Voting time second before even or not?

[ashtonh]

We had a good argument in a thread over abortions at any time even a second before pregnancy or not.

[ashtonh]

This is for the arguments in the rule thread.

[Brutus]

If the foetus is still in the woman (i.e. it hasn't been born) then the woman should be able to do whatever she likes. I'm not going to advocate the enforcement of limits on a woman's bodily autonomy.

[Slavic]

Theoretically the mother still has autonomy over her body and the right to do with it what and when ever she pleases.

That being said, this scenario is absurd in the extreme and not grounded in reality. Such cases of these are most likely rare in the extreme.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Anytime. I would hope methods of terminating the pregnancy would change and become safer for women considering as is it seems barbaric from what I've read but whatever.

[consuming negativity]

RevLeft is feminist and pro-choice. Technically, anybody who votes for or argues for your second option can be restricted, if I understand everything correctly. Just to warn you... seeking information on this topic can often easily be done using the search function. There is not much point in continuing to rehash topics, unless anyone has any new arguments.


Theoretically the mother still has autonomy over her body and the right to do with it what and when ever she pleases.

That being said, this scenario is absurd in the extreme and not grounded in reality. Such cases of these are most likely rare in the extreme.

That said, this. ^ All of it. ^

[Leftsolidarity]

Yay this will make restricting anti-choice people a whole lot easier :thumbup1:

[ashtonh]

Yay this will make restricting anti-choice people a whole lot easier :thumbup1:

The 2nd isnt anti-choice its against infanticide theoretically there is no way as of now to abort a 3rd trimester without inducing labor then killing it so as of now it is dangerous and cruel to abort in the 3rd until advances

[TC]

The 2nd isnt anti-choice its against infanticide theoretically there is no way as of now to abort a 3rd trimester without inducing labor then killing it so as of now it is dangerous and cruel to abort in the 3rd until advances

I appreciate that you get a kick out of pondering how long into a pregnancy a woman remains a person and at what point she becomes a sub-person incubator, but you are just mistaken about the medical situation.

D&E abortions can be performed late and are an alternative to induced labor abortions - they are more technically challenging for the provider but offer important advantages to the patient depending on the patient's feelings and preferences.

Induced labor abortions also involve fetal demise in the uterus, not after delivery, so your description is inaccurate. Induced labor abortion is often the preferred route when a patient wants a fairly intact fetal body to mourn over and is overwhelmingly the result of fetal abnormalities incompatible with survival or that would place the pregnant woman's life in jeopardy. Elective abortions are overwhelmingly performed by other means.

All abortion techniques at all stages of pregnancy are not "dangerous" in any way - they reduce the danger to the pregnant woman because childbirth is significantly more dangerous. Although late term abortions are more dangerous than early term abortions (since early term abortions pose essentially no danger whatsoever) because anyone getting a late term abortion does not have the option anymore of getting an early term abortion and must choose between late term abortion and birth, late term abortion remains a net-danger-reduction choice. This is even more true in reality than theory because late term abortions are nearly always the result of a significant medical problem with either the pregnant woman or the fetus so the resulting childbirth alternative is often far more dangerous than typical childbirth.

[ashtonh]

I appreciate that you get a kick out of pondering how long into a pregnancy a woman remains a person and at what point she becomes a sub-person incubator, but you are just mistaken about the medical situation.

D&E abortions can be performed late and are an alternative to induced labor abortions - they are more technically challenging for the provider but offer important advantages to the patient depending on the patient's feelings and preferences.

Induced labor abortions also involve fetal demise in the uterus, not after delivery, so your description is inaccurate. Induced labor abortion is often the preferred route when a patient wants a fairly intact fetal body to mourn over and is overwhelmingly the result of fetal abnormalities incompatible with survival or that would place the pregnant woman's life in jeopardy. Elective abortions are overwhelmingly performed by other means.

All abortion techniques at all stages of pregnancy are not "dangerous" in any way - they reduce the danger to the pregnant woman because childbirth is significantly more dangerous. Although late term abortions are more dangerous than early term abortions (since early term abortions pose essentially no danger whatsoever) because anyone getting a late term abortion does not have the option anymore of getting an early term abortion and must choose between late term abortion and birth, late term abortion remains a net-danger-reduction choice. This is even more true in reality than theory because late term abortions are nearly always the result of a significant medical problem with either the pregnant woman or the fetus so the resulting childbirth alternative is often far more dangerous than typical childbirth.
Well thank you for that information, I have researched abortion and how it works and nothing like that ever came up. So thank you.

[ashtonh]

I appreciate that you get a kick out of pondering how long into a pregnancy a woman remains a person and at what point she becomes a sub-person incubator, but you are just mistaken about the medical situation.

D&E abortions can be performed late and are an alternative to induced labor abortions - they are more technically challenging for the provider but offer important advantages to the patient depending on the patient's feelings and preferences
Actually Dilation and evacuation (D&E) is done in the second 12 weeks (second trimester) of pregnancy so mainly my issue was with late 3rd trimester so thats inaccurate.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Does the title of this thread make any sense to anybody?

[Five Year Plan]

Does the title of this thread make any sense to anybody?

Seconding this. And why is this in the Learning subforum? And why is this the 20th thread that this person has started on this subject in a 24 hour time period?

[DOOM]

Whatever your opinion is, how the fuck do you want to limit the access to abortion without a state?

[PhoenixAsh]

Actually Dilation and evacuation (D&E) is done in the second 12 weeks (second trimester) of pregnancy so mainly my issue was with late 3rd trimester so thats inaccurate.

Actually you should do your research better.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

We're making real progress toward communism, people haven't learned to self-arrest themselves yet but they've learned to self-exclude themselves via questionnaire.

[Црвена]

Um, at no stage does it become ok for something that is attached to and cannot survive without someone else's body to take priority over the free will that a fully autonomous human being is entitled to, and at no stage does it become ok for the state to stop women from doing what they want with their own bodies. No one takes pleasure from aborting, and the only reason for a woman to abort a foetus/baby/whatever at such a late stage would be if she really, really didn't want to give birth. The state should respect that decision and not act as though, by refusing to let women have control over their own bodies, it's saving a child from its cruel mother who would have murdered it.

[RedRev]

Here's a thought: one of the reasons abortions happen is because the mother isn't able to support a child financially, so what has to be done has to be done. But in a communist society wealth would be among the proletariat, so that wouldn't be an issue. Of course some women just don't want to be a mother, but birth control will be more effeicient, so the amount of unwanted pregnancies would be down. Does this make any sort of sense or am I just having a brain fart? :unsure:

[Red Star Rising]

If the foetus is still in the woman (i.e. it hasn't been born) then the woman should be able to do whatever she likes. I'm not going to advocate the enforcement of limits on a woman's bodily autonomy.

One day prior to birth there is somebody else's body inside the woman that also has to be considered. The foetus is no longer part of the woman's body, rather her body is just carrying another.

[Red Star Rising]

Anytime. I would hope methods of terminating the pregnancy would change and become safer for women considering as is it seems barbaric from what I've read but whatever.

You mean like a C-section then putting the baby up for adoption, she never even has to see the baby and you don't have to "terminate" anything.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You mean like a C-section then putting the baby up for adoption, she never even has to see the baby and you don't have to "terminate" anything.

No, the woman "just" had to undergo a dangerous operation that could endanger her health, so that nothing has to be terminated. How generous.

This might sound crass, but taking the fetus out in pieces is much easier than taking it out whole.

[Red Star Rising]

Whatever your opinion is, how the fuck do you want to limit the access to abortion without a state?

Doctor's aren't idiots, and there would still be rules. If a Doctor says that you are to far along for abortion to be viable then there doesn't need to be some high authority to refuse to allow abortion one day before birth (not that such a case is at all realistic).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Doctor's aren't idiots, and there would still be rules. If a Doctor says that you are to far along for abortion to be viable then there doesn't need to be some high authority to refuse to allow abortion one day before birth (not that such a case is at all realistic).

So we should just let doctors not do their jobs? Great, a lot of doctors I know will be relieved they don't actually have to do anything.

[Red Star Rising]

No, the woman "just" had to undergo a dangerous operation that could endanger her health, so that nothing has to be terminated. How generous.

This might sound crass, but taking the fetus out in pieces is much easier than taking it out whole.

But you also have to kill a baby...and caesarean section is not a particularly dangerous operation - it isn't a triple heart bypass it's a pretty normal procedure now. I was born by C-section and there are several other people that I know who also were, sometimes not even because it was necessary, some women just prefer it to a long and arduous birthing process. Complications are not a massive risk anymore.

[Red Star Rising]

So we should just let doctors not do their jobs? Great, a lot of doctors I know will be relieved they don't actually have to do anything.

And a lot of doctors would also be relieved that they don't have to kill fully formed children.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But you also have to kill a baby...and caesarean section is not a particularly dangerous operation - it isn't a triple heart bypass it's a pretty normal procedure now. I was born by C-section and there are several other people that I know who also were, sometimes not even because it was necessary, some women just prefer it to a long and arduous birthing process. Complications are not a massive risk anymore.

It's a normal procedure that literally involves slicing through a woman's abdomen. Women choose it in order to avoid even greater pain, but in the case of abortion there is an even less painful alternative - to force women to undergo a dangerous (and it still is dangerous) and painful procedure so that something that has no social existence can be saved is anti-woman and anti-socialist.


And a lot of doctors would also be relieved that they don't have to kill fully formed children.

Then they shouldn't have become gynaecologists. Hey, I wouldn't want to poke around people's eyes. That's why I'm not an eye surgeon.

[PhoenixAsh]

And a lot of doctors would also be relieved that they don't have to kill fully formed children.

fetusses. Learn the difference!

So let me get this straight...doctors, in your opinion, should not perform medical procedures when they feel uncomfortable on moral and ethical grounds?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Too bad for any gay people that might want medical help with anything, then. After all if doctors can choose not to do their job based on religion and morality...

[Red Star Rising]

It's a normal procedure that literally involves slicing through a woman's abdomen.

You'd be surprised how safe that can be under proper medical conditions. Natural birth literally involves the ripping of the flesh as the birth canal is stretched well beyond it's normal limits. Health complications can occur and often do. Nothing will be free of risk, that includes conventional abortion.


Women choose it in order to avoid even greater pain, but in the case of abortion there is an even less painful alternative - to force women to undergo a dangerous (and it still is dangerous) and painful procedure so that something that has no social existence can be saved is anti-woman and anti-socialist.

No social existence? A baby doesn't really have a social existence 1 minute after birth either. A human baby is still a human being and is thus entitled to a right to life. A clump of embryonic cells is not. We shouldn't be judging whether someone deserves to live or die based on their usefulness to socialism, that notion is dangerous at best and deeply offensive at worst. This discussion has nothing to do with socialism, it's just basic humanity.


Then they shouldn't have become gynaecologists. Hey, I wouldn't want to poke around people's eyes. That's why I'm not an eye surgeon.

Abortion doctors expect to be terminating pregnancies at the stage when the foetus is not a recognizably sentient human being. killing a baby that is visibly human, and is capable of everything that babies are after birth is a different matter.

[Red Star Rising]

fetusses. Learn the difference!

So let me get this straight...doctors, in your opinion, should not perform medical procedures when they feel uncomfortable on moral and ethical grounds?

There would be specific rules. Don't put words in my mouth.
And you don't appear to realize the difference between an embryo and a fetus one day before birth.

[Red Star Rising]

Too bad for any gay people that might want medical help with anything, then. After all if doctors can choose not to do their job based on religion and morality...

Stop twisting what I am saying. There would be a rule that stated you cannot terminate a pregnancy after a certain point. Religion would have nothing to do with it (how many abortion doctors are religious anyway?)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Doctor's aren't idiots, and there would still be rules. If a Doctor says that you are to far along for abortion to be viable then there doesn't need to be some high authority to refuse to allow abortion one day before birth (not that such a case is at all realistic).

In this scenario, the doctor becomes the high authority. By what right does a doctor take control over someone else's body against their wishes? That doesn't sound like a free society.

[Sasha]

one of the many reasons why we restricted users who argue against complete and unrestricted bodily autonomy of women is because they tend to clutter the forum with their crusades. As proven by the OP who managed to devote already about a third of their posts to this subject.
hence the OP is now restricted and this thread will be closed as there are already ample, and much better threads on this subject in the OI-sub forum.