9 ms·

This is a complex topic that I really enjoy an analysis being done on. Effectively, the question is when does the state or society have the right to protect a

This is a complex topic that I really enjoy an analysis being done on. Effectively, the question is when does the state or society have the right to protect a human (whether that’s human fetus, embryo, baby, person). In addition what rights can be removed / protected from the mother. As the analysis points out it’s wildly different throughout the world and even in Europe and United States. The US Supreme Court ruled that prior US rulings overstepped and now it’s a 10th amendment and 4th amendment issue amongst the states - meaning it’ll become more diverse in the US. To frame the US arguments differently — most people are uniformed about when a heart beat is detectable; when a fetus responds to pain, etc As a general rule, when people are fully informed the consensus is “let’s avoid abortion, if we can”. The question is then, where is that line for “it’s too far”. Largely, and the article touches on this, that’s a hyper local issue. Which personally, I don’t see an issue with, we’re typically all for self-governance. That implies freedom of movement, association, and defense. If people of an area choose a certain law so-be-it, just don’t impose your will on others. As long as you can move, if the issue is that troubling to you, associate differently or convince others to change the laws. I view abortion much like the slavery issue historically in the US. The rights of the defenseless will ultimately be expanded. It used to be slaves had severely limited rights, but we saw the err in our ways. I believe we will do the same ultimately here, though it may take many years. The alternative is setting an arbitrary line in the sand “birth” or “20 weeks”, it doesn’t make much sense. Why not “1yr old” or “12 weeks” they have much of the same traits. Barring harm to the mother (which ultimately is dangerous to baby), I see little argument to allow abortion in a logical sense. Morally, I think limiting medical intervention is wrong. And that is ultimately what it boils down to — what morally is correct to limit; which boils down to locale.

shafoshaf 4y ago
>>>Barring harm to the mother (which ultimately is dangerous to baby), I see little argument to allow abortion in a logical sense. Does that harm extend to psychological harm, such as incest and/or rape?
- lettergram 4y ago
  Just because harm is done, doesn’t mean you should do more? Abortion poses risks to the mother psychological and physical. While there’s some mental risk to the mother related to carrying a baby. Ultimately, you can give it up for adoption. I haven’t seen studies on the exact damage carrying a baby to term is, but I expect it’s relatively low when compared to abortion. That said, I think we should follow the evidence. Luckily, those cases are extremely rare. Further, the question is still when do you take the life of the human the woman is carrying? I think that’s a complex issue, as even if someone was born of rape or incest, we don’t discuss killing them at 1yr old.
  - stefan_ 4y ago
    > I haven’t seen studies on the exact damage carrying a baby to term is, but I expect it’s relatively low when compared to abortion That's one way to write "I have no kids and barely paid attention in sex-ed".
  - space_fountain 4y ago
    You're expectation is wrong. The mortality rate alone is 23.8 per 100k for live births were it's only 0.7 per 100k for abortions and there many of the abortions that resulted in death were for complicated pregnancies that would have been at high or even certain risk. Have you ever talked to your mother about what pregnancy was like for her? Mine has never quite gotten the bladder control back they had before and that was for kids they choose to have and love. Physically a pregnancy is insanely tough even when it goes well. Emotionally, let me just say that the idea that giving a child up for adoption is pain free is crazy. Put yourself in their shoes. You've just gone through one of the most painful moments of your life. You have a crying baby in front of you, all of evolution, not to mention society, has conditioned you to at this moment rather than throwing away this little annoying being to sacrifice the next several decades of your life to the thankless job of caring for them and you think it's easy and uncomplicated to put them up for adoption? I'm not saying abortions are uncomplicated of course, but letting a mother make that choice for herself seems much less likely to get it wrong, and frankly from where I'm sitting taking a pill seems a lot less traumatizing, but it a decision I will never actually have to make and I'm fine letting the people who will make the decision
aisengard 4y ago
>>> “let’s avoid abortion, if we can” >>> I see little argument to allow abortion in a logical sense This is akin to saying "let's avoid major surgery, if we can", and then arguing that this leads to the logical conclusion that major surgery should be outlawed.
- lettergram 4y ago
  Not even close. Both an observations in slightly different contexts “Most people agree abortion / infanticide should be limited at some point” And “Logically, I don’t see how you can determine when abortion / infanticide is okay … < here are the logical steps I took there >”
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ilikehurdles 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pmulard 4y ago
In the United States, if I am about to die and need donated organs, blood, bone marrow, etc., you are not required to donate your body to me. This even extends to dead bodies, which is why organ donation after death is opt-in. Knowing this, why should a mother be forced to give up her body to another (the baby)?
- lettergram 4y ago
  Why do you think the other body deserves death because of a mothers whims? Do you see the point? The arguments aren’t framed properly. Have you done proofs in mathematical induction? You typically have n and then prove n+1. Do that with this argument. If you’re okay with 10 week abortion; why not 11 week. You can keep going. Infants at birth are really no different than 1 day old. They have the same fundamental requirements. I don’t care either way frankly, I just pointed out the logic lacking in the debate. The “line in the sand” approach is rather strange to me.
- happyopossum 4y ago
  Donating an organ generally has lasting, long term consequences for the donor. Childbirth, on the other hand, typically results in none of those.
  - etchalon 4y ago
    … are you under the impression child birth doesn't have long term consequences on a person's body and health?
    - happyopossum 4y ago
      Generally speaking, for the vast majority of mothers, childbirth does not have long term negative physical consequences. It can, and I have experienced one of those, however it is the exception, and not the rule.
      - etchalon 4y ago
        Your definition of "negative" must be fairly specific.
colinmhayes 4y ago
https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/roe-v-wade-reversal/ https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/roe-v-wade-reversal/ Is all you need to understand why the state should not only allow abortion, but actively encourage people to get them. Unwanted children unequivocally make society worse.
- klipt 4y ago
  If you're arguing from a purely utilitarian perspective, it seems you should argue to legalize not just abortion right up to birth, but also infanticide by parents. If either parent can kill an unwanted child, then by definition all surviving children will be wanted by both parents, which solves the problem of one parent potentially being a "deadbeat" and the state having to step in, etc.
- lettergram 4y ago
  You’re right, so do crippled and elderly… You do realize you’re arguing for eugenics?
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    The government playing ads that say “don’t have kids if you’re not ready” isn’t eugenics. I fully believe 95%+ of people are capable of being good parents at some point in their life. That point might not be when they have kids though. Now obviously we shouldn’t be killing people, because that’ll lead to everyone being scared of being killed. Since people aren’t fetus’s they won’t worry about society discarding them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
softcactus 4y ago
> If people of an area choose a certain law so-be-it, just don’t impose your will on others. This statement is in conflict with itself. If a red state bans abortions then they are imposing their will onto others in that state. Why is it only "imposing will" when the Federal Government decides to dictate to a state what to do? By this logic why not let a municipality decide to ban abortion? The state shouldn't impose its will onto the people in that city. Why not let people decide at the neighborhood level, or within their houses, or at the individual level. Why not let every individual decide what is morally acceptable and abide by their own set of laws? Trying to intellectualize the argument about who can and cant criminalize abortion ignores the hard scientific facts that we know: Criminalizing abortion does not decrease the number of abortions, only the mortality rate.
- lettergram 4y ago
  I don’t think you understand a libertarian view. I think the federal government does maximal harm anytime it passes any laws. You’re correct the federal government shouldn’t pass any law. The states probably shouldn’t either regarding this. Basically my view is that impositions of will is best served at the smallest possible unit. Hopefully, that’s at the individual level, ie I don’t want to hurt you so you don’t hurt me. But if a law must exist, do so locally. If it really must be broadened, then do so at a larger scale. If a town up the creek is poisoning a town down the creek, then at the very least you have to impose law between two said towns, else you risk violence. That would be the minimal range you could impose. The legal system is only there as an alternative to war. In this case, it seems rather obvious to me there should be no laws really. That said, If the majority of a region / town disagree who am I to impose my will from across the world? That vast majority is split on this issue globally, so I don’t think law is a good idea as it may lead to violence as it’s imposing will as opposed to resolving a conflict.
  - softcactus 4y ago
    I don't really care about ideologies or hypotheticals. I understand the libertarian worldview but I'm more concerned about the real-world effects of policy than their theoretical underpinnings. The outcome of criminalizing abortion is higher mortality rates in childbirth, higher mortality rates of abortion (back-alley abortions), and higher rates of infanticide. Not to mention the destabilizing social effects of millions of unwanted young men entering adulthood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#1966_decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#1966_de... > I think the federal government does maximal harm anytime it passes any laws. This is why I don't take libertarians seriously. Do you honestly think that the Civil Rights Act was maximal harm? Or the 1934 Firearms Act? Or the 14th Amendment? What a ridiculous hill to die on.
mellavora 4y ago
Somehow I don't think you've been in a position to emphasize with how uncomfortable a woman would have to be to consider aborting her unborn child. Slavery is not a good analogy. This is indeed as you say a hyper-local issue, often local to the individual person.
mellavora 4y ago
> The alternative is setting an arbitrary line in the sand “birth” or “20 weeks”, it doesn’t make much sense. Why not “1yr old” or “12 weeks” they have much of the same traits. Yes, because we need lines. Why 18 years or 21 years? Why 55mph instead of 57? Except "birth" is a pretty clear line. There is a big difference between "could survive outside the womb" and "is surviving outside the womb". Unlike the line between 17.5 and 18.5. And if you require that the unborn child is given the full rights of personhood in society, does "full rights" include full rights? Access to child support payments? Do they have a legal name? Can you register them with the Social Security? If you wish to be Christian about it, can you baptize an unborn child? Can you offer them communion? On what moral grounds do you deny them the basic sacraments of the religion?
- lettergram 4y ago
  > Except "birth" is a pretty clear line. There is a big difference between "could survive outside the womb" and "is surviving outside the womb". Okay, so a woman at 20 weeks wants an abortion. Do you wait 2 weeks so the baby can survive or is it prudent to abort right now? Is it worth a whole lifetime of experience to limit a woman’s bodily autonomy for 2 weeks? I think a lot of people feel emotion during these discussions. I dont, I seriously don’t understand the logic. My bodily autonomy is limited all the time. I have to get vaccines to go to school. I can’t drink and drive, etc. The same logic applies both ways.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > If you wish to be Christian about it, can you baptize an unborn child? No, because baptism requires pouring water directly on the child, which you can't do through the amniotic sac. > Can you offer them communion? No, because communion is received by eating and/or drinking it, which the unborn physically can't do. > On what moral grounds do you deny them the basic sacraments of the religion? The sacraments aren't being denied on moral grounds. It's physically impossible to administer them.

shafoshaf 4y ago

>>>Barring harm to the mother (which ultimately is dangerous to baby), I see little argument to allow abortion in a logical sense. Does that harm extend to psychological harm, such as incest and/or rape?

lettergram 4y ago
Just because harm is done, doesn’t mean you should do more? Abortion poses risks to the mother psychological and physical. While there’s some mental risk to the mother related to carrying a baby. Ultimately, you can give it up for adoption. I haven’t seen studies on the exact damage carrying a baby to term is, but I expect it’s relatively low when compared to abortion. That said, I think we should follow the evidence. Luckily, those cases are extremely rare. Further, the question is still when do you take the life of the human the woman is carrying? I think that’s a complex issue, as even if someone was born of rape or incest, we don’t discuss killing them at 1yr old.
- stefan_ 4y ago
  > I haven’t seen studies on the exact damage carrying a baby to term is, but I expect it’s relatively low when compared to abortion That's one way to write "I have no kids and barely paid attention in sex-ed".
- space_fountain 4y ago
  You're expectation is wrong. The mortality rate alone is 23.8 per 100k for live births were it's only 0.7 per 100k for abortions and there many of the abortions that resulted in death were for complicated pregnancies that would have been at high or even certain risk. Have you ever talked to your mother about what pregnancy was like for her? Mine has never quite gotten the bladder control back they had before and that was for kids they choose to have and love. Physically a pregnancy is insanely tough even when it goes well. Emotionally, let me just say that the idea that giving a child up for adoption is pain free is crazy. Put yourself in their shoes. You've just gone through one of the most painful moments of your life. You have a crying baby in front of you, all of evolution, not to mention society, has conditioned you to at this moment rather than throwing away this little annoying being to sacrifice the next several decades of your life to the thankless job of caring for them and you think it's easy and uncomplicated to put them up for adoption? I'm not saying abortions are uncomplicated of course, but letting a mother make that choice for herself seems much less likely to get it wrong, and frankly from where I'm sitting taking a pill seems a lot less traumatizing, but it a decision I will never actually have to make and I'm fine letting the people who will make the decision

aisengard 4y ago

>>> “let’s avoid abortion, if we can” >>> I see little argument to allow abortion in a logical sense This is akin to saying "let's avoid major surgery, if we can", and then arguing that this leads to the logical conclusion that major surgery should be outlawed.

lettergram 4y ago
Not even close. Both an observations in slightly different contexts “Most people agree abortion / infanticide should be limited at some point” And “Logically, I don’t see how you can determine when abortion / infanticide is okay … < here are the logical steps I took there >”
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ilikehurdles 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pmulard 4y ago

In the United States, if I am about to die and need donated organs, blood, bone marrow, etc., you are not required to donate your body to me. This even extends to dead bodies, which is why organ donation after death is opt-in. Knowing this, why should a mother be forced to give up her body to another (the baby)?

lettergram 4y ago
Why do you think the other body deserves death because of a mothers whims? Do you see the point? The arguments aren’t framed properly. Have you done proofs in mathematical induction? You typically have n and then prove n+1. Do that with this argument. If you’re okay with 10 week abortion; why not 11 week. You can keep going. Infants at birth are really no different than 1 day old. They have the same fundamental requirements. I don’t care either way frankly, I just pointed out the logic lacking in the debate. The “line in the sand” approach is rather strange to me.
happyopossum 4y ago
Donating an organ generally has lasting, long term consequences for the donor. Childbirth, on the other hand, typically results in none of those.
- etchalon 4y ago
  … are you under the impression child birth doesn't have long term consequences on a person's body and health?
  - happyopossum 4y ago
    Generally speaking, for the vast majority of mothers, childbirth does not have long term negative physical consequences. It can, and I have experienced one of those, however it is the exception, and not the rule.
    - etchalon 4y ago
      Your definition of "negative" must be fairly specific.

colinmhayes 4y ago

https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/roe-v-wade-reversal/ https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/roe-v-wade-reversal/ Is all you need to understand why the state should not only allow abortion, but actively encourage people to get them. Unwanted children unequivocally make society worse.

klipt 4y ago
If you're arguing from a purely utilitarian perspective, it seems you should argue to legalize not just abortion right up to birth, but also infanticide by parents. If either parent can kill an unwanted child, then by definition all surviving children will be wanted by both parents, which solves the problem of one parent potentially being a "deadbeat" and the state having to step in, etc.
lettergram 4y ago
You’re right, so do crippled and elderly… You do realize you’re arguing for eugenics?
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  The government playing ads that say “don’t have kids if you’re not ready” isn’t eugenics. I fully believe 95%+ of people are capable of being good parents at some point in their life. That point might not be when they have kids though. Now obviously we shouldn’t be killing people, because that’ll lead to everyone being scared of being killed. Since people aren’t fetus’s they won’t worry about society discarding them.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

softcactus 4y ago

> If people of an area choose a certain law so-be-it, just don’t impose your will on others. This statement is in conflict with itself. If a red state bans abortions then they are imposing their will onto others in that state. Why is it only "imposing will" when the Federal Government decides to dictate to a state what to do? By this logic why not let a municipality decide to ban abortion? The state shouldn't impose its will onto the people in that city. Why not let people decide at the neighborhood level, or within their houses, or at the individual level. Why not let every individual decide what is morally acceptable and abide by their own set of laws? Trying to intellectualize the argument about who can and cant criminalize abortion ignores the hard scientific facts that we know: Criminalizing abortion does not decrease the number of abortions, only the mortality rate.

lettergram 4y ago
I don’t think you understand a libertarian view. I think the federal government does maximal harm anytime it passes any laws. You’re correct the federal government shouldn’t pass any law. The states probably shouldn’t either regarding this. Basically my view is that impositions of will is best served at the smallest possible unit. Hopefully, that’s at the individual level, ie I don’t want to hurt you so you don’t hurt me. But if a law must exist, do so locally. If it really must be broadened, then do so at a larger scale. If a town up the creek is poisoning a town down the creek, then at the very least you have to impose law between two said towns, else you risk violence. That would be the minimal range you could impose. The legal system is only there as an alternative to war. In this case, it seems rather obvious to me there should be no laws really. That said, If the majority of a region / town disagree who am I to impose my will from across the world? That vast majority is split on this issue globally, so I don’t think law is a good idea as it may lead to violence as it’s imposing will as opposed to resolving a conflict.
- softcactus 4y ago
  I don't really care about ideologies or hypotheticals. I understand the libertarian worldview but I'm more concerned about the real-world effects of policy than their theoretical underpinnings. The outcome of criminalizing abortion is higher mortality rates in childbirth, higher mortality rates of abortion (back-alley abortions), and higher rates of infanticide. Not to mention the destabilizing social effects of millions of unwanted young men entering adulthood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#1966_decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#1966_de... > I think the federal government does maximal harm anytime it passes any laws. This is why I don't take libertarians seriously. Do you honestly think that the Civil Rights Act was maximal harm? Or the 1934 Firearms Act? Or the 14th Amendment? What a ridiculous hill to die on.

mellavora 4y ago

Somehow I don't think you've been in a position to emphasize with how uncomfortable a woman would have to be to consider aborting her unborn child. Slavery is not a good analogy. This is indeed as you say a hyper-local issue, often local to the individual person.

mellavora 4y ago

> The alternative is setting an arbitrary line in the sand “birth” or “20 weeks”, it doesn’t make much sense. Why not “1yr old” or “12 weeks” they have much of the same traits. Yes, because we need lines. Why 18 years or 21 years? Why 55mph instead of 57? Except "birth" is a pretty clear line. There is a big difference between "could survive outside the womb" and "is surviving outside the womb". Unlike the line between 17.5 and 18.5. And if you require that the unborn child is given the full rights of personhood in society, does "full rights" include full rights? Access to child support payments? Do they have a legal name? Can you register them with the Social Security? If you wish to be Christian about it, can you baptize an unborn child? Can you offer them communion? On what moral grounds do you deny them the basic sacraments of the religion?

lettergram 4y ago
> Except "birth" is a pretty clear line. There is a big difference between "could survive outside the womb" and "is surviving outside the womb". Okay, so a woman at 20 weeks wants an abortion. Do you wait 2 weeks so the baby can survive or is it prudent to abort right now? Is it worth a whole lifetime of experience to limit a woman’s bodily autonomy for 2 weeks? I think a lot of people feel emotion during these discussions. I dont, I seriously don’t understand the logic. My bodily autonomy is limited all the time. I have to get vaccines to go to school. I can’t drink and drive, etc. The same logic applies both ways.
josephcsible 4y ago
> If you wish to be Christian about it, can you baptize an unborn child? No, because baptism requires pouring water directly on the child, which you can't do through the amniotic sac. > Can you offer them communion? No, because communion is received by eating and/or drinking it, which the unborn physically can't do. > On what moral grounds do you deny them the basic sacraments of the religion? The sacraments aren't being denied on moral grounds. It's physically impossible to administer them.