Submitted by MajesticOuting t3_11hanxq in nottheonion
[deleted] t1_jatv4wu wrote
Reply to comment by Yolectroda in SC woman charged after allegedly consuming abortion pills to end pregnancy by MajesticOuting
[deleted]
Yolectroda t1_jatw0ne wrote
Correct, we have a term for that time. It starts with a 'b'.
And we do weigh the rights of all of the people involved against each other. Since there's only one person involved until after birth, that's easy. "Potential" people (to use your term) aren't people.
[deleted] t1_jaty66d wrote
[deleted]
Yolectroda t1_jatzz9c wrote
> arbitrary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
This is not remotely arbitrary. It's based on the point where the fetus is no longer a growth on another person, but is it's own person (see below on this).
As compared to pretty much every time based abortion ban, which are generally based on an actual "arbitrary" point in time, sometimes attempted to be justified by calling it "viability", but that's all over the place biologically speaking, while the laws generally aren't. And sometimes they pass laws that are supposed to be based on a heartbeat, but they're actually time based, and the heartbeat of a fetus is mostly just a pulsing tube for the first few month. Also, since a heartbeat itself has no impact on what makes us a person, it's also entirely arbitrary.
So, if you actually believe that it shouldn't be arbitrary, then feel free to join me.
And yes, the laws that we have in the US recognize that a person isn't a person until they're born. Prior to that, they don't have any of the rights that a person has, because "person" is a legal term, not a biological one. This isn't my opinion, it's just a fact. Most states grant some rights to the unborn, but not based on any personhood.
Wojtas_ t1_javmo74 wrote
Viability is a good indicator. While there are obviously outliers, there's a clearly defined moment at around the ~23-24th week of pregnancy where the fetus becomes very likely to survive outside of the womb. After the 25th week, it's almost guaranteed.
Before this moment, it's fully dependent on its mother to survive, and abortion is just that - abortion, and there's nothing wrong with it, the fetus is just a part of the woman's body, over which she should have complete control.
But later, it's killing someone who could have lived. You could end pregnancy and still have a living person, even if they'll need a few more months in an incubator. I find this a lot more controversial, although I'll refrain from making any judgements - every case is different. Nevertheless, there is an objective distinction.
And the law agrees almost all around the western world. Nearly all European countries ban abortion after the 20th week, and just about every US state used to have a limit at 25-30 weeks before the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Yolectroda t1_jawn8b8 wrote
Biologically, this is mostly just dogma and legal definitions. Viability varies entirely by the technology available to the caregivers. For example, in low income countries, about half of babies born prior to 32 weeks died. Viability is not a biological fact, but simply shifting human medical capabilities. (Here's more on viability, including the various legal definitions.)
Of course, this brings up a controversial topic. Right now, we have the technology to put a fetus in an artificial womb. Lambs have been grown from 4 weeks in these conditions. The only reason why we haven't seen more experiments on humans is because of ethical issues and laws. This technology effectively puts viability into the first trimester (and eventually, we likely wouldn't even need gestation to start in a person at all).
Treating a fetus as a fully grown human simply because we have medical technology isn't much of an objective distinction, but is a shifting line that moves based on location, financial resources, time, and a ton of luck.
And yes, much of Europe is more backwards than the US is on abortion. It's something we were leading the world on for a long time.
Wojtas_ t1_jaxa0ex wrote
That is a fair point which I've failed to consider. While I still can't think of a better distinction, this seems like a pointless discussion - abortions performed after the 25th week make up a statistically non-existent portion of all procedures, even in places which allow abortion up to the very end. That suggests they're only made in exceptional circumstances, and banning them would be harmful, supporting the view that all abortion should be legal. However, I do not feel qualified or entitled to making opinions or suggestions on this topic, and I'll gladly leave it to doctors who know what they're talking about, and women who these laws actually concern. Here's hoping they'll be the ones actually leading the discussion, and not religious-lunatic politicians with zero respect for human rights...
Yolectroda t1_jaxfxqr wrote
That's actually one of the biggest reasons to oppose restrictions at that point in pregnancy. Women who get abortions that late in a pregnancy almost always have exceptional situations, either medical or personal, and as you said, would be harmful. It's kinda like what the Utah governor said about the trans sports bans, there's so few of them and they're doing their best to work things out, that treating the situation with compassion rather than anger and prohibition makes the most sense (though sadly, they then overrode his veto, passing law that screwed over like 4 children in the state, at that time).
Rosebunse t1_jaugmyh wrote
I have more worth than an parasite does.
heroin-bob t1_jav1l67 wrote
Not in Texas you don’t.
dkdndkdmdmdmd t1_jb9tnji wrote
You do. I have more worth than an infant. Doesn’t mean I get to kill an infant. A fetus is a human being and should have the basic human rights granted to all humans, the most basic of those is the right to life. Unless a fetus is a grave health threat to the mother, a mother should not be able to terminate the life of a human being who was conceived by the consensual actions she engaged in to bring this human being into existence.
Rosebunse t1_jb9xgfd wrote
What if it isn't consensual? What if the baby does pose a threat? When you take away abortion from everyone, it makes it harder for anyone to get it even if they fit your criteria for being allowed to have one.
dkdndkdmdmdmd t1_jb9ytn5 wrote
Harder to get…because abortions to save the life of the mother are relatively rare. If the life of the mother is in jeopardy, hospitals should preform the procedure, not some hole in the wall, seedy abortion clinic.
If it is not consensual, I think that is a much harder argument against abortion because the rights of the mother were violated.
Rosebunse t1_jbaf8l7 wrote
So we have seen this in action and what we see repeatedly is that the hospitals in question just wait for the mothers to get so sick that what was once a simple medical procedure turns into a life or death situation. Is that right?
dkdndkdmdmdmd t1_jbafdbv wrote
I haven’t seen that. Can you show data on how common that is.
dkdndkdmdmdmd t1_jbammwr wrote
3 over an 11 year period with only one woman dying in Ireland. This is anecdotal, but laws can be written to better handle medically necessary abortions for specific conditions. The answer is not to legalize abortion for all to make it easier for a minute percentage of pregnancies.
In 2021 1035 people where murdered with knives. Should we ban knives to protect the rights of people?
Between 2012 and 2023, the period of time in the articles you cited, over 8,000,000 abortions have occurred in the US. That is the killing of 8,000,000 human beings. By comparison to the material mortality rate, there are about 1,000 times more abortions than deaths from maternal causes, and almost all of the maternal deaths were not due to lack of access to abortions.
CDC’s definition of maternal mortality:
“A maternal death is defined as, “the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy,” but excludes those from accidental or incidental causes.”
Finland and Ireland had strict abortions laws and yet their maternal mortality rates were much lower than the US.
Rosebunse t1_jbb5xkw wrote
How many of those children would have been born and actually lived? How many of them would have been given loving home and not been killed?
Tell me, what is the US maternity rate and how does it compare to that of other countries?
dkdndkdmdmdmd t1_jbbi9ke wrote
Considering the overwhelming majority of abortions are done out of convenience and not due to the child having an abnormality, I would say most of the 8,000,000. I don’t understand why abortion advocates ask if the child would have been loved. If given a choice between being loved by my parents and being killed, I’d choose life every time. Should we kill children who were born but are neglected by their parents? Should we killed people with Down Syndrome or some disability?
dkdndkdmdmdmd t1_jb8lm38 wrote
A fetus is not a parasite. This is basic biology.
1SDAN t1_jaw2mor wrote
So if I surgically attached my blood network to your blood network such that it'll take 2 months until an operation can be safely performed to separate the two of us without killing me, you'll be willing to live with me for the next 2 months.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments