Ireland compensates woman forced to travel to Britain for an abortion

[Berkut]

What the US needs to do more of is education and free birth control. Want fewer abortions? That's how to do it.

I couldn't agree more. I have no idea why better and free birth control is not a major priority for people who want to end abortions.

I have an idea!

[merithyn]

Meri, you know that I am in about 99% agreement with you on this, but I think you are radically over-stating the "second class citizen" bit. There is a difference in the law between men and women because the law is about biology, and men and women are biologically different in this regard. There can be no posible that could make the outcome of sex the same for men and women - that difference is what defines the terms!

Now, there are plenty of laws that do in fact attempt to make women second class citizens, and of course they need to be changed. But the fact that the outcome of some particular law or set of laws is different for men and women, especially in a subject that is completely about the very things that define our genders like procreation, doesn't mean that the intent MUST be to make women second class citizens.

Except that the major argument against abortion for decades was that women shouldn't be having sex anyway. It wasn't until the 90s that the focus became about the baby itself. And if it really were about just biology, why aren't these same people pushing birth control and education? If it truly is about preventing abortions, why is that not the focus of all of the laws being passed, the money being spent, and the arguments put forth? Instead, the very same people fighting against abortion rights are also fighting against free birth control and education.

Sure, the biology is different. However, when you look at the bigger picture, it's not about biology at all.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Meri is right. End of story.

Unfortunately it isn't. At least not for millions of women down in my neck of the woods.

That doesn't make Meri any less right.

Do you think your "it's not black and white" position helps or hinders the millions of women down in your neck of the woods?

I agree with some of what she's saying, but earlier in the thread she said there should be "no restrictions" on abortion rights (at least, she called those restrictions appeasements that violate a woman's right to bodily autonomy.) I frankly disagree, and I think many people (a vast majority) agree in America with some level of abortion restrictions. I think there's pretty consistent polling showing we as a society are more comfortable with abortion the earlier on in the pregnancy it occurs, and are more comfortable with it when it's medically necessary for the health of the mother. There are obviously absolutists who oppose it to the point of (literal) death for the woman, and ascribe it as "God's will" that sadly both mother and baby unavoidably had to die. There are obviously old puritan types who view abortion and birth control as bad because it sexually liberates women.

But I dunno, after week 10-11 or so the fetus has a brain, after week 24-25 the fetus is viable outside the womb. Both of those are developments I view with "moral concern", and killing that human life at that point is a lot different to me than any of the false equivalencies meri spelled out about things like forced blood donations or forced kidney transplants.

At the end of the day I believe, and I think most people believe, women have an ethical responsibility toward their fetus that is materially different than my ethical responsibility to donate a kidney or even blood. Some of that is simply unfair--women have a vastly harder road in reproduction than men, but I didn't design the species. It's regrettable that sometimes basic biology doesn't match some people's ideas of "fairness", but there it is.

Some of this discussion are people talking past each other. In America at least there's a huge focus on late term abortions, which statistically almost never happen, and are never allowed for "elective" reasons, they're all serious medical problems with the fetus or a risk to the mother's health from carrying to term. The vast majority of abortions in America happen very early in the development of fetal life, before it develops features (like a brain), or viability outside the womb, developments that to me present tough ethical questions that glib responses like yours don't answer, or even begin to answer.

I'm not just some man talking like this, my wife is a doctor and mother and while she's pro-choice, she's generally against abortion past 12-13 weeks, which is a common standard in many countries. Many physicians, that intimately understand fetal life, are  so uncomfortable with abortion they won't perform it or touch it with a ten foot pole. In large swathes of the country it's a majority opinion among women that abortion should be illegal.

[Valmy]

Guaranteed until Trump gets his way and puts a pro-life judge on the bench. Guaranteed so long as you don't live in a state with highly restrictive laws. Guaranteed so long as you can afford it.

We will see on the Trump and Supreme Court thing.

Abortions are across-the-board allowed in the UK (Northern Ireland being the exception), paid for by the state, and not subjective to a single Lord Ruler deciding the laws for women.

I was not aware the US was a lordly dictatorship. And last I checked there are restrictions in England and those are subject to people making laws for women.

Having raised four children in one of the more progressive states for "social safety nets", I can assure you that welfare doesn't pay for shit - IF you happen to be broke enough to qualify, which I never did, including foodstamps. The Tax Credits for children are going away, or hadn't you heard? And they're fairly recent, like in the past decade and a half or so. I never received free child care, and in fact had to stay home because it cost me more in child care than I made at my job. And that "free" education cost me $500 this fall for my daughter in fees, book rental, charges, etc. When I had all four kids, I had to beg the school district for a break, whereby they lowered the costs to $150/kid that I was able to pay over several months. Yeah, even with a school district "discount", I paid $600 every September for my kids to go to school. That was half of my paycheck that month. That's not even including school supplies or clothes.

That all sucks. What the hell is up with the fees? I don't think they are allowed to do that in Texas for anything related to actual school.

But I think we are getting outside of actual human rights here.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Meri, you know that I am in about 99% agreement with you on this, but I think you are radically over-stating the "second class citizen" bit. There is a difference in the law between men and women because the law is about biology, and men and women are biologically different in this regard. There can be no posible that could make the outcome of sex the same for men and women - that difference is what defines the terms!

Now, there are plenty of laws that do in fact attempt to make women second class citizens, and of course they need to be changed. But the fact that the outcome of some particular law or set of laws is different for men and women, especially in a subject that is completely about the very things that define our genders like procreation, doesn't mean that the intent MUST be to make women second class citizens.

Except that the major argument against abortion for decades was that women shouldn't be having sex anyway. It wasn't until the 90s that the focus became about the baby itself. And if it really were about just biology, why aren't these same people pushing birth control and education? If it truly is about preventing abortions, why is that not the focus of all of the laws being passed, the money being spent, and the arguments put forth? Instead, the very same people fighting against abortion rights are also fighting against free birth control and education.

Sure, the biology is different. However, when you look at the bigger picture, it's not about biology at all.

A lot of the hardcore pro-life people genuinely believe contraception is immoral too, and promotion of sex (safe sex education) is immoral etc. I don't think they're un-genuine in their positions, they are just conservative religious positions that you disagree with. I think the thought of a cabal of old white men gleefully plotting to fuck over women may represent some of the more obnoxious pro-lifers, but I don't think it's as large a part of it is as it's made out to be.

[merithyn]

Essentially impossible?

In the state of Texas, one of the most populace and largest states in the Union, there are eight abortion clinics. Why? Because of the laws they've enacted that have made it nearly impossible for them to survive. (Must have admitting privileges, must have a set number of recovery rooms, etc.) 

In Indiana, Louisiana, and now Texas, you are required to bury the remains of the fetus as if it were a living child. No word on any of those yet on who's responsible for paying for the burial or cremation, but it seems unlikely that the states are going to help with that at all. So, that's additional costs to an already expensive procedure that in Indiana and other states requires an overnight state near a facility. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/texas-burial-aborted-fetuses.html?_r=0

And all of this is getting worse, not better, for women. Read that article about Texas. They don't give a shit about the mothers. They don't care that every time a woman gets pregnant she's putting her life in danger.

[Valmy]

Except that the major argument against abortion for decades was that women shouldn't be having sex anyway. It wasn't until the 90s that the focus became about the baby itself. And if it really were about just biology, why aren't these same people pushing birth control and education? If it truly is about preventing abortions, why is that not the focus of all of the laws being passed, the money being spent, and the arguments put forth? Instead, the very same people fighting against abortion rights are also fighting against free birth control and education.

Right. Right there with you.

Sure, the biology is different. However, when you look at the bigger picture, it's not about biology at all.

Right. It is about legislating morality.

But damn those people really flip their shit over the 'baby murder' angle. Frustrating since, as you say, they are also against anything that would practically reduce the 'baby murder'.

[Berkut]

Meri, you know that I am in about 99% agreement with you on this, but I think you are radically over-stating the "second class citizen" bit. There is a difference in the law between men and women because the law is about biology, and men and women are biologically different in this regard. There can be no posible that could make the outcome of sex the same for men and women - that difference is what defines the terms!

Now, there are plenty of laws that do in fact attempt to make women second class citizens, and of course they need to be changed. But the fact that the outcome of some particular law or set of laws is different for men and women, especially in a subject that is completely about the very things that define our genders like procreation, doesn't mean that the intent MUST be to make women second class citizens.

Except that the major argument against abortion for decades was that women shouldn't be having sex anyway.

OK. I guess.

But that isn't the argument now, so why bring it up? It is a strawman.

People who are in favor, for example, of banning late term abortions in most cases, can do so without any arguments about whether or not women should be having sex.

It wasn't until the 90s that the focus became about the baby itself. And if it really were about just biology, why aren't these same people pushing birth control and education? If it truly is about preventing abortions, why is that not the focus of all of the laws being passed, the money being spent, and the arguments put forth? Instead, the very same people fighting against abortion rights are also fighting against free birth control and education.

To some extent that is true, and I've said the same myself on many occasions when the two topics overlap.

But just because that is the case for some people doesn't make it the vase for all, and it weakens your position to insist that the entirety of the other side is represented by the most radical of them. It's just like pro-lifers claiming that women want abortion to be legal because they want after the fact birth control and women who get abortions get them routinely.

Sure, the biology is different. However, when you look at the bigger picture, it's not about biology at all.

For some. For plenty it is absolutely.

I am in favor, for example, of banning third trimester abortions except in cases where the well being of the mother is in clear danger.

But I am confident my position on this is based on some rational and understood (by me anyway) ideas about life, individual rights, and liberty - and has nothing to do with whether or not I think women should be having sex.

[Valmy]

And all of this is getting worse, not better, for women. Read that article about Texas. They don't give a shit about the mothers. They don't care that every time a woman gets pregnant she's putting her life in danger.

We will see. There is only so far they can push this.

[merithyn]

A lot of the hardcore pro-life people genuinely believe contraception is immoral too, and promotion of sex (safe sex education) is immoral etc. I don't think they're un-genuine in their positions, they are just conservative religious positions that you disagree with. I think the thought of a cabal of old white men gleefully plotting to fuck over women may represent some of the more obnoxious pro-lifers, but I don't think it's as large a part of it is as it's made out to be.

Their morals shouldn't dictate what I do with my body, and I'm pretty tired of having to make that argument.

[Berkut]

Essentially impossible?

In the state of Texas, one of the most populace and largest states in the Union, there are eight abortion clinics. Why? Because of the laws they've enacted that have made it nearly impossible for them to survive. (Must have admitting privileges, must have a set number of recovery rooms, etc.) 

And that is bullshit. But that is 1, not 38. It is a real problem in Texas, and I am fully in support of fixing that, in Texas.

I don't think that makes abortion impossible in Texas however, essentially or otherwise.

What about the other 37 that make it "essentially impossible"?

In Indiana, Louisiana, and now Texas, you are required to bury the remains of the fetus as if it were a living child.

Stupid law, but doesn't make it essentially impossible.

No word on any of those yet on who's responsible for paying for the burial or cremation, but it seems unlikely that the states are going to help with that at all. So, that's additional costs to an already expensive procedure that in Indiana and other states requires an overnight state near a facility. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/texas-burial-aborted-fetuses.html?_r=0

More stupid laws, but they don't make it impossible. Just harder. And that is still only up to 3. Not 38.

Harder is not impossible.

And all of this is getting worse, not better, for women. Read that article about Texas. They don't give a shit about the mothers. They don't care that every time a woman gets pregnant she's putting her life in danger.

The issue I have here is that you are doing the exact same thing the most radical of the pro-life do - putting the debate into the context of radical extremes.

*Any* restriction is tantamount "essentially impossible" and any law anywhere is tantamount to it being everywhere.

I think this kind of radicalization of the discussion makes outcomes like Texas MORE likely rather than less, since you are lining up almost perfectly with the caricature of what the pro-life radicals want people to believe that that pro-choice population is all about.

[merithyn]

At the end of the day, it comes down to a woman being allowed to decide for herself whether or not she continues being an incubator for a parasite that could kill her. Those are the cold, hard facts. Not bringing morality into it, that is what is being determined. Can I, as a fully rational adult, decide for myself if I use my body as an incubator for a parasite, or can I choose to not do so?

When you start talking about the 20-week rule or the "mother's life is in danger" caveats, you're changing the focus, and the dialog. It becomes about the baby and its rights. Except that it's not a baby, nor does it have rights yet. It is the potential for life, not life.

You all know that I love my children, and I still weep for the son that I lost (at 18 weeks). I would have had a dozen kids if I'd been physically capable of doing so. I adore kids.

But I firmly believe that my right as a human trumps the rights of potential humans. I firmly believe that so long as it's MY body that is at risk, and MY life that will be irrevocably changed, only I have the right to decide what and how I do it. There are ZERO laws in Canada on abortion, and the numbers are all still the same as they are in the US. There isn't a need to regulate a woman's body in any fashion. It's a feel-good way to say "think of the children", but in doing so people are ignoring the woman who has to bring that child to life. At the end of the day, only she should be deciding what the best options are for herself and her family.

[Admiral Yi]

Those facts don't sound particularly cold or hard.  They sound like a point of view.

[Berkut]

At the end of the day, it comes down to a woman being allowed to decide for herself whether or not she continues being an incubator for a parasite that could kill her.

No, actually it does NOT just come down to that, and calling a human fetus a "parasite" is exactly the kind of ridiculousness that the radical pro-life crowd latches onto so they can restrict access to abortions from baby killers who think human babies are parasites.

Couching an argument in ridiculously emotive terms that leave no room for the other side to make reasoned arguments makes you feel good, but works against your own goals.

[Valmy]

But I firmly believe that my right as a human trumps the rights of potential humans.

Ok then.

So that being the hard and fast fact why does the UK deciding the rights of the potential human trumps your at 24 weeks represent something better?

After all in Texas, if you can jump through the stupid hoops, you can get your abortion whenever.