at that stage in a pregnancy the mother does want a child.

This is nothing more than a less than subtle attempt to demonise women by pretending they are shallow creatures who will abort after viability on a whim.

 

[soylentgreen]

I'm not interested in the doctors' opinions either. I want the ones for the people on this forum. Also, I accounted for the doctors' opinions in the wording of the 3rd choice.

I believe I have made my opinion very clear. There is no reason for abortion to be a decision made by lawyers or politicians. it is not their business what happens between a doctor and a woman. As I have said, the viability issue is just a less than subtle attempt to demonise women.

 

[maquiscat]

My apologies. I see your first point.

We do have to have an age of adulthood and I agree it really should not be 11 or 12.

I agree as well, but that wasn't my point with noting it. It was a reference to something that we set an arbitrary point on, to compare it to the arbitrary point we have to set for viability if we were to codify it as anything other than a set of physical criteria. In history the age of majority has been as low as preteens, and in one country today, it is still 9 for females. I am finding it amazing that ecofarm seems to have grasp on to a side point that isn't even related to the issue.

 

[maquiscat]

I believe I have made my opinion very clear. There is no reason for abortion to be a decision made by lawyers or politicians. it is not their business what happens between a doctor and a woman. As I have said, the viability issue is just a less than subtle attempt to demonise women.

You are still missing the point of the question. It is not to determine what the law should be. 99% of the people in the US could be against abortion and it would need to stall legal for the protection of the woman's rights. But that has nothing to do with what your opinion in. There are tons of people who feel that no one should ever have an abortion who are still pro-choice. Your personal position is not required to match your personal position. This is before we look at the fact that we are dealing with another life, and in the context of the question, one past viability but before birth.

 

[maquiscat]

FFS. As I have already said. There is no need for such a conversation as there is no evidence that women get abortions in third trimester on a whim. This is an issue that is only of concern to a doctor and the women. If doctors think that a child can survive they will insist on doing everything they can to make it survive and will only abort when two or more doctors agree the child cannot be saved. And at that stage in a pregnancy the mother does want a child.

This is nothing more than a less than subtle attempt to demonise women by pretending they are shallow creatures who will abort after viability on a whim.

Hardly, since, if you ever bother to look at my post on other threads, you'll find that I am heavily pro-choice. In fact, I am of the opinion that a woman should be able to get an abortion, even if her life is not in danger, as late as she may want it. That doesn't mean that I believe that a doctor should be forced to perform such. I have repeatedly stated that it is her right of bodily autonomy that provides this to her, and that said right makes whether or not the ZEF is a person and/or/has rights irrelevant. Since the ZEF is the one taking from her, not her from it, then her bodily autonomy trumps any rights that the ZEF may have. My goal in this poll and thread is to see which of the pro-choice would rather have a viability point prohibition and which would go the full 9 yards/months. Again, one's personal opinion, not whether they would prefer their position in actual law.

 

[choiceone]

I believe I have made my opinion very clear. There is no reason for abortion to be a decision made by lawyers or politicians. it is not their business what happens between a doctor and a woman. As I have said, the viability issue is just a less than subtle attempt to demonise women.

I basically agree now. At the time, Roe and Casey opinions were attempts to include anti-choice people by compromising with them, saying that the third trimester, and then viability, were the first point at which the state could, if it wished, claim a compelling interest in the potential, i.e., future, life of the fetus.

But if the anti-choice people won't accept either compromise, there is no reason to try to include them in our state. That is, after the last thirty years. we have warrant to get rid of the law altogether and be prepared for a second civil war.

 

[Atreus21]

FFS. As I have already said. There is no need for such a conversation as there is no evidence that women get abortions in third trimester on a whim. This is an issue that is only of concern to a doctor and the women. If doctors think that a child can survive they will insist on doing everything they can to make it survive and will only abort when two or more doctors agree the child cannot be saved. And at that stage in a pregnancy the mother does want a child.

This is nothing more than a less than subtle attempt to demonise women by pretending they are shallow creatures who will abort after viability on a whim.

It's always intriguing when people refuse to answer a hypothetical.

First, there definitely is evidence. Guttmacher's own staff determined that women aren't getting later abortions for reason of fetal anomalies or life endangerment. They simply didn't know they were pregnant until late, and got an abortion for the same reasons cited for early abortions.

If a law were passed banning abortions after viability (however it is defined) would you support it?

 

[choiceone]

I agree as well, but that wasn't my point with noting it. It was a reference to something that we set an arbitrary point on, to compare it to the arbitrary point we have to set for viability if we were to codify it as anything other than a set of physical criteria. In history the age of majority has been as low as preteens, and in one country today, it is still 9 for females. I am finding it amazing that ecofarm seems to have grasp on to a side point that isn't even related to the issue.

I'm not sure that this is completely the case for viability; because it is the point at which the fetus could take in oxygen outside the woman, by potentially voluntary breathing. As for the age of majority, though, it should have everything to do with what is voluntary and mental.

 

[AGENT J]

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.

Ive always been good with RvW allowing abortion for any reason up until 24 weeks which is deemed 50% viability and basically half way

That being said, Id be ok with RvW dropping to 20/21 weeks due to that being the earliest possible viability

BUT this would just be cosmetic because most abortions 98/99% happen before 20 weeks and those that happened afterward are not elective in nature

 

[soylentgreen]

You are still missing the point of the question. It is not to determine what the law should be. 99% of the people in the US could be against abortion and it would need to stall legal for the protection of the woman's rights. But that has nothing to do with what your opinion in. There are tons of people who feel that no one should ever have an abortion who are still pro-choice. Your personal position is not required to match your personal position. This is before we look at the fact that we are dealing with another life, and in the context of the question, one past viability but before birth.

No that makes no sense at all. If 99% of the people do want abortion and the government still insists on making it legal then those 99% are living under a tyranny not a democracy.

And if you have bothered to read any of my posts through many abortion threads you will find I am not among those who hold contradictory views in such a manner.

What I have said is my personal opinion and the reason why I have that opinion. Women do not get late term abortions on a whim, there is no evidence of that. Doctors are bound by their own ethics and must try and save the life of a preemie if possible. The argument of viability is nothing more than another foolish attempt by anti abortionists to demonise women. Abortion is a private medical issue not a legal one. And please do not bother to point out you are not an anti abortionist when you are catering to their propaganda of demonising women.

If you want a personal choice then make it on a subject that does not try and demonise women by pretending that they will get abortions for no good reason in late term and the rest of society (meaning men) should decide for women what they can or cannot do.

 

[soylentgreen]

I basically agree now. At the time, Roe and Casey opinions were attempts to include anti-choice people by compromising with them, saying that the third trimester, and then viability, were the first point at which the state could, if it wished, claim a compelling interest in the potential, i.e., future, life of the fetus.

But if the anti-choice people won't accept either compromise, there is no reason to try to include them in our state. That is, after the last thirty years. we have warrant to get rid of the law altogether and be prepared for a second civil war.

Yes, that is always a problem for government that they must seek compromise in order to pass laws. You only have such opposition to abortion because politicians in america live by the creed of divide and conquer. Create hate for each other among the people and politicians get free reign to do as they please.

 

[soylentgreen]

It's always intriguing when people refuse to answer a hypothetical.

First, there definitely is evidence. Guttmacher's own staff determined that women aren't getting later abortions for reason of fetal anomalies or life endangerment. They simply didn't know they were pregnant until late, and got an abortion for the same reasons cited for early abortions.

If a law were passed banning abortions after viability (however it is defined) would you support it?

I have made my point clear and answered. Which is no, I do not support an unnecessary law. Abortion is not a legal issue.