Languish.org

Because we haven't had that discussion for a while.

In general?

Quote from: The Brain on April 04, 2016, 03:16:32 PM
In general?

For humans.

I am in the "I personally couldn't do it but I don't find it in myself to make it illegal for others" camp.

So I'd make it legal but with enough (reasonable) hurdles and counseling so it's a last resort (unless there's a health emergency for the mother, of course).

Of course, ultimately the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies through sex ed, and beef up child support policies.

Yeah, I think personally most people would fall somewhere between option 3 and 4 on the poll (I know I fluctuate between the two). So it makes me wonder why there is so much controversy on this issue (most recently in Poland) - it seems like extremists on both sides tend to hijack the issue for political gain.

Mandatory. We have enough people. Also known as the #nottrumpwall

As long as it's legal to have kids and then demand that other people pay for their upkeep it seems petty to make abortion illegal.

Why would abortion be morally negative? Whose morals are we referencing here?

Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2016, 03:30:47 PM
Why would abortion be morally negative? Whose morals are we referencing here?

I presume, since the question is what my views are, that they would be my morals :unsure:

I find it very unfortunate and I hope we can work on birth control technology to give women control of their bodies before pregnancy occurs. As things stand now legal and safe abortions are only rational way to go. I hope, though, that eventually we can make them unnecessary or at least extremely rare. Human life should be as sacred as possible, under the circumstances.

An abortion is the tragic outcome of the conflict between two morally positive principles, namely the fetus right to life and the mother's right to control her own body. As with all tragedies, there is no right choice. So I tend towards the compromise solution adopted in many societies, namely to make early term abortions legal. 

Potentially iffy for the woman's health, not getting pregnant in the first place is better, but if she's pregnant and doesn't want to be then no issue whatsoever.

I find morality and legality to be two completely separate questions.

I don't think a person's right to their own body is absolute.

I view it as something not to talk about on Languish.

Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 03:22:21 PM
Yeah, I think personally most people would fall somewhere between option 3 and 4 on the poll (I know I fluctuate between the two). So it makes me wonder why there is so much controversy on this issue (most recently in Poland) - it seems like extremists on both sides tend to hijack the issue for political gain.

I don't really get the rationale of #4.  I understand it as a practical matter, but it isn't really logical.  It seems to me that the unborn fetus either is or isn't a human being.  If it isn't, then #2 would seem to be the logical choice.  If it is, then #5 would be the logical choice.  If it isn't a human life at conception, but becomes human at some point before birth, then #3 (or really, a blend of #2 and #3) makes sense.

I don't claim to know at what point a developing fetus becomes human.  I think it probably is human some time before birth, but I have a lot of doubts about it being human at conception.

Other: Morally neutral as long as it's just a clump of cells without higher functions. Necessary evil in case of significant risk to the mother. Morally good in case of significant malformation or disease. Understandable in case of rape.

Quote from: dps on April 04, 2016, 04:36:22 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 03:22:21 PM
Yeah, I think personally most people would fall somewhere between option 3 and 4 on the poll (I know I fluctuate between the two). So it makes me wonder why there is so much controversy on this issue (most recently in Poland) - it seems like extremists on both sides tend to hijack the issue for political gain.

I don't really get the rationale of #4.  I understand it as a practical matter, but it isn't really logical.  It seems to me that the unborn fetus either is or isn't a human being.  If it isn't, then #2 would seem to be the logical choice.  If it is, then #5 would be the logical choice.  If it isn't a human life at conception, but becomes human at some point before birth, then #3 (or really, a blend of #2 and #3) makes sense.

I don't claim to know at what point a developing fetus becomes human.  I think it probably is human some time before birth, but I have a lot of doubts about it being human at conception.

I consider the fetus to be human life, but the woman writes her own Constitution inside her body, so the castle doctrine is usually applied, meaning she can legally kill her unborn baby.

I have no problem with ejecting the combination of a sperm and an egg from a mother's body, one day after the sperm has entered the egg, for whatever reason.

I have serious problem with shooting the belly of a pregnant woman one day before the baby is born and getting away with murder. 

I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere in between.

Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2016, 03:31:56 PM
I presume, since the question is what my views are, that they would be my morals :unsure:

I find it very unfortunate and I hope we can work on birth control technology to give women control of their bodies before pregnancy occurs. As things stand now legal and safe abortions are only rational way to go. I hope, though, that eventually we can make them unnecessary or at least extremely rare. Human life should be as sacred as possible, under the circumstances.

That's pretty much my position word for word.

Quote from: dps on April 04, 2016, 04:36:22 PM
I don't really get the rationale of #4.  I understand it as a practical matter, but it isn't really logical.  It seems to me that the unborn fetus either is or isn't a human being.  If it isn't, then #2 would seem to be the logical choice.  If it is, then #5 would be the logical choice.  If it isn't a human life at conception, but becomes human at some point before birth, then #3 (or really, a blend of #2 and #3) makes sense.

I don't claim to know at what point a developing fetus becomes human.  I think it probably is human some time before birth, but I have a lot of doubts about it being human at conception.

I agree that #4 has always puzzled me.  Why should rape or incest be an issue?  If the issue is the right of the woman to control her body, then rape and incest don't come into it.  If the issue is the right of the fetus to live, then the method of conception is irrelevant, since the fetus had nothing to do with the method of conception and is as innocent as it would be if the sex was consensual.

If it can fit in a blender, puree it.

Whatever gets traffic moving in the morning.

I personally couldn't make the call if it were me.  However, this isn't a perfect world, and biology's made it so I'll never have to make the ultimate call on that.

Killing is killing, so I actually view it as a range where the limits are set by medical science.  If the fetus could reasonably survive with minimal to moderate medical assistance, I'm against abortion (with the caveat that the mother isn't held liable for the infant's care).  As medical science improves, I see there being less and less of a window where abortion is acceptable, but like Valmy, I hope that contraception advances at roughly the same rate (especially emergency contraception for the cases of rape, incest, and significant maternal health risk).

Quote from: grumbler on April 04, 2016, 08:55:22 PM
I agree that #4 has always puzzled me.  Why should rape or incest be an issue?  If the issue is the right of the woman to control her body, then rape and incest don't come into it.  If the issue is the right of the fetus to live, then the method of conception is irrelevant, since the fetus had nothing to do with the method of conception and is as innocent as it would be if the sex was consensual.

Well, the way the quiz is worded, #4 is also what you'd pick if the only exception you'd grant is when it endangers the life of the mother.

Though I can understand why some people insist on a rape and incest exception as well. At heart, you're balancing the right to life of the one organism vs the right to privacy/autonomy/getting rid of a parasite of another organism. In most cases, the second/mother bears some of the responsibility for the state of affairs. A temporary loss of privacy could be weighted more heavily if the mother is a victim of someone else's assault rather than her own bad judgment.

For the record, no. 4 just lists possible examples (which are most commonly applied by restrictive legislation), it does not have to mean you agree with each of the examples - the idea behind voting for no. 4 is you believe abortion should be illegal except in exceptional circumstances where there is a special motive (whereas under no. 3 you believe that abortion should generally be legal irrespective of the motive).

Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2016, 03:11:12 PM
Because we haven't had that discussion for a while.

somewhere between 2 and 3, depending on what you mean exactly.

I sure don't think it's cool or casual (really, I don't believe anyone, well, any woman, would gladly get an abortion any day of the week), I'm not totally certain it's totally neutral, yet I don't find it "morally negative".

I think for the most part, the Quebec system is working, and I'm glad we are investing a little more in sexual education now, from a younger age, despite the teacher's protests.  It could lead to a reduced abortion rate, maybe.  And that would be a good thing.

1st Trimester should be legal. 2nd and 3rd Trimester should be illegal unless the life of the mother is endangered.

So, halfway between 3 and 4 on that list.

The state should provide free pre and post natal care, ensure manditory maternal leave, etc.

This poll is somewhat useless anyway, since most Languishites are men and don't have any grounds to decide what women do with their bodies.

Quote from: Solmyr on April 05, 2016, 05:18:46 AM
This poll is somewhat useless anyway, since most Languishites are men and don't have any grounds to decide what women do with their bodies.

:D

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2016, 04:31:39 PM
I view it as something not to talk about on Languish.

This is the most appropriate response. It's a very divisive and unclean subject.

Quote from: Lettow77 on April 05, 2016, 08:09:24 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2016, 04:31:39 PM
I view it as something not to talk about on Languish.

This is the most appropriate response. It's a very divisive and unclean subject.

That is why I asked people to vote in a poll, not to necessarily debate different positions. I tried to represent all typical stances and while some people immediately started to challenge some of them as ridiculous, the fact that people in fact voted for all of them is a proof that they are legitimately held.

I think it is one of these topics were a compromise and middle ground is actually helpful because you have a legitimate contlict of values.

What if you're in a runaway railway car and you have the option to run over three people or kill yourself and the other passenger and the fetus is Hitler?

Quote from: The Brain on April 05, 2016, 09:56:10 AM
What if you're in a runaway railway car and you have the option to run over three people or kill yourself and the other passenger and the fetus is Hitler?

42.

Quote from: Solmyr on April 05, 2016, 05:18:46 AM
This poll is somewhat useless anyway, since most Languishites are men and don't have any grounds to decide what women do with their bodies.

From your lips to the US Congress' ears....

Quote from: Solmyr on April 05, 2016, 05:18:46 AM
This poll is somewhat useless anyway, since most Languishites are men and don't have any grounds to decide what women do with their bodies.

Ok I will cease to fight for abortion rights then and cancel my monthly donation to Planned Parenthood since my views and support have no grounds.

I just wish we could come up with both male and female contraception that reverses the decision process - where people have to decide to be fertile, rather than the other way around.

Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2016, 10:37:09 AM
I just wish we could come up with both male and female contraception that reverses the decision process - where people have to decide to be fertile, rather than the other way around.

Oh yeah. I just do not get why serious resources are not put towards contraception. It would do so much to put this issue to rest.

Not that I have grounds to have views on this subject.

Giving support and telling women they cannot do something because of your views on morality are not quite the same thing. :rolleyes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/05/health/northern-ireland-abortion-sentence/

QuoteN. Ireland woman who induced abortion given suspended prison term

Had the woman lived anywhere else in the UK other than Northern Ireland, she would not have been prosecuted for inducing her own abortion, her attorney said.

But she lacked the money to travel to England at age 19. So she wound up in court in Northern Ireland, where she pleaded guilty to two charges, and, now at 21, she received a three-month suspended prison term Tuesday.

The judge, David McFarland, said he was unaware of anyone ever having been prosecuted under Northern Ireland's 150-year-old abortion law, such legislation having been "substantially amended" in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Debate over abortion flares in various countries

The woman cannot be named for legal reasons. She pleaded guilty to procuring her abortion by using a poison and to supplying a poison with intent to cause a miscarriage.

The case comes amid controversies over abortion worldwide, including in the U.S. presidential race.

Notably, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gave a series of evolving answers to the question of whether a woman who obtains an abortion should be punished. He started with yes, but ended with no, saying that the woman, along with the fetus, is a victim in such a case.

And it comes, too, as Poland considers a complete ban on abortion, including in cases of rape or when the fetus has a severe health issue. Opponents have called the proposal "medieval."

Housemates found fetus in the trash

The woman in Northern Ireland told her housemates she wanted to travel to England but could not raise enough money. She contacted an abortion clinic in England, which told her about two drugs available online that would induce an abortion.

She bought the drugs, and the fetus -- a male of between 10 and 12 weeks' gestation -- was aborted. Her housemates found the fetus in the trash and contacted police.

A fetus of 12 weeks would be 2.13 inches long on average and would weigh about half an ounce, although there can be considerable variation, according to the babycentre.co.uk website, which cites various medical journals.

Anti-abortion group says law demands life sentence

The anti-abortion group Precious Life called Tuesday for an appeal of the sentence.

The organization's director, Bernadette Smyth, said the judge had undermined an 1861 law calling for a life sentence in such cases.

The law -- the Offenses Against the Person Act -- says, as quoted by Precious Life in a statement, that "Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing ... shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life."

The organization said it was "very shocked" by the leniency of the judge's sentence and said it had set a dangerous precedent.

Quote from: Solmyr on April 05, 2016, 10:43:37 AM
Giving support and telling women they cannot do something because of your views on morality are not quite the same thing. :rolleyes:

I was giving you a hard time :P

But seriously my morality dictates that abortions should continue until we can help women make them unnecessary. It may suck that people in a democracy can pass laws for farmers even though they are not farmers but that is how it works.

Quote from: garbon on April 05, 2016, 10:45:36 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/05/health/northern-ireland-abortion-sentence/

Wait Northern Ireland's law on abortion is 150 years old? They have had no reason to re-consider the topic since then? I mean granted they have been busy lately.

Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2016, 10:48:44 AM

Quote from: Solmyr on April 05, 2016, 10:43:37 AM
Giving support and telling women they cannot do something because of your views on morality are not quite the same thing. :rolleyes:

I was giving you a hard time :P

But seriously my morality dictates that abortions should continue until we can help women make them unnecessary. It may suck that people in a democracy can pass laws for farmers even though they are not farmers but that is how it works.

I wish only people who make at least as much money as I do could pass laws taxing my income. :(

Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2016, 10:37:09 AM
I just wish we could come up with both male and female contraception that reverses the decision process - where people have to decide to be fertile, rather than the other way around.

This. Abso-fucking-lutely this.

Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2016, 10:37:09 AM
I just wish we could come up with both male and female contraception that reverses the decision process - where people have to decide to be fertile, rather than the other way around.

They already have this decision capability - it's the decision to have vaginal sex. Never done it and never will. :P

Quote from: merithyn on April 05, 2016, 11:37:55 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2016, 10:37:09 AM
I just wish we could come up with both male and female contraception that reverses the decision process - where people have to decide to be fertile, rather than the other way around.

This. Abso-fucking-lutely this.

Yep. It is so obvious I do not get why it is not more on the political radar as a solution.

Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 11:38:50 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2016, 10:37:09 AM
I just wish we could come up with both male and female contraception that reverses the decision process - where people have to decide to be fertile, rather than the other way around.

They already have this decision capability - it's the decision to have vaginal sex. Never done it and never will. :P

Abstinence education has a great track record.

Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2016, 11:42:42 AM

Quote from: merithyn on April 05, 2016, 11:37:55 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2016, 10:37:09 AM
I just wish we could come up with both male and female contraception that reverses the decision process - where people have to decide to be fertile, rather than the other way around.

This. Abso-fucking-lutely this.

Yep. It is so obvious I do not get why it is not more on the political radar as a solution.

How would that be a political solution? It sounds like a practical/scientific one if anything.

Quote from: Martinus on April 05, 2016, 11:44:20 AM
How would that be a political solution? It sounds like a practical/scientific one if anything.

Millions are spent for lobbying to fight for or against abortion. If those millions were instead devoted to practical/scientific solutions it may no longer be a problem.

But I guess then those millions wouldn't be filling political parties' coffers.

Quote from: Zanza on April 04, 2016, 03:50:35 PM
An abortion is the tragic outcome of the conflict between two morally positive principles, namely the fetus right to life and the mother's right to control her own body. As with all tragedies, there is no right choice. So I tend towards the compromise solution adopted in many societies, namely to make early term abortions legal. 

I'm actually pretty close to that.  I just have a hard time figuring out exactly where to draw the line.

Quote from: derspiess on April 05, 2016, 01:46:35 PM

Quote from: Zanza on April 04, 2016, 03:50:35 PM
An abortion is the tragic outcome of the conflict between two morally positive principles, namely the fetus right to life and the mother's right to control her own body. As with all tragedies, there is no right choice. So I tend towards the compromise solution adopted in many societies, namely to make early term abortions legal. 

I'm actually pretty close to that.  I just have a hard time figuring out exactly where to draw the line.

I think Sagan did a pretty good job defining it in a reasonable, rational, and human manner.

A powerful tool in the fight against climate change and ambient noise.

I have a supply of wire hangers.