|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
BlackJack, sorry to say, but you're running in circles with your 'at any time' interpretation. It seems like a hard for you to grasp concept where the words 'at any time' do not practically mean literally at any time because literally no one would kill a baby just for the heck of it. Legislature targets normal people. People of sane minds.
Let me tell you what people do when they are not sane: not take into account the legislatory background around the protection of babies. They plain murder them. Whatever the reason they cooked up because of their malfunctioning mental state, they're going to do it. No amount of semantics around the subject is going to make you include these groups of people.
So, once more: normal people don't kill babies. Normal people almost exclusively abort because developmental problems arising with baby or health problems with mother. Normal people don't decide, after 7 months, they actually don't want it after all. There's a significant mental, physical and resource investment going into having a baby. You don't decide on a whim that it's not worth it after all. And even if we entertain your idea that, let's say, an 8 month old woman wants to abort, no same doctor will ever let that slide.
Let's take a practical example here in Belgium on a different, yet sentimantally similar topic: euthanasia. Every so often there are court cases of families who sue doctors performing euthanasia because they think it wasn't done with the right procedure or performed too early or whatever. These are all, while unfortunate, examples that can guide us as a whole in to better understanding the conditions - from all parties involved - that need to be met to perform the correct actions.
Legislation is theory. Practice is messy, but helps shape a nuanced and workable framework around that legislation and will, if necessary, be honed to become a - hopefully - better piece of legislation.
Getting it absolutely correct on the first try is like asking a caveman who just saw fire for the first time why he's not making the most refined dishes with it yet. It takes time.
But again, just to be absolutely completely clear: in like 99.99% of the cases, aborting at any time is a non issue because babyhavers don't just flip flop into becoming non baby-havers.
|
I actually think the literal reading of the survey question favours Blackjack's interpretation here. We shouldn't be reading into the minds of those answering the survey when the obvious answer is available: there is a small but significant minority that support abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any reason.
|
Well then those are people who haven't ever gone through a pregnancy (obviously not singling out women here, men go through pregnancy as well albeit passively) and will have a rude awakening once they decide what it actually entails.
I can understand that some people don't give it enough though, or only superficially glance at it and make a grossly uninformed decision, but what can you do about that? Not everyone has the deduction capabilities or wants to spend as much time on it or even cares. Do we incentivize citizens to become disproportionally more responsible as to get involved in ethics and social dynamics? It takes a lot of time delving into these topics, people like doing different things than debate about the finer details regarding abortion or mental health or the war on drugs. Doesn't mean people won't have strong opinions on them when asked.
It's a difficult area to tread because on the one hand people need to be included, but if they're not well informed, how much value does that opinion actually offer. You could always go with the: read up on it first before speaking on it, but that will only push people away.
|
On October 27 2023 17:10 gobbledydook wrote:
I actually think the literal reading of the survey question favours Blackjack's interpretation here. We shouldn't be reading into the minds of those answering the survey when the obvious answer is available: there is a small but significant minority that support abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any reason.
That is one interpretation, but reading the survey, I myself would probably have said that abortion should be legal for any reason in the third trimester of pregnancy. But I don't mean that abortion should necessarily end with a dead baby, and if it's a viable, even healthy, baby, it should just get axed because that is what abortion means to blackjack and you. What I mean with abortion should be legal is that the mother has the right to not be pregnant anymore at any given point. Of course, the moment the fetus is sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb, it has the right to do so, and abortion must now be done in a way in order to not harm the fetus, so probably a C-section (assuming the mother is otherwise healthy as well). The newborn is taken away and cared for in the best way we know how. The mother goes home and never sees the baby again. The pregnancy was successfully aborted. I support that. I don't support taking that newborn and murdering it.
|
Deciding on 'the mother never sees the baby again' and the whole can of worms foster care opens up is also not an easy discussion to have.
That feels like an incredibly dystopian thing to say.
|
On October 27 2023 17:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2023 17:10 gobbledydook wrote:
I actually think the literal reading of the survey question favours Blackjack's interpretation here. We shouldn't be reading into the minds of those answering the survey when the obvious answer is available: there is a small but significant minority that support abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any reason. That is one interpretation, but reading the survey, I myself would probably have said that abortion should be legal for any reason in the third trimester of pregnancy. But I don't mean that abortion should necessarily end with a dead baby, and if it's a viable, even healthy, baby, it should just get axed because that is what abortion means to blackjack and you. What I mean with abortion should be legal is that the mother has the right to not be pregnant anymore at any given point. Of course, the moment the fetus is sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb, it has the right to do so, and abortion must now be done in a way in order to not harm the fetus, so probably a C-section (assuming the mother is otherwise healthy as well). The newborn is taken away and cared for in the best way we know how. The mother goes home and never sees the baby again. The pregnancy was successfully aborted. I support that. I don't support taking that newborn and murdering it.
I'm generally closer to being pro than anti abortion, but tbh I'm not sure that mothers should be given a right to just not be pregnant any more at any given point, and in particular the stance that a fetus that's not developed enough to survive on its own can just be discarded while one that might survive outside the womb should be taken care of is too cynical for my taste.
A lot of these discussions come dangerously close to trying to judge whether an infant's right to live or a mother's 'right to her womb' should take priority and while it's a somewhat easier call to make with newly conceived fetuses which, as far as the currently accepted science goes, aren't really properly formed, self-aware human beings and where you might be looking at situations like accidental or post sexual assault pregnancies, abortion multiple months into the pregnancy just doesn't sit right with me.
Bottomline, I truly resent how this discussion seems to be turning (in the US especially, but in some other places as well such as Korea) into a stupid black and white US OR THEM kind of fight and completely ignores incredibly important nuance. I think this is one of those issues where the 'progressive left' really does have to work a lot harder than the 'conservative right' to come up with just and fair laws, but that's not necessarily a bad thing in this particular case.
|
I think our conservative friends are reading a level of frivolity, whimsy, and even malice into "any time, for any reason" that doesn't actually exist. If you insist on being able to carry guns at any time, for any reason, do you intend on going out and shooting someone at the first opportunity? I frankly don't think this discussion is going to bear any fruit as long as it's a group of dudes pontificating on the morality of being someone with a uterus. I'd be much more interested in hearing from those people, and from people who have actually considered or had an abortion, because as far as I'm concerned the conversations those people have are infinitely more grounded in the reality of it. It's two completely different worlds, and one of them is in fantasy land.
|
United States41934 Posts
It's the basic bodily autonomy question posited by the violinist metaphor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#The_violinist
You should not be compelled to share your organs and your body to save another human. You should be able to disconnect the violinist at any time for any reason, even if they are unable to survive without using your vitality.
Nowhere in the violinist metaphor does it say "and if the violinist is 99% healed and able to survive that disconnect you should shoot him in the head". If you terminate a pregnancy at 9 months then you're exercising your right to control your own body, not to take a life.
|
On October 27 2023 22:22 KwarK wrote:It's the basic bodily autonomy question posited by the violinist metaphor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion#The_violinistYou should not be compelled to share your organs and your body to save another human. You should be able to disconnect the violinist at any time for any reason, even if they are unable to survive without using your vitality. Nowhere in the violinist metaphor does it say "and if the violinist is 99% healed and able to survive that disconnect you should shoot him in the head". If you terminate a pregnancy at 9 months then you're exercising your right to control your own body, not to take a life.
An oldie, but a goodie.
In my eyes, any position on abortion coming from a man, short of saying the people who have them should be free to decide for themselves, is automatically worthless. It's fantasy football to you, it's a family and life decision for them. Maybe it involves you if you're the father. That's it. You'll know when your opinion on the matter is wanted.
|
On October 27 2023 17:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2023 17:10 gobbledydook wrote:
I actually think the literal reading of the survey question favours Blackjack's interpretation here. We shouldn't be reading into the minds of those answering the survey when the obvious answer is available: there is a small but significant minority that support abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any reason. That is one interpretation, but reading the survey, I myself would probably have said that abortion should be legal for any reason in the third trimester of pregnancy. But I don't mean that abortion should necessarily end with a dead baby, and if it's a viable, even healthy, baby, it should just get axed because that is what abortion means to blackjack and you. What I mean with abortion should be legal is that the mother has the right to not be pregnant anymore at any given point. Of course, the moment the fetus is sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb, it has the right to do so, and abortion must now be done in a way in order to not harm the fetus, so probably a C-section (assuming the mother is otherwise healthy as well). The newborn is taken away and cared for in the best way we know how. The mother goes home and never sees the baby again. The pregnancy was successfully aborted. I support that. I don't support taking that newborn and murdering it.
It is a lot of money and effort to resuscitate premature babies in the neonatal ICU. I don’t think it’s even worth it for a baby that nobody wants. I think you’re better off avoiding any heroic measures and if they live then great but if not oh well. That or consider a moratorium on abortion from like 22-32 weeks to avoid those messy cases in the middle of viability.
|
The violinist analogy is flawed. You can always rationalize to disconnect 'at any time', but the second there is actually someone hooked onto you, using your body for survival, things change. Voluntarily pulling the plug on someone, even if it's someone you don't know, is not something you 'just do because it's inconvenient for my body and soul'. Also, in this metaphor you had no choice in the matter. In general, people get pregnant with premeditation (am I using that right?), so you 'don't just wake up' with some creature sapping your resources.
I think these thought experiments fall completely flat with what they're trying to achieve as they fail to take into account that they're very easy to assess from afar, but in the moment, it's a very different type of situation.
|
On October 27 2023 22:53 Uldridge wrote:
The violinist analogy is flawed. You can always rationalize to disconnect 'at any time', but the second there is actually someone hooked onto you, using your body for survival, things change. Voluntarily pulling the plug on someone, even if it's someone you don't know, is not something you 'just do because it's inconvenient for my body and soul'. Also, in this metaphor you had no choice in the matter. In general, people get pregnant with premeditation (am I using that right?), so you 'don't just wake up' with some creature sapping your resources.
I think these thought experiments fall completely flat with what they're trying to achieve as they fail to take into account that they're very easy to assess from afar, but in the moment, it's a very different type of situation.
Right, most people don’t get pregnant by being kidnapped and then waking up with a pregnancy they don’t want. Well, some people do. It’s called rape. Using the violin analogy is a sly way to reframe the debate around abortion in the instance of rape which is a much more favorable debate for a pro-choice argument.
|
|
|
If republican lawmakers gave a fuck about babies they would push free healthcare for them.
They would be pro school meals.
Spoiler: they dont care.
|
On October 27 2023 22:53 Uldridge wrote:
The violinist analogy is flawed. You can always rationalize to disconnect 'at any time', but the second there is actually someone hooked onto you, using your body for survival, things change. Voluntarily pulling the plug on someone, even if it's someone you don't know, is not something you 'just do because it's inconvenient for my body and soul'. Also, in this metaphor you had no choice in the matter. In general, people get pregnant with premeditation (am I using that right?), so you 'don't just wake up' with some creature sapping your resources.
I think these thought experiments fall completely flat with what they're trying to achieve as they fail to take into account that they're very easy to assess from afar, but in the moment, it's a very different type of situation.
Again, we're projecting these casual feelings of "eh, I just don't feel like it" onto the situation, which don't actually occur. You're misplacing the actual core argument, which is one of bodily autonomy, in a case where someone else's survival requires you to make a personal sacrifice. I don't think Kwark has been unclear on that at any point. It's a matter of consent, and whether making that sacrifice is something that violates your personal autonomy.
It comes down to consent. Anything but a "yes" is a "no". And the "yes" can become a "no" at any point whatsoever, because that's how consent works. That's why it's framed as "at any time, for any reason". Because women are maintaining it as an issue of bodily autonomy and consent. Because that's what it is. Projecting this idea that people frivolously or lightly make this decision doesn't contribute to the actual discussion, it's veering back into fantasy land.
|
On October 27 2023 23:15 Artisreal wrote:
If republican lawmakers gave a fuck about babies they would push free healthcare for them.
They would be pro school meals.
Spoiler: they dont care. That is my entire issue with (most of) the "pro-life" movement.
I can understand the idea that life is sacred (even from as early as conception) but if life is so sacred then surely life after birth is just as important.
But somehow it never is.
|
I guarantee you, the people who get abortions know better than anyone that they're ending the potential for life. They don't need you to remind them. This isn't a for-funsies situation.
|
On October 27 2023 23:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2023 22:51 BlackJack wrote:On October 27 2023 17:41 Acrofales wrote:On October 27 2023 17:10 gobbledydook wrote:
I actually think the literal reading of the survey question favours Blackjack's interpretation here. We shouldn't be reading into the minds of those answering the survey when the obvious answer is available: there is a small but significant minority that support abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any reason. That is one interpretation, but reading the survey, I myself would probably have said that abortion should be legal for any reason in the third trimester of pregnancy. But I don't mean that abortion should necessarily end with a dead baby, and if it's a viable, even healthy, baby, it should just get axed because that is what abortion means to blackjack and you. What I mean with abortion should be legal is that the mother has the right to not be pregnant anymore at any given point. Of course, the moment the fetus is sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb, it has the right to do so, and abortion must now be done in a way in order to not harm the fetus, so probably a C-section (assuming the mother is otherwise healthy as well). The newborn is taken away and cared for in the best way we know how. The mother goes home and never sees the baby again. The pregnancy was successfully aborted. I support that. I don't support taking that newborn and murdering it. It is a lot of money and effort to resuscitate premature babies in the neonatal ICU. I don’t think it’s even worth it for a baby that nobody wants. I think you’re better off avoiding any heroic measures and if they live then great but if not oh well. That or consider a moratorium on abortion from like 22-32 weeks to avoid those messy cases in the middle of viability. Isn’t doing everything to keep a fetus alive even if no one wants it pretty core to the argument? But once it becomes a baby it’s not worth it anymore? Are you not plainly saying one of the main arguments against Republicans that they fight tooth and nail for fetuses and then give up instantly on the babies when they realize how much work and cost is involved?
Per usual, I have no idea what you’re talking about. What does my post have to do with Republicans or what they believe? I’m certain pro-life Republicans would want to save the premie babies too, what’s your point?
|
|
|
I'm not projecting that, in fact, I specifically stated that no one ever takes a decision like that lightly and my point was that bodily autonomy is basically a case by case thing at that point.
The principle of body autonomy doesn't reallly have a leg to stand on for me if it uses killing a human to make its point. We can delve into more nuanced takes, but as it stands the entire point I'm trying to make is that everything - even consent - becomes messy when a life, how potential that life might be, is having to be considered by the other party and those surrounding it.
My entire point is nuance, not hardlining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
