(October 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm)Chas Wrote:

---

(October 2, 2014 at 2:09 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote: And that's the thing really. How do we discuss any of these things as a society? Or as just being you and me? Is it okay to incorporate the cultural reality women live in in any way?

We discuss them as we are now. And of course we have to take reality into account.

Cool.
I'm guessing you are saying my question was valid after all. Yet you didn't opt to answer it.

No matter. I'd like to rephrase it anyway:

In Holland we have/had an obligation for women who want an abortion to go to a 'therapist' to talk about 'alternative options'.

Would you agree with me that at least some teen pregnant girls are swayed by this into keeping the baby too long?

(October 2, 2014 at 2:25 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Well..no, you are time-limiting it. You're saying after a certain amount of time, ostensibly when the fetus becomes viable, she loses that right to chose.

No, I am not. I am saying she has already made a choice and that choice is irrevocable at some point.

We all make choices in our lives and many of them are irrevocable.

(October 2, 2014 at 2:21 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 2, 2014 at 2:17 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: It doesn't matter if I'm ok with it. It's not my uterus.

So, no protection for the rights of that child?

Nope. I think I'll trust the person to whom the uterus belongs to protect it and decide what's best for it.

Seriously, Chas, do you have any idea how low the statistics are for late-term abortions? No woman is going to decide, without some sort of trauma, to abort a baby at 8 1/2 months. Late term abortions are decided on almost exclusively because of a health risk. Why are you even trying to argue this when it's a non-issue?

(October 2, 2014 at 2:32 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote:

(October 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm)Chas Wrote:

---

We discuss them as we are now. And of course we have to take reality into account.

Cool.
I'm guessing you are saying my question was valid after all. Yet you didn't opt to answer it.

I believe I did.

Quote:No matter. I'd like to rephrase it anyway:

In Holland we have/had an obligation for women who want an abortion to go to a 'therapist' to talk about 'alternative options'.

Would you agree with me that at least some teen pregnant girls are swayed by this into keeping the baby too long?

I'm sure that some may be depending on the 'therapist'.

I don't agree with that law.

---

(October 2, 2014 at 2:38 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(October 2, 2014 at 2:21 pm)Chas Wrote: So, no protection for the rights of that child?

Nope. I think I'll trust the person to whom the uterus belongs to protect it and decide what's best for it.

Seriously, Chas, do you have any idea how low the statistics are for late-term abortions? No woman is going to decide, without some sort of trauma, to abort a baby at 8 1/2 months. Late term abortions are decided on almost exclusively because of a health risk. Why are you even trying to argue this when it's a non-issue?

Look, I know that and I am not actually arguing about late-term abortion.
As I have stated elsewhere, I am seeking a rational postion on abortion that can calm the debate.

The approach I am taking is to get a rational legal definition for personhood. Traditionally, live birth has been the boundary. Given that we know a fetus is typically viable quite some time before that, it is arguable that personhood starts there, somewhere after 7 months.

A woman's right to autonomy is not absolute once another person's life is at stake. Realistically, no one's right to autonomy is ever actually absolute.
All of our rights are negotiated and limited by other persons' rights.

The taking of human life is society's business.

(October 2, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Chas Wrote: I'm sure that some may be depending on the 'therapist'.

I don't agree with that law.

The law was there. And it came from culture. A culture that was willing and - pretending- to 'guide' these kids into 'doing the right thing'.

And when push came to shove. There were two options: take care of the kids and find out how empty the promises of help were... Or leave the kid to the orphanage. Which is totally not done in holland.

Some of these women were guided into being fucked. And thats just the legal results of the people wanting this. There was also pressure directly towards these girls.

Without the law this pressure would have exsisted as well. Hell. I would probsbly be worse.

Do these things matter when making fair laws? Do they need to be taken into consideration?

(October 2, 2014 at 2:52 pm)Bibliofagus Wrote:

(October 2, 2014 at 2:40 pm)Chas Wrote: I'm sure that some may be depending on the 'therapist'.

I don't agree with that law.

The law was there. And it came from culture. A culture that was willing and - pretending- to 'guide' these kids into 'doing the right thing'.

And when push came to shove. There were two options: take care of the kids and find out how empty the promises of help were... Or leave the kid to the orphanage. Which is totally not done in holland.

Some of these women were guided into being fucked. And thats just the legal results of the people wanting this. There was also pressure directly towards these girls.

Do these things matter when making fair laws? Do they need to be taken into consideration?

Yes, of course. Laws are the product of the society, at least in democracies.
Laws can be changed, societies can be changed. No society is perfect; no society pleases everyone.

There are laws I don't like and if I dislike them enough I work to change them.

(October 2, 2014 at 1:52 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 2, 2014 at 1:38 pm)Losty Wrote: I don't think any forms of abortion should be illegal. I think women should be strongly encouraged to give birth to viable fetuses so long as their life is not in danger. I do not, however, believe that they should be forced to do so.

Should be, no. May be, yes.
I will say for I think the millionth time (not to you my sweet chas but just in general), there's no point in discussing late term abortions. Less than 2% of abortions are late term. If we had real sex education and easy affordable access to birth control and early term abortions, late term abortions would be almost completely eliminated outside of emergency situations where the mother's life is at risk.

I'm not actually arguing about late-term abortion, per se. I know that they are not common and are generally medically indicated.

I am trying to find a rational, humane, ethical basis for abortion law.
The facts are:
When a baby is born, that baby is legally a person.
Before that, there is a point where the fetus is viable. It is difficult to argue that that is not a person.
Somewhat earlier, there is a point where the fetus has a complete nervous system and brain. That fetus can feel/experience pain.
Earlier than that, it is difficult to say that the fetus is a person.

We can make the boundary for personhood anywhere from conception to birth. Let's choose a rational, humane, ethical one.

You said you're not arguing late term abortion and then proceeded to argue late term abortion? There is no point in outlawing late term abortion. It's about as relevant as Florida's ban on sex with a porcupine on the beach. Just a waste of time and resources. Just a talking point to stop people from considering real issues that are actually important.
I think having no limit in abortion at all is the most rational, ethical, and humane option. You can't enforce a late term ban on abortions without endangering the lives of women who may need an abortion in an emergency situation. The whole argument is pointless there's no need for a boundary. No one wants to have a late term abortion. People usually do it for emergencies or because they needed time to save up money.

What is most needed regarding the issue of abortion is a shift in consciousness.

(October 2, 2014 at 3:59 pm)Losty Wrote:

(October 2, 2014 at 1:52 pm)Chas Wrote: I'm not actually arguing about late-term abortion, per se. I know that they are not common and are generally medically indicated.

I am trying to find a rational, humane, ethical basis for abortion law.
The facts are:
When a baby is born, that baby is legally a person.
Before that, there is a point where the fetus is viable. It is difficult to argue that that is not a person.
Somewhat earlier, there is a point where the fetus has a complete nervous system and brain. That fetus can feel/experience pain.
Earlier than that, it is difficult to say that the fetus is a person.

We can make the boundary for personhood anywhere from conception to birth. Let's choose a rational, humane, ethical one.

You said you're not arguing late term abortion and then proceeded to argue late term abortion? There is no point in outlawing late term abortion. It's about as relevant as Florida's ban on sex with a porcupine on the beach. Just a waste of time and resources. Just a talking point to stop people from considering real issues that are actually important.
I think having no limit in abortion at all is the most rational, ethical, and humane option. You can't enforce a late term ban on abortions without endangering the lives of women who may need an abortion in an emergency situation. The whole argument is pointless there's no need for a boundary. No one wants to have a late term abortion. People usually do it for emergencies or because they needed time to save up money.

I don't think you read my whole post.

It is an inductive argument. At what point is the fetus a person?
This sets the time beyond which it is no longer a simple matter of a woman's choice.

This is a pro-choice argument.

---

(October 2, 2014 at 4:03 pm)ShaMan Wrote: What is most needed regarding the issue of abortion is a shift in consciousness.

From what, to what?

(October 2, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 2, 2014 at 3:59 pm)Losty Wrote: You said you're not arguing late term abortion and then proceeded to argue late term abortion? There is no point in outlawing late term abortion. It's about as relevant as Florida's ban on sex with a porcupine on the beach. Just a waste of time and resources. Just a talking point to stop people from considering real issues that are actually important.
I think having no limit in abortion at all is the most rational, ethical, and humane option. You can't enforce a late term ban on abortions without endangering the lives of women who may need an abortion in an emergency situation. The whole argument is pointless there's no need for a boundary. No one wants to have a late term abortion. People usually do it for emergencies or because they needed time to save up money.

I don't think you read my whole post.

It is an inductive argument. At what point is the fetus a person?
This sets the time beyond which it is no longer a simple matter of a woman's choice.

This is a pro-choice argument.

I did read your whole post. I'm saying what point the fetus becomes a person is completely irrelevant.