Issues Poll 1 - Abortion

[Grefter]

So I voted and misclicked and clicked the wrong thing.

My vote is fairly obvious to anyone who has seen my politics previously.  I am for abortions all round for some of the reasons Djinn is but for way better reasons because you people disgust me.

[metroid composite]

2. the potential father desperately wants the fetus to come to term and will assume responsibility if it does?

Thinking on it, I'm just...finding it harder and harder to visualize a positive situation enabled by this proposed law.

Let's go through a hypothetical situation.  Notmiki is a pretty all-round swell guy.  He meets a girl, they get together for a while, but things don't work out.  But oh dear: turns out she's pregnant, and wants an abortion.  Notmiki, being an all-round swell guy, says "You know, I've wanted a kid for years, and will happily assume responsibility if you won't."  The girl says "Thanks for the offer, but I really, really don't want to go through with this pregnancy."

Ok, the entire above scene can already happen.  The part we're considering adding is the part where Notmiki says "No, bitch, I'm invoking the law and forcing you to stay pregnant."  This seems...very out-of-character; not exactly something an all-round swell guy would do.

But some not-so-swell guys?  Sure, I can see them invoking this law.  And...how does the girl respond?  Let's ignore the obvious "get a black market abortion" and assume that isn't an option.  What if she decides "Fuck it, fine: but I really don't care how this kid turns out" and keeps drinking and smoking while pregnant?  Quick google search it's not illegal to drink while pregnant.

Yeah, just an all-round messy situation that screws everyone over.  I think I'll just play it safe and give a blanket "yes" to question #2.

[SageAcrin]

This is why I'd be for such a law if someone can think of a way that it could remotely work. I can't think of one that would.

The best idea I can come up with is some kind of possibility of incentives that a father can legally offer if a mother will carry to term, and you could already draw up a contract for that if you wanted. So uh...yeah.

Granted, another fun thought about late term abortions is that you could have a mother aborting a child that the father wants, that could be viable at that phase. In lieu of banning late term abortions, I wouldn't mind seeing some father's rights *there*, as if I recall right all late term abortions require inducing labor anyways(just to get what's left in there out).

[NotMiki]

The best idea I can come up with is some kind of possibility of incentives that a father can legally offer if a mother will carry to term, and you could already draw up a contract for that if you wanted. So uh...yeah.

There is a big split of opinion between states about whether pre-birth incentive contracts should be allowed.  Usually this comes up with surrogacy, but the issue is about the same: such a contract is paying a woman compensation for the use of her womb.  In New York a contract like that is void and it's a crime to induce a pregnant woman into signing one.  In Massachusetts, not only is a contract like that legal, but the state allows pre-birth adoption, so a contract can include terms where the birth mother terminates her legal rights to her baby before it's even born.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

I don't necessarily see a problem with renting a one-bedroom on Mommy Street. Then again I think it should be legal to sell a kidney if you want.

[Captain K.]

pro-choicers, would you allow abortion if:
1. a woman wants to abort a girl fetus because they find boys more valuable than girls?
2. the potential father desperately wants the fetus to come to term and will assume responsibility if it does?

Yes and yes.  I guess I'm an Anti-Populationist myself.  And again if the mother doesn't want the child brought into the world that's already a card stacked against the kid having a good life.  I'm sure there are many single fathers out there who have raised successful children.  But I would imagine there's even more who do a half-assed job of it.

[Ranmilia]

Pro-choice and yes to all five questions.  Reasons why largely mirror everyone else's. 

1. a woman wants to abort a girl fetus because they find boys more valuable than girls?

This sounds tricky, but if you're already fine with abortion as a legitimate medical procedure, the question  can be rephrased as "An infertile couple is going to have an in vitro fertilization procedure.  Do you support legally banning them from selecting which embryos to implant, or even selecting which sperm to use in the process?"  Put that way, I think the answer is obvious - with modern medical reproductive technology, it's absurd to try to enforce any sort of random sex or trait selection. 
(And yes, this probably leads to a Gattaca future... but the alternative is a Brave New World future where continually improving technology forces more and more governmental control over child creation.  While in theory I'd prefer childbirth require a parenting license, even today, in practice ehhh... I'll take Gattaca, thanks.)

2. the potential father desperately wants the fetus to come to term and will assume responsibility if it does?

This just boils down to "Is the father's consent required for the mother to abort" which is a pretty obvious hell no.  From a post-conception perspective to the woman (not the child), what's the difference between "the potential father" and "the newly elected religious governor"?  The current fetus is still a fetus and does not gain any additional rights based on the father's (or anyone else's) promises towards the future child.  Also this would open the door to creepy rich guys and/or nutcases stalking/seducing/breeding women, or there's women who want out of fundamentalist sects/cults, etc.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

I do wonder, though:

pro-choicers, would you allow abortion if:
1. a woman wants to abort a girl fetus because they find boys more valuable than girls?
2. the potential father desperately wants the fetus to come to term and will assume responsibility if it does?

(for me the answer is 'yes' for all of them but the potential father one, for which my answer is 'I don't know.')

Yes to all of them. While I would -disapprove- of the choice on both cases, my mind is very much made up on the subject in that the moral choice should not be enforced in a legislative sense. Once again, mc's wording of "lesser evil" seems appropriate. Elfboy pretty much nailed it as well. The State should concern itself with the welfare of its collective rather than admonishing moral judgment.

[NotMiki]

The State should concern itself with the welfare of its collective rather than admonishing moral judgment.

I agree.  I think pro-lifers would agree as well.  They'd just include unborn babies in the 'collective' that the state has a legitimate stake in.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

Is it to the benefit of the collective to force a bunch of women to have children they don't want?

[NotMiki]

Is it to the benefit of the collective to force a bunch of women to have children they don't want?

That's the kind of question you can only answer once you determine who's in the 'collective.'  How do you discern what's good for a group when you're talking about deciding who gets to be part of it?  Obviously if fetuses had a say in the matter they'd rather be born, even in sub-par conditions.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

Then the question is, does that outweigh the negative benefits upon the people who then are legally obligated to support them? When the objection is financial it's not just the parent who gets to answer that question now.

[Lady Door]

Pro-life: Moral argument
Pro-choice: Rights argument

They're not really compatible or defensible against one another, seeing as they're existing on two different wavelengths, which is what makes this debate intractable. Sweeping generalizations go!

Pro lifers don't necessarily believe that the woman doesn't have a "right," just that the fetus is also a person with rights - and no one to speak for it.

Pro choicers have moved passed the assumption that a fetus is not a person, generally, and therefore totally bypass the moral argument.

That all said, I am unsurprisingly pro-choice.

I am so pro-choice, in fact, I wish some parents were able to exercise their right to it all the way up to age 18.

[metroid composite]

This sounds tricky, but if you're already fine with abortion as a legitimate medical procedure, the question  can be rephrased as "An infertile couple is going to have an in vitro fertilization procedure.  Do you support legally banning them from selecting which embryos to implant, or even selecting which sperm to use in the process?"  Put that way, I think the answer is obvious - with modern medical reproductive technology, it's absurd to try to enforce any sort of random sex or trait selection.  

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your logic.  I don't feel that sperm, fertilized eggs, and fetuses are all of equal value.  To me, abortion is like...hmm...like killing a dog, while killing sperm is like accidentally stepping on a microscopic insect.  It's not illegal to Old-Yeller a dog, even for a reason like "I don't want to keep paying for dogfood", but it is somewhat of a big deal with some laws around it.  (For instance, you couldn't go shoot your neighbor's dog).  By comparison, accidentally stepping on a microscopic insect?  Who cares?

Consider the following: abortion is often induced by chemicals, right?  So...what happens if you slip a little of that chemical into a happily pregnant woman's drink?  In my mind, you just committed a pretty nasty crime; like...I'd want you thrown in jail.  By comparison, if you were in a sperm bank, and you knocked over a vial of sperm you'd be...what?  Given the "you break it you buy it" line?  So...sperm have about as many rights as a teacup (literally)?

[SageAcrin]

Then the question is, does that outweigh the negative benefits upon the people who then are legally obligated to support them? When the objection is financial it's not just the parent who gets to answer that question now.

What's a valid price for a life?

Good question. One that the medical institution will probably end up answering eventually. To many people, any amount of resources is fine, which is vaguely ridiculous. If one person needed your entire planet's worth of air, they'd be doing too much damage to everyone else. There is a point where the costs are too high.

They're not really compatible or defensible against one another, seeing as they're existing on two different wavelengths, which is what makes this debate intractable. Sweeping generalizations go!

Pro lifers don't necessarily believe that the woman doesn't have a "right," just that the fetus is also a person with rights - and no one to speak for it.

Pro choicers have moved passed the assumption that a fetus is not a person, generally, and therefore totally bypass the moral argument.

Better way of summing up my conundrum on it than I'd found. My personal morality is that a two week old embryo being much more of worth than, say, a kitty...heck, possibly a tree...is vaguely ridiculous. A baby being a week overdue and being aborted...also ridiculous, the other direction.

Economics alone, or parent inconvenience alone, doesn't work morally for most people, or, as you said, they would just be allowed to abort whiny 15 year-old angst piles that cost tons of money. Obviously a person has an intrinsic value at some point, for most people(for whatever reason). And being hooked up to biological life support systems inside someone is a weird line to draw, if they can be unhooked and live.

From there, my issue is figuring out when they're a person and should have rights-impossible to do for sure, therefore vagueness is preferrable, and to be honest, mistakes morally on this level can be made.

I have my own opinions about where the line is, but I'm not particularly interested in imposing them on other people.

What I am interested in is a lack of hypocrisy. I see too little difference in the ability to abort a child at seven months and the ability to walk into a room with a seven month premature child and unplug the incubator to think there should be a legal difference. (Hell, that incubator child is costing far more than the abortion one, day-to-day, in hospital bills. Are you telling me thousands of dollars of cost a day is really that much less inconvenient than them being inside a uterus?) If it was consistent and allowed the latter, I'd be...vaguely disgusted, but I'd respect that. As it is, the line's weird to me.

[NotMiki]

Pro-life: Moral argument
Pro-choice: Rights argument

They're not really compatible or defensible against one another, seeing as they're existing on two different wavelengths, which is what makes this debate intractable. Sweeping generalizations go!

Aren't rights determined by morals?  A 'right' is an area where we allow people personal autonomy, but where we draw the line is determined by morality, isn't it?  People in the US have no right to appear naked in public.  Why?  It's not like being naked physically hurts other people or interferes with their ability to go about their lives.  Morality supplies the answer and prevents an activity people would otherwise be able to do with impunity.

So I think the problem isn't that the two sides of the abortion debate are talking past each other so much as that the two sides believe in rights so big, so fundamental, that even accepting the validity of the opposing position would erode the right they hold so dear.  I mean, we're talking life vs. liberty, with the pursuit of happiness providing color commentary.

[Lady Door]

Yes, rights are determined by morals.

But arguing on the moral ground is different from arguing on the rights ground. On the rights ground, the morality is predetermined -- that is, by "my" measure, the moral issue is resolved, and therefore <this assumption leads to my point> etc. Given that assumption -- the moral issue is resolved -- the two parties will have a hard time seeing eye to eye. One's looking up at the clouds, the other's sifting through sand.

[metroid composite]

What I am interested in is a lack of hypocrisy. I see too little difference in the ability to abort a child at seven months and the ability to walk into a room with a seven month premature child and unplug the incubator to think there should be a legal difference. (Hell, that incubator child is costing far more than the abortion one, day-to-day, in hospital bills. Are you telling me thousands of dollars of cost a day is really that much less inconvenient than them being inside a uterus?) If it was consistent and allowed the latter, I'd be...vaguely disgusted, but I'd respect that. As it is, the line's weird to me.

There's a few noteworthy differences I can think of:

1. One person is involved, not two.
2. The kid is breathing air, not breathing water, and several marked physiological differences like that.

The first one is important, because it removes the ambiguity about "lesser of two evils."  It's just evil with no upside.

The second one is possibly irrelevant, but more pointing out...a 7 month premature baby already born is really not the same as a 7 month baby in the womb.  Some physiological changes happen in childbirth.  Weird stuff too, like premature babies need to be stroked once an hour or they have serious medical effects (including higher death rate, massive decrease in weight gain).  Obviously the unborn child can go through the same transition to an air-breathing touch-craver, just like you might expect a 10-year-old will go through puberty soon.  In the abstract, I'm ok with laws that give different answers for an obvious physiological jump.  For instance, a nurse failing to stroke a premature child once an hour could be criminal negligence--whereas it would be silly to have a law that 7-month pregnant women must put their hand on their baby bump once an hour.  Now, does anything in the physiology mean they should be morally treated different in terms of termination?  I have absolutely no idea.  Just brainstorming here on things that are different between the two.  Also: fish are creepy.


Now, what I think you're arguing for is, instead of abortion, induced labor into a premature birth into incubation into adoption.  That's...expensive.  I mean, from a purely pragmatic perspective, it's probably cheaper for the state to pay surrogate mothers if they want to put more babies into the adoption market.  (And honestly, they kinda don't want to put more babies into the adoption market anyhow).

[Ranmilia]

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your logic.  I don't feel that sperm, fertilized eggs, and fetuses are all of equal value.  To me, abortion is like...hmm...like killing a dog, while killing sperm is like accidentally stepping on a microscopic insect.  It's not illegal to Old-Yeller a dog, even for a reason like "I don't want to keep paying for dogfood", but it is somewhat of a big deal with some laws around it.  (For instance, you couldn't go shoot your neighbor's dog).  By comparison, accidentally stepping on a microscopic insect?  Who cares?

Consider the following: abortion is often induced by chemicals, right?  So...what happens if you slip a little of that chemical into a happily pregnant woman's drink?  In my mind, you just committed a pretty nasty crime; like...I'd want you thrown in jail.  By comparison, if you were in a sperm bank, and you knocked over a vial of sperm you'd be...what?  Given the "you break it you buy it" line?  So...sperm have about as many rights as a teacup (literally)?

That's all true, but I don't really see how it applies to how I was using that comparison?  Your examples are based on someone else doing those things without consent; I certainly wouldn't want lab techs choosing a baby's sex without parental consent either.  But the woman herself, if she has the right to an abortion in the first place, can do so for any reason she wants.  There are laws regarding the destruction of one's own property or animals that may require certain methods, but as far as I'm aware they never address motives. 

[VySaika]

Pro-Choice. This should surprise no one here.

Can't really bring anything to the reasonings debate that hasn't already been said by those more eloquent then myself.

[Dunefar]

I'll be closing this one sometime Saturday, make sure to vote now if you haven't.

[metroid composite]

That's all true, but I don't really see how it applies to how I was using that comparison?  Your examples are based on someone else doing those things without consent; I certainly wouldn't want lab techs choosing a baby's sex without parental consent either.  But the woman herself, if she has the right to an abortion in the first place, can do so for any reason she wants.  There are laws regarding the destruction of one's own property or animals that may require certain methods, but as far as I'm aware they never address motives. 

Lab techs choosing a baby's sex without parental consent would be...well I hope their employer would fire them, but it doesn't seem so egregious to me; instead of choice by die-roll, we have choice by crazy lab intern.  By comparison, let's suppose by some magic of science and fertility clinics I became pregnant, I'm totally jazzed, and then someone slipped me chemicals that triggered a miscarriage?  In my mind, my baby's been murdered.  I probably already had a crib laid out, had some names in mind.  Is it irrational to react with "murder" when I don't consider abortion murder in the abstract?  Perhaps; but emotional reactions aren't always rational.  (Granted, I've no doubt someone might have the same "murder" emotional reaction to a neighbor shooting their dog--so I suppose causing emotional distress is hardly a rock-solid argument; certainly grounds for a lawsuit, though).

As for motives and law...it's legal to touch a baby's genitalia if you're cleaning up the baby's diaper; it's not legal to touch a baby's genitalia for your own sexual arousal.  There's one.  There are places where it's legal to go fishing for personal use, but not legal if you intend to sell the fish to someone else.  There's two.  It's legal in some places to buy Marijuana for medical use, but not if you plan to use it recreationally.  There's three.

Don't get me wrong: these are impossible laws to enforce if the person breaking the law is smart about it, but there's at least some precedent for intent-based laws. 

[Excal]

Motive is actually huge in terms of law.  I mean, hell, just the fact that there's three different gradiations of Murder which really only differ in intent (1st Degree, in a rational and calm state of mind you intended to kill someone.  2nd Degree, in the grip of sudden emotion or other clutch decision you intended to kill someone.  3rd Degree/Manslaughter, you did not intend to kill someone, but it was a reasonable and foreseeable result of your actions despite not wanting it to happen)

So yes, courts of law will happily look at intent when interpreting law.

[NotMiki]

Legal terminology side note, not relevant to discussion:

Excal, you're right but your terminology isn't.  When you talk about why someone commited an act, let's say homocide, what's relevant in the eyes of the law is their "actus reus" and not their "motive."

An actus reus is the mental state someone has in respect to an act they commit.  For almost any act (with the exception of statutory rape) our laws are written so that a person cannot be punished for an act unless they committed an act intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently.  (Low-level violations are an exception; police don't need to prove you intended to speed.  Just that you did.)

A motive, on the other hand, is the reason they commit the act.  Take someone who intentionally kills their spouse to collect the insurance money and someone who intentionally kills their spouse because their spouse never did the dishes.  Those people have different motives, but because they have identical actus reuses they will both be charged with the same criminal offense.

Motive is almost never relevant to the crime someone is charged with (an exception is hate crimes, where being motivated by racial animus ups the penalty).

[metroid composite]

Motive is almost never relevant to the crime someone is charged with (an exception is hate crimes, where being motivated by racial animus ups the penalty).

Those exceptions could arguably apply to this case, I think, though.  Not that two white parents are ever going to go "hey wait, our baby is black; wtf? Abort!"--not unless there was adultery involved (and adultery is arguably reason enough for abortion anyway).  But theoretically someday you will be able to go "hey, this test says our baby is gay, abort!" and you already get "hey wait, our baby is female; abort!"