Viability point

[calamity]

On what basis does the fetus get rights, and how does it override the woman's bodily autonomy?

If it's viable and able to live outside the woman's body, the state may have a right to go get it.

 

[maquiscat]

If it's viable and able to live outside the woman's body, the state may have a right to go get it.

Would you expand and/or reword "...the state may have a right to go get it."? I'm not sure I understand what you meant by that.

 

[HangLow]

​

 

[calamity]

Would you expand and/or reword "...the state may have a right to go get it."? I'm not sure I understand what you meant by that.

Go get, dig out, extract...how can you not know what I meant?

 

[calamity]

The argument for bodily autonomy is that the fetus needs the body of the female host to feed, access oxygen and discard waste material. No breathing human should be obligated to be that host against their will. However...

Once the fetus reaches viability, it itself becomes an autonomous being trapped inside the womb of the person wishing to murder it. At that point the state has a right to "save" the child. The only ethical way to do that is to extract it, by court order if necessary.

 

[Blue Dog]

The phrase "bodily autonomy until viability" implies such. What else did you mean by that?

It meant that abortion should be discouraged not necessarily prohibited (thus use of the word “should”) based on fetal viability. Basically I espoused a simplified version of Roe. Instead of discussing it in terms of trimesters I just used bodily autonomy and fetal viability.

Do you think abortion is an absolute right throughout an entire pregnancy?

 

[maquiscat]

Go get, dig out, extract...how can you not know what I meant?

IOW, the state would get to override the woman's bodily autonomy rights and take the fetus from her?

 

[maquiscat]

The argument for bodily autonomy is that the fetus needs the body of the female host to feed, access oxygen and discard waste material. No breathing human should be obligated to be that host against their will. However...

Once the fetus reaches viability, it itself becomes an autonomous being trapped inside the womb of the person wishing to murder it. At that point the state has a right to "save" the child. The only ethical way to do that is to extract it, by court order if necessary.

So, expanding on the last response, you are saying that the state should impose a procedure that is more stressful and harmful to the woman's body, thus increasing the risk of harm and even death to her, in order to save the fetus.

 

[maquiscat]

It meant that abortion should be discouraged not necessarily prohibited (thus use of the word “should”) based on fetal viability. Basically I espoused a simplified version of Roe. Instead of discussing it in terms of trimesters I just used bodily autonomy and fetal viability.

Do you think abortion is an absolute right throughout an entire pregnancy?

I stated it earlier. Yes. I also stated that a woman's right to such a procedure does not force another into providing that procedure.

 

[Blue Dog]

I stated it earlier. Yes. I also stated that a woman's right to such a procedure does not force another into providing that procedure.

That’s fine, but not everyone will support such a position.

 

[calamity]

So, expanding on the last response, you are saying that the state should impose a procedure that is more stressful and harmful to the woman's body, thus increasing the risk of harm and even death to her, in order to save the fetus.

If the fetus is viable, it should have autonomy. However, we cannot force the woman to carry it one second longer than she want to. Ergo, the only ethical choice is to extract the child and stick it in a hot box.

 

[calamity]

I guess the point is. Viability is a game-changer. It really does cross the line into murder when we extinguish the life of something that is viable.

I'm good with vacuuming out a six-week old ZEF. But, I'm not at all keen with slaughtering something that can breathe on its own, even if it is temporarily renting space in someone's womb.

 

[maquiscat]

That’s fine, but not everyone will support such a position.

Which is all well and good, since I'm not asking anyone to support any particular position. I'm only asking them to state their own.

 

[Atreus21]

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

Right. So viability makes no difference to your position on abortion. You'd support legal abortion even after viability. It's a red herring.

 

[soylentgreen]

IS viability just breathing, or should the ability to suckle also be a criteria for viability? And again, while we can say that these points happen around such and such week, that is still based upon a bell curve average, and some will be viable before that point and some after. Hence if a point is encoded into law, it is arbitrarily chooses. Same with age of majority. That is why there is such a high range around the world.

How ridiculous to create a law on something with no real definition. Viability should be defined as being alive, period.

Because medical practices are improving along with the machinery at the moment the youngest surviving preemie stands at 21 weeks. Lawyers did not achieve that, nor did politicians. The ones who did are the doctors and nurses. So therefor the only ones who have any real say in this matter are the doctors and the pregnant woman.

 

[Atreus21]

How about a link to the Guttmacher study that says women "aren't getting later abortions for reasons of fetal anomalies or life endangerment." Post the and the quote that says women "simply didn't know they were pregnant until late and go an abortion for the same reasons cited for early abortions.

Clever how you imply that early abortions are done for whimsical , irrelevant and selfish reasons....... clever by really nasty.

Read what I linked to.

"But data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment."

"The most salient findings are that women seeking second-trimester abortions did not realize they were pregnant until much later than women seeking first-trimester abortions, and that myriad logistical barriers slow down access to abortion once a woman is beyond 13 weeks."

 

[calamity]

How ridiculous to create a law on something with no real definition. Viability should be defined as being alive, period.

Because medical practices are improving along with the machinery at the moment the youngest surviving preemie stands at 21 weeks. Lawyers did not achieve that, nor did politicians. The ones who did are the doctors and nurses. So therefor the only ones who have any real say in this matter are the doctors and the pregnant woman.

I'm not sure I would define something that needs a ventilator and feeding tube as "viable." Hell, we can keep a brain dead stiff going with that shit.

Viable, to me, is breathing on its own.

 

[Atreus21]

That is not relevant. What matters is that the woman has control of her own body. There are many non-human examples of animals/insects doing shit that compromises another animal/insect's body and nobody is upset at the host defending itself. Everybody deserves the right to bodily autonomy.

Okay, but you'd oppose legal restrictions on abortion after viability, correct?

 

[soylentgreen]

What, no concern if it's the woman at stake?

My statement was about a women with no complications that would endanger her. But there are times when a woman starts contractions many weeks to early and the doctors if possible will try to save the child unless two or more doctors agree the child is dead already.

 

[Atreus21]

Pretty much everybody, and most importantly mothers, are opposed to abortion after viability.

The stats back this up but that does not stop stupid ****ing arguments being used again and again like yours... to create drama.

Stop trying to control other people. That is a 1400's way of viewing the world. People need to evolve.

So far no one on this thread, when pressed, has professed opposition to abortion after viability. Except of course pro-lifers. If you were to say you favor restrictions on post-viability abortion you'd be the first here.

 

[choiceone]

If the fetus is viable, it should have autonomy. However, we cannot force the woman to carry it one second longer than she want to. Ergo, the only ethical choice is to extract the child and stick it in a hot box.

Actually, viability is not that viable. Fetal brains see most of their development in the last trimester. It is really bad for the fetus to be removed at viability. Just because you can't force the woman to carry the fetus is not a good reason for your ethical choice. The ethical choice is to tell women something like this:

Look, you have the right to abortion for the first, say, 22-24 weeks without anybody getting
involved but the doctor you select. But abortion is many times safer than childbirth in the first
12 weeks, and not as many times safer as the weeks increase. So you should see viability as a
kind of limit on why you want an abortion.

The future child would not get good brain development outside the womb, so you waited way
too long to have an abortion for any reason except a life or death or major health crisis.

If you were prevented from getting an abortion by a rapist who held you captive or are carrying
a fetal anomaly just discovered or something, you may want an exception and some doctors would
probably agree, and the state should really not have a say.

But if you wait too long, no doctor wants to perform an abortion except in case of a real disaster,
so don't wait that long, or if you do, continue the pregnancy to let the fetal brain develop adequately.

 

[soylentgreen]

Right. So viability makes no difference to your position on abortion. You'd support legal abortion even after viability. It's a red herring.

Of course because the only reason abortion would happen after a point of viability is because the child is no longer viable, ie,. dead .

 

[soylentgreen]

I'm not sure I would define something that needs a ventilator and feeding tube as "viable." Hell, we can keep a brain dead stiff going with that shit.

Viable, to me, is breathing on its own.

Yes you can but no one is trying to keep a brain dead preemie going. the point of all that machinery is to continue viability until the child can cope on there own. Unlike the brain dead patient doctors and nurses are working with the hope of a happier outcome.

There really is no evidence of women seeking abortions in the third trimester for no more reason than a whim. If they are in the problem of an early delivery then women at that stage want a child. So doctors and nurses will do their best to give the child a chance.

 

[weaver2]

I guess the point is. Viability is a game-changer. It really does cross the line into murder when we extinguish the life of something that is viable. I'm good with vacuuming out a six-week old ZEF. But, I'm not at all keen with slaughtering something that can breathe on its own, even if it is temporarily renting space in someone's womb.

I'm guessing that by the time a fetus is really viable, this is a child that a woman and her family want and are looking forward to its birth, meaning "slaughter" is not something most women are contemplating after about 26-28 weeks. I'm guessing again that the reason the pro-life movement is so focused on abortion after viability is their raging lack of respect for women and their deep distrust and antagonism toward abortion professionals.

Could there be occasions when some woman asks for an abortion at 24 weeks giving some excuse about mentally upset at being pregnant? Sure there are always the extremes. And they are a problem but to create laws that punish the extremes also punishes those that are not extreme. That is the problem with pro-life. They are out to punish the very few irresponsible women and they don't care if everybody else (women, children, families and even the potential child) gets hurt in the process.

 

[Atreus21]

Of course because the only reason abortion would happen after a point of viability is because the child is no longer viable, ie,. dead .

That is simply not true. I already cited a source for that. Abortions happen later than 20 weeks for reasons unrelated to fetal abnormalities. The study even cited some anecdotes:

Raising children alone

Angel, a 24-year-old white woman from Maryland, represents the profile that describes the largest proportion of our sample (47%). At the time of her abortion, she had a 10-month-old daughter, whom she cared for full-time while she looked for paid employment. Her husband had recently been incarcerated, leaving her with no household income. As Angel explained, her daughter was her top priority. When she realized she was pregnant, at 22 weeks, her principal concern was for her daughter. Angel's experience of being a new mother interfered with her ability to detect her pregnancy and, moreover, convinced her that having another child was a bad idea. She believed that having another child would compromise the care she could give her infant daughter: “I knew I couldn't continue with [the pregnancy]. My daughter isn't even a year.” Deciding to have the abortion was very easy for Angel.

Angel had difficulty finding a clinic where she could obtain an abortion. After visiting one facility that could not help her, she found another, three hours away. As late as she was in her pregnancy, the cost of the procedure was daunting: $2,700. But as Angel said, “I was determined.” She paid $300 herself, borrowed $400 from her mother and received aid from three funds that help low-income women pay for their abortions. She had her abortion at 24 weeks.

Young and nulliparous

Twelve percent of the women were young and nulliparous. Like many women seeking later abortion, Lana, a Hispanic woman from California, did not learn she was pregnant until 21 weeks into her pregnancy. Just 15 years old, Lana was a full-time high school student. She lived with her aunt and brother in a household that received food stamps. Lana became pregnant with her boyfriend, despite their condom use. Although her boyfriend wanted her to continue the pregnancy, Lana decided on abortion immediately. Her age and inability to support a baby financially were key factors in her decision. She explained, “I was too young, and I barely started going back to school and getting my life back on track. I wouldn't have enough things to support a baby.” Nonetheless, she described the decision as “somewhat difficult.”

Lana had her abortion at 23 weeks’ gestation. She had to travel four hours to reach a facility that could perform the procedure, the cost of which was covered by public insurance. After the abortion, Lana said she felt relief.

In contemporary discussions of later abortion, few empirical data exist about the women who seek these procedures, but speculation abounds, including the presumption that these women are intrinsically different from those seeking early abortions. Despite this common narrative, women in our study who obtained first-trimester abortions and women who obtained abortions at or after 20 weeks’ gestation were remarkably similar.

The interpretation that women only get late term abortions for reasons of fetal abnormality is unsupported.