Abortion and Women's Rights

[gmalivuk]

why is it better to kill the baby on the way out instead of keeping it alive on the way out?

This is pointless. If you're going to continue, after this much time, ignoring the fact that the fetus is killed to reduce risk to the mother during the procedure, then there's truly no point in continuing to have this discussion with you. You can't keep asking this question and then conveniently completely ignoring the real answer every single time it is brought up.

[Izawwlgood]

do you get the idea that these people are often put in the position where they have to have a male child to ensure staying alive in old age?

I think the example of sexual selection forcing women to wait longer is an interesting twist on the matter, but basically what dedalus wrote above is the underlying issue as to why it's even a problem. As with people in America having ethical misgivings about allowing a woman to abort a fetus, people in China have ethical misgivings about raising a girl. In terms of the moral standpoint we're discussing, the 'problem' with China (as it applies to this conversation) isn't whether or not women give up their right to bodily autonomy for having to wait that long, but why society has created a situation where they have to. Taking away their bodily autonomy because of a social trapping is like kicking women (and hell, even fathers in this case, not that it's particularly pertinent) when they're down.

[FireZs]

Ummm... do you get the idea that these people are often put in the position where they have to have a male child to ensure staying alive in old age? I'm pretty sure they would have thought about it long and hard, and put their lives over the potential life of the fetus. And then they have another child later.

Also, just remember that in this situation the child *won't* get cared for (in third world countries states aren't known for their amazing ability to care for adopted children), and in China, I'm pretty sure that if the child lives that would count as their kid. So in this case either the existence of the child is bad (for the couple), or the child will die anyway.

As for this other reason, again, there's more going on here then just a case of 'oh, let's get this kid out of you and you can go on your way' (which you seem to be confusing an abortion with). You put the woman through many days of physical and emotional pain, with the knowledge that what she's giving birth to will most likely either a. die or b. become disabled, and if she doesn't care for it, it will be put into foster care (which on average is not usually as good as a biological family). So you're creating this immense sense of guilt, along with a huge emotional bond, and then taking the baby away? All because she didn't know that she was pregnant till too late? Yeah, again, considering the stats for survival at the 20-24 week period, it's a terrible thing to force a person to do.

Ninja'd: I'm pretty sure those terminations were for medical reasons as well. Maybe someone who knows the jargon might contribute their 2 cents.

Uh...no. Male children aren't just preferred because of economic reasons, they're also preferred because they carry on the family name. You might think that's a good reason to have a late abortion, but I don't. In China they have a pretty good foster system, actually. Where do you think all the babies adopted from China come from?

Late term abortions are also many days of physical and emotion pain, and the mother will have the knowledge that she's killing what is very likely a survivable baby. You're completely discounting these cases in insisting that disability and death after birth is guaranteed. And as I said, why is that a reason to choose the method of severance that will kill the baby? It's a terrible option to allow for not much gain.

why is it better to kill the baby on the way out instead of keeping it alive on the way out?

This is pointless. If you're going to continue, after this much time, ignoring the fact that the fetus is killed to reduce risk to the mother during the procedure, then there's truly no point in continuing to have this discussion with you. You can't keep asking this question and then conveniently completely ignoring the real answer every single time it is brought up.

But it's not the real answer. You're ignoring the fact that what I'm proposing is delivery. If the woman chooses abortion, the point of the abortion is to kill the baby. It's disingenuous to say that the abortion was chosen to protect the mother when the decision to abort could have been made for any number of reasons. The way the abortion is performed the way it is is for the benefit of the mother, but it's certainly not guaranteed to be the reason the abortion was chosen in the first place. When I say "kill the baby coming out," I'm referring to the choice between delivery and abortion, not altering how the abortion is performed.

I think the example of sexual selection forcing women to wait longer is an interesting twist on the matter, but basically what dedalus wrote above is the underlying issue as to why it's even a problem. As with people in America having ethical misgivings about allowing a woman to abort a fetus, people in China have ethical misgivings about raising a girl. In terms of the moral standpoint we're discussing, the 'problem' with China (as it applies to this conversation) isn't whether or not women give up their right to bodily autonomy for having to wait that long, but why society has created a situation where they have to. Taking away their bodily autonomy because of a social trapping is like kicking women (and hell, even fathers in this case, not that it's particularly pertinent) when they're down.

So if the mother is in the US and wants sex-selective abortion at 27 weeks, that's still a good reason?

[omgryebread]

Well, a lot of people in the late term abortion category (71%) are there because they thought they'd have more time, or they didn't know they were pregnant. So no, they may very well have not thought about it long and hard. If they're at, say, 27 weeks 5 days, just as an example, and there's no additional danger to the mother, why is it better to kill the baby on the way out instead of keeping it alive on the way out? What's the difference between the fetus inside and outside at that point? Remember, risks are comparable, use of the mother's body has ended at this point, fetus actually has good chance to survive and become omgryebread, there's a foster family for the child, etc(listed for the benefit of those who don't read the thread).

Like I said, I've enjoyed being alive, but if I had been aborted, I wouldn't mind too much. I'd be too nonexistent to mind. So not much loss.

For the record, I'm pretty healthy. I have executive functioning disorder, and dysgraphia, which could possibly be related to being a preemie. I also am mildly underweight most of the time. My biggest health problem is schizoaffective disorder, which I've never heard being related to premature birth. I was born at 27 weeks, which has a fairly high survival rate, and a fairly low (much higher than full term though) rate of disabilities.

[FireZs]

Like I said, I've enjoyed being alive, but if I had been aborted, I wouldn't mind too much. I'd be too nonexistent to mind. So not much loss.

Yeah, I don't like the argument of "my mother considered an abortion so I could have never existed, so I'm pro-life" you see from some pro-lifers. I like to counter with "my mother only wanted one child, and had one abortion before having me, so if she didn't abort the first pregnancy I would have never existed."

[gmalivuk]

she's killing what is very likely a survivable baby.

You're going to have to tell us again what you mean by "late-term", then. Since the abortions I thought you were talking about are at 21 weeks or later, the vast majority of them have a very small survival rate. (The majority of abortions after 20 weeks are before 24 weeks, which is the first time survival rates ever exceed 50%.)

[Angua]

Ummm... do you get the idea that these people are often put in the position where they have to have a male child to ensure staying alive in old age? I'm pretty sure they would have thought about it long and hard, and put their lives over the potential life of the fetus. And then they have another child later.

Also, just remember that in this situation the child *won't* get cared for (in third world countries states aren't known for their amazing ability to care for adopted children), and in China, I'm pretty sure that if the child lives that would count as their kid. So in this case either the existence of the child is bad (for the couple), or the child will die anyway.

As for this other reason, again, there's more going on here then just a case of 'oh, let's get this kid out of you and you can go on your way' (which you seem to be confusing an abortion with). You put the woman through many days of physical and emotional pain, with the knowledge that what she's giving birth to will most likely either a. die or b. become disabled, and if she doesn't care for it, it will be put into foster care (which on average is not usually as good as a biological family). So you're creating this immense sense of guilt, along with a huge emotional bond, and then taking the baby away? All because she didn't know that she was pregnant till too late? Yeah, again, considering the stats for survival at the 20-24 week period, it's a terrible thing to force a person to do.

Ninja'd: I'm pretty sure those terminations were for medical reasons as well. Maybe someone who knows the jargon might contribute their 2 cents.

Not to put too fine a point on it, she put herself(along with whatever male helped her) in that position. No one else. They created the problem. The couples express and only purpose(assuming they weren't trying for a child) was to have a short period of intensely pleasurable experience. We have no obligation to make it easy for them to mitigate the host of problems that come up inevitably because of it. Apparently no reasonable accommodation is sufficient according to some. If you say 20 weeks, wait that's not enough time, 28 weeks, wait she still may have not been able to do it. At what point can the rest of us throw up our hands and say enough is enough? I'm not really happy to have legislation on this, Government is absolutely no good at doing this. In Canada, which according to the Wikipedia has no abortion laws as of 2004, some Canadian Provinces must send patients wanting them to the US because Doctors don't want to do them on demand(elective) at that late date.

I'm getting the feeling that you don't really believe that a woman can be pregnant for 20 or more weeks and not know (at least without her being a bit of an idiot). So I will give you this, I didn't know I was pregnant They've got through more than one season now, and have at least 2 people every episode. These are women who don't know they're pregnant UNTIL LABOUR (and they manage to get to 36 weeks in some cases). Some of these women have had children before, so it's not that they are just clueless. You know all that stuff you get in movies with the nausea and the moodswings, and the 'glowing' and tremendous weight gain?? It's a bit blown out of proportion, and you don't always get everything at once, or at all (and a lot of the weight gain is sort of psychological with the whole 'eating for 2 thing'). You might still get some bleeding, or if your birth control method means that you aren't getting a period, then you're not going to notice anything off (which btw is the reason that traditional birth control has a break each month for the period, so you know that it's working, but these days you can get things that only give you 4 periods a year, and with implants it's none at all).
Also, your point about her only having sex because it was intensely enjoyable is laughable (and not only because you seem to think that wanting to have some intense enjoyment every once in a while is a bad thing) - what about bonding with your partner? Or because of the stigma of being a virgin? They might not matter to you but they are other reasons for a woman consenting to sex.

@FireZs - you seemed to use the fact that the 71% who didn't know they were pregnant or so far along meant that they didn't have time to think long and hard about it? Really?? You don't think that a lot of women don't think about what they would do if they got pregnant once they become sexually active (I get the feeling that men generally don't think about it much until their partner actually could be pregnant)? Once she gets this surprise news (that you've been pregnant for 20 something weeks now), do you think that the decision to have the abortion that late along would be an easy one?

Also, again, the reason that we are against having a defined cut-off point for abortion is the fact that things can happen, and women should still be able to get an abortion if she misses the arbitrarily defined date.

[FireZs]

she's killing what is very likely a survivable baby.

You're going to have to tell us again what you mean by "late-term", then. Since the abortions I thought you were talking about are at 21 weeks or later, the vast majority of them have a very small survival rate. (The majority of abortions after 20 weeks are before 24 weeks, which is the first time survival rates ever exceed 50%.)

Aren't you against my position even if it's at 36 weeks?

@FireZs - you seemed to use the fact that the 71% who didn't know they were pregnant or so far along meant that they didn't have time to think long and hard about it? Really?? You don't think that a lot of women don't think about what they would do if they got pregnant once they become sexually active (I get the feeling that men generally don't think about it much until their partner actually could be pregnant)? Once she gets this surprise news (that you've been pregnant for 20 something weeks now), do you think that the decision to have the abortion that late along would be an easy one?

Also, again, the reason that we are against having a defined cut-off point for abortion is the fact that things can happen, and women should still be able to get an abortion if she misses the arbitrarily defined date.

I'm sure plenty of women think about it long and hard. But that doesn't guarantee that the reason they arrive at abortion justifies abortion if the baby's deliverable right then.

[gmalivuk]

You know all that stuff you get in movies with the nausea and the moodswings, and the 'glowing' and tremendous weight gain?? It's a bit blown out of proportion, and you don't always get everything at once, or at all (and a lot of the weight gain is sort of psychological with the whole 'eating for 2 thing').

For reference, according to the same NVSR I linked to before, 7.9% of the women who gave birth in the US in 2008 gained less than 11 pounds.

[Enuja]

I was talking about this thread with a friend of mine last night, and ey brought up a very important issue that has been implicated, but not yet explicitly discussed,¹ in this thread. Abortion is a woman's rights issue because of the cultural history of sex, reproduction, and gender.

In Western culture in particular and agricultural societies in general, women have been viewed as baby-making machines, who are owned by their father or their husband, and who have a duty to reproduce and raise children. Current western culture rejects the idea that women are owned by anyone other than themselves, but current western culture still views motherhood as an extremely important duty and gift that women have. A woman is supposed to be a mother, and is supposed to be an enlightened, dedicated martyr for her children. Women are also supposed to be sexually pure, and not "dirty".² The same expectations do not exist for men.

Western culture also has an expectation that "sex" is "supposed to be" about reproduction. In my opinion, this view is biologically absurd and culturally damaging. The sex act for many animals is quick, without a lot of fuss, and they only have "sex" when fertile. Humans, and a few other animals, have "sex" for fun. This isn't an adaptation to increase human fecundity, it is an adaptation to create social cohesion.³ Sex should be about whatever we want it to be about, and if I want it to be about social bonding with a large number of people, that's (at least) as valid as religiously conservative person wanting to have sex in order to have a baby.

Abortion is a woman's rights issue because abortion levels the playing field, and allows women to be treated as self-determining human beings, just like men, instead of just as incubators and as mothers. The discussion in this thread about when a embryo becomes a human is completely confounded by people's ideas and expectations about sex as reproductive, and women as mothers. My friend thinks that the question of when an embryo becomes human will become salient after the cultural expectations tied to women as property and baby-making machines are finally removed from our society. As I've argued in this thread before, I think that the woman as a moral actor will always trump the society-wide view on the morality of abortion, but you don't have to agree with me to think that, everywhere in the world we have right now, abortion is a woman's rights issue.

Not to put too fine a point on it, she put herself(along with whatever male helped her) in that position. No one else. They created the problem. The couples express and only purpose(assuming they weren't trying for a child) was to have a short period of intensely pleasurable experience. We have no obligation to make it easy for them to mitigate the host of problems that come up inevitably because of it.

Pregnancy is not an "inevitable" consequence of sex. It is just one possible consequence of some types of sex. I do think that society as a whole has an obligation to create and provide medical care that makes people's lives, and society as a whole, better. Abortion makes things better because it can reduce the number of unwanted babies, reduce the number of severely disabled babies, reduce the population growth rate, allow women to choose to have careers not interrupted by pregnancy, make the consequences of sex more equal for men and women, and a whole host of other things.

When people talk about pregnancy and babies as a consequence that should be accepted by all women who choose to have sex, they are trying to regulate woman's sexuality. Leave babies and children out of your attempt to regulate woman's sexuality. I don't want my sexuality regulated by anyone by myself, but if you must try to regulate my sexuality, please talk about regulating sexuality instead of talking about babies.

For me, abortion is a risk of sex. Because abortion takes time, money, and is a medical procedure, I try to minimize the risk that I might need an abortion. I know the risk of having a baby exists: someone could kidnap me at gunpoint, impregnate me, and force me to carry a baby to term. But I have not consented to having a baby simply by not yet having my tubes tied. For me, having a baby is not a risk of having sex: instead, having an abortion is a risk of having sex.

When anyone talks about the risks and consequences of sex in an abortion debate, that person is bringing woman's rights into the discussion, because they are arguing that woman's sexuality (which is a woman's rights issue) should be limited by the speaker's views on abortion.




Notes:
1 That I could find, anyway. I read the thread straight through to page 6, but it's been brought to my attention that I've missed a few posts since then, because of how quickly the thread is moving. I'm pretty sure I've gone back and found everything, but if I missed an explicit discussion of the history of gender as it applies to abortion, please point me in that direction.
2 Women are expected to be "sexy, but not slutty", to have their sexuality be wholesome while male sexuality is allowed to be animalistic.
3 Of course, determining what a particular psychological or physiological trait is an "adaptation for" is quite problematic, especially as many traits have multiple consequences, and what a trait is being selected for changes with changing environments. But the data that argues that human sexual pleasure and sexual drives are "for" reproduction is extremely weak, and essentially consists of the cultural assumptions of the researchers. See "Sex at Dawn" for a book-length version of this argument.

[morriswalters]

What Ulc said. They have no obligation to you to satisfy your personal morality at the cost of huge changes to their lives.

The couples express and only purpose(assuming they weren't trying for a child) was to have a short period of intensely pleasurable experience.

And they probably used protection, and they probably thought that it would work. And it probably didn't. Or, she wanted to use protection, and he didn't, and she got coerced into it. Or maybe the condom split but they didn't know about it. And then she didn't realise that she was that late term because she thought she'd gotten pregnant 3 weeks later when the condom split, and she didn't realise that getting an abortion early makes such a difference to the morality of the situation, and he'd ran off when he found she was pregnant so she'd been trying to find him, and she couldn't find an abortion provider, or her parents were intensely pressuring her to have the baby but she really can't go through with it but it's now just too late... As soon as you class people as statistics and count feelings by numbers you're going to miss everything.

If you want to have less late term abortion, the answer is simple, and it makes everyone happy, and it doesn't require any laws. Education, and destigmatisation of early term abortions. If people know what choices they have after unintended pregnancies, and know how much it happens, and know that there are places out there for them, then they'll get shit sorted out sooner. And if it becomes easier to get an early term abortion, then late term abortion rates will decrease, especially the ones that are for reasons of 'I didn't realise'.

Also, sex is more then 'a short period of intensely pleasurable experience', and if you honestly think of it as just that, then I kinda feel sorry for you.

I don't class people as statistics. And just because Ulc thinks it's that simple doesn't mean it is. I'll donate money to education and I'm all for it as I stated much earlier.

However I don't care,
If she doesn't know she is pregnant
If they used protection
That the condom split
That she's not educated
That she wasn't prepared
That she didn't think
That her parents put pressure on her

As to what sex is for, spare me. From an evolutionary point of view it is for reproduction, nothing more. That we assign meaning to it doesn't change that. It causes the problem. I don't want the responsibility for any of it, I have plenty of things to worry about already. But I live here too and I have beliefs and feelings about the wyci. And those beliefs tell me that each wyci it is human. I accept that the mothers interests must be more important than the wyci, up to a point. I accept that you have different values in this matter. And in a fairy tale world where everyone was able to be rational and and we could each do whatever we wished without causing chaos, I would be happy to let her beat her children to mincemeat, but I haven't been able to find that world. Where I live people have shared values. What this does is let me move about in society with as little friction as possible. This is true because I am able and willing to give up absolute freedom of action. It also means that we put into to place systems to coerce compliance. That's the breaks.

A@Angua
I have had the pleasure of knowing many women who have had children. I have spent a significant amount of time investigating this issue, since it's important to me. I well aware that it may be possible to not know your are pregnant. Though I might question how well you are performing due diligence in terms of your health. I don't deny the press of time on decisions. But there is no justification for not being able to make a decision in a timely manner, nor is there any justification because some choices are difficult. You can't change that and neither can I. And ignorance of the possibilities does not excuse you. This is enshrined in law. The Latin is Ignorantia juris non excusat, or ignorance of the law is no excuse. In it's extreme cases ignorance can kill you. I can't know that you didn't know, that you were under pressure, or if you are using BC. The only thing we can know is the someone is pregnant. Not the why or the what. So we do the best we can do, in the way that takes everyone into account and we stand there and say, here no further.

Edit: @Enuja
I use inevitable in the biological sense. Not that someone intended it that way. If you have sex where a male ejaculates in you, then if everything works as designed you will get pregnant. I accept that women should have access to abortion and I support it. But I don't accept it as an unlimited right. I Understand that may not be as you view it. I also accept the the wyci has or will have rights which can't be dismissed without justification. My argument says that you owe society and the wyci the benefit of a timely decision in your choice. I have chosen viability as my line in the sand, for elective procedures.

[gmalivuk]

From an evolutionary point of view it is for reproduction, nothing more.

You obviously missed the post right above yours.

And also the fact that all kids of things have evolutionary purposes that we wouldn't find particularly moral. Killing children your current mate had from a previous coupling, for example, has a very clear purpose "from an evolutionary point of view". And yet, in this thread, you seem to take some kind of issue with infanticide.

[Angua]

I have had the pleasure of knowing many women who have had children. I have spent a significant amount of time investigating this issue, since it's important to me. I well aware that it may be possible to not know your are pregnant. Though I might question how well you are performing due diligence in terms of your health. I don't deny the press of time on decisions. But there is no justification for not being able to make a decision in a timely manner, nor is there any justification because some choices are difficult. You can't change that and neither can I. And ignorance of the possibilities does not excuse you. This is enshrined in law. The Latin is Ignorantia juris non excusat, or ignorance of the law is no excuse. In it's extreme cases ignorance can kill you. I can't know that you didn't know, that you were under pressure, or if you are using BC. The only thing we can know is the someone is pregnant. Not the why or the what. So we do the best we can do, in the way that takes everyone into account and we stand there and say, here no further.

Funny thing is, if a law didn't give an exact time limit, she wouldn't be acting against the law, which is what I've been arguing this entire time. You're the one arguing that it should be a law, and so that way, she'll be acting against the law if her body doesn't conform to your expectations of how a pregnancy should progress.

If being left-handed was against the law, and you still had people writing with their lefthands (after all, you can change it if you try hard enough!!!), and they said they didn't realise, they'd still be acting against the law. But that doesn't mean that they deserve to be punished for it, as the law should be changed, not them.

[Enuja]

Pregnancy is not an "inevitable" consequence of sex.

I use inevitable in the biological sense. Not that someone intended it that way. If you have sex where a male ejaculates in you, then if everything works as designed you will get pregnant. I accept that women should have access to abortion and I support it. But I don't accept it as an unlimited right. I Understand that may not be as you view it. I also accept the the wyci has or will have rights which can't be dismissed without justification. My argument says that you owe society and the wyci the benefit of a timely decision in your choice. I have chosen viability as my line in the sand, for elective procedures.

If I have sex where a male ejaculates in me, after the ovulatory phase of my menstrual cycle, if everything works as is physiologically normal, I will not get pregnant. Most female primates signal fertility, and only have sex when fertile. Humans do not signal fertility, and have sex when not fertile. This is a strong argument against the idea that human sex is, evolutionarily, all about reproduction. Sex at Dawn makes the point quite well, and is a fun read. I strongly recommend it to anyone interested in the evolutionary biology of human sex (although the book isn't perfect, it's good). Have I convinced you that it is at least an equally plausible hypothesis that human sex is, evolutionarily, about social cohesion? That you should not take on faith as proven the hypothesis that human sex is, evolutionarily, about reproduction?

However I don't care,
If she doesn't know she is pregnant
If they used protection
That the condom split
That she's not educated
That she wasn't prepared
That she didn't think
That her parents put pressure on her

morriswalters, your list of variables you don't care about with respect to abortion are about the woman as a human being, coerced by society and living in the real world. You've said you don't have any problem with early-term abortion, so you aren't universally anti-abortion, but you appear not to view abortion as a woman's rights issue at all, because you don't appear to care about the individual rights and situation of women. You care that men's sexuality is not currently regulated by pregnancy consequences, that early term abortion should be easy and available, that birth control should be reversible and certain, but you don't appear to care about individual women with unwanted tissue in their uterus. Abortion is a woman's rights issue in a way that you are apparently against woman's rights.

I'll either edit in specifics about late-term abortion, or put that in another post, depending on how quickly I write and how quickly this thread moves. My arguments above are not specific to, or made irrelevant by, how old the embryo is when the abortion occurs.

Edited to add: I've written three pages of double spaced replies to posts subsequent to this one, including a lot about my take on late-term abortions, but at this point I don't think I'm convincing anyone, anyone is really interested in actually paying attention to what I'm saying, and my views are certainly not shifting. In fact, I just keep coming up with novel ideas that re-inforce my unchanging perspective. I'm not promising I won't come back to the thread, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to make this discussion actually productive. It's been fun, but that's it.

[Aic]

I don't now. The whole ..thing isn't applicable for men at all, thus I can't see it as an issue of different rights or standards men vs. women, morally. It is in a biological way, of course, but I don't think terminating biological differences at any cost is an aim of womens rights claims.
I also don't have the impression that I am seen as birthing machine, and even if people/society would see me as such, that wouldn't contribute to my opinion whether I'd find abortions (thus the availability of them) right or not.

Also I'm not sure if you could compare hands to fetuses. I don't see a reason for a right-hand-law (you may correct me), so yes, it should be changed but, as discussed here, there might be reasons for a "no abortions in certain cases/at all/whatever"-law.

The "Ignorantia juris non excusat"-thing is a part of many countries law mostly to prevent people from claiming they didn't know even though they did, I don't know if this would apply for this topic.
What would be important for me is that even when you didn't know you are pregnant it shouldn't change whether a zygote/well-developed fetus/whatever has rights or not.

[Izawwlgood]

morriswalters, I highly recommend the book Sperm Wars, by Robin Baker to you, which outlines some of the really incredible biological/behavioral games that both men and women play with one another to maximize their fecundity. The wiki entry even has some neat stuff;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_Wars

However, for the purposes of the argument, I wonder how you respond to the notion that people getting abortions are possibly/likely engaged in sex for a purpose other than reproduction. Is the intent in which the act was undertaken that holds any relevancy to your position? Or, should we just assume that all sex is for reproduction purposes, and treat everything accordingly?

[gmalivuk]

If I have sex where a male ejaculates in me, after the ovulatory phase of my menstrual cycle, if everything works as is physiologically normal, I will not get pregnant.

Hell, even if you have procreative sex during your time of maximum fertility, I suspect it's nothing like "inevitable". I'm sure there are some people who decide they want kids, and have one well-planned sexual encounter and then she's pregnant, but I don't know any of them. I do know a lot of people who decided they wanted kids but didn't get pregnant until several months of trying later. (Without accounting for when in the menstrual cycle sex happens, each act of unprotected sex has an average pregnancy rate of about 2%. And even after a whole year 15% of women remain unimpregnated. Surely some of the sex an average woman has in a year takes place during times of high fertility, right? Probably more than once. And yet there's still at least a 15% "failure" rate. Which is not something most people would describe as "inevitable"...)

So in addition to everything else already discussed, this is apparently yet another thing that some of the people arguing in favor of restricting women's rights completely fail to understand about how the female body works. Which is disappointing, but I guess not really at all surprising.

[Aic]

*scratches head* I think the risk is inevitable (well except you're infertile), but I have no idea if that's what it was about.

[gmalivuk]

The risk is always there, sure, but that's not what "pregnancy is inevitable" actually means. At all.

[drkslvr]

The risk is always there, sure, but that's not what "pregnancy is inevitable" actually means. At all.

It becomes essentially inevitable with time, if you're continuing to regularly have unprotected sex. 80% chance in one year. 96% in two years. 99% in three years. 100% in four years. I realize that you can't actually extrapolate the 80% in one year value to four years that easily. But you get the idea.

[gmalivuk]

It becomes essentially inevitable with time

Again, that's not what morriswalters claimed. He was talking about one sex act. I think I was already being more than generous by extending it to one year, at which point it remains quite far from anything anyone I know would call "inevitable".

[Aaeriele]

The risk is always there, sure, but that's not what "pregnancy is inevitable" actually means. At all.

It becomes essentially inevitable with time, if you're continuing to regularly have unprotected sex. 80% chance in one year. 96% in two years. 99% in three years. 100% in four years. I realize that you can't actually extrapolate the 80% in one year value to four years that easily. But you get the idea.

Asymptotes rarely describe specific instances in real life - mostly they just summarize generalities.

[morriswalters]

From an evolutionary point of view it is for reproduction, nothing more.

You obviously missed the post right above yours.

And also the fact that all kids of things have evolutionary purposes that we wouldn't find particularly moral. Killing children your current mate had from a previous coupling, for example, has a very clear purpose "from an evolutionary point of view". And yet, in this thread, you seem to take some kind of issue with infanticide.

Assuming that your able to distinguish the difference between, what something is designed to do and the way you use it, then I would assume you would understand the difference. If I have made that assumption in error, tell me and I will explain it, and the risks that you might incur if you do so. Yes I consider Infanticide morally repugnant. If you don't could you present me with an argument outlining your position.

I'll outline my position on abortion in a more formal fashion, as I have been accused of being incoherent. And I do wish to make sure that this is a discussion of the ethical basis of abortion. If it is not so would you please tell me. I will start by stating some axioms.

Humans have rights
Human life is valuable.
Humans have a right to life
That humans are born of woman
That humans are responsible for their actions by the principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat(ignorance of the law is no excuse)
That we recognize that no human is allowed to kill another human unless there is due process

If you accept these axioms, then it follows that, Since only a woman can carry a child she has a special interest. Women have rights superior to a wyci if she can show that her rights do not violate those axioms. There is Medical evidence that a wyci can survive birth after a point at or near 28 weeks. That it is impossible to show a measurable difference, other the their condition of existence, between a wyci in utero and a child who is extant, who are of the same chronological age. If there is no measurable difference between the two then it follows that each should have equivalent rights. It would also then follow that taking that life with due process to law would be immoral as well as illegal and might rightly be called Infanticide.

[Aaeriele]

If there is no measurable difference between the two then it follows that each should have equivalent rights.

I can think of a difference of at least 6 inches or so in a particular direction.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Humans have a right to life

This right is not unconditional, as you appear to acknowledge when you say that nobody can kill anyone without due process.

But of course that's wrong as well. I can kill people in cases of, for example, self-defense without having to go through a court hearing first.

That humans are responsible for their actions by the principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat(ignorance of the law is no excuse)

Ignorance of the law. However, in most cases I am not legally responsible for doing something that I don't know that I'm doing, see mens rea; if I'm a mail courier and somebody happens to ship some weed through my route, I'm not responsible for possessing or distributing marijuana.

And it's not at all clear what criminal guilt has to do with the argument that you're trying to make here.

If you accept these axioms, then it follows that, Since only a woman can carry a child she has a special interest.

What you mean by "special interest" here is entirely unclear.

More generally, your reasoning when you repeatedly say "it follows that" is entirely unclear.

[gmalivuk]

Assuming that your able to distinguish the difference between, what something is designed to do and the way you use it, then I would assume you would understand the difference.

I understand that distinction. I took issue both with your assertion of what sex is "designed to do" (since there's lots of evidence that human sexuality is about way more than just reproduction), and your claim that what (you believe) it's designed to do is at all relevant from a moral perspective.

Yes I consider Infanticide morally repugnant.

And yet, it serves an evolutionary purpose when the infant being killed isn't genetically related to you, and when killing it furthermore frees up resources to be used on individuals who *are* genetically related to you.

I never said infanticide was okay, and I'm quite confused how you could think otherwise from anything I've posted. In fact, I was using it as an example of something I knew you found repugnant, to point out the fallacy in placing any importance on the "evolutionary purpose" of various behaviors.

If there is no measurable difference between the two then it follows that each should have equivalent rights.

Really? Do I really have to go over this again? Each may very well have an equivalent right to life. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that this right is stronger than the right of the woman to her own bodily autonomy. Therefore, the one still living inside her body has its rights superseded by hers, while the one outside doesn't (because, for example, its right to life is indeed stronger than her right to property).

As TGB said above: the right to life is not unconditional, and we can still talk about the extent of various rights, and how far one is obligated to go in order to defend said rights.

That humans are responsible for their actions by the principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse)

Ignorance of the law. However, in most cases I am not legally responsible for doing something that I don't know that I'm doing

Yeah, there's a difference between being ignorant of what the law says about a situation and being ignorant of the situation itself. One guess as to which is at all related to the case where a woman doesn't know how pregnant she is.

Give up? It's not the one about the law.

If I know I'm transporting drugs but not that it's illegal, then I'm still culpable. Just like if I kill my baby without knowing that's illegal. However, if I don't even know that I'm transporting drugs, then there's no mens rea and I'm not guilty of any crime. Just like if I choose not to have an abortion because I didn't know I was pregnant.

[podbaydoor]

morriswalters - it seems to me that your position of "pregnancy is a consequence of having sex" can be applied to people with STDs. If a person contracts HIV, it's just a risk they were taking when they chose to have sex. They can just deal with it. No medical intervention is needed, especially if it's a "public" matter and taxpayers shouldn't pay for treatment of people who have sex that said taxpayers don't agree with.

[pizzazz]

Wow, threads grow a lot when you don't have internet. I'll have to read through the thread to see what's been going on, but I will just comment here.

morriswalters - it seems to me that your position of "pregnancy is a consequence of having sex" can be applied to people with STDs. If a person contracts HIV, it's just a risk they were taking when they chose to have sex. They can just deal with it. No medical intervention is needed, especially if it's a "public" matter and taxpayers shouldn't pay for treatment of people who have sex that said taxpayers don't agree with.

STDs are both a danger to whoever has them and, being bacteria or viruses, do not have the same rights as people.

[podbaydoor]

I used STDs because at least with regards to them, one gender isn't the one consistently culturally and societally shafted thanks to possessing a uterus. There is also a stigma associated with HIV - so perhaps it can be used as an analogy for those individuals who do not possess a uterus and have no idea what it's actually like to risk having a uterus while having sex.

Edit: to clarify, I'm asking you to put yourself in the shoes of someone who, every time you're about to have sex, are apparently required to contemplate the risk of contracting a protracted illness, possibly life-threatening, which some people advocate you should not receive treatment for. And while you have this illness, you are likely to face a lot of shit from society because it is built to shame people who contract this illness. The "either abstinence, or babies" attitude reminds me of this. Please consider the "abstinence, or illness" scenario, since the first scenario is not applicable to people with no uteruses.

[morriswalters]

Spoiler:

If I have sex where a male ejaculates in me, after the ovulatory phase of my menstrual cycle, if everything works as is physiologically normal, I will not get pregnant. Most female primates signal fertility, and only have sex when fertile. Humans do not signal fertility, and have sex when not fertile. This is a strong argument against the idea that human sex is, evolutionarily, all about reproduction. Sex at Dawn makes the point quite well, and is a fun read. I strongly recommend it to anyone interested in the evolutionary biology of human sex (although the book isn't perfect, it's good). Have I convinced you that it is at least an equally plausible hypothesis that human sex is, evolutionarily, about social cohesion? That you should not take on faith as proven the hypothesis that human sex is, evolutionarily, about reproduction?

I'll try this one more time. The act of becoming pregnant is a mechanical process. If over time you have sex with no protection the chance that you will eventually become pregnant is a given. Monitoring your fertility cycle doesn't work in the long term. Your body is designed to become pregnant. And an adult woman should be aware of that. There is no absolute way to stop it short of total abstinence. Not birth control pills, not condoms, not withdrawing, or any other thing I can think of. The limit of that function is 1(total certainty)

Spoiler:

your list of variables you don't care about with respect to abortion are about the woman as a human being, coerced by society and living in the real world. You've said you don't have any problem with early-term abortion, so you aren't universally anti-abortion, but you appear not to view abortion as a woman's rights issue at all, because you don't appear to care about the individual rights and situation of women. You care that men's sexuality is not currently regulated by pregnancy consequences, that early term abortion should be easy and available, that birth control should be reversible and certain, but you don't appear to care about individual women with unwanted tissue in their uterus. Abortion is a woman's rights issue in a way that you are apparently against woman's rights.

I support a woman's right's as a subset of basic human rights as defined by the society we live in. The problem is that, as I have stated, is that I believe that at some point a wyci must become human, and unless you can define that point as a property of the wyci, then we are left with your assertion of rights to control your body. From a technical point of view the wyci is in you but not part of you. I support that statement by noting that one of the purposes of the placenta in to keep your immune response from killing the wyci. It is a different organism, genetically distinct. It is an inevitable fact that barring a deadly mutation, an illness, or some event which kills you or the wyci a child will be delivered at the end of the gestation period.

@Angua
The time imposed by the law reflects viability. It was chosen because the Court used it as a anchor, where they drew their line. My ethical position is as I stated it and I support limitations as I have described them, just as I would oppose it if the right were totally removed.

@Izawwlgood
Why people have sex is none of my business. I don't wish to regulate that behavior. What I want is to have people make these decisions in a timely way. I have yet to hear a justification, what I have heard are excuses. I asserted "Ignorantia juris non excusat" for that reason. If your gonna have sex, and your not a moron, you should educate yourself. This is one problem I have with Religion.

@TheGrammarBolshevik
Your last first, I'm practicing, Please bear with me, to your first see the definition of pettifogging. I explained why I used that phrase above.

@gmalivuk
The sex was act designed to produce babies, and it was designed by evolution. That some males kill the young of another male is true but of no relevance. I wasn't making a moral argument. I'm married and am aware of the multiple purposes of the act of having sex. But no matter what you use it for it is what it is.

Really? Do I really have to go over this again? Each may very well have an equivalent right to life. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that this right is stronger than the right of the woman to her own bodily autonomy. Therefore, the one still living inside her body has its rights superseded by hers, while the one outside doesn't (because, for example, its right to life is indeed stronger than her right to property).

I spent some time on this before. I understand what you are saying, and I agree. What this comes down to is how we define the responsibility of the mother. I believe she has the right. But I believe she must exercise that right in a timely fashion or lose it. 22 weeks is 5 an 1/2 months, more than enough time to make a decision and act. The things I cited that I don't care about are things that are unverifiable and out of anyone's control. I can't know the reality of any of them. so I say that ignorance of an outcome is an excuse not a justification.

@podbaydoor
Society has a vested interest in preventing the spread of STD's, so certainly we should be educate and provide means if possible. But in the end STD's are the stupid tax you pay for not doing due diligence on your own behalf. If society can't afford to treat you you could end up on your own. Society may also have a vested interest in funding abortions. There are certainly benefits to society overall that could make it a net neutral revenue proposition. But like STD's funding may not possible in time, and certainly not now.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

to your first see the definition of pettifogging.

If your argument is as formal as you claim it to be, then your fucking axioms should not be treated as trivial details.

And at any rate, "I'm practicing" may be an excuse for making a shitty argument, but it doesn't mean that the argument isn't shitty.

[Izawwlgood]

Why people have sex is none of my business. I don't wish to regulate that behavior. What I want is to have people make these decisions in a timely way. I have yet to hear a justification, what I have heard are excuses. I asserted "Ignorantia juris non excusat" for that reason. If your gonna have sex, and your not a moron, you should educate yourself. This is one problem I have with Religion.

I agree wholeheartedly, I just don't see how this suggest that/supports your idea that abortions should be limited in anyway. Why people have sex is none of our business, we shouldn't regulate it, and people should be well educated and well informed about their options, options that include aborting a fetus.

[PAstrychef]

The risk is always there, sure, but that's not what "pregnancy is inevitable" actually means. At all.

It becomes essentially inevitable with time, if you're continuing to regularly have unprotected sex. 80% chance in one year. 96% in two years. 99% in three years. 100% in four years. I realize that you can't actually extrapolate the 80% in one year value to four years that easily. But you get the idea.

Try telling this to the people who have to struggle with fertility issues, who try for years and fail to get pregnant, and who utilize the medical procedures available to help them do so.
The planet suffers from overpopulation of humans. There are huge costs associated with that overpopulation. Should the infertile be allowed to have children, increasing the social costs for everyone?
Not to wander too far off topic-but the social costs of too many people are way higher than the costs of terminating an unwanted pregnancy. To refuse to entertain the question of the quality of life for the resulting child is to ignore the fact that people-female people get pregnant, and real children are the result. These real people have real lives that they must live in the present day-not in some imaginary world where "society" will take care of the child.

[morriswalters]

Humans have a right to life

This right is not unconditional, as you appear to acknowledge when you say that nobody can kill anyone without due process.

But of course that's wrong as well. I can kill people in cases of, for example, self-defense without having to go through a court hearing first.

I never said that humans have an unconditional right to life, their can be no unconditional rights. In point of fact I have repeated it over and over again. If I assumed that I would argue that all abortions should be banned.

That humans are responsible for their actions by the principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat(ignorance of the law is no excuse)

Ignorance of the law. However, in most cases I am not legally responsible for doing something that I don't know that I'm doing, see mens rea; if I'm a mail courier and somebody happens to ship some weed through my route, I'm not responsible for possessing or distributing marijuana.

And it's not at all clear what criminal guilt has to do with the argument that you're trying to make here.

The axiom was

That humans are responsible for their actions by the principle of Ignorantia juris non excusat(ignorance of the law is no excuse)

This explanation from the Wikipedia article. I cited the principle to support a close analog which refuses to allow people to justify there actions claiming ignorance since I believe they should know better. Again as I have argued all along.

The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that he or she is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even though the person really does know what the law in question is.

If you accept these axioms, then it follows that, Since only a woman can carry a child she has a special interest.

What you mean by "special interest" here is entirely unclear.

More generally, your reasoning when you repeatedly say "it follows that" is entirely unclear.

I would have thought since most people have been arguing just that that you should have been able to understand that a woman has a superior interest since she is the most affected. This is a truism.
As to the other I have already said that I'm practicing. I've been called a liar, cussed, basically dismissed and classified as ignorant by a number of people who have posted here. There seems at least for some a lack of the ability to recognize that even though I don't agree with what I consider to be extremes of opinion, I recognize them and respect them. But I'm arguing my opinion and making my case. And I have tried to make my case as unemotionally as possible. I should have realized that for some people this is impossible. Now if you are upset because I assumed that you were tweaking me, and I responded in kind, I apologize. I simply thought that the things I have responded to in this post were, by their nature obvious.

Edit:
@Izawwlgood
American has a principle which guarantees a speedy trail to a defendant, as I assume most other Democratic jurisdictions do. Failure to provide this can cause the prosecution to be penalized resulting in the release of some defendants. I cite this principal as a basis for my contention that women have a obligation to exercise their rights in a timely fashion, with a penalty of loss of privilege if they don't.

[Izawwlgood]

American has a principle which guarantees a speedy trail to a defendant, as I assume most other Democratic jurisdictions do. Failure to provide this can cause the prosecution to be penalized resulting in the release of some defendants. I cite this principal as a basis for my contention that women have a obligation to exercise their rights in a timely fashion, with a penalty of loss of privilege if they don't.

Except it has been demonstrated a number of times in this very thread that expedient access to an abortion is not always a guarantee, nor is there any reason to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say 'ok, abortions are fine, but now you've crossed into this week, so, no, abortions are no longer fine.'

And that the 'privilege' you are talking about is actually right.

[mmmcannibalism]

American has a principle which guarantees a speedy trail to a defendant, as I assume most other Democratic jurisdictions do. Failure to provide this can cause the prosecution to be penalized resulting in the release of some defendants. I cite this principal as a basis for my contention that women have a obligation to exercise their rights in a timely fashion, with a penalty of loss of privilege if they don't.

Except it has been demonstrated a number of times in this very thread that expedient access to an abortion is not always a guarantee, nor is there any reason to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say 'ok, abortions are fine, but now you've crossed into this week, so, no, abortions are no longer fine.'

And that the 'privilege' you are talking about is actually right.

I think you missed the fact that his argument doesn't make sense. Right to a speedy trial is a negative right against long detainment, that doesn't imply that you have to exercise your rights expediently. Otherwise my right to free speech goes away if I don't start talking when prompted to.

[Aaeriele]

As to the other I have already said that I'm practicing. I've been called a liar, cussed, basically dismissed and classified as ignorant by a number of people who have posted here. There seems at least for some a lack of the ability to recognize that even though I don't agree with what I consider to be extremes of opinion, I recognize them and respect them. But I'm arguing my opinion and making my case. And I have tried to make my case as unemotionally as possible. I should have realized that for some people this is impossible. Now if you are upset because I assumed that you were tweaking me, and I responded in kind, I apologize. I simply thought that the things I have responded to in this post were, by their nature obvious.

Have you considered picking a topic for practice that doesn't involve royally pissing off a large number of individuals if you screw up?

[PAstrychef]

It's also only involved with criminal cases. There is no requirement to move any kind of civil case along at all.

[gmalivuk]

Have you considered picking a topic for practice that doesn't involve royally pissing off a large number of individuals if you screw up?

Nonsense. Women don't count.

If over time you have sex with no protection the chance that you will eventually become pregnant is a given.

And if over time you are alive at all the chance that you will eventually become dead is a given. And in fact I am only able to exist because billions of my ancestors died to free up space for me. So I guess my body is designed to die, and if I voluntarily do anything that increases my risk of death at all, such as living, I should just accept the fact that, sooner or later, something's going to come along and kill me, right? So I shouldn't try to get out of my personal responsibility by taking measures to prevent my own death when I'm not ready to be dead.

Yes, that's a ridiculous argument. But its logical form isn't all that different from the one you seem to be pushing.

The sex was act designed to produce babies, and it was designed by evolution.

The sex acts of most of our nonhuman ancestors, maybe. Human sexuality has evolved to be about far more than reproduction, though, which is why so many things about human sexuality are nearly unique among sexually reproducing life.

22 weeks is 5 an 1/2 months, more than enough time to make a decision and act.

Sure. If you happen to know right near the beginning that you're pregnant. In other words, yes, you're right, *if* we conveniently ignore the 71% of women who had abortions after 16 weeks because they were unaware of being pregnant or of how pregnant they were.

[dedalus]

The limit of that function is 1(total certainty)

Thing is, this is the limit regardless of whether the woman abstains or not. Now, I don't have any data saying either way on whether rape victims don't realise that they're pregnant until too late, but given that this shit happens, it's almost certainly a probability that you'll find a woman who has been pregnant 20 weeks in that wanted an abortion. And she mightn't have known either that she should get one earlier. Do you make a clause for her saying 'oh, well, in that case, it's allright?' What about the woman who was told by her boyfriend that he couldn't get her pregnant (i.e. he's been sterilised or something), and then he dumps and runs on her when she finds out 15 weeks in that he was lying. And don't say that doesn't happen, because my gender is notorious for lying about pregnancy facts in order to get sex.

And, above and beyond this, you've completely missed Enuja's point. In case you missed it, it was 'sex isn't just used for babies --> sex could have other uses too.' Now, I get your point that 'that's what it was designed for', but if I buy a computer off the shelf there's nothing that disallows me from doing whatever I want with it. However, if I break it, that's my fault, and I have to deal with the consequences. In this case, the consequences would be taking the computer to a repair shop and getting it fixed. You're trying to prevent people from doing that. And you've got no right to tell me what to do with my computer, so why do you have any more right to tell someone what to do with their body? It doesn't affect you (ok, so there is some cost to society, but it's been pointed out here that abortion is indeed the cheaper option, if you want to take that line of argument).

Can I repeat that again? It doesn't affect you. You're being a bean-counter here, sitting on your pedestal trying to put crude numbers on a complex problem just so that a couple more unborn babies become born. Oh yeah, and:

more than enough time to make a decision and act.

[Citation Needed].

I would have thought since most people have been arguing just that that you should have been able to understand that a woman has a superior interest since she is the most affected. This is a truism.
As to the other I have already said that I'm practicing. I've been called a liar, cussed, basically dismissed and classified as ignorant by a number of people who have posted here. There seems at least for some a lack of the ability to recognize that even though I don't agree with what I consider to be extremes of opinion, I recognize them and respect them. But I'm arguing my opinion and making my case. And I have tried to make my case as unemotionally as possible. I should have realized that for some people this is impossible. Now if you are upset because I assumed that you were tweaking me, and I responded in kind, I apologize. I simply thought that the things I have responded to in this post were, by their nature obvious.

Firstly, you're coming headfirst into one of the more heated areas of debate, and proposing inamongst a group of people an idea that most of us completely disagree with, and quite a few have had to argue against to the point where they're sick of trying to be civil about it, and some may take as a personal attack because they've been in that situation. Secondly, this is an emotional topic, and you making your case unemotionally is only going to make it look more like you have a complete disconnect with the situation.

Thirdly (and more importantly), you've shown multiple times that you don't really want to take on board what other people are saying, instead preferring to change your argument. It's not going to produce any discussion if one side refuses to accept their position might be wrong. Personally, I've found that whilst debating/discussing/arguing this topic there's been a fair few times where I've had to say 'wait, I don't agree with this point, but I can't say why I don't agree with it; why is this point wrong.' It hasn't led to me changing my position, because I've figured out why I think it is wrong, and I agree with that line of logic. I get the feeling (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) that nothing short of an act of god will make you do the same.

Don't use this space as a place for sophism. Use it as a way of developing your ideas. Then the people who are making the points might realise that you're not here for a fight, and they might be less inclined to give one.