Poll
Question:
Would you support restricting access to abortion if ("liberal") sex education and contraception were universally accessible (please read OP)
Option 1: Yes
votes: 4
Option 2: No
votes: 19
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?
No. Clumps of cells have no consciousness and therefore negligible moral value.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 14, 2016, 10:34:50 AM
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.
Interesting compromise, but no.
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?
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.
I support an unrestrictive access to abortion under any & all circumstances you can invent.
It's not your body.
No.
We need more abortion rights not less
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2016, 10:27:56 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 14, 2016, 10:34:50 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2016, 11:43:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2016, 10:27:56 AM
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.
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. :P
Quote from: Berkut on November 14, 2016, 10:34:50 AM
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.
:yes:
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 14, 2016, 11:50:10 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2016, 11:43:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2016, 10:27:56 AM
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).
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. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2016, 12:23:06 PM
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.
Pretty much.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2016, 12:26:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2016, 12:23:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2016, 12:27:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2016, 12:26:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2016, 12:23:06 PM
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. :)
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".
Quote from: The Brain on November 14, 2016, 12:51:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2016, 12:18:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2016, 12:23:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 14, 2016, 11:50:10 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2016, 11:43:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2016, 10:27:56 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2016, 12:26:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2016, 12:23:06 PM
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.
The whole question seems predicated on the idea that access to contraception isn't more-or-less available at present, which I would dispute.
Quote from: dps on November 14, 2016, 02:28:34 PM
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!".
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2016, 12:26:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2016, 12:23:06 PM
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.
Quote from: mongers on November 14, 2016, 04:54:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2016, 12:26:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2016, 12:23:06 PM
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.
:blush:
So, who makes the determination that the pregnancy is the result of rape? Do you need a copy of a conviction in hand, or do you adjudicate it separately, under a preponderance of the evidence standard? Or do we just take her word for it? (Yeah, right, I'm sure that's happening in Kansas, dude.)
And who makes the determination that the fetus is "significantly damaged"? A doctor? A priest? The mother? The father? Because what does "damaged" mean? What does "significant" mean?
And, yeah, some of you folks may remember I used to be anti-abortion long ago, but I decided my logic was pretty facile. At the end of the day, the only thing about abortion that really bothers me at all is the fact that women have a legal exit plan for pregnancies and men don't. That's an equality problem that I don't have the first idea how to solve, short of giving each unwilling father an opportunity to bash their newborn's brains in with a rock. In any event, it's a much more interesting moral quandary.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 14, 2016, 05:41:46 PM
And, yeah, some of you folks may remember I used to be anti-abortion long ago, but I decided my logic was pretty facile. At the end of the day, the only thing about abortion that really bothers me at all is the fact that women have a legal exit plan for pregnancies and men don't. That's an equality problem that I don't have the first idea how to solve, short of giving each unwilling father an opportunity to bash their newborn's brains in with a rock. In any event, it's a much more interesting moral quandary.
Women get the majority vote, men get a say too.
Neither want abortion - all ok
Both want it - all ok
Woman wants it but man doesn't - poor guy. Woman's will trumps his and it goes ahead.
Man wants it but woman doesn't - man signs away all legal links to the baby, pays a hefty fine, woman gets to have kid without the guy being involved.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 14, 2016, 05:41:46 PM
And, yeah, some of you folks may remember I used to be anti-abortion long ago, but I decided my logic was pretty facile. At the end of the day, the only thing about abortion that really bothers me at all is the fact that women have a legal exit plan for pregnancies and men don't. That's an equality problem that I don't have the first idea how to solve, short of giving each unwilling father an opportunity to bash their newborn's brains in with a rock. In any event, it's a much more interesting moral quandary.
Man has the option to walk away.
"Legal exit plan."
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2016, 09:10:50 PM
Man has the option to walk away.
And write a check every month.
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2016, 09:10:50 PM
Man has the option to walk away.
Women can win elections without men. Which is confusing right now. :P
I think the key to Ide's concerns though is male birth control. If dudes had to remember to take a pill every day then things would be more fair.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2016, 05:13:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 14, 2016, 04:54:55 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2016, 12:26:04 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2016, 12:23:06 PM
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.
:blush:
In BB's defense, counseling for an abortion in Canada really means counseling. It's not a meeting with 20 people from your Church to advise you on the best way to repent your sin.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 14, 2016, 10:33:05 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2016, 09:10:50 PM
Man has the option to walk away.
Women can win elections without men. Which is confusing right now. :P
I think the key to Ide's concerns though is male birth control. If dudes had to remember to take a pill every day then things would be more fair.
Pretty much. Men can utilize birth control too.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 14, 2016, 05:36:46 PM
So, who makes the determination that the pregnancy is the result of rape? Do you need a copy of a conviction in hand, or do you adjudicate it separately, under a preponderance of the evidence standard? Or do we just take her word for it? (Yeah, right, I'm sure that's happening in Kansas, dude.)
And who makes the determination that the fetus is "significantly damaged"? A doctor? A priest? The mother? The father? Because what does "damaged" mean? What does "significant" mean?
The way it works in Poland, you get a certificate from a public prosecutor for the former that the rape has been substantiated (obviously, waiting for a court ruling would not work), and you need opinions from two doctors on the latter. The statute does not simply state "significant damage" but there is a more extensive language involved (basically, inability to survive unassisted and such).
Quote from: Solmyr on November 15, 2016, 10:11:04 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 14, 2016, 10:33:05 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2016, 09:10:50 PM
Man has the option to walk away.
Women can win elections without men. Which is confusing right now. :P
I think the key to Ide's concerns though is male birth control. If dudes had to remember to take a pill every day then things would be more fair.
Pretty much. Men can utilize birth control too.
Pulling out ain't hard.
Quote from: MartThe way it works in Poland, you get a certificate from a public prosecutor for the former that the rape has been substantiated (obviously, waiting for a court ruling would not work), and you need opinions from two doctors on the latter. The statute does not simply state "significant damage" but there is a more extensive language involved (basically, inability to survive unassisted and such).
Sounds lame, with a major potential to circumscribe the right to an abortion even within the exempted classes thus carved out. It also seems like a lot of extra government work, plus a greater burden on the healthcare system.
Hey, I never said it's a good system. It was meant as a compromise - which the Catholics are now intending to break.