US Supreme Court, women's bodily autonomy cancelled

[flatandy]

May 15, 2022 14:49:12 GMT mids said:

On the other hand, the idea of a 24 week threshold isn't really any better than the quickening. Why not 26 weeks? Or 18? It also throws a spanner and cart through the works of "my body, my choice" <coughnotafter24weeksorwhateverthresholdwedecidecough>.

Yeah. I think a specific threshold is dangerous. Because, firstly you don't really know exactly when conception date is in many cases so how do you know if you're a few days one way or another? And because any explanation for a threshold gives opportunities to shrink it. I think generally people should be encouraged to have abortions earlier for all kinds of very good reasons, mostly to do with the woman's physical and mental well-being. But if someone needs an abortion later, for whatever reasons, they should be allowed to have it.

[voice]

I think viability is about a good a measure as you can get. Though obviously viability is a little gray, viable with massive medical recourses and a slim chance of a healthy life vs just born and surviving with little actual medical intervention.

[flatandy]

Viability is such a grey area that I don't think it's useful. Some kids have been born at 21 or 22 weeks and presumably that age will get younger still as medicine advances.

[ootlg]

May 15, 2022 14:11:27 GMT flatandy said:

I'm in favour of abortion because children are horrible and babies are even more horrible.

Seriously, though, the argument has to be that "ensoulment" is a nonsensical belief. Even the concept of "the quickening" seems to be pretty primitive. It's religious or mediaeval pseudoscience nonsense.

Trying to find a middle ground with the religious, trying to parse an argument that works for them as well as normal people, is almost certainly a fool's errand.

How many kids do you have?

link

[ootlg]

May 15, 2022 15:14:15 GMT flatandy said:

May 15, 2022 14:49:12 GMT mids said:

On the other hand, the idea of a 24 week threshold isn't really any better than the quickening. Why not 26 weeks? Or 18? It also throws a spanner and cart through the works of "my body, my choice" <coughnotafter24weeksorwhateverthresholdwedecidecough>.

Yeah. I think a specific threshold is dangerous. Because, firstly you don't really know exactly when conception date is in many cases so how do you know if you're a few days one way or another? And because any explanation for a threshold gives opportunities to shrink it. I think generally people should be encouraged to have abortions earlier for all kinds of very good reasons, mostly to do with the woman's physical and mental well-being. But if someone needs an abortion later, for whatever reasons, they should be allowed to have it.

You do know that late abortions mean the poisoning of the fully-formed and aware unborn child and its dismemberment?

[flatandy]

There are miniscule numbers of late-term abortions, and they're almost always done through medical necessity/emergency. No pregnant woman prefers a late-term abortion to an early one. But trying to draw an arbitrary line where you think its reasonable or not feels like a pointless and silly task. There's no innate reason it should be at 168 days, rather than 167 or 169 days.

[Repat Van]

May 15, 2022 11:49:04 GMT mids said:

I'm all for abortion but I'm also aware that my arguments for it aren't particularly strong.

I’m all for abortion and my arguments for it are rock solid (I’m with the Canadians).

[mids]

May 15, 2022 16:23:17 GMT Repat Van said:

May 15, 2022 11:49:04 GMT mids said:

I'm all for abortion but I'm also aware that my arguments for it aren't particularly strong.

I’m all for abortion and my arguments for it are rock solid (I’m with the Canadians).

Your arguments are weaker than mine.

[voice]

as most abortions are before the end of the first trimester and almost every late abortion is for medical reasons, focuing on late abortions distorts the debate imo, its why those who oppose women having bodily autonomy focus on late abortions, usually with lurid tales of dismemberment (not having a go at oolgs btw). Though the most chilling aspect of the religious fuckwhits in the US winning is they want to charge women with murder for having an abortion, and you just know if you're poor and or black/brown/asian and have a miscarriage they are gonna jail you.

[Repat Van]

May 15, 2022 16:32:09 GMT mids said:

May 15, 2022 16:23:17 GMT Repat Van said:

I’m all for abortion and my arguments for it are rock solid (I’m with the Canadians).

Your arguments are weaker than mine.

You’re weak.

[ootlg]

May 15, 2022 16:17:30 GMT flatandy said:

There are miniscule numbers of late-term abortions, and they're almost always done through medical necessity/emergency. No pregnant woman prefers a late-term abortion to an early one. But trying to draw an arbitrary line where you think its reasonable or not feels like a pointless and silly task. There's no innate reason it should be at 168 days, rather than 167 or 169 days.

Which was the whole point of the 'quickening' example. It doesn't happen on such and such a date, inconvenient as that is academically, but when the mother knows the foetus has developed as an individual.

[flatandy]

It's inconvenient not academically, but legally. It's a useless criterion for when abortion should become illegal.

[ootlg]

To academics, yeah. There's more to it than bilateral theory. Don't get me wrong, I tend towards early abortion if the woman wants an abortion; but I waver after the point where the child has become an individual. You're against the death penalty aren't you?

[voice]

Worth pointing out again, the vast majority of abortions are withing the first trimester, a tiny portion in the third and almost exclusively for either non viability issues or the woman's health. More so in the UK where there is a hard cut off at 24 weeks except for very exceptional circumstances. The focus on late term abortion is simply disingenuous.

[mids]

May 16, 2022 6:33:23 GMT Repat Van said:

May 15, 2022 16:32:09 GMT mids said:

Your arguments are weaker than mine.

You’re weak.

You're a racist.

[flatandy]

May 16, 2022 12:21:36 GMT ootlg said:

To academics, yeah. There's more to it than bilateral theory. Don't get me wrong, I tend towards early abortion if the woman wants an abortion; but I waver after the point where the child has become an individual. You're against the death penalty aren't you?

Yes. Of course I'm against the death penalty.

The child becomes an individual at birth. Any earlier than that is an impossible to police arbitrary line. And irrelevant because almost no mother chooses to carry a baby to 6 months and then suddenly think that after 6 months of misery (in most cases), teetotalism, not eating cheese, and f**k*d up body, that they're going to have the really unpleasant kind of abortion. The numbers of women having entirely elective abortions after 24 weeks is miniscule because it would be utterly idiotic if you could have the abortion earlier.

[ootlg]

So we're agreed that early abortion is the only way, to ensure there is no unnecessary suffering?

[voice]

well no its not the only way simply because in certain cases a late term abortion will save a woman's life, and there are sad cases of fetal abnormalities so severe it would be cruel to make the woman carry it to term if discovered later in pregnancy, or in cases of fetal death, when there is an alternative.

[ootlg]

Of course. But we're getting somewhere; we have a base line. Going on from there, let's consider a late pregnancy with a healthy mother and baby: the mother changes her mind and wants a termination. What then?

[voice]

That is already the case. In the UK with its hard cut off healthy women with a healthy fetus are not aborted, even in the US where RvW never put a hard cut off has no proven cases where this happened, its a red herring.