Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade

[rare]

Are you mad, there's projected to be 9bn by the end of the decade and 11bn by 2050.

Birth rates might be dropping by so is the death rate.

No I’m not mad, as I said, by the end of the century it will be in decline overall. It’s already in decline in many areas, that doesn’t mean there won’t be nations or regions that don’t have population expansion, but we are on course to eventually plateau out.

Regardless, this is a weak and dangerous argument as a basis of undermining the value of individual human life.

 

[Twinz]

I remember when my (now ex) wife was pregnant with our son and we were getting the "Do's and Don'ts" list from our doctor.

Get lots of rest
Eat well
Moderate exercise
Cut back on caffeine
Don't drink
Don't smoke
Don't do drugs
Etc.

At no point did he say "Unless you change your mind....then just suck it into a sink."

It occurred to me that we were discussing parental responsibilities that exist *before* the child was born.

This is a difficult issue. Aborting a human embryo is not the same thing as murdering an adult walking down the street, but that embryo is also not just some random tumor.

This is probably the toughest issue for me to reconcile as an otherwise staunch libertarian.

 

[ChroniC]

No I’m not mad, as I said, by the end of the century it will be in decline overall. It’s already in decline in many areas, that doesn’t mean there won’t be nations or regions that don’t have population expansion, but we are on course to eventually plateau out.

Regardless, this is a weak and dangerous argument as a basis of undermining the value of individual human life.

If we were in decline, then more people dying than being born would actually mean projections of less billions, so you might not be mad, but definitely wrong.

 

[Werewolf]

Twinz, I'm guessing you and your wife were both wanting a child, and in a position to take one on and look after it, and your wife was not in a situation where carrying one would significantly damage her health, or risk killing here.

 

[rare]

If we were in decline, then more people dying than being born would actually mean projections of less billions, so you might not be mad, but definitely wrong.

As I stated, by the end of the century it’s predicted that the population will be in decline globally, that doesn’t mean it’s not going to increase globally between now and then. In some nations, it’s already declining.

https://www.ft.com/content/7a558711-c1b8-4a41-8e72-8470cbd117e5

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02522-6

The point still stands, that regardless, the viewpoint you are making is a catastrophically poor argument. The rights of individual human life are fundamental. What happens when someone else decides who gets to live or die? Just because you don’t see the value in individual life, you might change your mind if someone else was making the decision for you about someone you cared about.

This is essentially the viewpoint that led to the Holocaust, that is the view that certain life or life’s are worth more or less than another, and that as a consequence what came of those life’s was either seen as irrelevant or a necessity for the ‘greater good’.

 

[ChroniC]

Using the UK decline has zero to do with global population. There's going to be to many of us, plain and simple

 

[Twinz]

Twinz, I'm guessing you and your wife were both wanting a child, and in a position to take one on and look after it, and your wife was not in a situation where carrying one would significantly damage her health, or risk killing here.

I was discussing the "wanting" part. I think parental responsibility exists independently of "want".

 

[Irish_Tom]

I was discussing the "wanting" part. I think parental responsibility exists independently of "want".

Parental responsibility is about doing what’s best for the child.

Sometimes, as harsh as it may sound, what’s best for the child is that it doesn’t exist.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Parental responsibility is about doing what’s best for the child.

Sometimes, as harsh as it may sound, what’s best for the child is that it doesn’t exist.

I am give or take happy with the rules as they are (like i said personally I would make the final decision point a few weeks earlier unless medical exemptions) but in general, to me they are balanced, however given that adoption of new borns is a thing, and there are many many people desperate to adopt a baby (things get harder as they get older no doubt about that) but even as a pro choice person, imo only in exeptional circumstances where the health of the child is in question I dont think i can believe that abortion is better for a child than being born.

The way i reconcile myself then to abortion is i do not see an early fetus as a child, in the same way that sperm or an egg is not a viable child either.

btw which ever side of the fence you are on, for most decent human beings this isnt an easy thing. TMI warning! We had to have IVF, and as i said earlier in the topic the only reason i agreed with the mrs to try was an agreement that if major abnormalities were found we would abort........ we had the early tests and they showed up every health issue going.. We had 2 eggs implanted, 1 was viable, the other wasnt, but it had started to grow, it was just a mass of cells, never going to do anything but it was enough to render any early tests pointless.

We were told given our initial comments about abortion that the only way to be sure was to wait for what would be a much later termination, or failing that to play it safe and abort a potentially healthy fetus.

we ended up chancing it. We could have much later had tests but these would have been a risk to our baby. .... like i said we chanced it but it was terrifying. I could never judge anyone for making a different decision than the one we did....... Our lad was perfectly healthy in the end so it worked out for us.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Yup, though when this sort of thing gets into "do you know how many abortions black women have, legal abortion is good because we have way fewer black babies" territory then it gets rather dodgy.

To be fair to RBG it's not clear if she's simply referring to the views of the court at that time rather than her personal views but legal abortions being seen as a means to ensure slower population growth in some populations is seemingly a factor in some people's views:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1522728837297094657

I don't think its got anything to do with skin colour, its that the poorest communities in society in the US have historically been black, especially back in the 50/60/70s. When there are high birth-rates in the poorest communities then a rise in crime is going to go hand in hand. I'm sure the same thing could be tracked in the UK when we have a recession and crime rates rise around the communities hit hardest. Women having control of their reproductive health is one of the best ways to help them lift themselves out of poverty.

 

[Junglist]

I'm very much pro-choice. 6 weeks doesn't seem long enough but the current (is it 21 weeks?) almost seems too long.

I'd much rather a child not be born than to be born whilst being a risk to the mother or born into a family that doesn't want them.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I would like to think so as well, but nearly 18% in this poll alone supported the concept of abortion up to birth. Like I said, what’s the difference between an ‘abortion’ two weeks before a fetus is born, and the killing of a baby two weeks after its born?

I think they are likely saying that abortion should be an option right up to 9 months where there is risk to the women's life, the foetus is found to have an issue where it won't be able to survive outside of the woman's body or the foetus dies and the women doesn't want to carry it any longer. I don't think the poll was worded in a way to cover this. I would support abortion up to 9 months in those circumstances but only in those circumstance.

 

[Haggisman]

Parental responsibility is about doing what’s best for the child.

Sometimes, as harsh as it may sound, what’s best for the child is that it doesn’t exist.

Yup, that's my viewpoint as well.

Is it better to force a child to live in misery and suffering, unwanted, potentially neglected and abused or for them to have never existed in the first place? I imagine if you asked a group of people who have grown up in those circumstances you'd get plenty of responses on both sides of the argument.

It's interesting that most people see ending the suffering of our pets and other animals as the "humane" choice, and yet you apply the same logic to a person and the opposite is true.

 

[Irish_Tom]

I am give or take happy with the rules as they are (like i said personally I would make the final decision point a few weeks earlier unless medical exemptions) but in general, to me they are balanced, however given that adoption of new borns is a thing, and there are many many people desperate to adopt a baby (things get harder as they get older no doubt about that) but even as a pro choice person, imo only in exeptional circumstances where the health of the child is in question I dont think i can believe that abortion is better for a child than being born.

The way i reconcile myself then to abortion is i do not see an early fetus as a child, in the same way that sperm or an egg is not a viable child either.

btw which ever side of the fence you are on, for most decent human beings this isnt an easy thing. TMI warning! We had to have IVF, and as i said earlier in the topic the only reason i agreed with the mrs to try was an agreement that if major abnormalities were found we would abort........ we had the early tests and they showed up every health issue going.. We had 2 eggs implanted, 1 was viable, the other wasnt, but it had started to grow, it was just a mass of cells, never going to do anything but it was enough to render any early tests pointless.

We were told given our initial comments about abortion that the only way to be sure was to wait for what would be a much later termination, or failing that to play it safe and abort a potentially healthy fetus.

we ended up chancing it. We could have much later had tests but these would have been a risk to our baby. .... like i said we chanced it but it was terrifying. I could never judge anyone for making a different decision than the one we did....... Our lad was perfectly healthy in the end so it worked out for us.

I should probably highlight that my vote was for "Pro-choice up to pre-viability limit (based on local legislation)" in the poll. In fact, everyone should probably reference their vote to put their comments into context.

The bit I've highlighted in bold is also how I see it. If the foetus isn't viable then (as far as I'm concerned) it's not a child. But I accept that, as others have mentioned previously, what constitutes "viable" differs from country to country.

I should also mention that I'm in favour of abortion after the pre-viability limit if the life of the mother is in danger or the child has a birth defect that would severely limit its quality of life.

But as @Haggisman says, I can think of plenty of scenarios where the suffering of the child (and the mother/family) would be far worse for all concerned than abortion.

 

[deuse]

I am Pro life, except for rape\medical\morning after pill.

I don't like that some women can go off and kill a baby at anytime.

And the UKs 24 weeks of pregnancy abortion law is to much in my opinion.

In the US. I hate that the pro-choice protests are breaking a federal law.
And no one is protecting the judges.

 

[Junglist]

24 weeks is certainly too long. We've just had our first child and going to those early scans made me realise how far developed babies are. Though it hasn't changed my stance from being pro-choice. Abortions aren't a fun day out that women take lightly.

Ultimately, it's their body. Pregnancy takes a hell of a toll on a woman's body and if she decides she doesn't want to go through with that then I'm not sure which grounds I have the right to say they must go through with it. There is too much risk and potential for physical and mental trauma

 

[BananaDunka]

John Oliver summed it all up perfectly, as usual, on this week's Last Week Tonight (s09e10)

Snippet:

 

[Raikiri]

I don't like that some women can go off and kill a baby at anytime.

They can't go off and kill a baby at any time, they can have a non-viable pregnancy removed via a medical procedure carried out by a professional.

They're not at the soft play with a crossbow.

 

[Harlequin]

From a lot of the responders - there is a huge amount of misinformation regarding the UK and terminations; 88% of terminations are under 10 weeks and most are with women over the age of 35 who also are the highest group for Class E or post 24 weeks terminations; 73% of these are medical, which unfortunately means the pregnancy failed (yes it sounds clinical and uncaring but im sure we all know someone who suffered a midterm loss of a baby and huge emotions attached)


HOWEVER. whilst it sounds like a media headline, there were only 229 post 24 week terminations w carried out in the UK, in 2020 out of a total of 209,000. The majority (as i stated) are under 10 weeks and are medical / both pills at home.

All statistics from:

Abortion statistics, England and Wales: 2020

www.gov.uk

 

[Harlequin]

For context there were 613,936 live births the same year and a stillbirth rate of 3.8% per thousand

Births in England and Wales: 2020

Annual summary statistics on live births and stillbirths by sex, whether inside marriage or civil partnership, percentage of non-UK-born mothers, birth rates; live births by age of mother and by mothers' area of usual residence.

www.gov.uk