6 ms·

It should be noted that this is a rare and unpopular opinion. The overwhelming majority of people are going to be disgusted by a 32 week abortion on either side

by derac 4y ago

It should be noted that this is a rare and unpopular opinion. The overwhelming majority of people are going to be disgusted by a 32 week abortion on either side of the issue.

micromacrofoot 4y ago
The comment you're replying to didn't make a week-based distinction, just that the "personhood" claim of a fetus is irrelevant to whether or not an abortion is legal. Personally I'd just prefer to base it on fetal viability (which was the standard). That's roughly 25 weeks or so (some variation and debate). If a fetus were to come non-viable after that, or endanger the mother, I think that should be back on the table too.
- iforgotpassword 4y ago
  From that comment: "you should have the legal right to have an abortion (...) at any point during a pregnancy."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    > the legal right to have an abortion (or at least induce labor, if viability is possible) you left out the "at least induce labor if viability is possible," so maybe we're just interpreting the comment differently
    - iforgotpassword 4y ago
      Indeed, the "at least" made me read it like this would be the minimum acceptable compromise, but reading the phrase without the parentheses would be the actual thing they want. But I'm not a native speaker so that might very well be wrong.
- derac 4y ago
  The claim is that viability is inconsequential to their argument, meaning a 32 week abortion is morally ok for them. Where did I misspeak?
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    I didn't see that claim, the comment says "(or at least induce labor, if viability is possible)" Can chalk it up to a different in interpretations I guess.
hgazx 4y ago
Currently.
- diob 4y ago
  ?
spread_love 4y ago
and you'd think the majority are going the be disgusted by the idea of a 10-year-old rape victim being denied access to healthcare by her state, but counsel for the National Right to Life argued she should keep have kept the child
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Of course, some legislation could ban abortions while make exceptions for 10-year-old rape victims or other extreme cases. There's a lot of middle ground between banning all abortions and allowing all abortions. We don't need to legislate according to extremes.
  - spread_love 4y ago
    I wish National Right to Life felt the same way. > There's a lot of middle ground between banning all abortions and allowing all abortions Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others?
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      > Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others? As a rhetorical tactic, do you have a lot of luck with obvious deliberate obtuseness?
      - spread_love 4y ago
        I'm simply repeating the mantra of the disciples of Kang and Kodos. If you have a problem I suggest you take it up with them.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    We don't need to, but that's the way things are going. Allowing abortion for rape and not in other cases is ideologically inconsistent with the idea that fetuses are persons, and so what we are actually seeing is that state legislatures are passing extreme legislation to maintain consistency with that premise. They are able to do so because states are so polarized that they can pass extreme legislation without any repercussions. Half of the problem here is that reasonable people think this will be a states' rights issue with reasonable exceptions that local people can all agree on, but with which others might differ. Whereas what's actually happening is that extremist state legislatures are seizing on the issue to pass the most restrictive abortion laws they possibly can, and the GOP at the national level is salivating over the prospect of a national abortion ban as soon as they regain control of the government (see statements from VP Pence, Mitch McConnell, and various House republicans). People thought throwing the issue back to the states would be the end of it, but it's clearly not.
ceph_ 4y ago
Most people would be disgusted by a slaughter house, but vegans aren't trying to enshrine forced veganism into law.
- elil17 4y ago
  Well actually some of them are talking about banning meat
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    How many of them are on the Supreme Court?
    - elil17 4y ago
      Thankfully none!
- derac 4y ago
  Most people value human life over animal life. Also, I'd guess vegans might advocate making it illegal to kill animals for food (I don't interact with many, so I'm spitballing). The only reason they wouldn't is because it's so far outside the Overton window that it seems like fantasy.
  - scarmig 4y ago
    FWIW, I'm a vegetarian who, if made world emperor, would ban killing animals for food, recognizing some caveats and edge cases. But, yeah, it's so far outside the Overton window that I don't think I've ever expressed it to anyone.
elil17 4y ago
Is it? It's an opinion I've heard multiple people in real life express to me.
- derac 4y ago
  Wild. If you're ok with sharing it, what is the general age range and location?
  - elil17 4y ago
    Well multiple was perhaps a strong word - it was two people on two occasions, one 19 and the other 50. Prefer not to give my location but it was a liberal area (and more significantly, they shared the opinion with the knowledge that I would be at least open to the idea).
    - derac 4y ago
      Thanks! I'm from Austin, Texas and that would be considered an extremely rare PoV.
theossuary 4y ago
They very clearly stated that after viability, induced delivery is the course. Just like Casey V. Planned Parenthood originally made viability the cutoff. At any point a woman should be allowed to rescind the right to their body from anyone or anything, a fetus included. Whether that means abortion or delivery depends on viability. So your straw-man of a 32 week abortion isn't applicable at all.
- derac 4y ago
  "the issue of whether a fetus is a person is irrelevant" It's not a straw man. It's a hypothetical test of his reasoning. He says viability doesn't matter to his argument, but throws out that induced birth could be an option. His argument is not that "abortion should be illegal at viability, but you should be able to induce birth". You are twisting his words.
  - theossuary 4y ago
    I'm not twisting their words; you've simply lost the ability to comprehend text that pertains to abortion. > Similarly, the argument goes, you should have the legal right to have an abortion (or at least induce labor, if viability is possible) at any point during a pregnancy. What does "at least induce labor, if viability is possible" mean to you?
    - derac 4y ago
      He says you should have a legal right to an abortion at any time during pregnancy... Also I support abortion and I'm a social democrat FWIW.
jandrese 4y ago
A 32 week abortion is an abortion of a baby with severe medical issues that may be threatening the life of the mother. If you add those details support for the issue is considerably higher.

by derac 4y ago

It should be noted that this is a rare and unpopular opinion. The overwhelming majority of people are going to be disgusted by a 32 week abortion on either side of the issue.

micromacrofoot 4y ago

The comment you're replying to didn't make a week-based distinction, just that the "personhood" claim of a fetus is irrelevant to whether or not an abortion is legal. Personally I'd just prefer to base it on fetal viability (which was the standard). That's roughly 25 weeks or so (some variation and debate). If a fetus were to come non-viable after that, or endanger the mother, I think that should be back on the table too.

iforgotpassword 4y ago
From that comment: "you should have the legal right to have an abortion (...) at any point during a pregnancy."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  > the legal right to have an abortion (or at least induce labor, if viability is possible) you left out the "at least induce labor if viability is possible," so maybe we're just interpreting the comment differently
  - iforgotpassword 4y ago
    Indeed, the "at least" made me read it like this would be the minimum acceptable compromise, but reading the phrase without the parentheses would be the actual thing they want. But I'm not a native speaker so that might very well be wrong.
derac 4y ago
The claim is that viability is inconsequential to their argument, meaning a 32 week abortion is morally ok for them. Where did I misspeak?
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  I didn't see that claim, the comment says "(or at least induce labor, if viability is possible)" Can chalk it up to a different in interpretations I guess.

hgazx 4y ago

Currently.

diob 4y ago
?

spread_love 4y ago

and you'd think the majority are going the be disgusted by the idea of a 10-year-old rape victim being denied access to healthcare by her state, but counsel for the National Right to Life argued she should keep have kept the child

throwaway894345 4y ago
Of course, some legislation could ban abortions while make exceptions for 10-year-old rape victims or other extreme cases. There's a lot of middle ground between banning all abortions and allowing all abortions. We don't need to legislate according to extremes.
- spread_love 4y ago
  I wish National Right to Life felt the same way. > There's a lot of middle ground between banning all abortions and allowing all abortions Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others?
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others? As a rhetorical tactic, do you have a lot of luck with obvious deliberate obtuseness?
    - spread_love 4y ago
      I'm simply repeating the mantra of the disciples of Kang and Kodos. If you have a problem I suggest you take it up with them.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  We don't need to, but that's the way things are going. Allowing abortion for rape and not in other cases is ideologically inconsistent with the idea that fetuses are persons, and so what we are actually seeing is that state legislatures are passing extreme legislation to maintain consistency with that premise. They are able to do so because states are so polarized that they can pass extreme legislation without any repercussions. Half of the problem here is that reasonable people think this will be a states' rights issue with reasonable exceptions that local people can all agree on, but with which others might differ. Whereas what's actually happening is that extremist state legislatures are seizing on the issue to pass the most restrictive abortion laws they possibly can, and the GOP at the national level is salivating over the prospect of a national abortion ban as soon as they regain control of the government (see statements from VP Pence, Mitch McConnell, and various House republicans). People thought throwing the issue back to the states would be the end of it, but it's clearly not.

ceph_ 4y ago

Most people would be disgusted by a slaughter house, but vegans aren't trying to enshrine forced veganism into law.

elil17 4y ago
Well actually some of them are talking about banning meat
- ModernMech 4y ago
  How many of them are on the Supreme Court?
  - elil17 4y ago
    Thankfully none!
derac 4y ago
Most people value human life over animal life. Also, I'd guess vegans might advocate making it illegal to kill animals for food (I don't interact with many, so I'm spitballing). The only reason they wouldn't is because it's so far outside the Overton window that it seems like fantasy.
- scarmig 4y ago
  FWIW, I'm a vegetarian who, if made world emperor, would ban killing animals for food, recognizing some caveats and edge cases. But, yeah, it's so far outside the Overton window that I don't think I've ever expressed it to anyone.

elil17 4y ago

Is it? It's an opinion I've heard multiple people in real life express to me.

derac 4y ago
Wild. If you're ok with sharing it, what is the general age range and location?
- elil17 4y ago
  Well multiple was perhaps a strong word - it was two people on two occasions, one 19 and the other 50. Prefer not to give my location but it was a liberal area (and more significantly, they shared the opinion with the knowledge that I would be at least open to the idea).
  - derac 4y ago
    Thanks! I'm from Austin, Texas and that would be considered an extremely rare PoV.

theossuary 4y ago

They very clearly stated that after viability, induced delivery is the course. Just like Casey V. Planned Parenthood originally made viability the cutoff. At any point a woman should be allowed to rescind the right to their body from anyone or anything, a fetus included. Whether that means abortion or delivery depends on viability. So your straw-man of a 32 week abortion isn't applicable at all.

derac 4y ago
"the issue of whether a fetus is a person is irrelevant" It's not a straw man. It's a hypothetical test of his reasoning. He says viability doesn't matter to his argument, but throws out that induced birth could be an option. His argument is not that "abortion should be illegal at viability, but you should be able to induce birth". You are twisting his words.
- theossuary 4y ago
  I'm not twisting their words; you've simply lost the ability to comprehend text that pertains to abortion. > Similarly, the argument goes, you should have the legal right to have an abortion (or at least induce labor, if viability is possible) at any point during a pregnancy. What does "at least induce labor, if viability is possible" mean to you?
  - derac 4y ago
    He says you should have a legal right to an abortion at any time during pregnancy... Also I support abortion and I'm a social democrat FWIW.

jandrese 4y ago

A 32 week abortion is an abortion of a baby with severe medical issues that may be threatening the life of the mother. If you add those details support for the issue is considerably higher.