The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[MisterPinstripe]

I'm definitely on the pro-life side of the argument. In my day to day life I dont go out of my way to talk politics or topics like abortion so I'll ask this here to try to get a better idea of where people are coming from.

 

If you are pro-choice are you pro-choice all the way up to 9 months and the baby is born? If not, at what month/point do you think abortion should be illegal? I'll probably have some follow up questions depending on what people say, so if you are willing to answer I appreciate it.

Edited May 19, 2019 by MisterPinstripe
Edited to change to pro-choice

[Larry]

10 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

If you are pro-abortion

 

Just a suggestion, but I suspect you'll get better responses if you edit your post.  

 

I think it's a safe bet that there is not one person in this thread who's pro abortion.  (Probably not one person in the country.  But there's a lot of weirdos in the country.)  

 

But in the interests of discussion, I'll ignore the "trigger", and try to give you a brief summary of my opinions.  

 

I think that our society will be better if there is a window in which a pregnant woman has a window in which she (and hopefully he and she) can have a sober contemplation about the responsibility they are about to assume, and whether they want to commit to that responsibility.  (I'd really prefer if said contemplation happened before the sex.  But I'm not stupid enough to think that that happens.)  

 

I also recognize that there is a point at with, sorry, it's too late, and you're committed, now.  

 

I don't necessarily have a problem with that point being birth.  I know it's a rather arbitrary place to draw the line.  But then, our society is full of arbitrary lines.  A person who's 18 can vote.  A person who's one day short cannot.  We have a drinking age.  And birth at least has the advantage of being a really clear place to draw the line.  Far as I'm aware, it's not possible to tell with precision whether a fetus was fertilized 20 weeks ago, or 19 weeks and six days.  But it's easy to tell whether it's been born yet.)  

 

(It's hard to tell whether a receiver was pushed out of bounds.  It's much easier to tell whether one of his feet touched the white line.) 

 

And I'll point out - any place you draw the line will be an arbitrary one, including fertilization.  

 

But I also don't have a problem with society choosing to move the line which used to happen at birth.  I wouldn't mind moving the point to, say, the third trimester.  (I'd still want abortion to be possible in a really small number of special cases.  Maybe make abortion illegal for 99% of people.  I wouldn't fight that.  My opinion (I might be able to be persuaded to change it) is that, by then, the mother-to-be has had a long time to think about it.  I wouldn't have a huge problem with telling her that it's too late to take it back.  

[PeterMP]

46 minutes ago, Larry said:

Was half listening to a Republican congressman on Meet the Press discussing the new wave of abortion laws.  And I caught something that I think He mentioned that new technology was allowing parents to screen their children for genetic disorders, and he "didn't want our country to be performing these barbaric third world practices."  

 

Might be worth discussing.  Should a woman be allowed to decide to abort a pregnancy if, say, it's determined that the fetus has Down's?

 

Realistically, today I suspect it is really probably possible with extremely low risks to the mother or fetus of getting the whole genome sequence for the fetus, and therefore identify whatever traits that there have known associated genes for.  I don't know of any place that is actively advertising, but based on what I know, I strongly suspect you could get things like eye and hair color if you wanted and found somebody willing to do it for you, but also data related to things like the breast cancer gene.  (At about the 10th week pregnancy.

[MisterPinstripe]

12 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Just a suggestion, but I suspect you'll get better responses if you edit your post.  

 

I think it's a safe bet that there is not one person in this thread who's pro abortion.  (Probably not one person in the country.  But there's a lot of weirdos in the country.)  

 

But in the interests of discussion, I'll ignore the "trigger", and try to give you a brief summary of my opinions.  

 

I think that our society will be better if there is a window in which a pregnant woman has a window in which she (and hopefully he and she) can have a sober contemplation about the responsibility they are about to assume, and whether they want to commit to that responsibility.  (I'd really prefer if said contemplation happened before the sex.  But I'm not stupid enough to think that that happens.)  

 

I also recognize that there is a point at with, sorry, it's too late, and you're committed, now.  

 

I don't necessarily have a problem with that point being birth.  I know it's a rather arbitrary place to draw the line.  But then, our society is full of arbitrary lines.  A person who's 18 can vote.  A person who's one day short cannot.  We have a drinking age.  And birth at least has the advantage of being a really clear place to draw the line.  Far as I'm aware, it's not possible to tell with precision whether a fetus was fertilized 20 weeks ago, or 19 weeks and six days.  But it's easy to tell whether it's been born yet.)  

 

(It's hard to tell whether a receiver was pushed out of bounds.  It's much easier to tell whether one of his feet touched the white line.) 

 

And I'll point out - any place you draw the line will be an arbitrary one, including fertilization.  

 

But I also don't have a problem with society choosing to move the line which used to happen at birth.  I wouldn't mind moving the point to, say, the third trimester.  (I'd still want abortion to be possible in a really small number of special cases.  Maybe make abortion illegal for 99% of people.  I wouldn't fight that.  My opinion (I might be able to be persuaded to change it) is that, by then, the mother-to-be has had a long time to think about it.  I wouldn't have a huge problem with telling her that it's too late to take it back.  

Thanks, I've edited that now. I was just thinking of pro-abortion as in for the right to have an abortion.

 

So does that mean you are of the mindset that it's not a life until it's born into the world? I ask because babies born as early as 7 months after conception have a very high chance of survival, I don't remember exactly but I think it's 80-90 percent or so. I guess I am of the mindset that really the one important factor is what people think is life. Right? Everything else falls from that.

[Renegade7]

42 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

I'm definitely on the pro-life side of the argument. In my day to day life I dont go out of my way to talk politics or topics like abortion so I'll ask this here to try to get a better idea of where people are coming from.

 

If you are pro-choice are you pro-choice all the way up to 9 months and the baby is born? If not, at what month/point do you think abortion should be illegal? I'll probably have some follow up questions depending on what people say, so if you are willing to answer I appreciate it.

 

I'm not comfortable with the fetus being at the point of being able to survive outside the womb and still be terminated.  That takes a while, and really I want nothing to do with that choice because it's not my choice, should be between the mom and the doctor.  If I want people to leave me alone on my decisions that dont directly effect other people, I have to give the same regardless of how I feel about abortion.  I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, it's none of my business. 

[Larry]

15 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

So does that mean you are of the mindset that it's not a life until it's born into the world? I ask because babies born as early as 7 months after conception have a very high chance of survival, I don't remember exactly but I think it's 80-90 percent or so. I guess I am of the mindset that really the one important factor is what people think is life. Right? Everything else falls from that.

 

In the interest of not spending the next two weeks slinging things back and forth on a topic which I'm quite certain I've already done at least twice in this thread, I will refrain from restating my opinions on the "life" argument.  

 

As to viability, I'll point out that viability is a really nebulous thing.  

 

Yes, premature babies can be nursed into life at ages that used to be unheard of, 10 years ago.  If you have a well equipped hospital NICU, and are willing to spend how many million dollars?  

 

People can live without a heart for some time, too.  

 

(And if you really want to go OT, I'll point out that, while premature births do often survive, I seem to remember that they do so with an increased risk of several medical conditions, even extending into adulthood.  No, I'm not saying "so we should just kill it".  Like I said, I consider it OT.)

 

But I'll turn around and throw your viability point back at you.  

 

How do you feel about a law stating that, when society tells a pregnant woman "we will not allow you to abort that fetus", society is also obligated to say "however, at any time you can say 'take it out, and from the instant it comes out, it's society's obligation from there on out'"?  

 

Or is your position regarding viability one of "well, the fetus is theoretically viable outside you, if we throw millions of dollars at it, but you don't have millions of dollars, and society isn't willing to pay it, (and, to be honest, full term pregnancy is vastly better for the fetus' health), therefore our policy is 'it's viable outside you, but we're going to force it to stay inside you, whether you want it in there or not'"?  

[MisterPinstripe]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I'm not comfortable with the fetus being at the point of being able to survive outside the womb and still be terminated.  That takes a while, and really I want nothing to do with that choice because it's not my choice, should be between the mom and the doctor.  If I want people to leave me alone on my decisions that dont directly effect other people, I have to give the same regardless of how I feel about abortion.  I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, it's none of my business. 

This is why I think really the key question is what is a human life. Obviously if someone thinks it's not a human life they aren't going to have an issue. I do which is why I believe in what I do, if it's a human life I think it has rights and needs to be protected.

 

So I guess me question is why are you uncomfortable with abortion let's say, beyond 7 months when it can comfortably survive outside of the womb? Is the location of the baby inside of the womb versus outside the womb change the status of life? What would be your definition?

 

Thanks to everyone that has responded so far. As an update, I am not trying to have an argument, rather ask questions to better understand what pro-choice people are thinking/coming from.

Edited May 19, 2019 by MisterPinstripe

[MisterPinstripe]

11 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

In the interest of not spending the next two weeks slinging things back and forth on a topic which I'm quite certain I've already done at least twice in this thread, I will refrain from restating my opinions on the "life" argument.  

Sorry, not trying to rehash anything, I haven't been in this thread so I may bring up things that have already been discussed. I do think it being a human life or not is the core of everything. Would you agree or no? You don't have to give a detailed explanation if you already have and don't want to get into it. In my mind most people would agree a human life should be protected so the disagreement is that people don't think it's a human life yet. I could be wildly off of course as I haven't really discussed this with people that are pro choice.

11 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

As to viability, I'll point out that viability is a really nebulous thing.  

 

Yes, premature babies can be nursed into life at ages that used to be unheard of, 10 years ago.  If you have a well equipped hospital NICU, and are willing to spend how many million dollars?  

 

People can live without a heart for some time, too.  

 

(And if you really want to go OT, I'll point out that, while premature births do often survive, I seem to remember that they do so with an increased risk of several medical conditions, even extending into adulthood.  No, I'm not saying "so we should just kill it".  Like I said, I consider it OT.)

 

But I'll turn around and throw your viability point back at you.  

 

How do you feel about a law stating that, when society tells a pregnant woman "we will not allow you to abort that fetus", society is also obligated to say "however, at any time you can say 'take it out, and from the instant it comes out, it's society's obligation from there on out'"?  

 

Or is your position regarding viability one of "well, the fetus is theoretically viable outside you, if we throw millions of dollars at it, but you don't have millions of dollars, and society isn't willing to pay it, (and, to be honest, full term pregnancy is vastly better for the fetus' health), therefore our policy is 'it's viable outside you, but we're going to force it to stay inside you, whether you want it in there or not'"?  

I wasn't trying to make a point about viability. My goal is really just to understand where other people are coming from on the pro choice side. I'm trying to ask questions to flesh out my understanding. I think viability is a bad argument for a few reasons. One of which is a premature baby born in New York is much more likely to survive then a premature baby born in a small town with a bad hospital or technology. So viability changes even just based on location.

[MartinC]

49 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

Thanks, I've edited that now. I was just thinking of pro-abortion as in for the right to have an abortion.

 

So does that mean you are of the mindset that it's not a life until it's born into the world? I ask because babies born as early as 7 months after conception have a very high chance of survival, I don't remember exactly but I think it's 80-90 percent or so. I guess I am of the mindset that really the one important factor is what people think is life. Right? Everything else falls from that.

 

You are right it is about what people think is life. And reasonable people can disagree on the answer to that question (and many scientists and philosophers have given defining life a shot http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170101-there-are-over-100-definitions-for-life-and-all-are-wrong).

 

The opinion that matters is that of the woman carrying the baby. That’s why (to Larry’s point) I’m pro choice. I am personally absolutely not pro abortion.

 

Now there has to be a legal framework around this choice to guide both pregnant women and doctors. Which is where it all gets complex (to say the least). I would say the starting point for the debate should be when the foetus can potentially survive outside the woman - earliest I believe is around 21 weeks. About a third of babies born at 24 weeks survive. 24 weeks is where I would be. So roughly end of the second trimester.

[TheGreatBuzz]

You will never get everyone or probably even a majority to all agree when "life" begins.  That's why I think we should have just stuck with the Roe model based on trimesters.

[Renegade7]

50 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

This is why I think really the key question is what is a human life. Obviously if someone thinks it's not a human life they aren't going to have an issue. I do which is why I believe in what I do, if it's a human life I think it has rights and needs to be protected.

 

This is Exodus 21:22:

 

Quote

 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and vhe shall pay as the wjudges determine.

 

A lot of theologians and archeologist interpret it as paying fine for property loss, not eye for eye execution for taking the life of the unborn fetus.  It's a multi-cell organism absorbing resources from the mother, its life, that's not the question.

 

  It's not a human being yet or capable of being one to get the same rights.  I can imagine numbers of premature babies in these states not standing a chance and dying anyway because of the higher then normal infant mortality rate.

 

Quote

So I guess me question is why are you uncomfortable with abortion let's say, beyond 7 months when it can comfortably survive outside of the womb? Is the location of the baby inside of the womb versus outside the womb change the status of life? What would be your definition?

 

C-section is jus as invasive as child-birth.  You run the risk of a complication that prevents further child birth every time you do it, imagine forcing someone to give birth and decide to give up for adoption because they cant afford the kid but it goes bad and they cant have kids down the road.  Why open ourselves up to this?

 

Quote

Thanks to everyone that has responded so far. As an update, I am not trying to have an argument, rather ask questions to better understand what pro-choice people are thinking/coming from.

 

Do you agree with this law they passed in Alabama?

Edited May 19, 2019 by Renegade7

[twa]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

You will never get everyone or probably even a majority to all agree when "life" begins.  That's why I think we should have just stuck with the Roe model based on trimesters.

 

most would agree a heartbeat is a sign of life that is in common use.

 

[Cooked Crack]

27 minutes ago, twa said:

 

most would agree a heartbeat is a sign of life that is in common use.

 

Nah. Electrical impulses from something the size of a pumpkin seed does not make something a life.

Quote

Doctors who oppose the legislation say that what appears to be a heartbeat at six weeks is simply a vibration of developing tissues that could not exist without the mother. That vibration is a medical term called “embryonic cardiac activity.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/georgia-governor-signs-heartbeat-bill-giving-the-state-one-of-the-most-restrictive-abortion-laws-in-the-nation/2019/05/07/d53b2f8a-70cf-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html?utm_term=.5db07b2b6c57

 

Edited May 19, 2019 by Cooked Crack

[TheGreatBuzz]

11 minutes ago, twa said:

 

most would agree a heartbeat is a sign of life that is in common use.

 

I don't think this is true.

[Larry]

I strongly advise against going down the road of "what is life".  I've seen it before in this thread.  

[Renegade7]

This could really galvanize the pro-choice side once these ads start rolling for these new laws as the GOPs vision on this issue.  It's telling how many are already saying this is too far and could backfire.  This Alabama law could get thrown out at lower court, they blew their wad on this.

[MartinC]

33 minutes ago, twa said:

 

most would agree a heartbeat is a sign of life that is in common use.

 

 

It a sign - but not proof of.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

42 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

This could really galvanize the pro-choice side once these ads start rolling for these new laws as the GOPs vision on this issue.  It's telling how many are already saying this is too far and could backfire.  This Alabama law could get thrown out at lower court, they blew their wad on this.

 

Seems the intent of this law is to get it to SCOTUS and let the newly appointed partisan hacks undo 45 years of precedence 

[twa]

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

Nah. Electrical impulses from something the size of a pumpkin seed does not make something a life.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/georgia-governor-signs-heartbeat-bill-giving-the-state-one-of-the-most-restrictive-abortion-laws-in-the-nation/2019/05/07/d53b2f8a-70cf-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html?utm_term=.5db07b2b6c57

 

 

when do those opposed say a real heartbeat exists?

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

5 hours ago, LD0506 said:

While I find myself agreeing  with a lot of what you say LSF, I still think your focus is too narrow. This isn't just about women or gender(although that is a huge theme within it), this is about power and control PERIOD! Women, gays, blacks, immigrants, multi-racial children in commercials, artists, comedians, intellectuals, loudmouths, boatrockers, snarky T shirt wearers, yadda yadda yadda, absolutely anyone that disagrees or even doesn't support their disease enough can fall into their crosshairs. Zyklon B does not discriminate.

 

I agree with you, however it's women's bodily autonomy that's being threatened right this second. After females, which you'll agree that this is the largest population class, will come everyone else who isn't white males.

 

 

[Renegade7]

39 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Seems the intent of this law is to get it to SCOTUS and let the newly appointed partisan hacks undo 45 years of precedence 

 

Just because want it to get to supreme court doesnt mean they will take it up.  It's so far reaching a lower court can stop it.

[LadySkinsFan]

4 hours ago, Larry said:

Was half listening to a Republican congressman on Meet the Press discussing the new wave of abortion laws.  And I caught something that I think He mentioned that new technology was allowing parents to screen their children for genetic disorders, and he "didn't want our country to be performing these barbaric third world practices."  

 

Might be worth discussing.  Should a woman be allowed to decide to abort a pregnancy if, say, it's determined that the fetus has Down's?  (That's the only genetic condition that I know might be screened, but I assume there's others.)  

 

(Or to pick a different case, I remember reading recently that I think it was India has made it illegal for doctors to tell parents the gender of their fetus, because so many were choosing to abort females.  Is your opinion of screening for Down's and gender different?)

 

 

Females choose to terminate a pregnancy for a variety of reasons. I leave that to her choice.

 

India and China are facing a huge crisis with sex selection because of their insistence on males. There are many males who can't find a female to marry because there aren't enough females being born. That's a huge societal problem that those governments need to think about. This includes the cultural preference for males.

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

Just because want it to get to supreme court doesnt mean they will take it up.  It's so far reaching a lower court can stop it.

 

You're forgetting appeals to a higher court, and the control crowd will surely appeal.

[Larry]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Just because want it to get to supreme court doesnt mean they will take it up.  It's so far reaching a lower court can stop it.

 

Granted, I'm probably better at picking a super bowl winning football team to cheer for than I am at predicting SC decisions, but . . . 

 

If the court doesn't want to be legislating this issue from the bench, (a qualifier which I am not certain is fact), then I could see the court deciding that they don't want to be writing law, and simply throwing the entire thing out.  In effect ruling that "we're not going to decide where to draw the line, here, but we're certain that y'all went past it.  Try again."  

[LD0506]

[visionary]