Abortion Rights MudPit

[enoch]

Acting Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock has indicated in a letter the agency will be lifting restrictions on the health and safety standards applied to abortion-inducing drugs, allowing for the dispensation of the drugs via telemedicine and through the mail.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-through-mail/



Abortion by internet doc and USPS becomes legal. Good times.

[Gromovnik]

Abortions should be available on demand. And if we want to lower the number of abortions, education and contraception are the only practical ways to do it.

[enoch]

The right to have children should be limited like the right to vote in Georgia USA. Driver’s licenses should be way harder to get too.

[Knight of Heaven]

I think the man needs some say in whether a woman gets an abortion or not. It is his kid to, and he had an equal part in making it, so why should he have no say? If the woman really doesn't want to carry the child than I say a serogate mother is needed. Men and Women have a equal part in having a child, even though women like to disagree.

Sure, it is his kid too, but if the whole decision is solely on the woman, because it is her body, i would say the man should be able to deny fatherhood if he wishes without having to pay anything as it is his money after all.

To be honest, every sperm is technically a potential individual, so the actual act of coitus, even if it does achieve contraception, is nevertheless wasting millions of potential people.

That said, those who argue against abortion couldn't even give a **** about human life in general. Abortion has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with limiting the sexual freedoms of women and repressing the feminist movement in general.

By that logic every egg is a potential individual too? at any case im all for repressing the feminist movement for sure, cant say im into limiting sexual freedoms of anyone, least of all women.
On the contrary i do think this issue is ideological, and ethical first and foremost. In truth as a men i dont really care, they can do what they want, but lets not pretend or ignore the issue of abortion isn't morally dubious. And it is for that very reason alone that i think abortion shouldn't be criminalized. If its morally dubious, then perhaps the state shouldn't judge it.

[Genava]

these r my personal views on abortion rights.

my views, simply put, r that abortion should be legal for rape victums and for women who would be put in danger if they gave birth, after that, i see no point.

my reasoning.

Is it a person or not?: basically the defense that when in the first trimester the embryo is not a person, and there for can be killed. this is fine when arguing whether or not the embryo will feel pain, but the facts remain that it is a person, and if uninteruped, it will grow into a person.

Population Control: this i think i have the most beef with. we r getting overpopulated so we just start killing people? there r countless other forms of controception out there i just dont see y anyone should ever have to resort to killing people (no matter wat form they may be in) to control the population.

Unplanned: again, countless forms of controception out there that can be used very very effectivly, it would be much cheaper to get on the pill and use condoms, diaphrams, and so on all together rather then support a chind that u can not afford. there is also the very useful idea of putting them up for adoption. first off i am adopted, and im pretty happy that my birth mother didn't just have me sucked out.

womens choice: i understand that a women has a right to choose things about her body. but i hate to tell u, the embryo IS NOT HER BODY. there is absolutely no reason y an ordinary citizen, no matter who they r, should have the right to decide whether someone lives or dies. u leave that up to the judicial system.

EDIT: i know this is a very touchy subject, so please try to keep this civil. dont get in here and flame if u have nothing useful to add. im sure the mods will be watching this one.

Honestly, this kind of position is really the most illogical and incoherent.

Either the foetus is a person, or it is not.

If the foetus is a person, killing it because of a crime he didn't commit is absurd. Your proposal of abortion for rape victims is illogical and morally indefendable.

If you are starting to consider the health of the mother to justify abortion in case of rape, then you are starting to consider her body above the foetus.

[enoch]

Babies don’t know the circumstances of their conception. A fetus is either a human who deserves to live, or not, in which case any abortion is within a woman’s right to choose. The only nuance is if there is a “when” in the pregnancy where fetus becomes human but same moral choice applies.

One of the only moralist issues that is both black and white and worth legislating.

[Himster]

All legal citizens, upon reaching majority, should have their tubes tied, paid for by the tax payer. The money saved on social welfare and law enforcement would pay for itself.
Reproductive privileges should only be returned upon some kind of significant achievement. It could be some kind of exam or a pentathlon in a colosseum style setting which may or may not involve a baking contest judged by Mary Berry. We can work out those details.
Illegal conception should be harshly punished with hefty fines and or a probation program with GPS/electrified underwear instead of an ankle bracelet.

For more genius suggestions on global, social or personal problems: PM me.

[enoch]

Driving, voting and procreation should all be highly regulated. Guns should be illegal everywhere.

[Himster]

Driving, voting and procreation should all be highly regulated. Guns should be illegal everywhere.

Guns are fun. Prohibiting fun and employing a militarized fun-police is one of the worst things anyone could possibly do at any point in history.
But then again, the gun culture in America has reached beyond acceptable levels of perverted fetishism (and I have wide threshold for perversions), so maybe you have a point.


To get back on topic: How can we regulate procreation appropriately without violating an individual's inalienable rights?
This applies to both the supposed rights of the unborn and the autonomy a woman has over her body? No matter which way one leans, one will always be infringing on one of them.

[enoch]

By being monsters. Great change is not the purview of decent folk.

supposed rights of the unborn?

[antaeus]

Honestly, this kind of position is really the most illogical and incoherent.

Either the foetus is a person, or it is not.

If the foetus is a person, killing it because of a crime he didn't commit is absurd. Your proposal of abortion for rape victims is illogical and morally indefendable.

If you are starting to consider the health of the mother to justify abortion in case of rape, then you are starting to consider her body above the foetus.

We can get really nice and technical here if we like. Technically, we might be placing the mother's wellbeing above a barely implanted blastocyst that is in no way viable yet.

I mean, at about the time of implantation - really the earliest moment you could consider a future person actually a future person, and not a fertilised egg, a blastocyst contains perhaps a few hundred cells. Compare this to your average mosquito which has 500-1000 blood cells alone. Is this a person yet? At what point after implantation does this collection of cells become a person?

If you're going to come out with silly statements like "either a foetus is a person or it is not" then we might as well start getting technical about where that dividing line is - a transition must occur at some point. Implantation is one logical place to draw a line. But then at this point, some people may still fail pregnancy tests because of the variability of their HCG levels, and a great deal of pregnancies will fail shortly after implantation anyway - because even a low quality blastocyst can potentially implant and start the next phase before deciding it is non-viable and dropping out without anybody being any the wiser. From implantation to foetus the technical descriptions of what we're dealing with are purely technical and don't really mean anything. Yeah, it's an embryo - but does it have hands yet? or just nubbins. Another logical line could be drawn at the point in which a future person becomes independently viable - if it could potentially survive outside the womb. This is definitely a person at this point. But where does that line sit between implanted blastocyst and independent entity?

And hey, we're in the same dilemma the courts are in now.

[Knight of Heaven]

Highly regulated procreation doesn't make sense in the most developed countries. Not to mention being an egregious infringement of human rights.

But if someone is into that, i hear China is nice this time of the year.

Great change is not the purview of decent folk.

Great change is usually chaotic, divisive, full of conflict, and destructive. And often overrated.

A better change is one that comes organically in my humble opinion.

[Gromovnik]

True, China is beautiful.

[Cope]

We can get really nice and technical here if we like. Technically, we might be placing the mother's wellbeing above a barely implanted blastocyst that is in no way viable yet.

I mean, at about the time of implantation - really the earliest moment you could consider a future person actually a future person, and not a fertilised egg, a blastocyst contains perhaps a few hundred cells. Compare this to your average mosquito which has 500-1000 blood cells alone. Is this a person yet? At what point after implantation does this collection of cells become a person?

If you're going to come out with silly statements like "either a foetus is a person or it is not" then we might as well start getting technical about where that dividing line is - a transition must occur at some point. Implantation is one logical place to draw a line. But then at this point, some people may still fail pregnancy tests because of the variability of their HCG levels, and a great deal of pregnancies will fail shortly after implantation anyway - because even a low quality blastocyst can potentially implant and start the next phase before deciding it is non-viable and dropping out without anybody being any the wiser. From implantation to foetus the technical descriptions of what we're dealing with are purely technical and don't really mean anything. Yeah, it's an embryo - but does it have hands yet? or just nubbins. Another logical line could be drawn at the point in which a future person becomes independently viable - if it could potentially survive outside the womb. This is definitely a person at this point. But where does that line sit between implanted blastocyst and independent entity?

And hey, we're in the same dilemma the courts are in now.

A genetically distinct, individual, human organism (i.e. a person) is created at the moment of fertilization. The blastocyst period occurs afterwards.

[antaeus]

A genetically distinct, individual, human organism (i.e. a person) is created at the moment of fertilization. The blastocyst period occurs afterwards.

Interesting. That is also a logical cut off point, although at a point in which it less likely that distinct human will actually become a distinct human even if left alone.

At the moment of fertilisation, the egg and sperm are essentially floating free, and not in any way connected to the (future) mother - in the case of IVF, not even inside the (future) mother. Which begs further investigation. This is a moment in which the mother actually plays only an incidental role, and isn't even necessary. Theoretically, all that is needed is an egg, a sperm and some kind of medium that keeps them viable. A puddle of the right liquid on a bench top might do for all it matters. This is why I'd consider implantation a more logical moment to choose.

I'm curious about how you feel about a couple, or solo mother, not proceeding with IVF after lab fertilisation - is this an abortion? It is after all a distinct individual.

And given that the then fertilised egg is usually a day 3 or 5 blastocyst when ready to be returned or put on ice, should it be legal for someone undergoing IVF to choose to not proceed with blastocyst return? In a significant percentage of IVF scenarios it's likely that there will be multiple eggs retrieved, and multiple eggs fertilised - in some cases in the dozens.

What happens when there is a blastocyst on ice, and the mother dies? That blast is still an entirely viable distinct human being, now motherless.

Is disposing of unused blasts murder?

So many questions...

[Cope]

Interesting. At the moment of fertilisation, the egg and sperm are essentially floating free, and not in any way connected to the (future) mother - in the case of IVF, not even inside the (future) mother. Which begs further investigation.

It doesn't beg further investigation with regard to when a life begins.

I'm curious about how you feel about a couple, or solo mother, not proceeding with IVF after lab fertilisation - is this an abortion? It is after all a distinct individual.

And given that the then fertilised egg is usually a day 3 or 5 blastocyst when ready to be returned or put on ice, should it be legal for someone undergoing IVF to choose to not proceed with blastocyst return? In a significant percentage of IVF scenarios it's likely that there will be multiple eggs retrieved, and multiple eggs fertilised - in some cases in the dozens.

What happens when there is a blastocyst on ice, and the mother dies? That blast is still an entirely viable distinct human being, now motherless.

So many questions...

The insistence on running toward fringe scenarios is a clear indication that there is no interest in establishing general principles. Though to answer your question, the destruction of lab fertilized eggs is still abortion.

[Gromovnik]

Remember, kids, every sperm is sacred.

[antaeus]

It doesn't beg further investigation with regard to when a life begins.

The insistence on running toward fringe scenarios is a clear indication that there is no interest in establishing general principles. Though to answer your question, the destruction of lab fertilized eggs is still abortion.

Your lack of familiarity with a scenario does not render it fringe.

I can tell you from personal experience, that this isn't a fringe scenario. IVF is now commonplace, and these conversations are central to the IVF experience. Understanding what happens - both physically and morally, with your blastocysts are difficult conversations to have - the options are varied, from destruction to donation, to permanent indecision that will eventually leave the blast motherless (it will outlive all of us on ice in the right circumstances - and yes, this has started happening, and will happen more and more)

There are literal millions, possibly hundreds of millions of blastocysts on ice right now. The vast majority of which will never have the chance to implant. Where I live the process is state subsidised so virtually anyone can at least discuss the process with their GP. So no, not at all fringe. And having blasts on ice myself, I can tell you I am agnostic about these questions - it is a genuine moral conundrum that humanity hasn't faced before.

It seems by your theorising, if my partner and I choose not to do anything with the blasts we have on ice, we are essentially committing murder. Is that an accurate summary of your position?

[PointOfViewGun]

If a sperm is wasted?

[antaeus]

If a sperm is wasted?

I'd agree with Cope there... if it hasn't fertilised, it's just a dead skin cell for all it matters.