527
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
527 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7131 readers
289 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
And there it is. This is the main reason I'm effectively pro-choice, while technically being pro-life.
In case anyone cares, here's my specific policy preferences:
I'm okay with abortion being technically illegal, but the above would likely make it legal for all intents and purposes, and I'm okay with that.
Just say you hate women.
Yeah seems that way. People who think it's okay for abortion to be illegal, whatever concessions they make, all seem to fall into the same few camps. Hate women, don't understand the risks and long term effects of pregnancy on the human body, or don't understand that an abortion is almost never done on what's considered a baby. Generally a venn diagram that is almost an even circle.
Considering I'm married with kids and my wife is more against abortion than I am, I guess my wife also hates women. Good to know I guess.
"I married a woman" is a shit argument. I hope you don't have daughters because your views prove neither of you care about their future.
Wow, you must be fun at parties.
This isn't a party... This is women's lives, health, and quality of life. Your takes are so off the wall...
I'm talking about your ad hominem attack, not the topic at hand.
Tell me you understand nothing about the risks of pregnancy without telling me.
Natural miscarriages =/= abortions.
One is planned, controlled for, with after care. The other one can potentially lead to sepsis and death.
I completely agree with you, and that's precisely why I'm effectively pro-choice. Women should have absolute privacy here.
My wife has had a miscarriage before, and my coworker had to walk back a pregnancy after a miscarriage. I'm absolutely sympathetic to that, hence why I'm so adamant that privacy is always respected. I also think women have absolute control over what they do with their body, so even if they are trying to induce a miscarriage, I think the should be completely free to do that and never the subject of a criminal charge.
I'm not sure how what I wrote could be misconstrued to the contrary.
Do you have any ideas how few doctors are going to be willing provide care if this is the state of abortion law?
As someone who has never been involved with an abortion and would not want that choice made, I am not.
Why wouldn't doctors want to? The first trimester is essentially a blank check (the vast majority of abortions), and everything after that has a pretty high bar (intent plus sealed medical history). The likelihood of anyone getting charged is incredibly low, especially if they can point to any form of medical expediency.
It would be similar to the self-defense laws in many red states, they're so loose that charges almost never stick if there's any possibility that it was self defense.
The short answer is liability.
Here's where we already are in the current circumstance, just pick the article you want: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=ob%252Fgyn+leave+red+states
But why start out with a goal of "technically illegal but defacto legal" - that seems inherently bad no matter what the issue is. The laws should be what we agree the laws to be, not what we agree them to be but then wink and fail to enforce.
The "goal" here is to respect the rights of both the mother and the child. The mother has a right to her body, but the fetus also has a right to life. Usually it's easy to craft policy such that "my rights end where yours begin," but they overlap in this case.
It doesn't make sense to me to give the woman priority just because she can communicate her wants and needs. I think pro-life people generally go way too fast in prioritizing the rights of the unborn, and pro-choice people go too far in prioritizing the rights of the mother. So that's why I have this compromise, it:
I think it's a fair balance. It does prioritize the mother, but only when the alternative involves likely harassment of many innocent innocent people (like in the article), so I think it's a fair compromise.
There needs to be exactly two groups involved in deciding to terminate a pregnancy: The pregnant person, and their medical team, with the pregnant person's choices taking precedence over everyone else's. If they want an abortion, they get one. If the doctors believe that the pregnancy is non-viable or carries an extreme risk to the parent, then the decision to terminate should be made only by the pregnant person.
And the doctors now risk getting arrested and having their mugshot published for everyone to see, having to go to court to fight it, possibly spending time in jail while waiting for trial. There's a saying "You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride".
I agree, but only for the first half of the pregnancy.
Also agree. Abortion for medical necessity should be allowed for the entire pregnancy.
Only if they violate the above. Doctors can already get arrested for malpractice, and I see this as essentially euthanasia of an unwilling patient. Police would need to prove intent to violate the law.
I think it's incredibly unlikely that doctors would actually be arrested unless they're knowingly doing a lot of illegal abortions.
And the government has an obligation to every child born to make sure it is healthy and happy from then on.
Um, no? Parents have the obligation to make sure their kids are healthy and happy, and the state should only step in if parents either give up that responsibility or fail to uphold it. That's why we have child protection services, public schools, Medicaid, etc.
But at the end of the day, it's not the governments job to take care of you or your children, that's your responsibility. The government should only step in if you're incapable or unwilling to do it yourself. It's a safety net, it's there to catch you.
Great! So glad I'm responsible for building schools, teaching, paving roads, making baby formula, developing vaccines, providing neonatal care, being a pediatrician, providing daycare, being a dentist, being a pharmacist, growing food, being a bus driver, and more!
Or does the word 'infrastructure' not exist in your vocabulary?
When did I say infrastructure isn't a good thing? We're all responsible for contributing, that's what a society is. I'm merely saying it's not someone else's job to take care of you, that's your job, though there should be safety net to make sure everyone has a fallback plan.
If you are going to force women to give birth, you damn well better plan for and support with your votes a robust social support system for them and their children. Lengthy maternity leave, income assistance/UBI, job placement, and oh yeah - pay for their education through college.
These are all factors that may lead responsible prospective parents to choose abortion. If you are going for force women to give birth, you are now responsible for ensuring they have everything they could need to raise that child.
Otherwise it's the standard conservative position that a fetus is precious until it's a delivered baby. No concern at that point whether it lives, dies, or lives in poverty. (Unless it's your baby, of course.)
Nobody is forcing the woman to keep the baby. If the woman wants to, they can give the baby up for adoption, at which point the state steps in to provide care for the child.
If the woman chooses to keep the baby, they are subject to means testing for any assistance like anyone else.
I agree with UBI (my personal preferred structure is a Negative Income Tax, which is similar), but that's completely separate from taking care of yourself and dependents.
The difference is the government should ensure everyone has access to what they need, but it shouldn't ensure the everyone is using what they need. So I'm against things like universal healthcare because whether to pay for insurance should be an individual decision, but something like Medicare for all is acceptable because it preserves that choice. Likewise for free college, though I'm absolutely supportive of reforming K-12 schools so kids have better prospects after high school (e.g. spend the last two years in some kind of apprenticeship program). I'm also vehemently against federal student loans, but I'm in favor of grants for students (collecting payments is morally incompatible with maintaining a monopoly on force).
So I think you'll find I'm not a conservative, at least not in the sense most people seem to mean. I'm in favor of radical individual freedoms (i.e. drug legalization/decriminalization beyond marijuana), to the point where victimless crimes should not exist (i.e. porn, gambling, prostitution, etc should never be banned, but may be restricted somewhat to prevent harm).
Again a woefully underfunded current circumstance. But also:
Ah, so we'll only force her to HAVE the baby, then endure the guilt, shame, and pain of having her newborn (who she has at that point carried for nine months and bonded with) taken from her for adoption.
Getting closer and closer to Gilead the further the conversation goes.
My suggestion would be that I'm going to drop out of this discussion right about here.
Yes, if a woman choose not to get an abortion in the first half of her pregnancy, we then need to respect the rights of the fetus. That's about as fair if a balance (slanted toward the woman's rights) as possible. And she'd only be obligated to carry the baby until it can be safely delivered, not necessarily to full term.
In short, for the first half of the pregnancy, she has complete freedom to choose. For the second half, the fetus gets protection. That seems fair.
But every life is a blessing. I don't have any parents to punish. I am unwilling. Buy me a jet you selfish hypocrite.
The joke writes itself.
How so? Abortion is a hotly debated topic among libertarians. Many are in favor on the grounds the women should be in complete control of whatever happens in their body. Those against point to the rights of the unborn as something to be protected as well (in a similar sense as a mentally unwell person who cannot assert their own rights).
Both sides want privacy to be maintained, and that was the grounds for Roe v Wade. I'm arguing that we should have something like Roe v Wade on the books as law that makes abortion effectively legal, but have enough protection of the fetus that it's technically illegal if there's no medical reason for it to be performed.
So in short, here's my proposed policy:
That's a pretty loose policy which prioritizes the privacy of the mother at every turn and completely allows it during the most important period (when miscarriages are high and women are learning that they're pregnant).
You can't say a woman is free to seek an abortion if you've taken away their option for safe care, which making doctors liable will do. All your plan will do is drive them to back-alley abortionists or attempt abortion by themselves.
The option would exist in the first half or so of the pregnancy, which is when the vast majority of abortions and miscarriages are performed. So for 95%+ of women, it would be the same as full abortion legalization.
So the only time "back alley" abortions would exist is after the fist 20 weeks and if there's no medical necessity. That's a pretty small edge case.
A person who wants the State to threat with violence to the possibility of a person not accepting their body to be used for the sake of another, having their health and even life be put at risk for it, is not a libertarian. Would you want the State to force people to have their blood extracted if there were patients in hospitals requiring blood to survive, but not enough supply? A person who replies yes is not a libertarian; a person who replies not, but is fine with prosecuting doctors or patients for performing or seeking abortions is a hypocrite.
I explicitly said women should never be charged with a crime for seeking or attempting an abortion. I said doctors should be charged for performing an illegal abortion since they're directly harming the fetus. Doctors would know where this line is, which must meet be after the first 20 weeks or after the mother knows the gender, and is not medically necessary.
I'll say it again too be clear, mothers should never be charged with attempting to abort their own pregnancy. Ever.
It's a good thing I answer no to your question. Doctors can be charged with malpractice, and that's what I see this as, it's like euthanizing an unwilling patient (I'm in favor of legalizing consensual euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide though). The fetus hasn't consented and cannot consent, so doctors are responsible for preserving its life where possible.