Abortion and Women's Rights

[Aaeriele]

Yes, that was what I argued before, that the mother should not have any legal responsibility. The point is to make everything effectively the same as getting an abortion as much as possible, but have the baby live.

That's nice, but the reality is that it isn't viable because governments don't tend to be capable of caring for children on that scale. We already have more extra warm bodies than we know what to do with.

Except it's not about the woman's body anymore. I thought we covered this. Either way she's free of the fetus. Her body isn't going to bear the consequences of the choice between delivery and abortion.

You're still forcing one particular medical procedure on her body over another. You're also not removing any emotional ties or guilt that might or might not exist.

And also, from my practical experience, when you insist that women abortions at 38 weeks must be allowed, the political reality is that you're going to lose people in the middle, and that just gives pro-lifers opening to potentially make their plans a reality.

So do a lot of things.

[FireZs]

And those responses have been responded to (Edit: I'm sorry, "addressed") time and time again. Your point?

That reasking the original question and ignoring the answers given is something you've been called on numerous times, and it's tiring.

And this cycle of me responding, then people jumping to new arguments, which I respond to, then people jumping to yet another argument, without ever addressing my responses, is also tiring. Even more obnoxious is pretending that this results in actual resolution.

[Izawwlgood]

You're also, still, for some very difficult to comprehend reason, ignoring the fact that delivering a child is less safe than aborting a child, so this whole 'why don't we just remove a viable fetus instead of aborting it' inquiry is based on the opposite of reality.

[FireZs]

Yes, that was what I argued before, that the mother should not have any legal responsibility. The point is to make everything effectively the same as getting an abortion as much as possible, but have the baby live.

That's nice, but the reality is that it isn't viable because governments don't tend to be capable of caring for children on that scale. We already have more extra warm bodies than we know what to do with.

This has been covered: the number we're talking about is very very few. The reality is that the government most definitely has the resources to take care of them. But if not, as was also covered before, it would be society's decision to make, and if society wants to take care of them, it should be able to.

Except it's not about the woman's body anymore. I thought we covered this. Either way she's free of the fetus. Her body isn't going to bear the consequences of the choice between delivery and abortion.

You're still forcing one particular medical procedure on her body over another. You're also not removing any emotional ties or guilt that might or might not exist.

Also been covered: the risks are comparable (driving in washington vs driving in texas). Emotional impact can hardly be said to be justification to give the option to end a life, and remember, emotional impact is not trivial for abortions either.

And also, from my practical experience, when you insist that women abortions at 38 weeks must be allowed, the political reality is that you're going to lose people in the middle, and that just gives pro-lifers opening to potentially make their plans a reality.

So do a lot of things.

Yeah, but if you've ever listened to pro-life people you'd think all abortions were done in the 38th week. It doesn't help that there are people who would give them that ammunition so easily.

You're also, still, for some very difficult to comprehend reason, ignoring the fact that delivering a child is less safe than aborting a child, so this whole 'why don't we just remove a viable fetus instead of aborting it' inquiry is based on the opposite of reality.

It's the difference between driving in Washington vs driving in Texas. So this whole "but it's like hundreds of times riskier!" argument would be the unrealistic one. Especially considering that for this miniscule reduction in risk you're exchanging a life.

[Izawwlgood]

and if society wants to take care of them, it should be able to.

This is not true. Society should not be able to tell a woman that she cannot undergo a procedure, but must instead, be an incubator at greater risk to herself. This has been explained to you already.

Also, society has NOT decided it wants to take care of every orphan, as evidenced by the fact that there are still children in orphanages.

[FireZs]

and if society wants to take care of them, it should be able to.

This is not true. Society should not be able to tell a woman that she cannot undergo a procedure, but must instead, be an incubator at greater risk to herself. This has been explained to you already.

Also, society has NOT decided it wants to take care of every orphan, as evidenced by the fact that there are still children in orphanages.

And this has been explained to you already: the woman is not an incubator. She gets to end her support of the baby with her body either way.

If you want to argue that children are better off dead than in orphanages (actually foster homes these days), then what you're arguing for is the killing of orphans. Orphanages and foster homes ARE the means by which society (not individuals) take care of unwanted children. Just because their lives are suboptimal doesn't mean they deserve death.

[Izawwlgood]

And this has been explained to you already: the woman is not an incubator. She gets to end her support of the baby with her body either way.

But what you are still deliberately ignoring is the proof provided in which we demonstrated that removing a fetus from a woman without first killing it is more dangerous than not killing it.

If you are going to straw man my argument, at least pay attention to the part I'm arguing.

[Роберт]

FireZ: you claim the risk is comparable. Why do you claim that? Where do you get your data for the risk of INDUCED LABOR in pregnancies that are well before the due date?

[FireZs]

But what you are still deliberately ignoring is the proof provided in which we demonstrated that removing a fetus from a woman without first killing it is more dangerous than not killing it.

If you are going to straw man my argument, at least pay attention to the part I'm arguing.

Yeah, if you're already choosing an abortion, then the procedure requires killing the baby first to make the abortion safer. What does that have to do with choosing delivery, which was what the risk statistics were comparing: abortions vs deliveries?

FireZ: you claim the risk is comparable. Why do you claim that? Where do you get your data for the risk of INDUCED LABOR in pregnancies that are well before the due date?

Where do you get your numbers? What if the risk is lower due to a smaller fetus? Don't start making up numbers now.

[Izawwlgood]

How are you still not getting this? I linked you the wikipedia entries on how abortions are conducted; they are performed by INDUCING LABOR, which results in fetal death. In cases where the fetus is past a certain point, the abortion is conducted by killing the fetus, then removing it from the mother, to REDUCE the risk to the mother. Because, and this is the part that I really, really want you to pay attention to:
Delivery is more dangerous than controlled removal of a dead fetus.

Your whole argument of 'why don't we just remove the fetus from the mother, why kill it?' is based on an incorrect assumption that this is possible to do at equal risk to the mother. It is not. It is more dangerous to the mother.

So just to be crystal clear, are you proposing that it is acceptable to put a mother through a riskier procedure to place a fetus on an operating table/NICU irrespective of it's gestational state? That a woman's bodily safety is LESS important than a fetuses right to life?

[FireZs]

How are you still not getting this? I linked you the wikipedia entries on how abortions are conducted; they are performed by INDUCING LABOR, which results in fetal death. In cases where the fetus is past a certain point, the abortion is conducted by killing the fetus, then removing it from the mother, to REDUCE the risk to the mother. Because, and this is the part that I really, really want you to pay attention to:
Delivery is more dangerous than controlled removal of a dead fetus.

Your whole argument of 'why don't we just remove the fetus from the mother, why kill it?' is based on an incorrect assumption that this is possible to do at equal risk to the mother. It is not. It is more dangerous to the mother.

So just to be crystal clear, are you proposing that it is acceptable to put a mother through a riskier procedure to place a fetus on an operating table/NICU irrespective of it's gestational state? That a woman's bodily safety is LESS important than a fetuses right to life?

Uh, no. Not all late-term abortions are performed by inducing labor.

And the relevant question is still "how much more risk?" You're still pretending that delivery is a death sentence compared to the abortion at that stage in the pregnancy.

[Роберт]

FireZ: you claim the risk is comparable. Why do you claim that? Where do you get your data for the risk of INDUCED LABOR in pregnancies that are well before the due date?

Where do you get your numbers? What if the risk is lower due to a smaller fetus? Don't start making up numbers now.

...? What is wrong with you? What numbers are you asking about? I didn't give any numbers. You said that the risk of removing the baby without killing it was similar enough to the risk of standard abortion that it should be okay to require that it be done like that. You have the burden of proof, and you've been making the assertions. I don't know why you're telling me to not "start making up numbers".

How is the fetus size going to change for your procedure vs. a standard abortion procedure?

[FireZs]

FireZ: you claim the risk is comparable. Why do you claim that? Where do you get your data for the risk of INDUCED LABOR in pregnancies that are well before the due date?

Where do you get your numbers? What if the risk is lower due to a smaller fetus? Don't start making up numbers now.

...? What is wrong with you? What numbers are you asking about? I didn't give any numbers. You said that the risk of removing the baby without killing it was similar enough to the risk of standard abortion that it should be okay to require that it be done like that. You have the burden of proof, and you've been making the assertions. I don't know why you're telling me to not "start making up numbers".

How is the fetus size going to change for your procedure vs. a standard abortion procedure?

That's right, you didn't give any numbers. But you're also making assertions. So your burden of proof isn't zero. So where're your numbers?

[Yakk]

I don't think you understand. The goal isn't to show you how you are wrong, or compromise with you.

As far as I'm concerned, your opinions aren't all that relevant. I understand you are willing to use the apparatus of state to, under threat of force, imprison and punish pregnant women who don't follow your chosen system of beliefs. Others are willing to do the same if women don't cover their skin, get an education, learn to read, dance, or a myriad of other things.

I am not interested in meeting them half-way either.

In this case, you are the one that wants to use the apparatus of state to force something to happen. I'd hold that, morally, you should have a vast, vast, vast majority in order to be able to argue that this is even worth discussing. And, as your oppression is targeted at a historically systematically oppressed, marginalized, and easily distinguished group, I'd argue that you should also have a vast majority (note: only one vast here!) of that group on your side as well to demonstrate that you aren't just continuing the oppression (humankind is the rationalizing animal).

I'm sure you'd argue that the wyci also deserves such protection -- but I'm not talking about protection here. I'm talking about use of state resources to enforce your moral view.

The vast, vast, vast majority of people agree that the state should prosecute murder. The same is far from true of your position.

... now, if you want your compromise, try starting with the strictly positive portion that you probably could get overwhelming support for. Generate an effective state adoption system that isn't horrible. Because that part of your argument simply looks ridiculous: becoming a ward of the state is a pretty horrible result.

That's right, you didn't give any numbers. But you're also making assertions. So your burden of proof isn't zero. So where're your numbers?

You want to use the power of the state to force a choice. And you think that people who disagree with you have the same burden of proof as you do?

[Izawwlgood]

How are you still not getting this? I linked you the wikipedia entries on how abortions are conducted; they are performed by INDUCING LABOR, which results in fetal death. In cases where the fetus is past a certain point, the abortion is conducted by killing the fetus, then removing it from the mother, to REDUCE the risk to the mother. Because, and this is the part that I really, really want you to pay attention to:
Delivery is more dangerous than controlled removal of a dead fetus.

Your whole argument of 'why don't we just remove the fetus from the mother, why kill it?' is based on an incorrect assumption that this is possible to do at equal risk to the mother. It is not. It is more dangerous to the mother.

So just to be crystal clear, are you proposing that it is acceptable to put a mother through a riskier procedure to place a fetus on an operating table/NICU irrespective of it's gestational state? That a woman's bodily safety is LESS important than a fetuses right to life?

Uh, no. Not all late-term abortions are performed by inducing labor.

And the relevant question is still "how much more risk?" You're still pretending that delivery is a death sentence compared to the abortion at that stage in the pregnancy.

As was just asked of you, provide some numbers. What you are doing right now is basically claiming that we treat patients who undergo surgeries with antibiotics to prevent infections because, well, for no reason at all. After all, if all surgeries use antibiotics, how can we know they're even necessary?
But you evidently can't read: I suggest rereading what I wrote, just to make sure you understand it. I didn't claim that late term abortions were conducted by inducing labor.

The relevant question you are asking doesn't have any statistics available in the links I provided, but you'll see, in each and every one of those links, the claim that the fetus is killed at this stage TO REDUCE RISK TO THE MOTHER.
Again (seriously, again, we've been here before), what you are proposing is removal of a fetus at virtually any gestational state, and seeing if it survives outside of the womb. If it dies, c'est la vie (this is barbaric, according to your sentiment that a fetus is a person), and if it doesn't, then yay, babies for the state! What you are still, despite all the information to the contrary, still ignoring is that doing so is riskier to the mother. How do I know this? Because medical experts, in an effort to REDUCE RISK TO THE MOTHER, kill the fetus before/during the abortion procedure in instances where it is large enough to require killing prior to removal.

[Роберт]

That's right, you didn't give any numbers. But you're also making assertions. So your burden of proof isn't zero. So where're your numbers?

Pardon me, but what "assertions" are you referring to?

[Izawwlgood]

He's probably referring to the assertion that doctors kill a fetus during an abortion because... for no reason at all.

[FireZs]

I don't think you understand. The goal isn't to show you how you are wrong, or compromise with you.

As far as I'm concerned, your opinions aren't all that relevant. I understand you are willing to use the apparatus of state to, under threat of force, imprison and punish pregnant women who don't follow your chosen system of beliefs. Others are willing to do the same if women don't cover their skin, get an education, learn to read, dance, or a myriad of other things.

I am not interested in meeting them half-way either.

In this case, you are the one that wants to use the apparatus of state to force something to happen. I'd hold that, morally, you should have a vast, vast, vast majority in order to be able to argue that this is even worth discussing. And, as your oppression is targeted at a historically systematically oppressed, marginalized, and easily distinguished group, I'd argue that you should also have a vast majority (note: only one vast here!) of that group on your side as well to demonstrate that you aren't just continuing the oppression (humankind is the rationalizing animal).

I'm sure you'd argue that the wyci also deserves such protection -- but I'm not talking about protection here. I'm talking about use of state resources to enforce your moral view.

The vast, vast, vast majority of people agree that the state should prosecute murder. The same is far from true of your position.

... now, if you want your compromise, try starting with the strictly positive portion that you probably could get overwhelming support for. Generate an effective state adoption system that isn't horrible. Because that part of your argument simply looks ridiculous: becoming a ward of the state is a pretty horrible result.

That's right, you didn't give any numbers. But you're also making assertions. So your burden of proof isn't zero. So where're your numbers?

You want to use the power of the state to force a choice. And you think that people who disagree with you have the same burden of proof as you do?

Right, and you're willing to use the threat of force of the state to punish and imprison a mother who kills her born children. Use of state resources to punish women for that seems to be ok with you.

This is just rhetorical dressing, it has nothing to do with whether aborting a baby at 38 weeks for non-medical reasons is justifiable or not.

That's right, you didn't give any numbers. But you're also making assertions. So your burden of proof isn't zero. So where're your numbers?

Pardon me, but what "assertions" are you referring to?

I'm sorry, I thought you were going to make one. If you're not then I apologize. Carry on.

He's probably referring to the assertion that doctors kill a fetus during an abortion because... for no reason at all.

I can't believe you're still going on about this. A doctor kills a fetus during an abortion because it's an abortion. The mother wants the baby dead. You don't get to take a feature of abortions and retroactively make the reason for the abortion "for the safety of the mother." That's pure bullshit. By your logic all babies should be delivered dead, since the risk to the mother is SO HIGH.

[dedalus]

Look guys, I'm pretty sure the jig is up. FireZ's clearly on to the fact that we really want late-term abortions because grilled 24-week old fetus is delicious. How about we stop pretending like we care about the safety of the mother, the inhumanity of his proposal, and all the other arguments that have been brought up and he's cleverly cut through with his refusal to read them, and just admit that the incubator dries out baby flesh and we like them fresh and tender.

[FireZs]

Look guys, I'm pretty sure the jig is up. FireZ's clearly on to the fact that we really want late-term abortions because grilled 24-week old fetus is delicious. How about we stop pretending like we care about the safety of the mother, the inhumanity of his proposal, and all the other arguments that have been brought up and he's cleverly cut through with his refusal to read them, and just admit that the incubator dries out baby flesh and we like them fresh and tender.

People in this thread have cut through my arguments and responses by abandoning the old argument and jumping to new ones, and then pretending they never read my response to the old argument, and that the old argument "addresses" my point. At least I have the courtesy of reiterating my point for people who don't read the thread, instead of some people who prefer to dismiss with a sweeping "because you haven't read the thread you're wrong."

[Роберт]

That's right, you didn't give any numbers. But you're also making assertions. So your burden of proof isn't zero. So where're your numbers?

Pardon me, but what "assertions" are you referring to?

I'm sorry, I thought you were going to make one. If you're not then I apologize. Carry on.

I'd love to carry on, but I'm still waiting for you to provide citations to back your claim that the risk between immediately delivering a baby without killing it is always comparable to aborting a fetus.

[Azrael]

Wait, I know where this game always ends up ...

... At least I have the courtesy of reiterating my point for people who don't read the thread

Since there are now several pages of you reiterating your argument, you may stop. Please consider this a personal invitation.

Everyone else: This is the REHASH SIGN. You can tell it's the REHASH SIGN because it is a SIGN that says REHASH on it. I'd hold it up every time you compulsively rehash an argument, except then I don't have enough hands to type.

If you don't have something new to add, don't post. Telling someone that you still think they're wrong does not qualify as "new".

[FireZs]

That's right, you didn't give any numbers. But you're also making assertions. So your burden of proof isn't zero. So where're your numbers?

Pardon me, but what "assertions" are you referring to?

I'm sorry, I thought you were going to make one. If you're not then I apologize. Carry on.

I'd love to carry on, but I'm still waiting for you to provide citations to back your claim that the risk between immediately delivering a baby without killing it is always comparable to aborting a fetus.

I provided citations to back my claim that deliveries in general are on par in terms of risk with late term abortions. There may not be data to show how earlier deliveries affect the data, one way or the other. If you can find it, feel free to add to the conversation.

If you don't have something new to add, don't post. Telling someone that you still think they're wrong does not qualify as "new".

I'm pretty sure I was responding to new people each time. Or am I no longer allowed to engage anyone new when they comment on my position, and just tell them "this was covered, read the thread?" If anything the people who are repeating themselves about someone still being wrong are the people responding to me in the last few posts.

[Aaeriele]

By your logic all babies should be delivered dead, since the risk to the mother is SO HIGH.

Straw man much? Carrying a baby to term is a risk. Mothers are allowed to choose to take that risk if they want to. Key words there: if they want to.

You're taking logic that supports giving individuals a choice about their own level of risk, and trying to say that the same logic implies they shouldn't be given a choice. How does that leap even make sense?

[FireZs]

By your logic all babies should be delivered dead, since the risk to the mother is SO HIGH.

Straw man much? Carrying a baby to term is a risk. Mothers are allowed to choose to take that risk if they want to. Key words there: if they want to.

You're taking logic that supports giving individuals a choice about their own level of risk, and trying to say that the same logic implies they shouldn't be given a choice. How does that leap even make sense?

Per Azrael: I've addressed this already. Please read the thread.

[Aaeriele]

Per Azrael: I've addressed this already. Please read the thread.

Er, if you've addressed that already and done so in a logical fashion, then 2+2=potato for small values of green, since there's an inherent contradiction of logic there.

[FireZs]

Per Azrael: I've addressed this already. Please read the thread.

Er, if you've addressed that already and done so in a logical fashion, then 2+2=potato for small values of green, since there's an inherent contradiction of logic there.

Well, the general issue of the fact that carrying a baby to term is not my point, and delivering the baby immediately is (and therefore disengaging with the mother's body either way etc etc, no longer about her body etc etc), has been addressed many times. Izzawwlgood's point about abortion procedures killing the baby meaning that the abortion procedure itself is undertaken specifically for the purpose of saving the mother's life without considering the motivation for the abortion in the first place is what I'm referring to with that line you quoted, since if we just throw out the purpose of deliveries and just do what's "least risky" for the mother, we'd deliver the baby dead every time, never mind that that's not the point of a delivery at all, just like that's not what the point of an abortion is.

[mewshi]

I know I'm probably going to come across as a lunatic for this, but... whatever. It's worth it.

I think the main reason abortion is a cultural stigma is because we still live in a society that is based heavily on the old patriarchy -- complete with all the trappings thereof, including the need to continue the male's line (which is also why most Western cultures take the husband's last name). Abortion would possibly terminate the male's line, so it must be bad.

I think that a woman should be free to choose up to the point of viability; after that, it is a gray area for me, admittedly. We don't tell women they are murderers for having a tapeworm removed from them, killing the tapeworm (either in the process or after it is removed); why do we criticize for terminating the life of something that has just as much chance of living outside the womb without further development?

[FireZs]

We don't tell women they are murderers for having a tapeworm removed from them, killing the tapeworm (either in the process or after it is removed)

But we do tell women they are murderers for killing a baby after it's born.

[Aaeriele]

But we do tell women they are murderers for killing a baby after it's born.

We've been here before... born babies are not inside their mothers...

[FireZs]

But we do tell women they are murderers for killing a baby after it's born.

We've been here before... born babies are not inside their mothers...

Just saying that tapeworms are not comparable to babies. Feel free to show how they are comparable.

And we've also covered your general point. The baby is not significantly different from the moment before to the moment after birth (I might also add that this applies to conception as well. The embryo is not significantly different from the moment before to after implantation, so both should be discardable with no consequences).

[Aaeriele]

The baby is not significantly different from the moment before to the moment after birth

This is an axiom we disagree on, so I'm not going to attempt to reason with you further.

[Enuja]

I want my morals to be able to control my decisions about my body.

And the point of the argument you were railing against was precisely that you do get to decide when the consequences are borne by your body. But in this case, if the baby is survivable when delivered, the consequences are no longer borne by your body, because either way your body will sever its connection with the baby.

The rest of the argument deals with something entirely different from the woman's body: the woman's right to euthanize her child if she feels it would be better than letting it live a suboptimal life, and it's also an argument that a lot of people have used in this thread, and I think it's not something the woman should have the power to choose for the child as a condition of severance from her body. If the argument of "reducing suffering" is valid, shouldn't we be letting people euthanize their born children if they're found to have lifelong health problems after they're born?

That quote from me was in the section of my post about my reaction to your argument. The purpose of that section was to try to communicate why, given my morals and the morals of many posters in this thread, your suggestion to deliver instead of abort is so abhorrent. I am quite aware that this argument won't convince you to change your mind: I was hoping that the argument would convince you that the right to late term abortions is emotionally important to many of the people arguing with you, for reasons that are internally consistent and follow from our axioms.

Personally (and I'm pretty sure I'm the only person in this thread completely comfortable with this position) I am morally supportive of infanticide. However, that is not at all necessary to make my moral position internally consistent. After a full term birth, the contribution of the mother to the infant's future health can be replaced by anyone. Before the full term birth, only one person, the person whose uterus the fetus is inside, can give the fetus its best chance for a healthy future. Your suggestion to "simply" induce labor, pre-term, without a health advantage for the mother or the child, is currently impossible because it's ethically abhorrent to the medical profession. Inducing preterm labor is causing harm, and no ethical medical professional will do it just because someone wants to get rid of a fetus in her uterus. Ethical doctors will preform late-term abortions, but they will not induce labor as an alternative to abortion.

Your suggestion is a fiction, not a practical plan. Because almost all women who want "late-term" abortions don't want to increase the medical burden on neo-natal ICUs, the financial burden on the social safety net, or the number of health issues in the next generation of people in our society, if given only the choices to induce labor or carry the baby to term, these people (following the mainstream morals of our society) will carry the baby to term. Your suggestion would functionally outlaw abortion beyond 24 weeks.

And on the flip side, the cost of allowing abortions in any and all circumstances no matter how late, is that for the sake of moral purity, you allow the 0.001% of late-term-not-for-health-reasons abortions to go through that aren't really very justifiable, and what that does is that you give the pro-lifers a cudgel to hammer the 99.999% of early abortions that most people have no problem with. Your position is actually hurting the pro-choice cause for not that much gain.

And also, from my practical experience, when you insist that women abortions at 38 weeks must be allowed, the political reality is that you're going to lose people in the middle, and that just gives pro-lifers opening to potentially make their plans a reality.

First of all, when you are arguing that fetuses with a 50% chance of viability should be born instead of aborted, you're talking about embryos at about 24 weeks, not at 38 weeks. Most fetuses at 38 weeks of gestation are not even "premature", because they have "reached the level of fetal development that generally allows life outside the womb" (quote from the Wikipedia article on preterm birth). People in this thread are not arguing with you about 38 week fetuses.

More importantly, I am personally convinced that you've completely misread popular opinion, and opinions of the people you've talked to. As I explained above, it is against current medical ethics to induce premature labor without health reasons to do so. Most people would be horrified at the idea of greatly increasing a baby's health risk simply in order to give a person freedom from being pregnant. Your plan would greatly increase the public outcry against a woman's right to be able to be not pregnant.



I do not expect this post to chance your mind. Many people have tried to change you mind, and have failed. However, I do hope to help you understand that the people you are arguing with here do have internally consistent positions, that we aren't being willfully obtuse by rejecting your suggestion that all "late-term" abortions should simply be replaced with inducing premature labor.

[Izawwlgood]

Izzawwlgood's point about abortion procedures killing the baby meaning that the abortion procedure itself is undertaken specifically for the purpose of saving the mother's life without considering the motivation for the abortion in the first place is what I'm referring to with that line you quoted, since if we just throw out the purpose of deliveries and just do what's "least risky" for the mother, we'd deliver the baby dead every time, never mind that that's not the point of a delivery at all, just like that's not what the point of an abortion is.

No, nononono. You are being so obtuse I have to assume it's deliberate.
Again, I will outline this for you: You have claimed that abortions are unnecessary, because we can simply remove the baby from the mother, instead of killing it. We, myself included, have told you that that is NOT TRUE. It is not true because medicine, when removing a baby from the mother for purposes other than maximizing the fetuses chance for surviving (which is something that happens, often, it's called a cesarean section, and is a good thing for women who want to save their babies in the face of complications!) has decided that the best way to remove a fetus from a mother (after a certain point in gestation), that is, to maximize the survival of the mother, is to kill the fetus.

Your point about killing all babies because delivery is risky literally has absolutely nothing to do with anything we are discussing here. We are talking about abortions (1), you are talking about a fetuses right to be removed from the uterus instead of killed in the process (2), I am telling you why that is unreasonable (3), and you are talking about orphanages (4), killing all babies (5), and parents who want to be parents (6). Before you can start talking about topics 4, 5, and 6, you need to address topic 3, which is in response to topic 2, which was in response (for some reason) to topic 1.

[mewshi]

There's a pretty big difference, actually -- after birth, the fetus ceases to be a fetus, by the scientific definition. It has crossed a threshold.

Also, fetuses don't develop a nervous (or anything that comes with it, like the possibility of consciousness) until fairly well into pregnancy.

Frankly, I don't care what you believe -- you are free to believe it, but I fully expect you to allow others the same freedom of belief. Maybe a woman believes that bringing any child into the world is morally wrong.

Also, as to how it is an issue of womans' rights -- it is her body that is providing an incubator for the fetus. It is she that has to suffer the pains of labor, and the pangs of emotion that result from the situation, no matter what way she chooses. I can't claim to have full knowledge, as I will never have that ability -- however, I am going to say that, as the father of an aborted fetus, it is sometimes painful for people; however, the alternatives can be even more painful.

[Yakk]

Right, and you're willing to use the threat of force of the state to punish and imprison a mother who kills her born children.

Sure -- I happen to agree with infanticide law. (Note that infanticide, where I live is different than standard homicide.) As it happens, the vast, vast majority of citizens agree with me on this subject (that the crime is sufficient).

Use of state resources to punish women for that seems to be ok with you.

Yes, it is.

I fail to see your point.

This is just rhetorical dressing, it has nothing to do with whether aborting a baby at 38 weeks for non-medical reasons is justifiable or not.

Are you talking about my argument or yours? Yours does look like irrelevant rhetorical dressing.

I am not talking about "should I support anti-abortion law of that kind", or if you should support it. I am no more interested in the details of your position on the matter than I am of the details of the position of someone who wants to stone women who commit adultery. I am willing to accept that you have what you think are valid rationalizations for your position, but I do not find them interesting. (Note that doesn't mean I ignored them or skipped over them: I read them, and made sure they where not some ground-breaking new way of looking at reality.)

So I'm not talking about your rationalizations of your positions, or even "should I support an anti-abortion law of that kind". I'm talking about "should there be an anti-choice law of that kind", backed by the force of law. And I'm holding that a necessary condition to there being the threat of force to enforce a law of that kind should be that a vast, vast, vast majority of the population is behind that threat of force.

I'm not even saying that this is sufficient. I'm saying that anything short of that is insufficient. And that, in every single western nation, you lack a vast, vast, vast majority that wants to take away every sufficiently pregnant woman's autonomy over their body.

You may call that rhetoric -- but I'm talking about "should abortion be legal, and under what circumstances should it be illegal". I think that the condition that a vast, vast, vast majority of the population thinking that it should be illegal in a particular circumstance is one hurdle that should be overcome. Once again, this is a necessary condition to even consider it, not a sufficient one. But it is a hurdle so far beyond the current state that it really closes the argument, doesn't it?

[FireZs]

That quote from me was in the section of my post about my reaction to your argument. The purpose of that section was to try to communicate why, given my morals and the morals of many posters in this thread, your suggestion to deliver instead of abort is so abhorrent. I am quite aware that this argument won't convince you to change your mind: I was hoping that the argument would convince you that the right to late term abortions is emotionally important to many of the people arguing with you, for reasons that are internally consistent and follow from our axioms.

Personally (and I'm pretty sure I'm the only person in this thread completely comfortable with this position) I am morally supportive of infanticide. However, that is not at all necessary to make my moral position internally consistent. After a full term birth, the contribution of the mother to the infant's future health can be replaced by anyone. Before the full term birth, only one person, the person whose uterus the fetus is inside, can give the fetus its best chance for a healthy future. Your suggestion to "simply" induce labor, pre-term, without a health advantage for the mother or the child, is currently impossible because it's ethically abhorrent to the medical profession. Inducing preterm labor is causing harm, and no ethical medical professional will do it just because someone wants to get rid of a fetus in her uterus. Ethical doctors will preform late-term abortions, but they will not induce labor as an alternative to abortion.

Your suggestion is a fiction, not a practical plan. Because almost all women who want "late-term" abortions don't want to increase the medical burden on neo-natal ICUs, the financial burden on the social safety net, or the number of health issues in the next generation of people in our society, if given only the choices to induce labor or carry the baby to term, these people (following the mainstream morals of our society) will carry the baby to term. Your suggestion would functionally outlaw abortion beyond 24 weeks.

Infanticide? *facepalm* That's really not going to help the pro-choice cause.

To some doctors, abortion is doing harm, whether the doctors you're talking about are ethical is precisely what we're discussing, that you think the ones who agree with you are the ethical ones doesn't make it automatically so, as the health advantange in this case of inducing labor over abortion is for the child, so that he may live. I'm also not sure where you're getting that almost all women who want late term abortions feel the same way you do about medical burden/financial burden etc..

And we've already covered how the baby shouldn't have its life be forfeit because the mother doesn't think it's worth living, or she thinks the social costs aren't worth it etc.

And on the flip side, the cost of allowing abortions in any and all circumstances no matter how late, is that for the sake of moral purity, you allow the 0.001% of late-term-not-for-health-reasons abortions to go through that aren't really very justifiable, and what that does is that you give the pro-lifers a cudgel to hammer the 99.999% of early abortions that most people have no problem with. Your position is actually hurting the pro-choice cause for not that much gain.

And also, from my practical experience, when you insist that women abortions at 38 weeks must be allowed, the political reality is that you're going to lose people in the middle, and that just gives pro-lifers opening to potentially make their plans a reality.

First of all, when you are arguing that fetuses with a 50% chance of viability should be born instead of aborted, you're talking about embryos at about 24 weeks, not at 38 weeks. Most fetuses at 38 weeks of gestation are not even "premature", because they have "reached the level of fetal development that generally allows life outside the womb" (quote from the Wikipedia article on preterm birth). People in this thread are not arguing with you about 38 week fetuses.

More importantly, I am personally convinced that you've completely misread popular opinion, and opinions of the people you've talked to. As I explained above, it is against current medical ethics to induce premature labor without health reasons to do so. Most people would be horrified at the idea of greatly increasing a baby's health risk simply in order to give a person freedom from being pregnant. Your plan would greatly increase the public outcry against a woman's right to be able to be not pregnant.

I do not expect this post to chance your mind. Many people have tried to change you mind, and have failed. However, I do hope to help you understand that the people you are arguing with here do have internally consistent positions, that we aren't being willfully obtuse by rejecting your suggestion that all "late-term" abortions should simply be replaced with inducing premature labor.

Uh, people in this thread absolutely are arguing about 38 week fetuses. My position includes a range, and there's been nobody who's said "ok, so if it's a day before delivery, yeah you're probably right, but 24 weeks on the other hand..." Which suggests people are against my position even if it is at 38 weeks. I've asked people point blank if this was the case, and they just ignore the question.

I guess without an actual poll, we won't really know how the middle feels about this, so we can just leave that up as "we don't know," since I think if you assume that the fetus is baby-like towards the end of a pregnancy (an assumption you don't share), that it might have some effect on the results.

Well, I'll end with the fact that we agree on 99.99% (or something like that) of abortions that actually happen, and that insisting on the last 0.01% under all circumstances may be overreach, but I already said that.

No, nononono. You are being so obtuse I have to assume it's deliberate.
Again, I will outline this for you: You have claimed that abortions are unnecessary, because we can simply remove the baby from the mother, instead of killing it. We, myself included, have told you that that is NOT TRUE. It is not true because medicine, when removing a baby from the mother for purposes other than maximizing the fetuses chance for surviving (which is something that happens, often, it's called a cesarean section, and is a good thing for women who want to save their babies in the face of complications!) has decided that the best way to remove a fetus from a mother (after a certain point in gestation), that is, to maximize the survival of the mother, is to kill the fetus.

I'm pretty sure it's just you telling me this. And as I've said, this has been covered many times.That line "for purposes other than maximizing the fetuses chance for surviving" is key, because the whole point is to make the purpose to maximize the fetus's chance for surviving.

There's a pretty big difference, actually -- after birth, the fetus ceases to be a fetus, by the scientific definition. It has crossed a threshold.

Also, fetuses don't develop a nervous (or anything that comes with it, like the possibility of consciousness) until fairly well into pregnancy.

Frankly, I don't care what you believe -- you are free to believe it, but I fully expect you to allow others the same freedom of belief. Maybe a woman believes that bringing any child into the world is morally wrong.

Also, as to how it is an issue of womans' rights -- it is her body that is providing an incubator for the fetus. It is she that has to suffer the pains of labor, and the pangs of emotion that result from the situation, no matter what way she chooses. I can't claim to have full knowledge, as I will never have that ability -- however, I am going to say that, as the father of an aborted fetus, it is sometimes painful for people; however, the alternatives can be even more painful.

A prime example of Not Reading the Thread(tm), or the few posts above yours (baby != tapeworm).

[Izawwlgood]

I'm pretty sure it's just you telling me this. And as I've said, this has been covered many times.That line "for purposes other than maximizing the fetuses chance for surviving" is key, because the whole point is to make the purpose to maximize the fetus's chance for surviving.

Yes, in lieu of the mothers life. That is precisely my point. If you want to remove a fetus from a mother, you need to determine whose life you are prioritizing. Your suggestion prioritizes the fetuses, which, in accordance to the pro-choice movement, is something that a woman can choose if she wants to (as I said, one such procedure that does so is called a cesarean section, for example), or, if she doesn't want to risk her health, she can elect to prioritize her own life.

as the health advantange in this case of inducing labor over abortion is for the child, so that he may live.

Citation needed. No doctor would tell a woman who came in for an abortion that he was going to maximize risk to her by removing the fetus still alive, and then let 'nature take it's course' on the table.

Uh, people in this thread absolutely are arguing about 38 week fetuses. My position includes a range, and there's been nobody who's said "ok, so if it's a day before delivery, yeah you're probably right, but 24 weeks on the other hand..." Which suggests people are against my position even if it is at 38 weeks. I've asked people point blank if this was the case, and they just ignore the question.

As has been stated many times in response to you pulling this same line, we have acknowledged that in your hypothetical 'moments before birth' scenario, a woman still has a right to choose whether or not the child is going to be born. A medical professional at this point can easily advise delivery sans brain scooping or whatnot, but the decision is the woman's. No one has ignored your question, you've probably not liked what you heard and chose to ignore the logic behind it.

[FireZs]

Right, and you're willing to use the threat of force of the state to punish and imprison a mother who kills her born children.

Sure -- I happen to agree with infanticide law. (Note that infanticide, where I live is different than standard homicide.) As it happens, the vast, vast majority of citizens agree with me on this subject (that the crime is sufficient).

Use of state resources to punish women for that seems to be ok with you.

Yes, it is.

I fail to see your point.

This is just rhetorical dressing, it has nothing to do with whether aborting a baby at 38 weeks for non-medical reasons is justifiable or not.

Are you talking about my argument or yours? Yours does look like irrelevant rhetorical dressing.

Well where I am infanticide is murder. The point is that women were seen historically as child raising machines, and yet we don't rectify that by legalizing infanticide.

I am not talking about "should I support anti-abortion law of that kind", or if you should support it. I am no more interested in the details of your position on the matter than I am of the details of the position of someone who wants to stone women who commit adultery. I am willing to accept that you have what you think are valid rationalizations for your position, but I do not find them interesting. (Note that doesn't mean I ignored them or skipped over them: I read them, and made sure they where not some ground-breaking new way of looking at reality.)

So I'm not talking about your rationalizations of your positions, or even "should I support an anti-abortion law of that kind". I'm talking about "should there be an anti-choice law of that kind", backed by the force of law. And I'm holding that a necessary condition to there being the threat of force to enforce a law of that kind should be that a vast, vast, vast majority of the population is behind that threat of force.

I'm not even saying that this is sufficient. I'm saying that anything short of that is insufficient. And that, in every single western nation, you lack a vast, vast, vast majority that wants to take away every sufficiently pregnant woman's autonomy over their body.

You may call that rhetoric -- but I'm talking about "should abortion be legal, and under what circumstances should it be illegal". I think that the condition that a vast, vast, vast majority of the population thinking that it should be illegal in a particular circumstance is one hurdle that should be overcome. Once again, this is a necessary condition to even consider it, not a sufficient one. But it is a hurdle so far beyond the current state that it really closes the argument, doesn't it?

Yet another jump. "Never mind whether it's justifiable, I demand that everyone in the country agree with you before I even consider your argument." And we've covered the "autonomy over their body" thing, already, as it relates to my position.

[Azrael]

Evidently I was unclear earlier.

... I'll review.

EDIT: And now I've reviewed. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a fruitful way to pull this out of the existing tail spin, or much more to be gained by such an attempt. So this will just stay locked. And with that, here's a link dump of just about every other abortion-related thread on the fora. Minus the safespace threads, because the last thing anyone still involved in this thread should be doing is posting in a safespace thread:

Spoiler:

The Godawful Huge Megathread of Olde
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2061

Abortion and women's rights (SELF RECURSIVE NEW MEGATHREAD LINK GO!)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=69302

Activism:
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=29407

Right to life:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34804
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=22539

In the News:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=68935
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=68596
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=68055
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=68007
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=65029
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=62642
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=65226
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=60302
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27628
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=61778
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=57727
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=55975
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=52712
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=46328
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=45061
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=40036
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=38657
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=36147
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=29920
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=28496

Other Unplanned Parenthood:
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=24721

Transferring Foetuses to sidestep abortion:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6144
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=63103
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42406

Birth Defects and Eugenics:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=63449
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=47866
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2957

Legality:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9083
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=32142

Examples are this thread*, and this thread*, and this thread, and this thread, and this thread, and this thread, and this thread, and this thread*. And many, many more.
(There are other places where people talk about abortion, but I tried to link only the ones that are suitable for the kind of discussion you are looking for.)

* = recommended.

For what it's worth as a warning: It will be poorly received if you decided to move this same devolved conversation elsewhere and continue it.