Is anybody interested in listening to points of view different from one's own?

[Yarglenurp]

I agree this is a good argument. The criminal law shouldn't go after phantom problems. On the one hand, I could reply that if late term elective abortions are rare, then what's wrong with banning them but leaving exceptions where the woman's life is in danger? On the other hand, that puts the burden of proof on the woman to prove her life is in danger, and it's easy to imagine that in a state where the law is strongly anti-choice and the infrastructure is set up to make things difficult for her the result could be that women whose lives are in danger face an unfair burden in proving the danger and are put at unnecessary risk. I would not support that.

I've been trying to dig up what the statistics are on late term abortions and have found it's difficult to find information that I regard as objective and reliable on both sides. If you have any cites I'll gladly look at them. I know late-term abortions are rare, but that's not the same thing as nonexistent.

Here’s one… what enormous sense of entitlement and ownership does a creature need such that they think they can proclaim they have a greater say than a woman in what is going on with her own body? Do you fight equally hard to force people to eat a specific breakfast or how they take a shit?

For too long, enslavers have been implicitly claiming the moral high ground. I say… no. Enslavers are evil, their hearts pure darkness. There is nothing human about an enslaver, only the simulation of actual humanity.

 

[SimonDoom]

Here’s one… what enormous sense of entitlement and ownership does a creature need such that they think they can proclaim they have a greater say than a woman in what is going on with her own body? Do you fight equally hard to force people to eat a specific breakfast or how they take a shit?

For too long, enslavers have been implicitly claiming the moral high ground. I say… no. Enslavers are evil, their hearts pure darkness. There is nothing human about an enslaver, only the simulation of actual humanity.

The problem with this point of view is that it discounts the importance of the fetus's interest in life. However you characterize that interest, the majority of people seem to believe that it is a legitimate interest, and that it's one the state has a legitimate interest in protecting. That creates a conflict between the right of the woman over her own body and the interest of the fetus. If you believe, as most people do, that there is such a conflict, then it makes no sense to give a woman absolute control over the resolution of the conflict, because she has a conflict of interest and cannot be expected to speak adequately for the fetus's interest. The Supreme Court in Roe, over 50 years ago, recognized that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting this life interest at some point in the pregnancy.

The other objection to your argument is that to my knowledge no society ever has believed that a human being has absolute dominion and control over his or her own body. There are countless ways over time in which societies have regulated, and continue to regulate, what we (including but not limited to women) do with our bodies:

We have laws against recreational drug use.

We have laws against nudity in public.

Until recently in the US we had laws against what kind of sex you could have, and with whom. Some of those laws are probably still on the books even if they've been invalidated by recent Supreme Court cases.

We have laws against prostitution--having sex with others for money.

We still have laws against certain forms of "obscenity"-- displaying or using one's body in media in ways that are deemed "obscene."

We have laws that regulate our ability to receive certain medical treatments or cosmetic procedures like breast implants.

So, as far as I know, there's never been a universally acknowledged absolute right to do whatever one wants with one's body, and to my knowledge neither the right nor the left has ever acknowledged such a right. The only people who assert such a right are strict libertarians, and they are a tiny minority who have never been in political power anytime, anywhere.

 

[AlexBailey]

https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-nature-of-government/

Oh yes. Ayn Rand, the opponent and self proclaimed victim of, but yet when she needed it, still the beneficiary of social security.

It’s almost tragic how she folded her philosophy when she found herself in need. There are lots of different sources of information on this fact, including several from some of her supporters who try to claim she somehow took the money while maintaining her previous convictions, yet I’ve never read one that explains away her “moral” capitulation for government assistance in her time of need


Feel free to find your own source:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/

McConnell (interviewer) : And did she agree with you about Medicare and Social Security?

Pryor (Ayn Rand’s attorney): “After several meetings and arguments, she (Rand) gave me her power of attorney to deal with all matters having to do with health and Social Security. Whether she agreed or not is not the issue, she saw the necessity for both her and Frank. She was never involved other than to sign the power of attorney; I did the rest.”

 

[Yarglenurp]

Oh yes. Ayn Rand, the opponent and self proclaimed victim of, but yet when she needed it, still the beneficiary of social security.

It’s almost tragic how she folded her philosophy when she found herself in need. There are lots of different sources of information on this fact, including several from some of her supporters who try to claim she somehow took the money while maintaining her previous convictions, yet I’ve never read one that explains away her “moral” capitulation for government assistance in her time of need


Feel free to find your own source:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/

McConnell (interviewer) : And did she agree with you about Medicare and Social Security?

Pryor (Ayn Rand’s attorney): “After several meetings and arguments, she (Rand) gave me her power of attorney to deal with all matters having to do with health and Social Security. Whether she agreed or not is not the issue, she saw the necessity for both her and Frank. She was never involved other than to sign the power of attorney; I did the rest.”

Ayn Rand was a grifter, pure and simple.

 

[AlexBailey]

Ayn Rand was a grifter, pure and simple.

Yep. She exploited the victim card and took advantage of her sycophants, then threw her own philosophy under the bus when it suited her.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I agree this is a good argument. The criminal law shouldn't go after phantom problems. On the one hand, I could reply that if late term elective abortions are rare, then what's wrong with banning them but leaving exceptions where the woman's life is in danger?

Because getting the state involved at all in late-term medical care leads to delays in treatment that can prove fatal.

It’s like requiring EMTs to get a signed affidavit from the car owner before they can start treating a car-crash victim.

 

[AlexBailey]

Because getting the state involved at all in late-term medical care leads to delays in treatment that can prove fatal.

It’s like requiring EMTs to get a signed affidavit from the car owner before they can start treating a car-crash victim.

Right.
And once you get politics involved you have doctors attending hearings and making arguments to justify their actions to people who have no medical background rather than doing their best to treat patients.

 

[Winter_Fare]

I will go as far as saying, even if this is true, I see no reason to pass legislation to make anything about abortion illegal.

Just because “some people” do things I wouldn’t do or find distasteful doesn’t mean that the rest should be punished

Yikes. Well, I only shared the truth as I experienced it, and that's why this thread exists. Personally I am happy that gestational limits exist, and I truly wish for a world where people all have access to good health care and social support.

What I took issue with was the incorrect assertion that third trimester elective abortions never happen.

 

[adrina]

If it were men that needed abortions, how much of a debate do you think this would be?

Not much of one. I have no doubt abortion would be legal everywhere.

The problem with this point of view is that it discounts the importance of the fetus's interest in life.

When taken in context of the accepted reality that abortion would be widely available if men were the ones who needed them, the argument about a fetus's interest in life seems irrelevant.

If the fetus's alleged interest in life (which there is an entire discussion to be had about putting a fetus's alleged interests over an existing person's actual interests) is not considered when it is men we are talking about, then it really isn't much of an issue when it is women. This demonstrates very clearly how much it is about control rather than "life".

The conflict you speak of is entirely absent in the idea and discussion if it were men.

 

[SimonDoom]

The conflict you speak of is entirely absent in the idea and discussion if it were men.

As a practical, political matter, I think you're right. But not as a philosophical/ethical matter.

I concede that if men were in any way significantly burdened or even inconvenienced by anti-abortion laws they wouldn't exist. But that doesn't settle the philosophical/ethical question of whether they SHOULD exist.

 

[adrina]

As a practical, political matter, I think you're right. But not as a philosophical/ethical matter.

I concede that if men were in any way significantly burdened or even inconvenienced by anti-abortion laws they wouldn't exist. But that doesn't settle the philosophical/ethical question of whether they SHOULD exist.

It does make the question rather insincere however.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Abortion should be legislated no differently than any other medical treatment. No medical treatment is legislated as a crime. Nor should they be.

That is not true. Providing gender affirming care is a felony in five states, for example.

 

[adrina]

That is not true. Providing gender affirming care is a felony in five states, for example.

True. Got me there.

Then it should be paired with abortion in that it should not be legislated beyond any other type of medical care.

 

[SimonDoom]

It does make the question rather insincere however.

No, not at all. We can question whether something is right or wrong while conceding that if a group that is materially affected by the question gets to answer the question is going to answer it in a self-serving way. None of that changes whether or not the state ethically has an interest in the life interest of the fetus. That's the question. You can't make the question go away just by focusing on power politics and emphasizing that one group, if affected, is going to selfishly answer the question in one way.

The other issue you raised is a far more compelling issue: as a practical matter, is it phantom problem, and if the burden is placed upon the woman to prove she faces harm from a continued pregnancy will it cause more harm than good? I agree that's a compelling question.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

No, not at all. We can question whether something is right or wrong while conceding that if a group that is materially affected by the question gets to answer the question is going to answer it in a self-serving way. None of that changes whether or not the state ethically has an interest in the life interest of the fetus. That's the question. You can't make the question go away just by focusing on power politics and emphasizing that one group, if affected, is going to selfishly answer the question in one way.

The other issue you raised is a far more compelling issue: as a practical matter, is it phantom problem, and if the burden is placed upon the woman to prove she faces harm from a continued pregnancy will it cause more harm than good? I agree that's a compelling question.

The rights of real living people supersede the rights of hypothetical future people.

 

[adrina]

No, not at all. We can question whether something is right or wrong while conceding that if a group that is materially affected by the question gets to answer the question is going to answer it in a self-serving way. None of that changes whether or not the state ethically has an interest in the life interest of the fetus. That's the question. You can't make the question go away just by focusing on power politics and emphasizing that one group, if affected, is going to selfishly answer the question in one way.

The other issue you raised is a far more compelling issue: as a practical matter, is it phantom problem, and if the burden is placed upon the woman to prove she faces harm from a continued pregnancy will it cause more harm than good? I agree that's a compelling question.

It invalidates the question if it is only considered in one scenario and not the other.

It also makes one question the motivation for the question. Why is the issue of "life" important only when we are talking about women? Again, if it is not in the equation for men then the entire basis of the question is not about life. It is about control.

Which is the source of the problem in your second paragraph. The men who make policy are more interested in legislating abortion from a control perspective. They use the guise of "life" but it isn't about that as they would never consider those questions if it were men. Instead because they have, we now have women who have suffered grave harm. Forced to carry rape babies, becoming fatally or near fatally ill and even losing the ability to have children altogether.

We have 50 state governments in between women and the care they need. Essentially because men felt they needed to exert control. They have no problems when the woman they fucked needs an abortion. But a woman on her own deciding that... whoa, hold on there little lady we need to consider the fetus.

 

[SimonDoom]

It invalidates the question if it is only considered in one scenario and not the other.

It also makes one question the motivation for the question. Why is the issue of "life" important only when we are talking about women? Again, if it is not in the equation for men then the entire basis of the question is not about life. It is about control.

Which is the source of the problem in your second paragraph. The men who make policy are more interested in legislating abortion from a control perspective. They use the guise of "life" but it isn't about that as they would never consider those questions if it were men. Instead because they have, we now have women who have suffered grave harm. Forced to carry rape babies, becoming fatally or near fatally ill and even losing the ability to have children altogether.

We have 50 state governments in between women and the care they need. Essentially because men felt they needed to exert control. They have no problems when the woman they fucked needs an abortion. But a woman on her own deciding that... whoa, hold on there little lady we need to consider the fetus.

I don't think we really disagree about this. If I were a legislator in any one of those 50 states I would vote to give women the right to terminate a pregnancy up to the point of viability and that would, according to the statistics you and others have asserted here, resolve 99+% of the cases. As for the remaining fraction, I'd want to know more. This isn't a great forum for reaching the level of knowledge needed to make a decision. I concede I'd want to know a lot more than I know now.

 

[SimonDoom]

The rights of real living people supersede the rights of hypothetical future people.

Says who? This is not a universally accepted principle. If we accepted this, then we shouldn't worry about climate change and environmental despoliation, because the consequences will be felt not by those who live today, primarily, but by those who will live (hypothetically) in the future.

The US Supreme Court in Roe v Wade felt otherwise. It believed states have a legitimate interest in protecting the life interests of fetuses after a certain point, and I think the majority of the US population agrees with that and disagrees with you. That doesn't make you wrong, but your statement is a conclusion and not an argument. You can't just make a statement like this; you have to support it with arguments.

 

[adrina]

I don't think we really disagree about this. If I were a legislator in any one of those 50 states I would vote to give women the right to terminate a pregnancy up to the point of viability and that would, according to the statistics you and others have asserted here, resolve 99+% of the cases. As for the remaining fraction, I'd want to know more. This isn't a great forum for reaching the level of knowledge needed to make a decision. I concede I'd want to know a lot more than I know now.

I appreciate that.

I actually support "on demand" abortion. I'll give you a few statistics as to why.

Literally over 90% of abortions happen in the first 12 weeks. For the 10% that remain, about 9%+ fall in the second trimester. Many of those are because of delays to care. That is the most common reason to have an abortion in the 4th, 5th and 6th month - because of barriers to care placed by male legislative bodies. Everything from waiting periods, ultrasounds, banning insurance coverage of the procedure, mandated anti-abortion counseling, getting the time off work etc. The final less than 1% are the third trimester. Which happens when something goes seriously wrong - usually with the fetus. There are many women who try to continue with their pregnancies even when it risks their life - I've even known a couple of them.

When there are barriers to abortion care is delayed and often becomes unavailable. Which risks women's lives and causes irreparable damage to the women as well as their families.

Abortion is only a moral issue to each individual dealing with it. The society it is a medical procedure and needs to be treated a such.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Says who? This is not a universally accepted principle. If we accepted this, then we shouldn't worry about climate change and environmental despoliation, because the consequences will be felt not by those who live today, primarily, but by those who will live (hypothetically) in the future.

The US Supreme Court in Roe v Wade felt otherwise. It believed states have a legitimate interest in protecting the life interests of fetuses after a certain point, and I think the majority of the US population agrees with that and disagrees with you. That doesn't make you wrong, but your statement is a conclusion and not an argument. You can't just make a statement like this; you have to support it with arguments.

We worry about climate change because real living people want a livable world for their descendants, not because hypothetical future people have rights.

The majority of Americans want abortion to be legal.

 

[adrina]

We worry about climate change because real living people want a livable world for their descendants, not because hypothetical future people have rights.

The majority of Americans want abortion to be legal.

I can say with complete conviction that I would never want my existence to come from someone's lack of choice of control over their own body. I would never want my mother to be forced to carry a pregnancy. I would never want my existence to come at the cost of someone else's freedom.

 

[SimonDoom]

I appreciate that.

You may be asking yourself, Why in the world is he debating this point if he admits he doesn't know all the facts? You may be skeptical of my motives about debating the issue when I admit I don't know all the facts. That's not unreasonable of you. I'll explain.

I think there's value in debating important political and philosophical questions even though we don't know what all the facts are AND assuming we probably know less than we think we know. I admit I don't know much about late term abortion, but I'll bet most of the people who take different positions aren't trained experts either. I think the reality is that almost all of us are much less informed about these issues than we think we are. We dig in with our moral views, and then we cherry pick the facts that we think we will support them. I'm not saying you're doing this, but I think this is what usually happens. I think you'll admit that the standard of "factual expertise" exhibited in this forum is relatively low.

We learn more about our most deeply held values when we let go of the facts and engage in hypotheticals. What if everything we thought about the evidence of climate change/gun control/late term abortion/minimum wages, etc. was wrong? Would we change our values?

I believe in reality and science, but I believe that knowing reality is more elusive and less obvious than most of us think it is.

That's why I think discussions like this can be quite useful. What if in fact the facts are quite different from what you think they are? Do you have to rethink what you believe? Most people don't want to go there. I think it's very interesting and useful to go there.

In the course of this conversation you said something about late term abortions and the consequences of regulating them that gives me pause and that I'm going to think about, and I'm going to do some research. So in my view something useful came out of this thread, after over 300 posts, despite all the utter nonsense and rancor that's been spewed forth.

 

[SimonDoom]

We worry about climate change because real living people want a livable world for their descendants, not because hypothetical future people have rights.

The majority of Americans want abortion to be legal.

It's not a perfect analogy, but most people don't see an 8 month old fetus as a hypothetical. They see it as more or less a person that just hasn't been born yet.

If we're talking about fetuses pre-viability, then you and I don't really disagree at all. To the extent there's disagreement, it's over a tiny, tiny fraction of pregnancies, and as I've said in my responses to Adrina I'd want to know a lot more before I reached a final conclusion about what to do.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

You may be asking yourself, Why in the world is he debating this point if he admits he doesn't know all the facts? You may be skeptical of my motives about debating the issue when I admit I don't know all the facts. That's not unreasonable of you. I'll explain.

I think there's value in debating important political and philosophical questions even though we don't know what all the facts are AND assuming we probably know less than we think we know. I admit I don't know much about late term abortion, but I'll bet most of the people who take different positions aren't trained experts either. I think the reality is that almost all of us are much less informed about these issues than we think we are. We dig in with our moral views, and then we cherry pick the facts that we think we will support them. I'm not saying you're doing this, but I think this is what usually happens. I think you'll admit that the standard of "factual expertise" exhibited in this forum is relatively low.

We learn more about our most deeply held values when we let go of the facts and engage in hypotheticals. What if everything we thought about the evidence of climate change/gun control/late term abortion/minimum wages, etc. was wrong? Would we change our values?

I believe in reality and science, but I believe that knowing reality is more elusive and less obvious than most of us think it is.

That's why I think discussions like this can be quite useful. What if in fact the facts are quite different from what you think they are? Do you have to rethink what you believe? Most people don't want to go there. I think it's very interesting and useful to go there.

In the course of this conversation you said something about late term abortions and the consequences of regulating them that gives me pause and that I'm going to think about, and I'm going to do some research. So in my view something useful came out of this thread, after over 300 posts, despite all the utter nonsense and rancor that's been spewed forth.

You feel free to treat this as a fun hypothetical because you’re a man. For women, access to abortion is a matter of life and death. Choose a different philosophical playground.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

It's not a perfect analogy, but most people don't see an 8 month old fetus as a hypothetical. They see it as more or less a person that just hasn't been born yet.

If we're talking about fetuses pre-viability, then you and I don't really disagree at all. To the extent there's disagreement, it's over a tiny, tiny fraction of pregnancies, and as I've said in my responses to Adrina I'd want to know a lot more before I reached a final conclusion about what to do.

People who feel that way shouldn’t get abortions. Let individual women choose.