Abortion vs. sex education and contraception access

[Martinus]

So, as far as I understand, in most (all?) of the US right now, a woman can have an abortion without stating the reason for it, assuming the fetus is not developed beyond a certain level.

In a hypothetical scenario where "liberal" (i.e. not "abstinence only" but modern) sex education and contraception were made universally accessible, would you support restricting the right to abortion to specific cases (say, rape, incest, significant threat to health or life of the mother, or significant damage to the fetus)? Or would you nonetheless support an unrestricted access to abortion?

[Hamilcar]

No. Clumps of cells have no consciousness and therefore negligible moral value.

[Berkut]

No, I would not.

My opposition to abortion is based on my feelings about human life.

My opposition to restricting abortion are based on my feelings about the state telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies versus the potential rights of the unborn human.

So I support any efforts to reduce the number of abortions performed to a minimum, and my support for choice is absolute, as long as I remain convinced that the fetal life does not rise to human levels of cognition and human levels of potential harm (so basically the first two trimesters).

Once you get to a stage of fetal development where truly human identifiable brain activity is occurring, I think you reach a point where real balances have to be struck between the rights of two different human beings, and hence I am comfortable with practical restrictions on late term abortions that would limit them to cases where there is significant and understood harm to the mother being likely.

[Phillip V]

No, I would not.

My opposition to abortion is based on my feelings about human life.

My opposition to restricting abortion are based on my feelings about the state telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies versus the potential rights of the unborn human.

So I support any efforts to reduce the number of abortions performed to a minimum, and my support for choice is absolute, as long as I remain convinced that the fetal life does not rise to human levels of cognition and human levels of potential harm (so basically the first two trimesters).

Once you get to a stage of fetal development where truly human identifiable brain activity is occurring, I think you reach a point where real balances have to be struck between the rights of two different human beings, and hence I am comfortable with practical restrictions on late term abortions that would limit them to cases where there is significant and understood harm to the mother being likely.

[derspiess]

Interesting compromise, but no.

[Martinus]

For the record I do not have a clear answer to my own dilemma, but to give you a bit more of a background as to what informed me posing it in the first place.

On the one hand, I believe in absolute freedom of sexual expression between consenting adults - and it means engaging (without moral judgement) in any form of consensual sex, whether it is aimed and/or capable of producing offspring or not.

On the other hand, I do recognise abortion as morally wrong rather than morally neutral (whether you believe a fetus is human or proto human, it is still life that is capable of developing into human at the very least), and where I consider it permissible, it is where there is an opposing good that is being saved.

I guess the argument for someone voting yes on the question would, therefore, be, that a woman who had access to contraception and full sexual education and becomes pregnant following a consensual sexual intercourse would, barring some rare accidental situation, become pregnant out of her own volition - so should she then have an unrestricted right to abort a fetus created from such a consensual sexual intercourse or not?

[Agelastus]

My "gut" says yes, because for what ultimately are purely personal reasons I've always been uncomfortable with abortion.

My "Head", which is what I've always used to decide my opinion on the issue, says "no" and that's how I've voted. For reasons virtually indistinguishable from Berkut's.

[Grey Fox]

I support an unrestrictive access to abortion under any & all circumstances you can invent.

It's not your body.

[Josquius]

No.
We need more abortion rights not less

[Barrister]

So, as far as I understand, in most (all?) of the US right now, a woman can have an abortion without stating the reason for it, assuming the fetus is not developed beyond a certain level.

In a hypothetical scenario where "liberal" (i.e. not "abstinence only" but modern) sex education and contraception were made universally accessible, would you support restricting the right to abortion to specific cases (say, rape, incest, significant threat to health or life of the mother, or significant damage to the fetus)? Or would you nonetheless support an unrestricted access to abortion?

If you combine not only modern sex education and contraception, but also widely available 'morning after' contraception as well, I would tend to support it.  Though I'm more of a mind to 'discourage' early abortion  (say, require counselling about alternatives), and only ban the procedure after say 20 weeks.

[celedhring]

Less abortions is a desirable goal, but I prefer to use stuff like sex-ed and contraceptives than the criminal code to achieve it. So yeah, pretty much I'm in the same position as Berkut.

I.e. in Spain abortions have actually gone down in the past years despite adopting a more liberal law, that was complemented with a more liberal approach to sex-ed.

[garbon]

No, I would not.

My opposition to abortion is based on my feelings about human life.

My opposition to restricting abortion are based on my feelings about the state telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies versus the potential rights of the unborn human.

So I support any efforts to reduce the number of abortions performed to a minimum, and my support for choice is absolute, as long as I remain convinced that the fetal life does not rise to human levels of cognition and human levels of potential harm (so basically the first two trimesters).

Once you get to a stage of fetal development where truly human identifiable brain activity is occurring, I think you reach a point where real balances have to be struck between the rights of two different human beings, and hence I am comfortable with practical restrictions on late term abortions that would limit them to cases where there is significant and understood harm to the mother being likely.

I'm pretty much in agreement except that I do think worth noting that the incidence of the bit in bold constitutes a very, very, very tiny amount of abortion procedures. Not what you are doing, but I think in general mentioning that as part of abortion debate just serves as a distraction / attempt to make those pro-choice seem more monstrous.

[Berkut]

So, as far as I understand, in most (all?) of the US right now, a woman can have an abortion without stating the reason for it, assuming the fetus is not developed beyond a certain level.

In a hypothetical scenario where "liberal" (i.e. not "abstinence only" but modern) sex education and contraception were made universally accessible, would you support restricting the right to abortion to specific cases (say, rape, incest, significant threat to health or life of the mother, or significant damage to the fetus)? Or would you nonetheless support an unrestricted access to abortion?

If you combine not only modern sex education and contraception, but also widely available 'morning after' contraception as well, I would tend to support it.  Though I'm more of a mind to 'discourage' early abortion  (say, require counselling about alternatives), and only ban the procedure after say 20 weeks.

Man, I fucking HATE the attitude that thinks that "requiring counseling before..." is some kind of reasonable approach to government intrusion into people's lives.

It assumes that the fucking government has some font of knowledge that the stupid fucking people cannot possibly have access to without the state jamming it down their throats in mandated "counseling" sessions.

Either the individuals have the LIBERTY to make their own choices, in which case your *mandatory* "counseling" is neither needed or useful, or they do not, in which case you should restrict access to something the state can make a compelling case they should not have available.

Requiring someone to undergo state mandated guilt trips prior to then giving them the power to do as you claim they have a *right* to do is the very epitome of the Nanny Moral Majority attitude that crushes actual liberty.

[Martinus]

Yeah it's kinda like saying you can have an abortion as long as there is a nun with a bell saying "shame" in the operation room.

[Zanza]

No, I would not.

My opposition to abortion is based on my feelings about human life.

My opposition to restricting abortion are based on my feelings about the state telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies versus the potential rights of the unborn human.

So I support any efforts to reduce the number of abortions performed to a minimum, and my support for choice is absolute, as long as I remain convinced that the fetal life does not rise to human levels of cognition and human levels of potential harm (so basically the first two trimesters).

Once you get to a stage of fetal development where truly human identifiable brain activity is occurring, I think you reach a point where real balances have to be struck between the rights of two different human beings, and hence I am comfortable with practical restrictions on late term abortions that would limit them to cases where there is significant and understood harm to the mother being likely.