Ireland compensates woman forced to travel to Britain for an abortion

[Berkut]

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

The kicker is in the definition of "human".

I absolutely reject the idea that there is some magic that happens during the act of childbirth that makes a non-human parasite become human.

The things that I think define humanity do not change in those few moments.

[merithyn]

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.

"Many" people may agree with your assertions, but it still all stems from laws curtailing a woman's right to decide for herself what is right for her, and there is a very long history of laws doing just that against 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.

How are those "false equivalencies"? And as has been pointed out, less than 1% of abortions are done after the 24th week. This is true even in Canada where there are no laws. Why? Because a woman who's carried a child that far along wants it. It's incredibly rare to not know before 20 weeks that you're pregnant. Laws aren't necessary for something that isn't happening, except as a stepping stone to bring even more laws into play. (Slippery slope argument, to be sure, but it's been shown how that works for for the pro-life crowd by the laws that have been enacted in the last five to ten years. It was their game plan.)

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.

Why do you not have an ethical responsibility to save another person's life if you have the opportunity to do so? What if it was required that you gave up a kidney for your child? Or your parent? And why is there an ethical responsibility for a woman toward a fetus? It's not a person. She's not met the thing yet. Hell, it's not uncommon for a mother to have zero affection for their newborns until after the child shows a personality. You're imposing that ethical responsibility on women that they may or may not feel.

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.

But when you look at the stats, women already take those things into account. They already choose earlier abortions rather than later. Partially because it's easier and less costly, but also because they don't think of it as a "child" yet. And, quite frankly, it's a hell of a lot easier on her body with fewer complications. Women are reasonable about this all on their own. They don't need laws to dictate it.

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.

No, you really are just some man talking like this. You have more education and more perspective on it, but you really are just a guy. And for all the talk about how it sucks that women got the shitty end of the biological stick on this, it also means that men will never be in a position to fully understand it.

[Barrister]

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.

Well I think thats a completely ridiculous position.  That's why a lot of the discussion revolves around late term abortions.  These are situations where the baby is likely viable outside of the womb.  I don't see how you can argue that such a baby is only "the potential for life".

[Barrister]

How are those "false equivalencies"? And as has been pointed out, less than 1% of abortions are done after the 24th week. This is true even in Canada where there are no laws. Why? Because a woman who's carried a child that far along wants it. It's incredibly rare to not know before 20 weeks that you're pregnant. Laws aren't necessary for something that isn't happening, except as a stepping stone to bring even more laws into play. (Slippery slope argument, to be sure, but it's been shown how that works for for the pro-life crowd by the laws that have been enacted in the last five to ten years. It was their game plan.)

I don't really understand the "well there are very few late term abortions".  The frequency of an action shouldn't determine whether something is allowed or not.  Transgendered people are a incredibly tiny minority of people - so surely it's okay to discriminate against them?  Or the number of infanticides that takes place these days is incredibly low - so why do we need a law to prevent people from killing babies after they are born?

It isn't that late term abortions aren't happening.  They are.  A small number is still not the same as zero.

[merithyn]

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.

Because I'm tired of it being about the baby. I'm tired of the argument turning away from the mother and her rights. I'm tired of being dismissed for the sake of something that may or may not be worth saving. I know that I'm worth saving. I know that my life is worth something, and I'm damn tired of being told that it only is if...

I've been listening to that crap my whole life, and I'm so damn sick of being dismissed for a clump of cells that could kill me. And that's not hyperbole. I nearly died with Jeremy AND with Riley. There's a reason they took my uterus, and it wasn't because I was tired of it.

[merithyn]

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

The kicker is in the definition of "human".

I absolutely reject the idea that there is some magic that happens during the act of childbirth that makes a non-human parasite become human.

The things that I think define humanity do not change in those few moments.

On this we agree. I don't believe that a child should be aborted after viability unless it or its mother will die if left in. I don't believe that abortion should be birth control. I don't believe that a clump of parasitic cells aren't important.

But what I believe and what should be law are two entirely different things.

[Valmy]

I've been listening to that crap my whole life, and I'm so damn sick of being dismissed for a clump of cells that could kill me. And that's not hyperbole. I nearly died with Jeremy AND with Riley. There's a reason they took my uterus, and it wasn't because I was tired of it.

I don't get the connection. You wanted them to be born correct? Did you request an abortion to save your life and you were forced to go through with it?

[merithyn]

Well I think thats a completely ridiculous position.  That's why a lot of the discussion revolves around late term abortions.  These are situations where the baby is likely viable outside of the womb.  I don't see how you can argue that such a baby is only "the potential for life".

Because they aren't living on their own yet. They are, as yet, not alive. They are still part of the mother, part of her body, and her life. They can still kill her. They are not their own lives yet, but an extension of hers.

I don't really understand the "well there are very few late term abortions".  The frequency of an action shouldn't determine whether something is allowed or not.  Transgendered people are a incredibly tiny minority of people - so surely it's okay to discriminate against them?  Or the number of infanticides that takes place these days is incredibly low - so why do we need a law to prevent people from killing babies after they are born?

It isn't that late term abortions aren't happening.  They are.  A small number is still not the same as zero.

My point is that they are so rare as to be not worth making a law about. And they're rare because few doctors will do them and few mothers want them. Not to mention that those 1% that are done have been shown time and again to be almost entirely for the safety and well-being of the mother, or because the child isn't viable.

As for the infanticide argument, that's silly. Killing a person is illegal. There isn't a need for an additional law against killing infants in particular. If there are laws on the books about that, it was in order to add more time to the punishment, not because it's a different crime.

[merithyn]

I've been listening to that crap my whole life, and I'm so damn sick of being dismissed for a clump of cells that could kill me. And that's not hyperbole. I nearly died with Jeremy AND with Riley. There's a reason they took my uterus, and it wasn't because I was tired of it.

I don't get the connection. You wanted them to be born correct? Did you request an abortion to save your life and you were forced to go through with it?

Because you can't think beyond yourself on this. Have I had to do this? No. Do other women? Yes. This fight isn't for me, personally, Valmy. This fight is for all women. In winning the fight of bodily autonomy for women, however, I am breaking down at least one barrier toward women's equality.

[Valmy]

And his entire point was their rarity is completely beside the point as to whether or not a law should be made about them.

[Valmy]

Because you can't think beyond yourself on this. Have I had to do this? No. Do other women? Yes. This fight isn't for me, personally, Valmy. This fight is for all women. In winning the fight of bodily autonomy for women, however, I am breaking down at least one barrier toward women's equality.

I can't? I donate my own money to planned parenthood every month

How does that benefit me?

[merithyn]

And his entire point was their rarity is completely beside the point as to whether or not a law should be made about them.

My point is that it's adding morality and laws to a topic where they shouldn't be. Either a woman has the right to decide for herself how she treats her body or she doesn't. That's the stand that Canada has taken, as I understand it. (I believe that prostitution is also legal there?) To add laws regarding late-term abortions or for the safety of the mother is to change directions in reasoning.

[merithyn]

Because you can't think beyond yourself on this. Have I had to do this? No. Do other women? Yes. This fight isn't for me, personally, Valmy. This fight is for all women. In winning the fight of bodily autonomy for women, however, I am breaking down at least one barrier toward women's equality.

I can't? I donate my own money to planned parenthood every month

How does that benefit me?

Every time I make a point, you ask me if it directly affects me. You seem to be having a difficult time understanding that I don't have to have this directly affect me for it to still be important to me.

[merithyn]

I don't understand the "it's rare so it should be legal" argument.

And his entire point was their rarity is completely beside the point as to whether or not a law should be made about them.

My point is that it's adding morality and laws to a topic where they shouldn't be. Either a woman has the right to decide for herself how she treats her body or she doesn't. That's the stand that Canada has taken, as I understand it. (I believe that prostitution is also legal there?) To add laws regarding late-term abortions or for the safety of the mother is to change directions in reasoning.

[Barrister]

As for the infanticide argument, that's silly. Killing a person is illegal. There isn't a need for an additional law against killing infants in particular. If there are laws on the books about that, it was in order to add more time to the punishment, not because it's a different crime.

You're wrong, actually.

Even the lowest form of homicide, manslaughter, can carry a sentence of life imprisonment.  Infanticide however carries a maximum sentence of five years.  Infanticide, while being it's own separate offence, is actually also a form of defence to a murder/manslaughter charge, given the greatly diminished penalty.

I know you'll just LOVE the reasoning for this: infanticide applies only to a mother killing their own newly born child.  The reasoning is that such a woman is not fully recovered from the process of giving birth, and thus her mind is disturbed, and thus her moral culpability is diminished.