Society/Culture Reproductive Rights: Roe vs Wade, abortion, etc

[Nuggs Bunny]

Legal abortions in Australia have a cutoff date, so it isn’t just about the life of the mother even when it’s permitted.

That’s kind of my point; the abortion argument ultimately comes down to what point someone considers a life to be a life.

My point is it shouldn't. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on abortion laws in Australia, but if the cut-off laws were created as a result of protracted negotiations between people who were "pro-choice" and people who were "pro-life" like in a few publicised cases in the US, they're almost certainly an arbitrary age at which point the fetus was considered by the law makers to be not human, added in as a compromise to pass legislation. The actual age limits themselves are totally meaningless outside of the law they were created for.

The point at which a life becomes a life is a moral conundrum while the right to bodily autonomy is a legal issue. The morality of getting an abortion may forever be debated, however legally the right of a person to have absolute autonomy over their own body should be upheld and that's why the point at which life becomes life should have no place in abortion laws. It's a distraction from the real issue which is women having the right to control their own body.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Yes, without throwing a single insult at anyone, or going on an emotive rant about something no one in this thread has ever said.

Mate, you took a shot at me long before I even considered replying to any of your posts on the matter.

You essentially called me immature. Then you got your panties in a twist when I responded. Then you proceeded to quote me completely out of context and claim I was attacking people in this thread when I had berated precisely nobody.

That you are questioning my maturity without a hint of irony is amusing.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Legal abortions in Australia have a cutoff date, so it isn’t just about the life of the mother even when it’s permitted.

That’s kind of my point; the abortion argument ultimately comes down to what point someone considers a life to be a life.

And to those victims of sexual assault, what of them? Most anti-abortion advocates consider life begins at conception. And that is the essence of them trying to overturn R v W.

I think I may have raised this once or twice. Without response but I’ll keep trying.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

And I tried to hold out an olive branch via PM too.

 

[Opine]

….
legally the right of a person to have absolute autonomy over their own body should be upheld and that's why the point at which life becomes life should have no place in abortion laws. It's a distraction from the real issue which is women having the right to control their own body.

It already does in AU, even if indirectly and in relation to 3rd party acts, at 20 weeks and 400 grams; refer Zoe’s Law. IINM 22 weeks in NSW and 24 in Vic for abortion related terminations.

NSW passes Zoe's Law to impose harsher penalties for the death of an unborn baby

A bill first proposed after a drunk driver hit Brodie Donegan, causing the loss of her foetus, Zoe, 12 years ago, passes NSW Parliament and will see tougher penalties for crimes that result in the loss of an unborn child.

www.abc.net.au

 

[ElectricG]

And to those victims of sexual assault, what of them? Most anti-abortion advocates consider life begins at conception. And that is the essence of them trying to overturn R v W.

I think I may have raised this once or twice. Without response but I’ll keep trying.

Most pro-choice advocates wouldn’t support a policy that allows abortion only where the pregnancy is a result of rape or otherwise a threat to the mother’s life. These pregnancies make up a very small amount of abortions performed, but tend to be the first thing brought up by pro choice people.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Most pro-choice advocates wouldn’t support a policy that allows abortion only where the pregnancy is a result of rape or otherwise a threat to the mother’s life. These pregnancies make up a very small amount of abortions performed, but tend to be the first thing brought up by pro choice people.

I am asking for the position of those who would overturn Roe vs Wade. Do you not think it is critical to the argument that the laws regarding sexual assault victims are considered?

To say that pro-choice advocates defer immediately to this is possibly not incorrect but it is disingenuous to dismiss this concern. Have those who would seek to overturn R v W conceded that this is exactly why this consideration must be made? Because if they haven’t (and I’ve not seen any evidence they have) then pro-choice advocates have every right, and in fact should ask the question until a satisfactory resolution is reached.

If the anti-abortion brigade want reasonable discourse then this is where the debate starts.

 

[ElectricG]

I am asking for the position of those who would overturn Roe vs Wade. Do you not think it is critical to the argument that the laws regarding sexual assault victims are considered?

To say that pro-choice advocates defer immediately to this is possibly not incorrect but it is disingenuous to dismiss this concern. Have those who would seek to overturn R v W conceded that this is exactly why this consideration must be made? Because if they haven’t (and I’ve not seen any evidence they have) then pro-choice advocates have every right, and in fact should ask the question until a satisfactory resolution is reached.

If the anti-abortion brigade want reasonable discourse then this is where the debate starts.

The thing is though mate you’ve said multiple times here that pro life people want to force women to have their rapist’s baby (as if you can force a natural bodily phenomenon like reproduction to take place). You haven’t been “asking the question” at all. I’m not dismissing the concern, I’m saying that raising the concern is generally used only to mischaracterise the opposing viewpoint.

 

[faible]

My point is it shouldn't. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on abortion laws in Australia, but if the cut-off laws were created as a result of protracted negotiations between people who were "pro-choice" and people who were "pro-life" like in a few publicised cases in the US, they're almost certainly an arbitrary age at which point the fetus was considered by the law makers to be not human, added in as a compromise to pass legislation. The actual age limits themselves are totally meaningless outside of the law they were created for.

The point at which a life becomes a life is a moral conundrum while the right to bodily autonomy is a legal issue. The morality of getting an abortion may forever be debated, however legally the right of a person to have absolute autonomy over their own body should be upheld and that's why the point at which life becomes life should have no place in abortion laws. It's a distraction from the real issue which is women having the right to control their own body.

I disagree.

There’s a clear difference with an unborn child and their physical dependence upon the mother, and the right to bodily autonomy in the sense you’re discussing it. Otherwise we’d just say that any abortion prior to the natural birth of the child is all well and good, which pretty much no one would support in reality.

There needs to be a compromise between the right to choose of the mother (and the father, who mind you, often gets forgotten in these conversation, but that’s a broader discussion) and the needs of the child beyond a certain point of development.

 

[faible]

And to those victims of sexual assault, what of them? Most anti-abortion advocates consider life begins at conception. And that is the essence of them trying to overturn R v W.

I think I may have raised this once or twice. Without response but I’ll keep trying.

I’ve replied in PM but for posterity;

I think R v W is a poor thing for abortion rights to hinge on in the US, ideally it would be properly codified in to federal law and be done with, but the US is a strange country in that sense.

To get to that point, you need to win over the moderate people who generally believe life begins at conception, but who also don’t fully conceptualise the implications of that position where it comes to pregnancies due to things like sexual assault.

Something that often also gets lost in the discussion is just how heartbreaking and unpleasant the experience of someone making the decision to get an abortion is. No normal person is going to do it on a regular basis because they find it fun after a night out and didn’t want to use a condom.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

The thing is though mate you’ve said multiple times here that pro life people want to force women to have their rapist’s baby (as if you can force a natural bodily phenomenon like reproduction to take place). You haven’t been “asking the question” at all. I’m not dismissing the concern, I’m saying that raising the concern is generally used only to mischaracterise the opposing viewpoint.

But that’s patently not true.

Overturning R v W and the closing of abortion clinics is ultimately going to force abused women to give birth. It has nothing to do with your comment in brackets which makes no sense in the context of this argument.

I am asking, have those who want R v W overturned conceded that r*ped women have a legitimate need to proceed to abortion? That is my question. I have seen no evidence that they have. The right to lifers seem to believe that all conception is equal and that the zygote of a r*ped woman should be carried to term. My opinion is that this demand is abhorrent.

 

[ElectricG]

But that’s patently not true.

Overturning R v W and the closing of abortion clinics is ultimately going to force abused women to give birth. It has nothing to do with your comment in brackets which makes no sense in the context of this argument.

I am asking, have those who want R v W overturned conceded that r*ped women have a legitimate need to proceed to abortion? That is my question. I have seen no evidence that they have. The right to lifers seem to believe that all conception is equal and that the zygote of a r*ped woman should be carried to term. My opinion is that this demand is abhorrent.

It’s not forcing them to give birth, the birth happens without intervention or “force”. Termination of the fetus is more akin to “force” and banning abortion bans that activity.

I am personally of the view that abortion should only be permissible in extreme circumstances including rape or incest; to me the distress caused to the mother justifies the intervention. The “hard” pro life position is that it’s not the baby’s fault that the rape took place, and therefore does not deserve to be murdered. Logically it is fairly unassailable if you believe an unborn baby is a human being.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Think the broad way the Mississippi case (plus the recent voting rights decisions) has been handled will pretty much snuff out the last pretence of the Court being considered anything other than just another partisan institution.

Don't think Biden will expand the court, but it wouldn't surprise me if he went for a middle ground solution like more well-defined/shorter term limits for justices.

 

[The Passenger]

The Cryptkeeper is not wrong when he says the end game of many anti-abortion crusaders is for the complete abolition of abortion, regardless of the circumstances in which the conception occurred.

 

[ElectricG]

The Cryptkeeper is not wrong when he says the end game of many anti-abortion crusaders is for the complete abolition of abortion, regardless of the circumstances in which the conception occurred.

And many pro choice crusaders believe in abortion up to birth. The literal butchering of a 39w baby. Something too horrendous and sick to even contemplate. Let’s not pretend that both sides don’t have their extremist “fellow travellers”.

 

[Chief]

And many pro choice crusaders believe in abortion up to birth.

What a load of shit.

 

[ElectricG]

What a load of sh*t.

You are incorrect. It is trendy to believe that any restriction on access to abortion is denial of women’s bodily autonomy.

 

[tandino]

The Cryptkeeper is not wrong when he says the end game of many anti-abortion crusaders is for the complete abolition of abortion, regardless of the circumstances in which the conception occurred.

But that's a logical position to take. Why shouldn't children of rapists be protected under the law?

 

[Chief]

It’s a tiny lump of barely differentiated cells that the body has a 50/50 chance of spontaneously shedding anyway.

 

[spinynorman]

But that’s patently not true.

Overturning R v W and the closing of abortion clinics is ultimately going to force abused women to give birth. It has nothing to do with your comment in brackets which makes no sense in the context of this argument.

I am asking, have those who want R v W overturned conceded that r*ped women have a legitimate need to proceed to abortion? That is my question. I have seen no evidence that they have. The right to lifers seem to believe that all conception is equal and that the zygote of a r*ped woman should be carried to term. My opinion is that this demand is abhorrent.

For sure. And many of those opposed (I'd even potentially accept the majority) against abortion laws are hypocritical dickheads who otherwise show little care for human life, and don't support any assistance to the women they are trying to force into becoming mothers.

But to owen87's point, there are undoubtedly some people who legitimately believe that abortions are killing babies, and that this murder is legal, and happens in large numbers every day - and there's no doubt that if that's a belief truly felt that that would be distressing. It's entirely wrong, but when the argument becomes "Abortion is murder" versus "My body my rights", you're really arguing at a cross purpose here and aren't going to win any of these people over.

 

[ElectricG]

It’s a tiny lump of barely differentiated cells that the body has a 50/50 chance of spontaneously shedding anyway.

At what gestation? Are you suggesting they 50% or pregnancies end in miscarriage?

 

[Chief]

At what gestation? Are you suggesting they 50% or pregnancies end in miscarriage?

Yes about half of all pregnancies spontaneously terminate pretty early on, mostly before the mother is even aware she is pregnant.

 

[Brad Goodman]

Miscarriage - Symptoms and causes

www.mayoclinic.org

 

[Opine]

Politically, whatever the outcome of the constitutional question now before the SC, current context is very different to when decision was initially handed down in 73. According to one source I’ve read: 80% of Americans now favour right to chose, 60% agree with R&W. Moreover, 15 Stares are pro-choice.

Morally, a major concern is what will happen to those women who don’t have the resources and support to exercise their choice in another State if responsibility is put on State legislatures. That’s what needs to be kept in mind. One hopes the Feds will fund adequate support if that does happen.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The thing is though mate you’ve said multiple times here that pro life people want to force women to have their rapist’s baby (as if you can force a natural bodily phenomenon like reproduction to take place). You haven’t been “asking the question” at all. I’m not dismissing the concern, I’m saying that raising the concern is generally used only to mischaracterise the opposing viewpoint.

There is NOTHING NATURAL about rape in our lawful human world. Rape violates consent. Rape takes something from the individual, and if the victim happens to be a woman what it puts back is half the genetic material of the rapist. Would you want that growing inside you?

I realise that an argument might follow that all children, even children of rape, are innocent of the crimes that created them but still, they are proceeds of crime. Unless the mother is willing to carry to term they are proto-life who never should have been. They don't belong.

I'm a man and have only ever read about and listened to the accounts of women who have gone through nine months (give or take) of gestation and birth. To go through this when the life inside you is there through the love of your partner or with a little IVF boost is one thing, but to feel so utterly detached from what is growing inside? To feel like its not yours and has no business being inside of you?

To demand that of unwilling women is unconscionable in my view.