4 ms·

I’ve always thought it was odd that people feel like it’s a binary condition. It’s fine if the fetus is undelivered, or if it can’t live outside the womb, or __

I’ve always thought it was odd that people feel like it’s a binary condition. It’s fine if the fetus is undelivered, or if it can’t live outside the womb, or ___. I’m pro-choice, but my opinion is that “choice” is always at least a little evil (barring medical or other specific reasons). The longer it goes on, the more evil it gets. To that end I think it’s insane that some states are pushing to have abortion be legal up until delivery. That’s 99.99% straight up killing a baby.

autoexec 5y ago
I think the core of the issue comes down to viability. If a living thing needs to feed directly off of another living thing to survive, consuming their oxygen, nutrients, blood, etc. then it must be with the consent of the person being fed upon. Anything else is morally wrong. It's forcing someone to be host to another life against their will. To me that sets a pretty clear delineation that avoids the questions of whether or not that life has a heartbeat or a soul or its own thoughts. Until it can live without compromising its host those things don't matter. I've always been very skeptical of the moral arguments from the pro-life crowd in general though, since I can't fathom a morality that says that every child conceived must be born, but after that event it's better for that child to die in the streets of exposure or sickness or hunger than for any tax money to be spent to help it grow up healthy housed and fed.
- Auracle 5y ago
  Even that line is ambiguous. Some babies born at 22 weeks may survive, and many may not. With additional medical advances that timetable might move back to essentially 0 weeks. Without formula, babies would still absolutely need someone's nutrients to survive until 6 months. The point is, while the law needs it to be binary, I don't think it's the same on moral grounds. And I've heard your last point repeated plenty, but one should keep in mind while there's a significant overlap between the religious and the ultra fiscally conservative the Venn diagram isn't just one big circle. Plenty of studies have found that religious people donate more to charities including nonreligious causes. There's also this: "A recent Barna Group survey found that 5 percent of practicing U.S. Christians – compared to 2 percent of all U.S. adults – have adopted children" In my experience, if I found myself without a proverbial shirt on my back, I'd either go to a very religious person's house or someone that's quite (but not ultra) wealthy. I'm a pro-choice atheist, for what it's worth.
  - autoexec 5y ago
    > Even that line is ambiguous. Some babies born at 22 weeks may survive, and many may not. No need to try and force a binary where it can/should be avoided. The idea would be that if you seek an abortion the doctor will determine if the fetus can be removed alive instead. If it can, you can sign it over to the state, have it removed, and be on your way. The doctors will do their best to keep it alive, but certainly some of them wont make it. That happens all the time to babies who were wanted and who had a natural birth. If the doctor determines that survival of the fetus isn't likely they can remove it without attempting to keep it alive. Like all medical decisions it would need to be at the discretion of the medical professional taking into account the unique conditions of those under his care. Needing formula isn't an issue since we have formula. Just like we have life support machines, incubators, medications, etc. As for donating to charity, that's firstly a hugely inefficient way to get help to people, but more importantly it does not provide equal access to help either. It allows people to give primarily to their in-group, or provide aid only to people they want to support, regardless of how many others are in much greater need. Even if the giver isn't deliberately prioritizing anything over the level of need, aid is certain to end up inequality distributed with the charities that can advertise better or that are easier to access getting more funds. Charitable giving is nice, but it's clearly no substitute for a national system that protects and provides for everyone, everywhere.
    - Auracle 5y ago
      Even being born a few weeks early leads to significantly worse outcomes - the birthing ward at the hospital where my daughter was born had posters up warning of it. I thought that was weird because...you know, you're already there, but apparently it used to be fairly common for doctors to schedule induced labor earlier than they should have and for people to try to deliver earlier as it'd be easier on them. When you get down to 26 weeks things get dire: >In one study of 241 children born before 26 weeks' gestation the following was found: 22% severe disability (eg cerebral palsy + not walking, low cognitive scores, blindness, profound deafness) 24% moderate disability (eg cerebral palsy + walking, IQ/cognitive scores in the special needs range, lesser degree of visual or hearing impairment) 34% mild disability (defined as low IQ/cognitive score, squint, requiring glasses) 20% no problems. https://www.tommys.org/pregnancy-information/premature-birth/premature-birth-statistics https://www.tommys.org/pregnancy-information/premature-birth... We already have a solution for people that don't want to keep their babies past pregnancy. Let's not ruin the baby's lives on top of it.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>To that end I think it’s insane that some states are pushing to have abortion be legal up until delivery. That’s 99.99% straight up killing a baby. which states are those and you have links to discussion of bills or laws?
- Auracle 5y ago
  Some states already have it - according to https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-... the following states have it in their constitutions that abortion is protected throughout pregnancy: Colorado DC New Jersey Oregon Vermont California recently had a bill put forward that potentially may have legalized killing babies even shortly after birth. Whether that was by accident or design is anyone's guess, and it was changed after there was an uproar. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-california-law/fact-check-california-reproductive-health-bill-leads-to-misinterpretation-online-idUSL2N2W30U8 https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-california-law/fac... Virginia also had some stuff come under scrutiny: >Gilbert, posing a hypothetical and rare scenario, asked whether a woman that “is about to give birth” and “dilating” could request an abortion and be certified by a physician “if he indicated it would impair the mental health of a woman.” After hesitation, Tran responded her bill “would allow that.” https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-virginia-gov-abortion/fact-check-virginia-governors-2019-comments-about-abortion-bill-are-missing-context-idUSKBN27D2HL https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-virginia-gov-ab...
klyrs 5y ago
I like Canada's approach: it's not under the purview of law, it's a matter between patient and doctor. Which is, ironically enough, what 75% of Americans agree with. But politicians want wedge issues, so here we are, at eachother's throats again.

autoexec 5y ago

I think the core of the issue comes down to viability. If a living thing needs to feed directly off of another living thing to survive, consuming their oxygen, nutrients, blood, etc. then it must be with the consent of the person being fed upon. Anything else is morally wrong. It's forcing someone to be host to another life against their will. To me that sets a pretty clear delineation that avoids the questions of whether or not that life has a heartbeat or a soul or its own thoughts. Until it can live without compromising its host those things don't matter. I've always been very skeptical of the moral arguments from the pro-life crowd in general though, since I can't fathom a morality that says that every child conceived must be born, but after that event it's better for that child to die in the streets of exposure or sickness or hunger than for any tax money to be spent to help it grow up healthy housed and fed.

Auracle 5y ago
Even that line is ambiguous. Some babies born at 22 weeks may survive, and many may not. With additional medical advances that timetable might move back to essentially 0 weeks. Without formula, babies would still absolutely need someone's nutrients to survive until 6 months. The point is, while the law needs it to be binary, I don't think it's the same on moral grounds. And I've heard your last point repeated plenty, but one should keep in mind while there's a significant overlap between the religious and the ultra fiscally conservative the Venn diagram isn't just one big circle. Plenty of studies have found that religious people donate more to charities including nonreligious causes. There's also this: "A recent Barna Group survey found that 5 percent of practicing U.S. Christians – compared to 2 percent of all U.S. adults – have adopted children" In my experience, if I found myself without a proverbial shirt on my back, I'd either go to a very religious person's house or someone that's quite (but not ultra) wealthy. I'm a pro-choice atheist, for what it's worth.
- autoexec 5y ago
  > Even that line is ambiguous. Some babies born at 22 weeks may survive, and many may not. No need to try and force a binary where it can/should be avoided. The idea would be that if you seek an abortion the doctor will determine if the fetus can be removed alive instead. If it can, you can sign it over to the state, have it removed, and be on your way. The doctors will do their best to keep it alive, but certainly some of them wont make it. That happens all the time to babies who were wanted and who had a natural birth. If the doctor determines that survival of the fetus isn't likely they can remove it without attempting to keep it alive. Like all medical decisions it would need to be at the discretion of the medical professional taking into account the unique conditions of those under his care. Needing formula isn't an issue since we have formula. Just like we have life support machines, incubators, medications, etc. As for donating to charity, that's firstly a hugely inefficient way to get help to people, but more importantly it does not provide equal access to help either. It allows people to give primarily to their in-group, or provide aid only to people they want to support, regardless of how many others are in much greater need. Even if the giver isn't deliberately prioritizing anything over the level of need, aid is certain to end up inequality distributed with the charities that can advertise better or that are easier to access getting more funds. Charitable giving is nice, but it's clearly no substitute for a national system that protects and provides for everyone, everywhere.
  - Auracle 5y ago
    Even being born a few weeks early leads to significantly worse outcomes - the birthing ward at the hospital where my daughter was born had posters up warning of it. I thought that was weird because...you know, you're already there, but apparently it used to be fairly common for doctors to schedule induced labor earlier than they should have and for people to try to deliver earlier as it'd be easier on them. When you get down to 26 weeks things get dire: >In one study of 241 children born before 26 weeks' gestation the following was found: 22% severe disability (eg cerebral palsy + not walking, low cognitive scores, blindness, profound deafness) 24% moderate disability (eg cerebral palsy + walking, IQ/cognitive scores in the special needs range, lesser degree of visual or hearing impairment) 34% mild disability (defined as low IQ/cognitive score, squint, requiring glasses) 20% no problems. https://www.tommys.org/pregnancy-information/premature-birth/premature-birth-statistics https://www.tommys.org/pregnancy-information/premature-birth... We already have a solution for people that don't want to keep their babies past pregnancy. Let's not ruin the baby's lives on top of it.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

>To that end I think it’s insane that some states are pushing to have abortion be legal up until delivery. That’s 99.99% straight up killing a baby. which states are those and you have links to discussion of bills or laws?

Auracle 5y ago
Some states already have it - according to https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-... the following states have it in their constitutions that abortion is protected throughout pregnancy: Colorado DC New Jersey Oregon Vermont California recently had a bill put forward that potentially may have legalized killing babies even shortly after birth. Whether that was by accident or design is anyone's guess, and it was changed after there was an uproar. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-california-law/fact-check-california-reproductive-health-bill-leads-to-misinterpretation-online-idUSL2N2W30U8 https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-california-law/fac... Virginia also had some stuff come under scrutiny: >Gilbert, posing a hypothetical and rare scenario, asked whether a woman that “is about to give birth” and “dilating” could request an abortion and be certified by a physician “if he indicated it would impair the mental health of a woman.” After hesitation, Tran responded her bill “would allow that.” https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-virginia-gov-abortion/fact-check-virginia-governors-2019-comments-about-abortion-bill-are-missing-context-idUSKBN27D2HL https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-virginia-gov-ab...

klyrs 5y ago

I like Canada's approach: it's not under the purview of law, it's a matter between patient and doctor. Which is, ironically enough, what 75% of Americans agree with. But politicians want wedge issues, so here we are, at eachother's throats again.