Senate Abortion: Why not?

Well I think you're ascribing more to it than harps intended, though I don't want to speak on her behalf here. I read it as just her commenting on the "are you pro choice NOW? how about NOW? What about NOW?" position vs CT-Two-Tone's reply.

I mean for all your comments about nuance, I'm typically-for-me confident that I could win anyone who supports 100% choice over on the idea we should exclude gender a as a legally defensible reason, and I could do it without appeals to emotion either. No reference to the worth of a person. None to female empowerment. And the consensus would be that it's within the remit of the pro-choice approach.

Cocky? Always. But probably accurate.

 

Totally, this.

 

@solojones,

It's true what you say about Down Syndrome children. They don't live lives of misery. They typically have very sunny and warm personalities actually. And some people would adopt one. My neighbor adopted a "crack" baby.

I think what you're mixing up here is what should be legally permissible and what might be morally objectionable.

For instance, I question the morality of aborting a child based on its sex. Still, I don't think that should be illegal, unlike what Ender seems to suggest above (unless he's drawing a moral line rather than a legal one). A woman should not have to pass some type of test that confirms she wants an abortion for the "right" reasons before she can have an abortion. Furthermore, that type of thing isn't practical. For instance, if aborting a child based on gender was illegal, then a woman would simply give another reason.

 

@harpua Cool But you are not everyone. You are not every pro-choice person. There are some who have already expressed that they are pro-choice but against abortion of people for genetic reasons or pure gender reasons.

My question wasn't raised as a gotcha. It's a legitimate real thing that is happening in Western society today, including and actually especially in places where the medical cost issue doesn't exist. That to me tells me those abortions are happening merely to eliminate people with mental differences. You can disagree with me if you like, but you can't sit here and say "what a stupid question, pro-choice means pro-choice in all circumstances. Everyone knows that". Because not everyone agrees.

 

I come into this as a man with a ridiculously photogenic child upon whose shoulders I place the heavy expectation of being the first female F1 champion in history, so she may realise my dreams.

 

Uh... yeah, I'm aware that I'm not everyone.

Seriously.... that's what you have to say to me?

 

no they do, sj, because pro-choice is about a right to make a decision. It's not about a blanket abortions for all. Unlike the pro-life crowd - and ****ing damn it Americans, why must you use such mealy mouthed terms all the time can you for once not being completely ****? - it's a proposition that allows for the right to pick "yes" or "no". It's not prescriptive like your side is.

 

As someone lurking on this debate, it does seem pretty clear from further elaboration that @harpua was talking only about herself.

When it comes to what I think, I just wanna echo @Darth Nerdling. What I think is morally right and what I think should be legal are totally different here.

 

Yeah, when I say that I'm pro-choice, I'm not saying everybody should abort, every second of every day... ****ing abortions for everybody--I'm talking about my own personal decision.

 

You made a delcarative statement that pro-choice means pro-choice. You didn't say "to me" or "when I say pro-choice, I mean pro-choice in all scenarios". Your statement was broad so it's going to be taken that way until you say otherwise. Which you now have.

I just don't know why my bringing up this topic cracks you up. It wasn't like I aimed the question squarely at you only. Surely you could at least theoretically see why this question would be asked of a group in general.

 

Why does any of this matter anymore? Harpua made her original sentiment very clear. You banging your head against this brick wall doesn't really advance your question. It just wallows in a clear miscommunication.

 

Like Ender correctly said... it was the "Hey, listen to this..... NOW do you believe in abortion??" line of questioning.

 

I completely get that not all immoral things are or ought to be illegal. Hell, I'm for the legalization of all drugs, Portugal-style.

But it must be acknowledged that while not all moral things are illegal, all laws are at least partly moral judgements. They take into account the harm that actions have on individuals or society.

Therefore, I don't think it's just a foregone conclusion that abortion laws and regulations can't take moral grey areas into account. For instance most countries have a cutoff date (generally the age of viability) because they've judged that morally at that point an abortion should not be allowed by the state except if a mother's life is in danger.

Likewise, I think the question of whether abortion for genetic reasons should be allowed is a viable one. You say it's immoral but should be legal, and I disagree and think it should be illegal because it is eugenics in practice in my mind.

So I get your concept fine, I just happen to disagree.

I don't think it's clear but I didn't see harp's earlier post because I was writing a different one. Not banging my head against a wall. I wanted a clarification and I got one.

 

Rachel and I are old friends... no bad blood here. She just didn't get my post, and does now.

 

Ah, alright then. That changes things.

 

Ahh yeah, I changed my mind. You’re right. Eugenics is a policy forced on people, which is what banning abortion is/would be.

 

The harm factor considered in the US is incidental falling damage from Christians fainting because people aren't sufficiently thinking about The Children.

 

I don't have a problem with sex-selective abortion per se, but in the vast majority of cases it's because the fetus is female and the mother lives in a highly patriarchal society. It causes serious demographic imbalances especially IIRC in India and China. I don't think it's a case of "mind your own business" when it affects society as a whole. Of course, I don't think banning abortion is a solution to that problem-- rather, combating patriarchy is and women having reproductive autonomy is an important part of that.

It's also only recently that the lifespan of those with Down Syndrome has been meaningfully extended, and their quality of life is reduced compared to the average person. I don't believe in "eugenics"-- that is, some notion of genetic superiority and directed evolution-- but I think a chromosomal disease is a sound reason to terminate a pregnancy.

And Portugal did not legalize drugs, not even cannabis. Decriminalization is completely different.

 

This. It's either Portugal or the Netherlands cited as examples of "legalisation", when in Holland at least it's decriminalisation with a policy of gedoogbeleid that's in effect.

 

Well, how would this work in practice?

Dr: Why do want to have an abortion?
Mother: Because my child has Down Syndrome.
Dr.: Well, you're not allowed to have an abortion for that reason.
Mother: Well, I change my answer. It's because I can't afford to raise a child and I'd be an abusive parent.
Dr.: Okay, that'll do. Talk to my receptionist and schedule a date for the abortion that works for you.

It's just not realistic to police the reasons why women would want to end a pregnancy. There's a legal window, and if they choose to have an abortion within the window, that's that, and it remains an issue for their conscience.

 

Well I'd go a step further than Portugal and make them legalized, so there

 

Never happening. No matter the topic, no matter the category - every human has a right to express themselves, no matter the topic, no matter their gender classification or other categories.

 

If I had made the argument that a person has no right to express an opinion (strong or otherwise) on abortion unless you have a womb then you would be correct, but I did not make that argument. I said that people who do not have a womb should STFU on the abortion debate. Two very different concepts.

 

You literally defined a category under which you decide who should be allowed to talk on an issue based on their sexual organs. "Should" was just pretending to be polite about it. It lasted until you issued a GTFO demand, this one openly based on sex.