Abortion vs. sex education and contraception access

[Valmy]

Yes. But contraception would first have to be much more effective. This is actually how I hope abortion will eventually be mostly ended. Better than the plan of just tossing everybody in jail until paradise breaks out.

[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.

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.

I take it you're against warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol as well then?  Or Public Service Announcements?

Providing information but leaving the final choice with the individual seems perfectly in keeping with LIBERTY (got be sure to use all caps).

[Zanza]

We actually have that required counseling, but it isn't just offered by the state, but also by NGOs and religious organisations. You have to wait 48 hours between counseling and the abortion.

They will usually talk about:
- the life situation of the woman (partnership, emotional state etc.)
- information on social support for parents
- information about the medical procedure
- legal situation

As I consider some limitations to abortion (e.g. ban of late term abortions) a valid objective of the legislative power of our society, I also consider mandatory counseling a valid limitation of the right of the woman to control her own body. It's a very minor limitation to her basic human right and considering that it might protect another human life that's a limitation to her freedom that I find acceptable.

That's of course easy to say as a male. 

[garbon]

I take it you're against warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol as well then?  Or Public Service Announcements?

Providing information but leaving the final choice with the individual seems perfectly in keeping with LIBERTY (got be sure to use all caps).

Requiring counseling isn't about providing information, it is about intimidating women into not having an abortion.

[11B4V]

Pretty much.

[Barrister]

I take it you're against warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol as well then?  Or Public Service Announcements?

Providing information but leaving the final choice with the individual seems perfectly in keeping with LIBERTY (got be sure to use all caps).

Requiring counseling isn't about providing information, it is about intimidating women into not having an abortion.

It can be about intimidating women into not having an abortion, I'll grant you that.

But it doesn't have to be.

[garbon]

I take it you're against warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol as well then?  Or Public Service Announcements?

Providing information but leaving the final choice with the individual seems perfectly in keeping with LIBERTY (got be sure to use all caps).

Requiring counseling isn't about providing information, it is about intimidating women into not having an abortion.

It can be about intimidating women into not having an abortion, I'll grant you that.

But it doesn't have to be.

Yeah but I'm not all that interested in discussing hypotheticals. I'd rather we keep the discussion to the actual world.

[The Brain]

What does restricting access mean? At least in Sweden "I have a right to have an" tend to mean "you will be forced to pay for my".

[garbon]

What does restricting access mean? At least in Sweden "I have a right to have an" tend to mean "you will be forced to pay for my".

I don't recall us discussing your tiny nation.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Yes. But contraception would first have to be much more effective.

Contraceptives are generally effective enough, it's the people not applying them (correctly) that's usually the issue.

[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.

I take it you're against warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol as well then?  Or Public Service Announcements?

Not at all, and those have absolutely no comparison to "mandated counseling sessions".

I would be against the requirement that anyone buying a pack of smokes attend a "mandatory counseling session" to tell them about the evils of smoking.

And I have no problem with mandating any pregnant women have access to information about the risks of abortion to her, if in fact there was an identified and real concern about whether or not that information was being made available.

Providing information but leaving the final choice with the individual seems perfectly in keeping with LIBERTY (got be sure to use all caps).

That would be true if in fact your proposal was limited to providing information, but of course it is not.

[Berkut]

I take it you're against warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol as well then?  Or Public Service Announcements?

Providing information but leaving the final choice with the individual seems perfectly in keeping with LIBERTY (got be sure to use all caps).

Requiring counseling isn't about providing information, it is about intimidating women into not having an abortion.

Of course. Which is why the proposal is for "mandatory counseling" rather than making sure information is available.

[dps]

The whole question seems predicated on the idea that access to contraception isn't more-or-less available at present, which I would dispute.

[Berkut]

The whole question seems predicated on the idea that access to contraception isn't more-or-less available at present, which I would dispute.

I think access is more or less present - I think education is very spotty.

It is better than it used to be for sure, and we've seen the radical decline in teenage pregnancy that has been the result of increasing education, but there are still parts of the country where sexual education is woefully lacking beyond "Wait until you are married!".

[mongers]

I take it you're against warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol as well then?  Or Public Service Announcements?

Providing information but leaving the final choice with the individual seems perfectly in keeping with LIBERTY (got be sure to use all caps).

Requiring counseling isn't about providing information, it is about intimidating women into not having an abortion.

Come on, it's entirely likely the woman has turned up at the abortion clinic on a whim, it's not as if she's given it much consideration in the previous weeks or god forbid have spoken to a family member or friends for advice.