Abortion

[Rhett]

My impression is that a significant proportion of women are pro choice regarding abortion. But, they arent saying they want to kill their baby, they are saying, they want someone else to kill their baby. If those same women were given the ability to safely kill their own baby, would they do it? Even if it was almost nine months old? Why do they think it is okay to kill an 8.5 month old baby in the womb but not if it is born premature?

What if their baby was removed from their womb alive, could they kill it then? Do they respect choice for doctors; if a doctor doesnt want to do an abortion, do they respect that?

We have vegetarian and vegan mothers that dont want to even touch a piece of meat never mind be responsible for killing or eating it, yet they will happily have other people slaughter their child.

My personal stance has always been pro abortion, but i tended to figure it would be done within the first three months.

[David Quinn]

Where do you get your news from, Rhett?

[Rhett]

I vaguely heard that abortion was a current topic point, so i conducted a couple of polls on political discussions forums to find out how far people wanted that choice to go. A chunk of respondents said they supported the choice to abort up to the point of birth. So i sought to clarify that further, hence the above. Thankfully the responses to that havent been too vitriolic.

[Dan Rowden]

Hi Rhett,

Questions:

When did you decide to adopt fundamentalist Xian rhetoric and mindless propaganda regarding abortion?

When did you lose your fucking mind?

Notice: I will delete as a matter of course any further posting of said mindless Xian abortion propaganda. This is a forum for sanity and fact. Please inform yourself or take your insipid late-term abortion bullshit somewhere else. Or. alternatively, attempt to 'prove' your contention.

[Rhett]

Dan,

I dont know what you are talking about. If you dont want to engage with any of the topic points in the thread i created, i suggest you involve yourself in other threads instead.

If you are a moderator, i consider your approach and language to be highly innappropriate.

[Dan Rowden]

Inappropriate? This is a philosophy forum, even in this section. Even in this section this board will uphold certain standards.

'slaughter their child' is not remotely objective or philosophical or rational language to be employed regarding this issue. It's 100% fundamentalist theist bullshit. '8.5 months' likewise.

I will not sit idly by and have that kind of nonsense go uncontested (and in the strongest possible terms) in this place. If you have a sane and philosophic point to make about abortion, please make it.

I am not merely a moderator of Genius Forum, I am a progenitor of this place. My absence doesn't change that, so don't presume to tell me what is and is not 'appropriate' language for me to employ.

Be glad I've not deleted this thread for the fatuous idiocy that it represents.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This topic seems to me more like a more general ethical question: can we request of others what we couldn't do ourselves:

- slaughtering and processing animals for their meat, fur, etc
- fighting others to protect ourselves
- killing animals or humans to relieve them of suffering
- anything else requiring a strong stomach or detachment (eg reading Dan's political posts :)

On abortion in particular: within the EU it's generally allowed the first three months. Afterwards there are strict requirements on motive. However people always moved around to clinics in countries not asking questions, if needed. In the Netherlands it's six months now or until the life might survive independently from the womb.

What wildly varies though is the attachments mothers develop to the fetus. Even at three months, I know people already framing echo pictures and having named it, remembering it. More recently, if death happens after 24 weeks, it's becoming possible to register it as child besides formally registering the death. So one could argue this is where people start to see the unborn as distinct living being but earlier would seem a "grey area" and personal.

[Dan Rowden]

This topic seems to me more like a more general ethical question: can we request of others what we couldn't do ourselves:

I'd accept that characterisation if you can show me a woman's capacity to safely perform an abortion on herself, especially a second or third trimester one. If we could provide the ability to women to genuinely safely self-abort I've no doubt most would embrace that opportunity.

[Rhett]

Dan, you are being territorial, and treating this forum like your personal soapbox. You are not fit to moderate it, you need to step down. You are being the enemy of rational, free debate. You and David are examples of what happens when certain people refuse or are unable to step through the door.

.

[Dan Rowden]

Thanks for the input, Rhett. Your opinion of my fitness to moderate this place pales into insignificance next to my capacity and willingness to do so.

You say I'm the 'enemy' of rational debate. Show me some rational debate and I'll try and be a friend to it.

This thread is nothing more than presuppositional and factually empty moral opinion. There's no 'debate' happening here on any level. I'm not sensing much of an appreciation from you of the difference.

Your unsupported by evidence or argument 'feels' are of no value. Abortions as late as 8.5 months don't happen for reasons other than dire medical circumstance or non-viable fetuses. If you think women would freely choose to abort a viable fetus at that stage you're welcome to that opinion. And I'm free to point out that it's a baseless one.

To iterate - your OP is nothing but a diatribe of fundie-Xian moral tropes. Do better or I'll continue to mock you for it. Don't spout bullshit and then get all snowflakey when it's called out.

[Kevin Solway]

My impression is that a significant proportion of women are pro choice regarding abortion.

Hi Rhett. I try to view the issue from a biological perspective. It's a common thing for animals to kill their young when they are unable, or unwilling to rear them. Human beings are animals. I know that there is a push by some people to have abortions legalized even after a child has been born, after a full-term pregnancy. I believe this is what you are referring to.

At some stage it's a discussion society will need to have. But if there's no freedom of speech, then it will never happen.

[Pam Seeback]

My impression is that a significant proportion of women are pro choice regarding abortion. But, they arent saying they want to kill their baby, they are saying, they want someone else to kill their baby. If those same women were given the ability to safely kill their own baby, would they do it? Even if it was almost nine months old? Why do they think it is okay to kill an 8.5 month old baby in the womb but not if it is born premature?

What if their baby was removed from their womb alive, could they kill it then? Do they respect choice for doctors; if a doctor doesnt want to do an abortion, do they respect that?

We have vegetarian and vegan mothers that dont want to even touch a piece of meat never mind be responsible for killing or eating it, yet they will happily have other people slaughter their child.

My personal stance has always been pro abortion, but i tended to figure it would be done within the first three months.

If one takes your above example as a template for attachment and detachment across all realms of the will of spirit, is the act of aborting flesh, in principle, not the same trauma experience of having to abort an outgrown ideal? And does not the one who finds him or herself facing the trauma of undergoing an ideal abortion seek out the help of another to ease the trauma of letting go, even if it is 'just' a friend?

And in taking this idea one step further, do not abortions in the realm of flesh and idea happen because of lack of wisdom of the consequences of form attachment?

[Dan Rowden]

My impression is that a significant proportion of women are pro choice regarding abortion.

I know that there is a push by some people to have abortions legalized even after a child has been born, after a full-term pregnancy. I believe this is what you are referring to.

If this is so then I'd have to say it'd be a lot easier to deal with things if people expressed their actual point.

[Rhett]

My impression is that a significant proportion of women are pro choice regarding abortion.

Hi Rhett. I try to view the issue from a biological perspective. It's a common thing for animals to kill their young when they are unable, or unwilling to rear them. Human beings are animals. I know that there is a push by some people to have abortions legalized even after a child has been born, after a full-term pregnancy. I believe this is what you are referring to.

At some stage it's a discussion society will need to have. But if there's no freedom of speech, then it will never happen.

I think some people might read what i wrote and it stirs up a lot of emotions in them, and then they dont see what i actually wrote anymore. A lot of it was questions.

Its pretty much my first foray into the current take on the topic, a topic that people dont seem very good at resolving. Its the first thoughts that came into my mind when i discovered some people wanting a level of rights that seemed to display poor foresight and ethics, and inconsistencies. A feminine, i want, i want. Surely we can do things smarter than animals?

Surely we can rise beyond simplistic, fomented arguments for and against, and come towards a reasonable position? So society can move on to much more important topics.

[Rhett]

On abortion in particular: within the EU it's generally allowed the first three months. Afterwards there are strict requirements on motive. However people always moved around to clinics in countries not asking questions, if needed. In the Netherlands it's six months now or until the life might survive independently from the womb.

What wildly varies though is the attachments mothers develop to the fetus. Even at three months, I know people already framing echo pictures and having named it, remembering it. More recently, if death happens after 24 weeks, it's becoming possible to register it as child besides formally registering the death. So one could argue this is where people start to see the unborn as distinct living being but earlier would seem a "grey area" and personal.

It seems that some countries have nuanced policies, which is where i would hope all countries could evolve to.

Its so boring to see such extreme views and policies, when if people just thought about it a bit the debate ought quickly evolve to when and under what circumstance. If the debate is informed by science and expertise then ideology and values can reach more generally acceptable solutions.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This topic seems to me more like a more general ethical question: can we request of others what we couldn't do ourselves:

I'd accept that characterisation if you can show me a woman's capacity to safely perform an abortion on herself, especially a second or third trimester one. If we could provide the ability to women to genuinely safely self-abort I've no doubt most would embrace that opportunity.

That was indeed the question in the opening post: "If those same women were given the ability to safely kill their own baby, would they do it". Glad you caught up! So you think they will embrace it. This is not a given since it's not only about technical aspects. It's been suggested through various social experiments that when you offer people the possibility to hurt or kill through some proxy or some clean technology, the perceived morality of it all seems to change, at least under pressure or dire need. It's simply easier to disconnect in the moment. And guns I would not consider "clean technology" in the way I used the term. Simply taking or providing one pill, pushing a button and such, would be more like that.

[Dan Rowden]

Surely we can rise beyond simplistic, fomented arguments for and against, and come towards a reasonable position? So society can move on to much more important topics.

In what sense have we not ostensibly achieved that already? Other than the deranged protestations of sundry God-botherers how is society not in general agreement on the matter? The only on-going problem we face is the dynamic of the aforementioned God-botherers crawling their way into our parliaments and creating problems.

[Dan Rowden]

This topic seems to me more like a more general ethical question: can we request of others what we couldn't do ourselves:

I'd accept that characterisation if you can show me a woman's capacity to safely perform an abortion on herself, especially a second or third trimester one. If we could provide the ability to women to genuinely safely self-abort I've no doubt most would embrace that opportunity.

That was indeed the question in the opening post: "If those same women were given the ability to safely kill their own baby, would they do it". Glad you caught up! So you think they will embrace it. This is not a given since it's not only about technical aspects. It's been suggested through various social experiments that when you offer people the possibility to hurt or kill through some proxy or some clean technology, the perceived morality of it all seems to change, at least under pressure or dire need. It's simply easier to disconnect in the moment. And guns I would not consider "clean technology" in the way I used the term. Simply taking or providing one pill, pushing a button and such, would be more like that.

The difficulty for the feminine mind to accept and embrace responsibility taken into account, I'd make the the following points: 1. In the end women almost always unilaterally make the decision to abort. 2. Women already self-abort, chemically, in the earliest stages of a pregnancy. 3. I don't think we can sensibly speculate as to whether women would choose to self-abort in the later stages of a pregnancy because that ability simply does not exist and is unlikely to exist any time soon.

Abortion will always be a tough choice for women while cultural forces exist around them that apply gratuitous moral pressure, like people who employ language like 'slaughter their child' or pose deeply loaded 'ethical' questions like, 'If you're not prepared to kill your own child is it ethical for you to expect another to do so?'

Maybe before raising such a question you first demonstrate, biologically, philosophically, that we're even talking about a 'child'.

[Rhett]

That was indeed the question in the opening post: "If those same women were given the ability to safely kill their own baby, would they do it". Glad you caught up! So you think they will embrace it. This is not a given since it's not only about technical aspects. It's been suggested through various social experiments that when you offer people the possibility to hurt or kill through some proxy or some clean technology, the perceived morality of it all seems to change, at least under pressure or dire need. It's simply easier to disconnect in the moment. And guns I would not consider "clean technology" in the way I used the term. Simply taking or providing one pill, pushing a button and such, would be more like that.

It could be an interesting questionnaire to put to women, to give them a variety of options to end the life of a baby they have borne. It could be argued that standard/best medical practice is what matters, how women regard that, and if they were offered to do it themself how they would see it. I wonder what doctors do with a late term baby, especially if it is live birthed first.

If the baby cant see or is blindfolded, and beheading with a samurai sword involves no more pain than standard medical practice, its an interesting thought to consider, i wish i was a cartoonist right now. But thats a messy way to do it. Lethal injection might be the best practice, better than being choked or drowned or frozen to death. Better than a microwave. Cattle receive a bolt into the head, that might also make a good cartoon.

What i am really hoping to thrash out is when and under what circumstances abortion is reasonable and when it isnt. I think that should be where debate is focused.

One of the traditional methods that women could use to terminate a significantly developed foetus is to bang their belly against the kitchen bench. A few good whacks and its supposedly on its way out. Not super safe for the mother. Men solve so many problems for women, and yet some brandish men as toxic oppressors. Where on earth is that stuff coming from? Baby boomer women have been the luckiest women in the whole history of humankind, outside of elite, privileged circles.

[Dan Rowden]

Is that post some sort of attempt at humour, Rhett, because if not it's seriously fucked up.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Well, abortion can be fucked up from the perspective of seeing the pregnancy tissue after 12 weeks already as a living stand-alone being.

Check out what the procedure "dilation and evacuation" means and realize Rhett is describing a beautiful summer morning in comparison. When a fetus is larger, after week 20, it will be first dismembered before removal. But death is ensured by injection in those cases. And after week 20, we're not talking any more about the usual abortion by choice in most places.

Anti-abortion people make it sounds horrible by imposing the idea that embryonic tissue feels or experiences. But pain or experiencing in any meaningful, nervous or human sense is not seen as technically possible before 24 weeks. Perhaps this realization will make it easier to "kill" if there was a technical means to do so, in the bloody thought experiments of Rhett. How to kill that what has only potential for living?

Without abortion as available health care option, it's known desperate women would try out horrible methods. So perhaps that answers the question: yes, many women will go far but then again, like Dan already suggested, abortion also occurs naturally quite often in various stages. Women can find their supposed sacred god given precious back in the toilet bowl. Some have to go through that several times before it takes hold for the full term.

[Rhett]

It sounds like it might be an idea to add abortion education into sex education classes in schools, particularly to reduce any incidence of out-of-sight-out-of-mind irresponsibility amongst women.

I think women also need to accept that being pro choice should extend to pro choice for doctors, institutions, voters, politicians, etc. Men created medical abortion, its only available to women because of men. If some men dont want to offer that service to some women under some circumstances, the pro choice of those men should be respected. Having medical abortion offered to women is a priviledge, not a right, and it should be fully paid for by the woman and father.

[Dan Rowden]

Enough. This demented RMA, pseudo-Xian rhetoric is more than I'm prepared to allow to stand on this forum. If fellow moderators choose to disagree and allow this overt actual misogyny to be expressed in this place, then that's up to them. But they must put their name to it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In my view the World Matters forum should not start closing discussions only based on the religion, race or any view of politics or ethics of the person starting the topic. But especially misogyny would be ironic considering this charge has been leveled at the forum and its founders so many times by so many people that some hesitation would be justified before taking that route.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It sounds like it might be an idea to add abortion education into sex education classes in schools, particularly to reduce any incidence of out-of-sight-out-of-mind irresponsibility amongst women.

I think women also need to accept that being pro choice should extend to pro choice for doctors, institutions, voters, politicians, etc. Men created medical abortion, its only available to women because of men. If some men dont want to offer that service to some women under some circumstances, the pro choice of those men should be respected. Having medical abortion offered to women is a privilege, not a right, and it should be fully paid for by the woman and father.

Hi Rhett, do you have any indication that abortion methods are not being taught at school right now? Or not graphic enough?

In any case, your worry on "pro choice" is a bit overblown considering abortion is in many countries usually done at abortion clinics and a doctor first has to apply for a job there, I suppose? But you are raising an potential problem for hospitals especially those with a Christian signature. There are still actual, big discussions about the right to refuse, also in my country. It might differ per country but I know in Italy 70% of the practicing doctors still refuse to perform it and the number is growing. On the island of Sicily it's even 80%, it's the Catholic view and the Pope at play.

The point of making it a "right" would be that otherwise it would be near impossible for especially poor people, who might be statistically more in need of one, because they would be forced to travel and, like you suggest, pay large costs. Now we could say that this would put the fear of debts in them and prevent pregnancies but this is not how it works. It's very hard to know why or how someone got pregnant. And perhaps this should also not be the government's business. But unwanted pregnancies are a real social problem. Providing abortions as basic right elevates the problem but does not pretend to solve all the underlying problems leading up to unintended pregnancies. Perhaps just look at it from a more practical perspective?