Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade

[Angilion]

Clearly viability would be where the line should be drawn and as viability comes down with medical advancements so would the line. With exceptions for the health of the mother obviously.

That's where I would draw the line too. Although I'd also consider up to the point of birth on the basis of personal autonomy. But I balk at drawing the line that far along. But is that balking a reasoned position or purely an emotional one? I'm not sure.

Viability might become a different issue in the future. What if technology advances to such an extent that viability comes down to a few weeks after conception? We can't make a functional artificial womb yet, but that might become possible at some point in the future.

 

[MatsyLR]

Viability might become a different issue in the future. What if technology advances to such an extent that viability comes down to a few weeks after conception? We can't make a functional artificial womb yet, but that might become possible at some point in the future.

If we even survive that long I would imagine they would have the whole artificial womb thing down and the whole process can be done separately. Throw in some genenetic engineering for good measure

 

[Rai200]

So you're in favour of abortion on demand up to the point of birth because you believe that's when the soul enters the body (since that's the only way a clump of cells can become something other than a clump of cells despite no physical changes occuring). Why not just say so?

EDIT: No, that's not necessarily true. You might believe that all humans are just clumps of cells at any age. Or maybe up until a certain level of maturity, like being able to read or do maths or something. But then how would you justify murder being illegal? Do you think murder should be illegal?

You're the one that said "Everyone can be defined as "a clump of cells"", not me.

I think abortion should be legal until the point of viability. After the point of viability there should be the option of medically assisted labour, cesarean etc.

P.S. I don't believe in souls.

 

[Angilion]

You're the one that said "Everyone can be defined as "a clump of cells"", not me.

I think abortion should be legal until the point of viability. After the point of viability there should be the option of medically assisted labour, cesarean etc.

P.S. I don't believe in souls.

How do you reconcile that with your post that I replied to, in which you explicitly stated that the line between legal and illegal should be drawn at birth?

You used the "clump of cells" argument. If you don't believe in souls, how do you draw the line between "clump of cells" and "not clump of cells"?

 

[Rai200]

How do you reconcile that with your post that I replied to, in which you explicitly stated that the line between legal and illegal should be drawn at birth?

You never replied to my post? I think you mixed me up with another poster. My last post here, before today, was 6 days ago.

You used the "clump of cells" argument. If you don't believe in souls, how do you draw the line between "clump of cells" and "not clump of cells"?

We are all clumps of cells. I, as a clump of cells don't have the right to occupy your clump of cells if you don't want me to.

****, if I pitched a tent in your garden without permission you would have me legally removed, even if that meant my almost certain death. Why does your garden have more rights than someones uterus?

 

[dowie]

That's where I would draw the line too. Although I'd also consider up to the point of birth on the basis of personal autonomy. But I balk at drawing the line that far along. But is that balking a reasoned position or purely an emotional one? I'm not sure.

Well, what about within seconds of giving birth? Some abortion machine or doctor with a big hammer is ready to smash the newly delivered baby? Is that significantly worse than killing the same baby just minutes earlier while it was still inside the woman? The vagina as a magical gateway...

Viability might become a different issue in the future. What if technology advances to such an extent that viability comes down to a few weeks after conception? We can't make a functional artificial womb yet, but that might become possible at some point in the future.

Yup indeed, it's perhaps a useful red line right now but in future, if you're able to go from say a ball of cells through to a baby ready for the outside world in an artificial womb then it becomes rather moot and what people are really interested in is more how much of a human is this thing at this stage... at the ball of cells stage (embryo -> blastocyst) I'd say that most people don't care to give it any rights, I mean IUDs, morning-after pills deal with that. The heartbeat at 6 weeks thing that some Republicans have latched onto seems dubious too, it's not really a heart at that stage.

It's really going to be some later stage where it has developed more, where it perhaps would be closer to being viable today... personally, I think the cut-off should be a little bit before viability (in today's tech) and should tech improve I don't see any reason to change that.

Like a ball of cells is disposed of quite regularly in women who say have a coil device fitted as a contraceptive... should they be forced instead to have those removed and put in an artificial womb? Obvs I'd say the vast majority of people wouldn't think so. So that a ball of cells might be viable to be grown in an artificial womb in future and therefore technically the point of viability becomes 0 weeks should probably render viability moot as a line in the sand, it's just perhaps a useful one to refer to these days.

 

[Angilion]

You never replied to my post? I think you mixed me up with another poster. My last post here, before today, was 6 days ago.

I replied to post number 856, in which someone using your account very explicitly stated that the line between legal and illegal should be drawn at birth. I've just checked again, in case it was a different account with a very similar name. It isn't.

We are all clumps of cells. I, as a clump of cells don't have the right to occupy your clump of cells if you don't want me to.

****, if I pitched a tent in your garden without permission you would have me legally removed, even if that meant my almost certain death. Why does your garden have more rights than someones uterus?

I'll ask again: How do you reconcile your two very different statements about where to draw the line between legal and illegal. When using the "clump of cells" argument, you passionately and explicitly draw the line at the point of birth. In between, you draw the line at the point of viability. How do you reconcile those two very different positions on where the line between legal and illegal should be drawn?

Are there two different people using your account, each drawing the line in a different place?

 

[C Kent]

You never replied to my post? I think you mixed me up with another poster. My last post here, before today, was 6 days ago.



We are all clumps of cells. I, as a clump of cells don't have the right to occupy your clump of cells if you don't want me to.

****, if I pitched a tent in your garden without permission you would have me legally removed, even if that meant my almost certain death. Why does your garden have more rights than someones uterus?

Well unfortunately for you the sc have decided it's up to each state to decide.

As to the last paragraph, do you reread what you type before hitting post reply? It might help instead of coming across as a child having a hissy fit.

 

[Rai200]

I replied to post number 856, in which someone using your account very explicitly stated that the line between legal and illegal should be drawn at birth. I've just checked again, in case it was a different account with a very similar name. It isn't.

I never mentioned the term birth. I never mentioned legality.

What I said was that a clump of cells has the right to not allow another clump of cells to live inside, and off of them. A mosquito is a clump of cells too, but I, and you, would slap the **** out of one if it tried to feed from you.

If that clump of cells can survive outside of its host (24 weeks plus, generally) then that should be the the option taken where possible.

I'll ask again: How do you reconcile your two very different statements about where to draw the line between legal and illegal. When using the "clump of cells" argument, you passionately and explicitly draw the line at the point of birth. In between, you draw the line at the point of viability. How do you reconcile those two very different positions on where the line between legal and illegal should be drawn?

Are there two different people using your account, each drawing the line in a different place?

I've literally never even posted the word "birth", I'm not sure where you're getting this from?

Well unfortunately for you the sc have decided it's up to each state to decide.

As to the last paragraph, do you reread what you type before hitting post reply? It might help instead of coming across as a child having a hissy fit.

Yeah but you're a religious nutjob so your opinion is of little merit, it didn't take long to figure that out.

Did you see about the 10 year old rape victim in Ohio that was made to travel out of state to get treatment? Because otherwise, in the world you want she would have been forced to give birth, or die trying.

 

[C Kent]

Yeah but you're a religious nutjob so you're opinion is of little merit, it didn't take long to figure that out.

Did you see about the 10 year old rape victim in Ohio that was made to travel out of state to get treatment? Because otherwise, in the world you want she would have been forced to give birth, or die trying.

Well firstly I'm not religious, and even if I was I'd rather be a 'religious nutjob' than someone posting waffle on a UK forum in their impotent rage about a ruling that doesn't effect them one iota.

Edit - just read it. Very sad a 10 year old was raped yes.

 

[Rai200]

Well firstly I'm not religious, and even if I was I'd rather be a 'religious nutjob' than someone posting waffle on a UK forum in their impotent rage about a ruling that doesn't effect them one iota.

No, care to post a link to the story?

10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion

Case places prominent anti-abortion figures in position of balancing rights of women and girls while defending restrictions

www.theguardian.com

10-year-old rape victim denied abortion in Ohio after Supreme Court ruling

The overturning of Roe v Wade is already having profound impacts on women and girls.

metro.co.uk

10-year-old rape victim denied abortion in Ohio

The 10-year-old girl, who was denied an abortion days after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, had to travel across state lines to try to have the procedure.

www.jpost.com

10-Year-Old Ohio Girl Travels to Indiana for Abortion After SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

Indiana abortion providers have experienced "an insane amount of requests" from out of state following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn <em>Roe v. Wade</em>

people.com

You know what, you're right. It doesn't affect me, personally. But there is a thing called empathy, something ****ty is happening to people and being apathetic to it doesn't help either.

 

[Angilion]

I never mentioned the term birth. I never mentioned legality.

What I said was that a clump of cells has the right to not allow another clump of cells to live inside, and off of them. A mosquito is a clump of cells too, but I, and you, would slap the **** out of one if it tried to feed from you.

If that clump of cells can survive outside of its host (24 weeks plus, generally) then that should be the the option taken where possible.



I've literally never even posted the word "birth", I'm not sure where you're getting this from?

From you mentioning one inside the other. Which is what happens until birth. So the line you're drawing is birth.

The whole thread is about what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed. So it's about legality.

The only way I can see to reconcile the two different lines you're drawing is if you also favour forced birth without the woman's consent, thus moving the viability line and the birth line together.

 

[Rai200]

From you mentioning one inside the other. Which is what happens until birth. So the line you're drawing is birth.

The whole thread is about what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed. So it's about legality.

The only way I can see to reconcile the two different lines you're drawing is if you also favour forced birth without the woman's consent, thus moving the viability line and the birth line together.

No, what I said was that after the point that a foetus becomes viable (24 weeks or so) the mother should still have the option to induce labour or have a cesarean if they no longer wish to be pregnant. Again, this should still be 100% the choice of the mother.

This is completely with the womans consent and, in the case of cesarean isn't technically birth but the removal of a foetus.

Prior to 24 weeks abortion should still be available.

Edit: I'd be ok with abortion after 24 weeks too, quite frankly. But if a line has to be drawn this seems like it will somewhat appease the most vocal of opposition whilst still giving a lot more freedom to women than the current ****show.

 

[Angilion]

No, what I said was that after the point that a foetus becomes viable (24 weeks or so) the mother should still have the option to induce labour or have a cesarean if they no longer wish to be pregnant. Again, this should still be 100% the choice of the mother.

This is completely with the womans consent and, in the case of cesarean isn't technically birth but the removal of a foetus.

Prior to 24 weeks abortion should still be available.

A choice of birth now or birth later is forced birth. All you're allowing is a choice of timing. That's not consent. And caesarian is seriously invasive surgery with a considerable recovery time (and not perfect recovery either), so it's not the easy option it's often made out to be. Also, it is a form of birth unless you decide to define it as something else and then that's just quibbling over meaningless semantics. Can you find a definition of "birth" anywhere that excludes caesarian as the process by which it happens?

 

[Rai200]

A choice of birth now or birth later is forced birth. All you're allowing is a choice of timing. That's not consent. And caesarian is seriously invasive surgery with a considerable recovery time (and not perfect recovery either), so it's not the easy option it's often made out to be. Also, it is a form of birth unless you decide to define it as something else and then that's just quibbling over meaningless semantics. Can you find a definition of "birth" anywhere that excludes caesarian as the process by which it happens?

Ok, then I assume you support abortion up until the point of birth? Anything else is forced birth?

Also see my edit

 

[C Kent]

You know what, you're right. It doesn't affect me, personally. But there is a thing called empathy, something ****ty is happening to people and being apathetic to it doesn't help either.

****** things happen every minute of every day to people, how do you get through the day knowing this? Or do you only care about what's in the newscycle?

 

[Rai200]

****** things happen every minute of every day to people, how do you get through the day knowing this? Or do you only care about what's in the newscycle?

I don't own a TV, I don't have a TV license. I don't buy newspapers.

Many ***tty things happen, and I generally dislike all of them. But this thread isn't about all of those things, it's about this one. What you're doing is a common fallacy, whataboutism.

I've also been to marches recently with some local workers on strike, but there isn't a thread about that. What's happening to them sucks but I'm not posting about it here because it's largely irrelevant to the posters here and it doesn't even affect me personally.

If you had any empathy you'd be able to understand my postion on the matter, and many others.

 

[Werewolf]

Maybe a possibly workable interim measure would be for doctors to classify ectopic pregnancies as not actually pregnancies. I think the difference is fundamental enough to justify classifying them as being different things. Without intervention, one will usually result in two living people and the other will only ever result in death.

They cannot do that though, it's still under the most basic definition a pregnancy, as the egg has been fertilized even if it's never going to be viable and the republicans/forced birth christians have shown they don't care about the mother or science but you can certainly bet that they'll use any science they can to prosecute any mere doctor who crosses them to do something so evil as to try and save a woman unnecessary risk and harm.

The woman has passed a pregnancy test, it took a massive fight and a huge outcry from pretty much anyone who understood basic biology and pregnancy related stuff to get an ectopic pregnancy to be removed from the list of things that was explicitly not a reason for an abortion (the original text in one state specifically said doctors could not do anything to prevent an ectopic pregnancy reaching it's natural conclusion), and at the moment there is no way for an ectopic pregnancy to ever come to term short of huge medical breakthroughs that are probably decades off at least.

At least part of the problems with the anti abortion laws is that they're typically being proposed and passed by people who are either in the "I don't care about women at all camp" or at best the "I never learned basic biology and why should I know about pregnancy, that's woman's stuff and beneath me".

 

[C Kent]

I don't own a TV, I don't have a TV license. I don't buy newspapers.

Many ***tty things happen, and I generally dislike all of them. But this thread isn't about all of those things, it's about this one. What you're doing is a common fallacy, whataboutism.

I've also been to marches recently with some local workers on strike, but there isn't a thread about that. What's happening to them sucks but I'm not posting about it here because it's largely irrelevant to the posters here and it doesn't even affect me personally.

If you had any empathy you'd be able to understand my postion on the matter, and many others.

You have access to social media and the internet, you seem to be taking the sc ruling giving back states the power to decide on the legality of abortion very personally as all of your posts are in this thread. You are clearly someone's alt account, why not post on your main?

 

[Rai200]

You have access to social media and the internet, you seem to be taking the sc ruling giving back states the power to decide on the legality of abortion very personally as all of your posts are in this thread. You are clearly someone's alt account, why not post on your main?

My issue isn't with states having the power to decide, it's with any regression in bodily autonomy and access to healthcare. I have some family in rural states in the US and they're affected by it.

My alt? Raikiri. It's not an alt, really. I changed my phone and updated my PC, completely forgot about the 90 day 2 factor authentication and wasn't able to log in; emailed with no reply.

I'm just posting as I otherwise would