80 Percent of Americans Say Abortion Should Sometimes Be Legal
By - FullmetalGameMaster
Question to the pro choice people: if I knock a girl up and she decides to keep the baby should I be allowed to opt out of supporting it?
As Dave Chappelle said, if you're allowed to kill it, then I should at least be allowed to abandon the motherfucker. My money, my choice.
Or something like that.
Haha, who me or Dave?
Honestly, idk that you could call me a "leftist". I'm not even sure what the definition is anymore, and it seems to change from person to person. If I'm going by any of the definitions I looked up, then it doesn't apply to me.
My flair says what it says because I'm a fan of the Nordic style of Social Democracy (still working within a capitalist framework with a strong social safety net), and because I fall into the Left-Libertarian quadrant of the political compass test.
Anyway, sorry for hijacking the thread lol.
Interesting, but based on the person actions it could be an implied contract that if you agreed to have sex then you already accepted that you would be financially responsible for you actions. Your dick, your choice...
Absolutely. On the flip side, if this same scenario happens, but they guy wants to keep the baby and the woman does not, and due to this the woman decides to give birth to the child, then there should be the option for the woman to renounce all obligations to the child if it is born. Effectively "I didn't want this, but you did, so you deal with it." Of course this would all have to be on record, in both cases, so one of them can't just say "I didn't want this," and lose all obligations even if that was never said before.
this side is fucked up and has happened to me twice.
You fucked two different women, got them pregnant, and then they wanted to abort while you wanted to keep the kid?
Im pro-choice but this is a very interesting question, props. It's hilarious to see people responding saying "he consented and knew the risks" without seeing the irony 😂.
I'm gonna have to think about this one
Libertarians have been arguing about this for quite some time. Dave chapelle made the same joke in a comedy special which was hilarious
At least you're honest.
Wasn't there just an article posted on this sub about how 2 income households are infinitely better at raising kids that don't commit crime?
If I were a judge with that information, I know what I'd do.
Yes. 2 parent households produce kids that do better in school, society, have better relationships, generally do better economically and commit significantly less crime.
I don't think any argument otherwise is valid. A person should be allowed to give up their parental rights and walk away.
can you expand on your reasoning? decisions have consequences, but it seems like you are saying "I can do what I want and not pay the consequences"
>it seems like you are saying "I can do what I want and not pay the consequences"
Losing your parental rights is the consequence of your choice to walk away and having no say over how your child is raised is no small thing. Just because a consequence is perceived as less severe by some than others doesn't make it any less of a consequence. A mother can choose to walk away from her baby as well by giving it up for adoption and the argument that she shouldn't "get to do what she wants and not pay the consequences" would hardly be entertained as an argument for banning adoption services. Your argument also seems predicated on the idea that whenever a woman becomes pregnant, it's because the man made a conscious choice to impregnate her. I don't think there is any significant degree of certainty that the result of any given sexual encounter is going to be a viable pregnancy that comes to term.
I would also argue that laws should be fair and just when they involve more than one party and in the case of a pregnancy, a law which gives sole choice of parenthood to one of the two parties that were responsible for the pregnancy is unequal and unfair. If the mother can choose whether or not to be a parent then the father should have the same choice and a mothers choice isn't limited to abortion as I stated above, she can choose to walk away from the baby and all financial responsibility in the same way I think the father should be able to.
Is the "I can do what I want and not pay the consequences" not also true if a woman chooses to have an abortion. If the woman can opt out of motherhood because of the potential impact on her life then a man should be able to opt out of fatherhood for the same reason. To be clear I am not saying that I woman shouldn't have the right to keep the child but the father should have the same rights financially.
>not also true if a woman chooses to have an abortion. If the woman can opt out of motherhood because of the potential impact on her life then a man should be able to opt out of fatherhood for the same reason. To be clear I am not saying that I woman shouldn't have the right to keep the child but the father should have the same rights financially.
the female in this case is risking a lot more than just money, she risks death and disfigurement
And a man risks having to pay for a child he doesn’t want for 18 years including potentially having to go to a dangerous job to provide for it. I’m not saying woman should be forced to give birth, you seem to be thinking I’m saying that. I’m saying women can opt out of childbirth and if done early enough simply take a pill. Therefore if a woman can give up their rights as a mother to a fetus by aborting it a man should be able to give up his rights/responsibilities for the child as well. Sign a legal document that says you have no rights or responsibilities legally to that child.
No, that would be equality. We can’t have that
"risking more" is arbitrary, and also pointless for the topic at hand.
Not to mention the death rate is less than 1%, but the financial burden is 100% of the time.
From abortion? Lol no. Just no. That’s not how modern abortions work.
no, from bearing and birthing a child
Except the consequences to whom?
If we're taking strictly in terms of the father, than absolutely. Consequences doesn't mean punishment, it just means consequences. The government shouldn't force you to suffer consequences for every discussion you make, but also shouldn't protect you from them. If you choose to not support the child, that has its own consequences like losing parental privileges. If you're fine with those consequences then you are free to have them.
If we're talking in terms of the mother, she's choosing to have the child. She is making as much of a decision as the father with its own consequences to her. If she doesn't want to deal with those consequences she can choose to not have the child or put them up for adoption. But she can't force someone else to protect her from her own decision.
If we're talking about the child... Here's where I think there's a good argument to be had. The child didn't choose the circumstances of their birth. If the father's decision to not support the child leaves them unfairly burdened then that's squarely on the father. Personally, I support some form of UBI that I think could handle this situation but I admit it's not a perfect solution.
That's effectively what you're saying with women if you allow abortions.
Or even allow them to give up their baby to adoption.
Have you ever heard of adoption?
I’d say no, because they deal with separate issues. A woman’s right to abort is based in her ownership of her body and that a fetus is not — at all stages, at least — a human life. She might get one because she doesn’t want to be a parent, but that wish is not what *morally justifies* the right to an abortion.
Some pro-choicers think that’s enough, but I don’t. Like, if I believed that life began at conception, I don’t think it would *matter* whether you want to be a parent. That isn’t the relevant question in figuring out the ethics of abortion. The things that justify abortion wouldn’t justify abdicating your responsibilities as a parent. Given that, I think it’s a mistake to analogize getting an abortion to unilaterally abdicating your parental rights.
I don't even disagree. It's just not logically consistent for the pro choice side.
Sure. If a mother can decline their baby without the fathers opinion then the opposite should be true
nope, you assumed that risk, now deal with the consequences.
You mean like getting pregnant?
you assumed the risk of her getting pregnant when you had sex with her. Nothing is 100%, not even condoms. you took the risk anyways, so you have to deal with the consequences.
But she still took the risk. She consented, so she shares an equal part in that risk
Didn't she assume the risk too?
Maybe, maybe not.
I support the right of males to avoid parental obligations when they are raped, though the law does not.
yes, doesn't matter for you though. You stuck your dick in crazy, now deal with it and next time don't let your balls do the thinking
So, to play devils advocate: why should the female have the option to opt out parenthood, but not the male?
good thought question. I kinda feel like she is taking a much bigger risk than the male; the best case scenario the pregnancy goes fine, baby healthy, dad is paying his share. but that doesn't happen all the time, she could literally die, there isn't that risk with the father. Looking at the flip side, if the female wanted to abort but the male wanted to keep it, should she be forced to carry the baby and risk her life? I don't think so. With more responsibility comes more decision power.
it is a shit situation, and tbh i'm not thrilled to have the opinion i do, because ideally the male should be able to walk away. However with our current system, if the male walks away and the female decides to keep it, the odds of them going on welfare increase, and in that case the male is passing off the risk he assumed to tax payers, which isn't fair to me, the guy who had no say in it whatsoever. But this is the world we live in, so make damn sure you are not sticking your dick in crazy, not worth it
Anyone could literally die! I didn't go to college because I had a kid at 19, I do dangerous work so I can make a living. I do this because, most of the time, the courts will take so much money from you that you can't live. You are looked at like a single male, so you are not eligible for any type of welfare. You, as a father, are responsible for child support, carrying health insurance and half of all medical bills. To put it simply, I had one year that while working a full time job I got to take home $4888 after taxes and child support.......... One year! What can a person do with less than $5000 dollars a year?
You can say work two jobs. Great, now I'm working 80 hours a week and the courts take most of that money too. Make more, take more! And you have no time to see your child because you work all the time, I know because I did this for a while.
Then you have the state constantly threatening to put you in jail, even when you don't miss payment or go behind on child support. So, you take a job that is a bit more dangerous because it pays better and you don't have the luxury of getting a degree. I've worked this job for 16 years and know 5 people who have died on the job and many that have been injured some that have been disabled. Those are just the people I've known, I hear of others that die on job related accidents in the same job just not on my site. Sure I might not have to do this job, but I've done a lot of other jobs trying to find one that I could actually live my life on. It SUCKS to have to pay $1471 a month to someone else, that about $2000 before taxes, that is before you can think about paying for any of your bills. Wanna talk about stress and what that does to your body, try worrying about 2k a month or the state putting you in jail. What happens when COVID comes along and courts won't see you or hear a case but the cops are still working and the case worker is still working at home?........ Jail time baby! You ever been to jail? How about indefinitely till the back child's support is paid?
You don't have to stick your dick in crazy to end up here. She could find someone else and you're stuck. It may just not have worked out in the beginning and you're stuck. You could have worn a condom and she could have been on birth control, but life happens anyway. Why should I not have a choice of she had one? If you are strapped with a bill as a taxpayer is because the mother made that choice for you, the father never had a choice in the matter once there was a pregnancy. BTW, only 17.5% of fathers get custody of their child, most of those are abandonment or the mother is so unfit she probably can't own a goldfish.
Why should you get to opt out of the responsibility for the child you created?
I think the harder question is - why would you not want to support your child?
It seems like a - hey you got something so I want something back scenario. Grow up.
The best answer to the abortion debate I have seen is [Carl Sagan's](https://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml) It's only a 10-15 minute read, and I highly recommend it.
TL;DR: abortion is a unique case where two of our most fundamental human rights, the right to life and the right to bodily autonomy, are directly opposed to one another. Both sides of the debate are pushed to extremes to stay consistent in their logic, but this leads to uncomfortable moral issues in both cases. What makes human life special is our ability to think, not just being alive, not a heartbeat, not ability to feel pain, but complex thought, and for a fetus, the first brain waves that potentially could be regarded as complex thought occur sometime in the third trimester. If we are to draw a line, and we ought to because of the moral issues that occur if we don't, banning abortions except in cases of medical necessity during the third trimester is a reasonable and scientific distinction, and a good compromise between these fundamental rights. By happenstance, that's currently where the political ban is in the US under federal law: states are allowed to ban third trimester abortions.
I agree that it's a good argument but it's certainly not without criticism, especially when the same argument can be used to justify outlawing the killing of most complex animals (including pigs and cows) for any reason.
> especially when the same argument can be used to justify outlawing the killing of most complex animals (including pigs and cows) for any reason.
This is a premise we're going to have to honestly reconcile at some point.. outside of a religious argument where humans were granted God Given dominion over animals to do with as we please.. the idea and reality of how we treat livestock, especially ones with the cognitive abilities of pigs and cows, isn't really one where we have an argument with a solid leg to stand on.
Yeah, as a meat-loving omnivore, I agree 100%.
Complex thought seems arbitrary and easily challenged. Let alone pretty egotistical and panders to the idea that there is something superior about being human over other lifeforms. Im sure we can just as easily prove complex thought in a variety of species. Dolphins, capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees etc.
Just pushing back for the sake of it, but couldn't you argue that we don't allow people to kill animals arbitrarily for similar reasoning?
I suppose you could. We aren't discussing other species of animals though. You would be pressed to find another human who disagrees with the premise that it is immoral to murder another human. Much harder to find for all life/animals.
Sure but it's not a hard and fast rule. Pigs are quite intelligent and billions of them are raised for the specific purpose of being killed every year.
Banning abortion at any point in pregnancy after conception requires reasoning that could be considered arbitrary and easily challenged. It’s an unbelievably difficult and complicated issue that ultimately comes down to personal judgement and personal moral views.
As a libertarian I say your body your choice.
As a numbers guy I hate statistics like this. What does "sometimes" mean? It tells you nothing. Let's get to specifics.
1. If a woman will die without an abortion should it be illegal?
2. If a fetus is almost viable outside the womb should an abortion be illegal?
We could get really specific about this and instead we say "sometimes."
The sometimes abortion is stupid. Either it’s contents of someone else’s uterus or it’s a living person with a soul.
If you think abortion is wrong in some cases (like rape) then it’s magically murder again if it’s not?
>it’s a living person with a soul.
I didn't know that the science was settled on people having "souls"
I am explaining my understanding of both sides’ view.
I think the guy was poking fun at the argument itself.
I just think people need to be specific to really figure this out. If they were, you would be able to quickly pin point some things that a majority of people agree with.
When my wife first got pregnant she had pains and we went to the hospital. We discovered she had a non-cancerous growth in her uterus. Since it was within her uterus there was a chance that its growth could actually consume part of the fetus depending on the location where it implanted. At this point in time the fetus was so small that it couldn't even be located on an ultra sound so they had no idea where it was implanted. If the fetus implanted near the growth, it could have absorbed a portion of the fetus. This would not only have killed the fetus, it would have eventually killed my wife without an abortion. Luckily the egg implanted away from this growth and we have a healthy child.
That being said... at the time I got into heated argument with my parents about abortion. They're pretty hard-core conservatives. They're deep into that republican scripture which sometimes sounds like "Democrats just want to kill babies. The want to pass laws that allow 9 month old fetuses to be aborted and their necks snapped for good measure! ABORTION SHOULD BE ILLEGAL! ITS MURDER!"
Long story short we talked about our situation as a hypothetical, without then being aware it was really our situation, and the tune changed. "Oh thats not what we're talking about. Obviously abortion should be legal for medical issues. Were talking about 9 month old fetus killing. " Yada Yada Yada.
Politics can't allow for specifics though because neither sides elected officials really want to win that argument. If they did there would be nothing for their base to get motivated to come to the polls.
Because it’s a lot more complicated then you think. It’s really not as simple as that. I’d encourage you to look more into the arguments.
I guess for me personhood is the only reason I’d ban abortion. There could be other motivations
Well for one, there’s the reality that this decision seriously impacts the father almost as much as it does the mother. This argument that the father should have no say in it does not holding up to scrutinity as long as you expect the father the subisidize the costs of said child. On the other hand, there’s issue of consent in rape scenarios and issues of health complications. For example, if a pregnancy is pretty much guaranteed to kill both the mother and child, wouldn’t an abortion be the lesser of two evils?
I mean no laws are black and white. Murder is wrong. But what if you’re a police officer and there’s somebody there shooting up a school with an ak-47? Or somebody breaks into your house and tries to murder your wife/parents/children? Is murder still wrong? Complex questions need more thought then simple black and white answers
"Sometimes" allows for an easier way of manipulating the data. Research seems more of use for the eventual headline, rather than any knowledge actually attained.
It’s actually more simple than that. The laws around viable human life just need to be consistent and the arguments would be reduced significantly.
In my opinion, one main legal issue is the following examples of direct contradiction in the application of the laws in this regard:
Scenario 1 (legal)
A woman is 3 months pregnant and decides to have an abortion.
Scenario 2 (murder instead of assault)
A woman is 3 months pregnant and is attacked, the event kills the fetus.
If the fetus is not considered a viable human with rights then the second should not be handled with a murder conviction. If the fetus is considered viable human with rights, then both must be considered murder.
Where's the *"The contents of a random strangers uterus are none of my goddamn business"* option?
If I'm not personally responsible for the contents of your uterus, what you do with said contents is none of my goddamn business.
Frankly, it's none of the State's goddamn business either.
Because it boils down to a question of the rights of humans, which matters whether your particular rights have the chance of being violated.
>Because it boils down to a question of the rights of humans
**Answer:** The right of the people to be secure in their **persons**, houses, papers, and effects, against **unreasonable searches** and seizures, **shall not be violated**
You got a warrant to search that uterus? No? Then I'd say the State can turn right on around and fuck directly off.
Does the doctor have a warrant to murder the unborn child?
For the record, my actual position is that all abortions should be permissible until the fetus would have a reasonable chance of surviving were the birth to occur in the absence of medical intervention, putting my line quite late into the pregnancy. But it’s not a simple question, and acting like it is is a disservice.
>Does the doctor have a warrant to murder the unborn child?
Hyperbolic to call it murder, but even still I fail to see how that's anyone's business but the doctor's and their patient. Maybe special exceptions for dependants where their parent/guardian/caretaker needs to be involved, but otherwise it's none of your business.
I'll take it even a step even further and say if you want end your own life with a physician's assistance, that's ALSO none of my business, nor the State's business.
>For the record, my actual position is that all abortions should be permissible until the fetus would have a reasonable chance of surviving were the birth to occur in the absence of medical intervention, putting my line quite late into the pregnancy.
For the record, **your** beliefs apply to **you**. You want to live accordingly, by all means. **You** go live **your** life accordingly. You having that position sets no precedent that any one else is obligated to conform to it. That's the point of individual liberty in a free society. You get to go on believing whatever the hell you want to believe, and at it's at the boundary of my individual liberty where those beliefs abruptly cease to matter.
>But it’s not a simple question, and acting like it is is a disservice.
No, it's an extremely simple question, with an extremely simple answer. Your body is inviolable. End of line.
I don't have to care what your position is. You don't have to care what my position is. In both cases, it's neither of our business what the position of someone else's is, nor is it up to the State to determine, because it's none of the State's business either. It's all a bunch of big government, post-protestant, authoritarian, and often theocratic nonsense.
>Hyperbolic to call it murder, but even still I fail to see how that's anyone's business but the doctor's and their patient
This isn't what you or anyone in this thread is saying should be permissible, but permit me a hypothetical. An absolutely awful human being is a single parent to a healthy 5 year old, and has grown tired of being a parent. Rather than do the sensible thing, they go to a similarly awful doctor who agrees to euthanize the child.
Should the agents of government to take action and intervene in this exchange?
Of course! That child, as a human being, has rights. The fact that this medical procedure is being conducted by a doctor with the consent of a lawful guardian couldn't be less relevant if the result is a human right being violated, i.e. the right to life.
This is clearly and obviously not the same as an abortion, but the same question can be raised in both; does what the mother intends to do constitute a violation of the rights of their (unborn) child? And if the answer is yes, then government, whose legitimate purpose includes protecting the rights of its citizens, MUST intervene, or at least consider the rights at play, in the same way that government must intervene on behalf of the 5 year old.
The mother has a right to bodily autonomy. If the fetus counts as a human life, than it has a right to life. Generally speaking, if two rights are found to be in conflict, one of the rights either isn't actually a right, or has in someway been forfeit (perhaps in an agreement such as a lease). Even if the conclusion is just that abortion is fine, it's still important to be able to analyze a situation like this to determine if rights are being violated, so we can decide whether the use of government intervention is appropriate
>I'll take it even a step even further and say if you want end your own life with a physician's assistance, that's ALSO none of my business, nor the State's business.
See, I agree completely, because no one's rights are being violated. You have a right to life, but you're choosing to waive that, which you have the right to do. There's no issues there what so ever. It's the (possible) rights of the fetus that concern me, and make it possible that there needs to be external intervention.
>For the record, your beliefs apply to you. You want to live accordingly, by all means. You go live your life accordingly. You having that position sets no precedent that any one else is obligated to conform to it. That's the point of individual liberty in a free society. You get to go on believing whatever the hell you want to believe, and at it's at the boundary of my individual liberty where those beliefs abruptly cease to matter.
The use of the words "believe" and "belief" was me being lazy, so let me clarify.
As I ponder the rights of the individuals involved (the mother's bodily autonomy and the fetus's right to live), the conclusion I reach is that, provided the pregnancy was the result of a consensual sexual act and does not pose any threat to the mother's health beyond those of a typical pregnancy, abortions should be permissible up until the point that a fetus would have a reasonable chance of surviving birth in the absence of medical intervention.
It's not as simple as "I believe this to be true", it's that I think this is the best, only way to protect the rights of every person involved, and to do otherwise constitutes a serious violation of someone's rights. And in the same way that someone saying that all abortion should be illegal makes you upset and inspires you to action (Or at least, I assume it does, apologies if I'm misreading your position) because that constitutes a serious violation of women's rights as best you can interpret and ponder, I feel the same way when someone tries to advocate, seriously or not, that all abortions should be illegal or that abortion should be legal up until birth.
I believe that you shouldn't eat a whole pumpkin pie in one sitting, but I have no intention of demanding that government storm into someone's living room to stop them, since they have a right to eat that pie regardless of what I believe. But rights aren't about belief.
>This is clearly and obviously not the same as an abortion, but the same question can be raised in both; does what the mother intends to do constitute a violation of the rights of their (unborn) child?
This being the Crux of the discourse is kinda part of the problem with the discourse. It's a *"begs the question"* or *"slippery slope"* argument that diverts attention away from the overt overreach of State power. I will grant there's certainly philosophical debates to be had on what even constitutes a *"human being"* that are certainly worthy of thought and discourse. Hell, they're only going to get even more complicated in the near future once entirely synthetic beings that are otherwise identical to human beings start being made.
But I digress. I'm not going to wax philosophical about the boundary between a human individual and a glob of post-coital goop. I'm drawing the clear and present line that it's not the States business either way. That's a question for the ethics boards for the practicioners of medicine to determine. Not a bunch of laypeople on the internet being armchair biologists. We certainly can debate these things, but these need to held on the grounds of good faith arguments *(which I genuinely believe you are presenting)* entirely divorced from the legislative butt-fucking of our personal liberties that's going on. These two things should clearly be presented as two different subjects.
Your body is inviolable. Full stop. What you do with it is your business.
***Then*** we have the debate the concepts of where your bodily autonomy ends, and the bodily autonomy of your offspring begins, however that debate should have absolutely no bearing on what actual ethics are actually enforced by the ethics boards of those who actually practice medicine. For instance plenty of people think vaccines are unethical, but I am both glad the ethics of medicine aren't up to them, and also don't give a damn about their stupid opinion.
In short, I appreciate your good faith arguments, and genuine perspectives that honestly are not much different than my own. I however am unwilling to assert such a perspective onto others, and codify it under laws enforced by a rapacious authoritarian State power who has no business violating our individual liberties.
Imagine you are a young woman, ready to embark on a career and exercise all those economic rights that Libertarians talk about all the time. Then your birth control method fails you and you become pregnant. Despite the fetus being incredibly small and far from viability and despite you personally having no religious or ethical objections to abortion, the state says that you MUST put all of your plans on hold to be an incubator for a parasitic organism for nine months in addition to having to bear all the expenses of medical care and delivery for something you don't want.
Does that sound like a libertarian scenario?
They do it to the father for 18 years or more. The state them threatens the father with jail for non or late payment.
That’s basically in the vein of taxes. Money the states requires you to give is a bit different than bodily autonomy. If taxation is basically authority to take over your body that’s could be a problematic analogy
I’m generally of the opinion that there is no distinction. People say all the time “it’s just money.” “It’s just money” shutting down businesses. “It’s just money” burning down companies. This is complete nonsense in my opinion. Money is a store of value and a store of labor. People work very hard for money. In my opinion If somebody works for fourty years for a certain amount of money and you steal it from them, that’s not much different then just outright murdering them. I don’t see how requiring somebody to pay taxes could be construed as anything but forcing them to labor for the state. That’s pretty clear a violation of bodily autonomy. I mean this is exactly why libertarians are opposed to excessive government spending and taxation. You’re literally stealing money and therefore labor from people. It’s just the seen versus the unseen.
>Money is a store of value and a store of labor. People work very hard for money. In my opinion If somebody works for fourty years for a certain amount of money and you steal it from them, that’s not much different then just outright murdering them
Spicy take of the day: taxes are equal to murder! Btw, companies usually steal the value of your labor out of your paycheck. Should we also hang them as we would murderers?
It's not an all or nothing situation. There are perfectly valid arguments for drawing a line somewhere in the middle.
The middle of what?
The two extreme ends of the pro-life/choice debate.
What part of the situation I described are you contesting?
You appear to be arguing that the libertarian position is full choice at any time. If that's not your argument then your original comment sounds like a random example with an answer that doesn't prove/disprove anything about a libertarian position.
Where the hell did I say "full choice at any time"? I mean, in the scenario I even specified "far from viable," which is a reasonable standard. And why wouldn't you think this spoke to the libertarian position? My point is that the scenario seems entirely antithetical to libertarian ideals. I don't think you are using the term "random" correctly.
Or, you know, we shouldn't be making laws on medical procedures. It's not a political issue, it's a medical one. Let doctors, and ethics boards sort out when it's appropriate, not politicians, pastors, or hippies. Obviously if there isn't a consensus by now there never will be. It's a battle designed to to be faught not solved. Get rid of the argument all together.
Sigh. Such a polarizing topic and one that conflicts with libertarianism. NAP vs legality.
No good ever comes from these posts. Polls are often confirmation bias seeking, etc.
Very true. These posts go no where as people argue where life begins which, imo, makes both sides libertarian. If conception is where it starts it makes sense why a libertarian would want to forbid abortion. If life starts later then it makes sense how libertarians could say abortion is acceptable to varying degrees. It's a discussion that won't end well regardless.
> These posts go no where as people argue where life begins which, imo, makes both sides libertarian. If conception is where it starts it makes sense why a libertarian would want to forbid abortion
Even if a woman has a “perfect” pregnancy and delivery, there is still a significant chance that she will suffer irreparable bodily harm or death.
For reasons that I can only assume have to do with the gender breakdown of the libertarian party, this is **the only issue** I’ve ever seen that makes “libertarians” completely unsympathetic to the idea that people should be allowed to defend themselves against legitimate fears of bodily harm or death.
No matter when you believe a fetus realizes personhood, everyone has a right to self-defense. You don’t give up that right just because you made “bad” decisions leading up to trying to exercise it.
Can you provide statistics on this significant chance of irreparable bodily harm or death?
Womens bodies do change during and after pregnancy permanently lol
That's middle school science/sex ed... I mean I literally remember having that taught when I was 12 and also later during high school biology.
Plus complications during pregnancy and birth is such a laughable thing to find information and statistics on.
>No matter when you believe a fetus realizes personhood, everyone has a right to self-defense.
Correct. I think all libertarians would agree with this. Where you're going to find fractures is whether all people have the right to use a lethal level of self defense against another regardless of the level of bodily harm they anticipate receiving. This is why such arguments are not as cut and dry as you want them to be.
Thank you for proving why people why this debate is mostly fruitless.
Can you give me some other situations in which “libertarians” think a person shouldn’t be able to defend himself against legitimate concerns of significant bodily harm or death?
Right, just get these same pro-life people is talk about mandatory vaccination and they'll immediately flip. Because they're dishonest.
Sure, it’s because people like yourself don’t understand the NAP.
All the bullshit goes out the window when IVF gets involved anyway.
Yes, a “debate” where the anti-abortion crowd lies and says without evidence that a fetus is a human being is entirely fruitless. Thanks for condemning yourself.
Science is not ambiguous about a fetus being a human being. Just because you reject proof does not mean there is no evidence. Its beyond evidence. Its proof.
No science says a fetus is a human being. Lying doesn’t make things true. I know Christians can’t grasp that concept, but at least try, sweetie.
Bless your heart. Yes science does. Every single modern biology book proves without a doubt that a fetus of any animal is a stage of development of that animal. The animal does not change what kind of animal it is during development.
> Very true. These posts go no where as people argue where life begins which, imo, makes both sides libertarian.
Nope. The issue of whether or not a fetus is a life is totally irrelevant to this issue from a libertarian perspective. I cannot take some much as a drop of blood from a *corpse* without prior consent, even if it’s to save the life of a person. Women clearly have the same right to their own bodily autonomy as a corpse, and using the state to force them to carry a child to term is an abhorrent practice that is mutually exclusive to libertarianism.
Ahhh the Violinist approach. So refreshing.
Science is not ambiguous on the topic.
Arguing where life begins is not the same as taking away a woman’s bodily autonomy based on zero evidence of when a fetus becomes a human being. That is not at all libertarian, and your false equivalency is disingenuous.
>Science is not ambiguous about a fetus being a human being. Just because you reject proof does not mean there is no evidence. Its beyond evidence. Its proof.
>Polls are often confirmation bias seeking, etc.
Most people want abortion to be legal and illegal. How does that work? Because there is enough people who want some abortion restrictions but not a full ban, so depending upon how you word the question you can get the results you want.
Really not that polarizing for actual libertarians. There’s no evidence to support the claim that a fetus is a human being. As such, laws should not be created to remove bodily autonomy on the basis of zero evidence.
Very cut and dry for libertarians.
>There’s no evidence to support the claim that a fetus is a human being.
What evidence do you have to support that a new born is a human being?
Like what? Be specific.
It’s not even just biology. It’s common sense. A fetus has no agency. It’s entirely at the whim of the woman. A newborn child is a separate entity with agency.
>A newborn child is a separate entity with agency.
>In social science, agency is defined as the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices.
>Infants in the first eight weeks have no control over their movements and all their physical activity is involuntary or reflex.
Newborn children have no control over a single aspect of their lives or bodies. Everything they do is involuntary or reflexive. They quite literally cannot act independently or make their own free choices. Newborn babies absolutely do not have agency and any argument using 'agency' can be applied to newborn children until at least eight weeks of age.
“Actual libertarians” - you don’t define the beliefs of anyone. That’s the polarizing part. The same doctor that delivers a baby cares for a fetus. If a fetus was purely scientific, why would the same doctors oversee its progress? Wouldn’t it be ignored by doctors until it becomes a baby?
And NAP is a big part of libertarianism. Are you suggesting there is no physical pain to the fetus? And to the mom?
A fetus’s growth is monitored so it must be a human being? Really? That’s how you think science works? Lol wow, you’re delusional and fucking stupid. Please be a dishonest sack of shit elsewhere.
A "fetus" is a human. What else would it be. Its not a toaster in there. Its a human life. You are the delusional one thinking anything other than a human is coming down the birth canal.
It’s a fetus, ding dong. Just like sperm is sperm, not a human being.
You should really stop sucking your pastor’s cock and read a basic biology textbook.
No but a sperm and an egg that gets fertilized is.
One of us wants humans to live, the other is ok with the forceful removal of an infant leading to its death.
Your not changing my mind, I'm not changing yours. Have a good life that your mom decided to let you have.
You’re a monster who takes away people’s rights based on being your church’s cumrag. Fuck you for being a dishonest and murderous asshole.
Murder is a right now? Good to know. Also I'm on the non murderous side here remember? Are you sure you didn't get poked by a coat hanger a few times. Your not making a lot of sense here. Although, brain damage would explain your position really well though...
I can't believe you're still entertaining this guy's blatantly trollish replies.
I feel like the republican argument to ban abortion really goes out the window when you look at infant mortality rates in states across the US. A clump of cells in utero seems to have more protection than a birthed infant.
I think the hard-line republican argument to ban abortion is asinine but you couldn't have presented a more ridiculous argument if you tried. The infant mortality rate in Texas for instance is 5.49 per 1,000. The "clump of cells" mortality rate (abortions/births) in Texas is roughly 150 per 1,000 or 27x that of infant mortality. How you can take those two numbers and conclude that 'a clump of cells in utero has more protection' is beyond me.
Sounds like 80% of Americans have some Libertarianism in them!
since literally nobody can decide when the magic line of life happens we should let people decide for themselves individually where the line is.
Even if the fetus is considered the same as a human, we don’t force other people to donate blood or tissue to keep other people alive. Pregnancy is no different.
We don't force people to donate. But once donated you don't get to control it anymore. Once it is no longer supporting just your body, you lose say over it.
So you can't force a woman to become pregnant, which pretty much everyone but rapists agree with.
> Once it is no longer supporting just your body, you lose say over it.
And it stops affecting your bodily autonomy, which doesn’t happen when you’re forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Your comparison doesn’t make sense.
Which is why donating blood or a kidney isn't a perfect example. Donations are permeant and you lose control. Even when it is stolen you can't take it back (at least I've not seen a court case allowing it, but it might happen). Pregnancy is temporary but the body is attached to both people at once.
A closer comparison would be conjoined twins where separating them would kill one. But those cases are so rare that there isn't a good standard for it, so people aren't sure how they feel about it. There are some judicial rulings, but they are massive documents which most people don't even know exists, and even then these aren't proven science, just informed judicial opinions.
> Which is why donating blood or a kidney isn't a perfect example.
Yes it is. It outlines the fact every person has the right to their own bodily autonomy.
Then you have to accept that once another person depends upon it you lose control over it.
You can't be forced to donate, but you can't take back what another is using even if it doesn't kill them, much less if it does.
Isn't there a concrete definition of life as determined by biological sciences? There are 9 distinct attributes, if I'm not mistaken.
its more of a moral/emotional dilemma rather than a science
According to who though? So we agree that there are a set of defining characteristics for life and it is in fact determinable?
Okay, but think about this from the point of view of someone who believes life starts a contraception. This is like legalizing murder to them. They would compare this to saying, "we can't agree on who should be killed, so why don't we let individuals decide who dies". To the people who believe its murder, what you're saying is of little importance.
Abortion can not be argued in terms of life, if I dont wish to carry a child, I have the bodily autonomy to decide not too. On the flip side, if I spend years and thousands of dollars trying to get pregnant, and some drunk driver hits me and kills the baby - I want that fucktwat charged with murder.
Abortion can not be argued right or wrong on terms of when life starts.
>Abortion can not be argued right or wrong on terms of when life starts.
i agree unfortunately thats the entire discourse
Yep, that is why it's still argued over. If we change the focus to the womans bodily autonomy (shes not an incubator) then the argument is over.
Are you suggesting parents can kill their new born? Or you going to say that your personal belief that birth is that line should be enforced and your argument is only meant to apply to people who disagree with you?
Under the right circumstances infanticide can be, at least, be understood
my argument is your interpretation of what 'life' is most likely not the same as another's, its your choice for your kid that you need to be worried about. As in the same vein as gun control, other peoples bad decisions are not my fault.
you going to have give me more then that. what do you mean by "not being brain dead"?
At the end of the day the bottom line is that banning it will just force desperate women to go through illegal channels for it. Is it about “protecting life” or just wanting to banish it from public sight do you won’t have to suffer it’s presence?
Yeah same with murder!
What’s the libertarian stance on fourth- and fifth-trimester abortions? (/s)
If it should be legal then you think congress could pass a law saying that it is. As Roe didnt really legalize abortion but discovered a privacy right. While that might be nice its not a protection of abortion directly. Congress could write a law but the Democrats wont because they want the issue to stay alive to lock in their voters. Republicans wont sponsor a bill yet I bet many would sign it because it would cost them more votes then win. So here we are neither party will do anything as they don't want to loose the political capital generated by having it seem like an open issue.
100% of them should say "the government should not be allowed to force a private citizen to undergo a painful, dangerous, sometimes fatal medical event".
Let's murder sometimes... greeeeeat logic.
Should be legal 100% of the time to kill a mere clump of cells
You're a clump of cells
And it's legal to kill them in all sorts of situations.
Sure, but he’s also a human being which a fetus isn’t.
Care to show the exact difference?
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn **human** baby more than eight weeks after conception.
That is a position in which 25% or so agree generally, varies a little year to year. The vast majority believe it should be legal with restrictions. The clump of cells argument is one of the least scientific that can be made in the history of arguments. It is only true in the sense that we are all clumps of cells. A fetus is a biological human being with its own unique DNA. There are other factors at play that make this a grey area despite those undisputed facts.
We're all clumps of cells.
It seems obvious to me, and I think to most people, that there is a period of time during which abortion should be legal, and a period of time after which it should be illegal. I mean, few people think that a morning after pill should be illegal and few people think partial birth abortion is ok. But it is a bitch trying to draw a line in between those two extremes.
I think it comes down to a degree of common sense. To equate a 2-week abortion and something like a 30-week abortion would be ludicrous. I think to most people (and i could be wrong) the line is could the fetus survive outside the womb.
pro lifers are liars and hypocrites
Thats how you show the other side you're willing to listen and be open minded to their world view. Bravo.
Dont need to listen to shit, they can go fuck themselves and stop regulating womens bodies.
So you admit you really don't understand the position?
I fully understand the position and its fucking stupid.
Unless youre willing to commit and garuntee full rights and legal protections to a fertilized egg including the ability to take out insurance on it, full citizen ship and full tax liability fuck off
You cant have it both ways
I think you're conflating conservatism with the prolife stance.
It doesn’t seem very libertarian to me, from the baby’s standpoint, to be killed just for being unwanted.
It's not a baby though is it?
We all were once. I guess we’re the lucky ones.
It's not a baby. It's a potential human. It has less than a 50% chance of ever coming to term. You're humanizing something that isn't human yet, and likely never will be.
That’s only the first trimester.
So you are agreeing to abortion in the first trimester?
That's not why it's killed though. It's killed because it is a threat to the mother's life, and it has no right to use the body of a non-consenting host to survive (just like everyone else on the planet)
So you’re willing to ban all elective abortions? Only when the mother’s life is in danger?
Sure, I am willing to ban all elective abortions if you are willing to admit that the mother's life is always in danger. There is never a 0% chance of complications during delivery
There’s a non-zero chance that you will kill me one day. So can I kill you right now to make sure that doesn’t happen?
My life is in danger!
Well, of course there has to be a cutoff threshold. So let me ask, do you believe that people should be allowed to use deadly force when there is an intruder in their home?
Because statistically speaking, a mother is more likely to be killed delivering her baby than you are to be killed by an intruder in your home. And to be clear, I mean the chances of being killed by an intruder *given that they have already broken into your home*. Phrased another way, a higher percentage of pregnancies end with the death of the mother than the percentage of home invasions that end with the death of the occupant.
So, Mr. Libertarian, is a home intruder beyond the reasonable threshold to consider someone a threat to your life? Because if a home intruder is, then a fetus certainly is too.
I can provide sources and statistics for my claims if you would like me to, I just haven't yet because it'll take a while and I'm not sure if you want to dispute it.
I don’t have an issue with abortion being legal BUT there has to be a cut off for when it is considered Inhumane to perform.
This isn’t a all or nothing choice. There are extreme situations for either side. As much as I don’t want the birth of a child to kill the mother I also don’t want that procedure to be used has birth control.
By abs large, it isn’t. Which is why the rates are at all time lows.
Body autonomy above all. Fuck any limits to a woman's right of body autonomy.
Abortion should be 100% safe and legal. If you believe otherwise you’re the issue with society.
"If you hate abortions, you haven't won the fight when abortions are made illegal. You've won when anyone who wants can get an abortion, but no one feels the want or need to get one."
Same argument with guns:
"If you hate guns, you haven't won the fight when guns are made illegal. You've won when anyone who wants can get a gun, but no one feels the want or need to use them against each other."
It should be legal if any of the following apply
1. The mothers life is at risk
2. The baby wont survive the birth
3. Rape (sorry not including consentual statutory sex but the boyfriend was a year or two too old.)
Everything else carry to term. Contraceptives are a thing, if you don't want a baby and can't stop having sex then use them.
1. The fetus has a condition such as trisomy 18 or encephalopathy where it will survive, but only for a few days/months incredibly painfully?
2. Contraception failure? How do you prove it?
and also 4. Any other fucking reason because it's none of your fucking business.
And also 5. even after birth because it isn't your business and it is wrong for you to force your definition of personhood on others. Once the clump of cells is old enough to protest on its own behalf then it can have rights, before that it is up to the parents.
In all seriousness though, this is the crux of the problem. A parent can't just birth a baby and then place it outside and say 'good luck' and any argument that the baby doesn't have a right to the parents autonomy in defense of that would be laughed at.
I can't wait for twitter users to start saying that.
What right does the state have to force a woman to carry a fetus to term? Does a persons bodily autonomy not matter when they’re pregnant?
If you caused an accident and the victim needed a drop of your blood to survive, you’d have a right to refuse because of your own bodily autonomy. The same applies here.
> What right does the state have to force a woman to carry a fetus to term?
Well given the debates between Supreme Court Justices and their rulings in such cases as Roe v Wade, **"a state interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus"**.
Those that preach "bodily autonomy" I hope are also against these rulings, because they don't actually declare a right of bodily autonomy. Even the courts current "balance" allows that bodily autonomy be restricted after viability. Viability, which has actually nothing to do with the woman, so even that metric is based around other means than bodily autonomy.
> If you caused an accident and the victim needed a drop of your blood to survive, you’d have a right to refuse because of your own bodily autonomy. The same applies here.
It's not a fair comparison. Here. Let me play the game you are. If you grab a baby and dangle it over a cliff and it needs you to hold on to survive, you'd have the right to refuse because of your own bodily autonomy. But guess what? That's *not* a current allowance of the law and something I'd assume you agree with. If your choices place others in harm if you don't continue an act, you *can* be held liable if you stop.
And actually, honestly, if we lived in a world where someone you injured could only survive by a drop of your blood or would otherwise die... I think we *would* have laws on the books that would require that given the limited harm drawing blood has.
And you seem to be dismissing the entire idea that bodily autonomy is controlled through any legal system. Being forced into a prison cell, goes against bodily autonomy. Being forced to serve community service goes against bodily autonomy.
Would the rapist need to be convicted before an abortion is permitted? How often is that going to happen?
The only time it should be legal is when the mother's life is at risk.
That's every pregnancy
What percent support banning late stage abortions?
The problem is people don't understand what late stage abortions are.
Late-term abortions are extremely rare. They happen because of medical abnormalities which threaten the mothers life, or severe deformities in the fetus (eg. Encephalopathy where a baby is born with no brain, or trisomy 18 where babies die before 1 month old. ) These conditions can't even be detected before 20 weeks. They are extremely sad because these babies are very much wanted. Women don't just stroll up to an abortion clinic at 6 months for funsies.
I'm very pro-choice, but I'm all for women needing a medical exemption for abortion past 3 months. That should be up to doctors though, not the fucking government.
I am not seeing 80% in the article you just linked.
I smell BS here.
From the article-
>Some 32 percent of poll respondents this year said abortion should be legal "under any circumstances," while nearly half—48 percent—think it should be legal "under certain circumstances." Only 19 percent say it should be "illegal in all circumstances."
That's not fair, you used basis arithmetic!
Everyone knows math is *Bullshit!*
Similar results say there should be some restrictions also. We are where we are on this because of Roe v Wade. Basically every other first world country allows abortions with restrictions that are more strict than we have here, though less strict than some states have tried to pass.
There legal decision prevented our elected representatives from hammering out a compromise that satisfied both sides enough. Instead we seemed to be ruled on the extremes in regards to the discussion as most citizens want abortion to be legal with restrictions. Further drilling down into the numbers puts a ban around the end of the first trimester(when the vast majority take place anyway).
One would think it would be easy to design policy along the lines of public opinion and be done with it.
It really should be.
The problem is I don't trust the government making unnecessary laws.
For example, sometimes certain parties will suggest a law banning sex-selective abortions. Now the vast majority of people will agree that these kinds of abortions should not happen. But what would this law solve? People can easily lie. How would it be enforced, would certain ethnicities be racially targeted? Knowing that 20% of the country, a sizeable percentage of a certain party wants to completely ban abortion, does the government have an ulterior motive?
Or take the case of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland. She died of sepsis due to a miscarriage of a very wanted baby because surgeons were too afraid to operate. Abortion was illegal at the time and although the baby was dying, it was still technically alive until it was too late to save the mother.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons is more than capable of regulating its members. Let them make guidelines regarding abortion. Perhaps abortions past 12 weeks require two surgeon documented consultations.
The government has no business here.
I tend to agree with that point of view. That we don’t want law enforcement getting involved on a case to case basis. The point I was trying to make is that the extremes seem to dominate the conversation. Most people are actually pretty moderate with views that resemble other compromises made in other countries.
My problem like yours it seems is that what does enforcement look like. If it is preventing something that needs to be done to save a woman’s life in a risky situation then that isn’t the way it should go down. Maybe that is the exception though. I don’t think that we would call procedure to save a woman’s life during a pregnancy an abortion. Usually the lives of both the mother and child are linked. Our first child had to be delivered over a month early as both could be dead in 24 hours. If we are going to create some sort of enforcement bureaucracy that would stop that from being able to happen I think it would be a no for everyone from the start.
>I don’t think that we would call procedure to save a woman’s life during a pregnancy an abortion
It technically is. Yes, it is a rare exception, but we need to consider the exceptions if the government is making sweeping new legislation.
Doctors are trained to weigh out the pros and cons on whether it's riskier to operate or do nothing. They base their decisions on clinical guidelines, which granted can never perfectly predict the outcomes for specific patients. They then explain this to patients and let the patient decide.
Let them do their jobs.
Hope your little is doing well now.