If the baby can survive outside the womb is abortion "murder"?

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah. Video, extreme claims. There's no reason to even try to fact check.

I gave evidence for some of the most extreme claims - like the story of the abortion of a 37 week old. I guess you are just assuming that a lot of those claims are impossible and will ignore any evidence I give.

Your source did not give the actual reason.

It said "terminations for psychosocial indications only" i.e. the reason was to do with psychosocial reasons and the health of the mother and baby weren't a problem. Were you after specifics about what mental health, etc, reason it was? Like it said in post #334 "If you're looking for specific examples, they are not commonly documented publicly due to privacy concerns"

I get very suspicious of people with an agenda using non-specific data like that. Look through that list of causes--I see nothing on it that covers a non-congenital problem with the fetus. Where would thalidomide fall on that list of reasons? (And, yes, thalidomide is still around--the same effect that makes it so brutal on the fetus can be medically useful against undesired growth. As well as some others that can do some very nasty things to the fetus.)

The point is I gave a cause that simply doesn't fit your list and which could prompt a late abortion. Pigeonhole problem--the doctor has to stuff the case in some pigeonhole but nothing on that list fits. That's a recipe to get some bad data.

 

[excreationist]

Lawnmower accidents kill people. Doctors who perform abortions do it deliberately. Many people are against abortions. Who is suggesting that lawnmowers should be banned? It seems like a straw man. Cars kill far more people but most people don't want them banned. Car deaths are also caused by accidents (usually). Lawnmowers and cars have benefits that could outweigh the safety issues.

RE the bolded bit - So, many people are against abortions, so what? This is no basis for social norms. Many people dislike Brussel sprouts , but that is not a reason to ban that.

If it made any sense to ban lawnmowers then I thought some people would support that. But people already are against abortions for various reasons. Lawnmower deaths are normally accidents which is different to deaths by abortions.

 

[excreationist]

Yeah. Video, extreme claims. There's no reason to even try to fact check.

I gave evidence for some of the most extreme claims - like the story of the abortion of a 37 week old. I guess you are just assuming that a lot of those claims are impossible and will ignore any evidence I give.

Your source did not give the actual reason.

It said "terminations for psychosocial indications only" i.e. the reason was to do with psychosocial reasons and the health of the mother and baby weren't a problem. Were you after specifics about what mental health, etc, reason it was? Like it said in post #334 "If you're looking for specific examples, they are not commonly documented publicly due to privacy concerns"

The point is I gave a cause that simply doesn't fit your list and which could prompt a late abortion. Pigeonhole problem--the doctor has to stuff the case in some pigeonhole but nothing on that list fits. That's a recipe to get some bad data.

So some deaths might not easily fit in any of those categories (maybe). But it is a formal medical thing so they must have some category to put that in. But the point is about one specific category and in that case problems with the other categories aren't really relevant.

 

[excreationist]

1:30 All of the polls suggested Shorten would romp home.
2:00 In the top 3 reasons Labor lost was abortion - the review said Labor had been too extreme on abortion and it had hurt it in some of those marginal faith-based seats particular in NSW but also some other parts of the country. 3:30 Western Sydney and the Bible-belt of NSW. Massive swings against Labor.
2:25 a policy that said that all funding for public hospitals was conditional on the provision of abortion. They didn't think that would be too controversial
So was her statement about some review finding that abortion was in the top 3 reasons that Labor lost the 2019 election a lie? Was her mention of swings in marginal faith-based seats also a lie?
She also said that after that election Albo scrubbed this policy from the ALP site. 3:40
It goes for 16 minutes but I'll just leave the rest for now.

The woman is a fanatic who will say all sorts of things. Have you better evidence than this youtube video from this woman?

PUT LABOR LAST. Labor has legalised abortion up to birth in Queensland.

PUT LABOR LAST. Labor has legalised abortion up to birth in Queensland.

laborlast.org.au

Begins with a Courer-Mail quote that says "This Bill allows a woman to abort a healthy unborn baby up until 37 weeks, or full term"

The anti-abortion movement in Australia has basically no power, and is unpopular with the vast majority of Australians, so there is no way that they can affect an election result in Australia. One has to look for other actual reasons for any election outcome.

Also see these statistics - is that enough evidence?
BTW my Christian sister and husband are really against abortion and that was the main reason they support Trump (though they are Australian).

 

[Elixir]

My point is I think that if the baby is very close to being due people would call it a baby. e.g. "did the baby kick you?" rather than "did the foetus kick you?" Calling the unborn baby a baby suggests it has more of a "right to life".

Colloquialisms do not and should not confer rights, and criminal laws should not be based on them.
Not rocket surgery.
I’m telling you the same thing I told Emily Lake. My preference for abolishing abortion laws is not based on my emotional disgust and anger at the very thought of aborting a late term fetus for no reason. It’s based on a harms/benefits analysis, and it’s not even close.
Throughout it has been asserted that
a) fetuses are people,
b) they deserve the protections and rights held by citizens, and
c) criminalizing late term abortions will have the effect of saving a lot of fetuses.
NONE of that has been shown in evidence, and I’m simply calling BULLSHIT.

 

[Elixir]

lawnmower deaths are usually accidents

Late term abortions are "usually" (almost always) medically necessary. The REAL difference afaics is there is only one operator present and participating in the typical lawnmower death, whereas there are survivors to blame in the case of a capricious killing of a fetus. The act quite naturally evokes repulsion, anger and a visceral desire for retributive "justice". And innocent people die.

The percentage of people who can be provoked to make unthinking kneejerk responses to surveys is not fit basis for laws either.
But I'm curious ... Do you think that the right-to-lifers who created that poster commissioned by "cherish life" blah blah... is trustworthy?
Pretty colors and people silhouettes are no substitute for transparent methodology.
1000 "representative sample" of a single territory is not a compelling representation in any event - the population 5.5 million - of course it was probably less when that poll was done SEVEN YEARS AGO.

BTW you can put me down as strongly opposed to abortion at any point in a pregnancy.

 

[excreationist]

My point is I think that if the baby is very close to being due people would call it a baby. e.g. "did the baby kick you?" rather than "did the foetus kick you?" Calling the unborn baby a baby suggests it has more of a "right to life".

Colloquialisms do not and should not confer rights, and criminal laws should not be based on them.
Not rocket surgery.
I’m telling you the same thing I told Emily Lake. My preference for abolishing abortion laws is not based on my emotional disgust and anger at the very thought of aborting a late term fetus for no reason. It’s based on a harms/benefits analysis, and it’s not even close.
Throughout it has been asserted that
a) fetuses are people,
b) they deserve the protections and rights held by citizens, and
c) criminalizing late term abortions will have the effect of saving a lot of fetuses.
NONE of that has been shown in evidence, and I’m simply calling BULLSHIT.

The laws are partly based on how people vote in elections. Some people base their decision on emotional disgust and anger.

a) fetuses are people,

So just before it exits the womb it is not a person, even if it is in the ninth month?

b) they deserve the protections and rights held by citizens, and

I don't think people against abortion necessarily think that - like citizens are capable of owning property.

c) criminalizing late term abortions will have the effect of saving a lot of fetuses.

If someone was in their 28th week of pregnancy and abortion at that stage was banned, would the same number of people still get abortions? It seems reasonable to believe that it would go down at least a little bit. Especially if legal abortions were completely free.

 

[excreationist]

lawnmower deaths are usually accidents

Late term abortions are "usually" (almost always) medically necessary.

But the point is the laws allow some late term abortions that aren't medically necessary. It's like someone not caring about someone being tortured to death because it doesn't happen much, etc.

The REAL difference afaics is there is only one operator present and participating in the typical lawnmower death, whereas there are survivors to blame in the case of a capricious killing of a fetus. The act quite naturally evokes repulsion, anger and a visceral desire for retributive "justice". And innocent people die.

The percentage of people who can be provoked to make unthinking kneejerk responses to surveys is not fit basis for laws either.
But I'm curious ... Do you think that the right-to-lifers who created that poster commissioned by "cherish life" blah blah... is trustworthy?
Pretty colors and people silhouettes are no substitute for transparent methodology.

Well just a day or two ago my wife's friend was talking about how bad abortion is (though she is just basing it on her opinion). I know first hand that lots of Christians are against abortion. Some also get together in organisations that their churches publicise. It's odd that some people here don't believe that a significant number of voters have made a difference in elections due to their stance on abortion. BTW in the Queensland state election the election was significantly decided with the "adult crime, adult time" ads and the media focusing on youth crime. I think the media tend to be for abortion and so won't give much coverage for people who are against abortion.
The proportion overall might not be huge but there are also "marginal faith-based seats in Western Sydney and the Bible-belt of NSW".
The site/ads calling to "put Labor last" explains why it had such a big effect on Labor.
Maybe due to your "echo chamber" of a lot of like-minded individuals you are out of touch with how many people there really are that are against abortion.

 

[Elixir]

The laws are partly based on how people vote in elections.
Legislators legislate and tend somewhat to coddle to the electorate, trying not to alienate and pandering as necessary to retain their office.
I have no realistic hope that the path of least harm will come to pass in America. Certainly not in Trump's America. The terrible effects of abortion laws, are just not a part of the religio-political landscape. I don't know how many women suffer or die in Queensland due to care delayed or denied, so I can't speak to your level of harm. Can you offer any evidence that laws prevent a significant percentage of those abortions that are a vanishing percentage of all abortions, that are viable late term fetuses?
It has been offered that a woman seeking such an abortion is de facto nuts, and needs to be remanded to psychiatric care immediately upon requesting it. And a doctor performing the operation should be brought before the licensing board.

The echoes around America are very Trumpian, vengeful, pseudoreligious and retributive. I actually fear being targeted due to the content of my social media account.

I know first hand that lots of Christians are against abortion

Do you know why? That has always befuddled me. I don't know of any proscriptive text... do you? In fact there's lots of gruesome stuff, depending which version is subscribed to.

 

[excreationist]

I know first hand that lots of Christians are against abortion

Do you know why? That has always befuddled me. I don't know of any proscriptive text... do you?

Well I'll go along with what my parent's church says, the Lutheran Church of Australia:

Abortion - Lutheran Church of Australia

LUTHERANS FOR LIFE PRE-BIRTH ISSUES Abortion Human life is a gift from God. God is the creator and artist behind all creation, and humans, made in God’s image, have a... Read more

www.lca.org.au

Human life is a gift from God. God is the creator and artist behind all creation, and humans, made in God’s image, have a special part in His created beauty (Psalm 8:3–4). Even at microscopic size, after conception, human life is considered valuable.

Can you offer any evidence that laws prevent a significant percentage of those abortions that are a vanishing percentage of all abortions, that are viable late term fetuses?

I don't know, I'd rather not have to research that. I'm not really that opinionated on that anyway.

 

[Elixir]

The laws are partly based on how people vote in elections.

You have not addressed those presumptions I listed. Especially the one about preventing the late term abortions by passing laws against insane behavior instead of treating it for what it is.
Why would you simply reject any harms benefits analysis, in favor of a a dubious poll, by and for right to lifers?
You have a brain, use it. Or shirk all responsibility and "go with" what someone else's church "says".
Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Example:

Even at microscopic size, after conception, human life is considered valuable.
It's literally not generally true, and does not follow from what precedes it. A little girl's dolly is "considered valuable" to the little girl.

I'd rather not have to research that.

I'd rather not entertain your preference for ignorance.
Thank you for your honesty.

 

[excreationist]

The laws are partly based on how people vote in elections.

You have not addressed those presumptions I listed. Especially the one about preventing the late term abortions by passing laws against insane behavior instead of treating it for what it is.
Why would you simply reject any harms benefits analysis, in favor of a a dubious poll, by and for right to lifers?
You have a brain, use it. Or shirk all responsibility and "go with" what someone else's church "says".
Do you know what a non-sequitur is? Example:

Even at microscopic size, after conception, human life is considered valuable.
It's literally not generally true, and does not follow from what precedes it. A little girl's dolly is "considered valuable" to the little girl.

I'm mostly just interested in abortions at 37 weeks rather than trying to defend hardcore pro-lifers. I'm just saying that there seem to be more serious pro-lifers than some people here suspect. (and that it played a major role in the 2019 election)

I'd rather not have to research that.

I'd rather not entertain your preference for ignorance.
Thank you for your honesty.

I'll just say that you might have a good point about whether there is any reduction in late-term abortions if they were banned but I think it is possible that free and very easy abortions could possibly increase the number of deaths. But I prefer to be ignorant about that tangent.
BTW this says:

PUT LABOR LAST. Labor has legalised abortion up to birth in Queensland.

PUT LABOR LAST. Labor has legalised abortion up to birth in Queensland.

laborlast.org.au

MORE BABIES WOULD DIE UNDER ANOTHER LABOR GOVERNMENT & HERE'S WHY

But I'm not interested in trying to defend what it says (partly to reduce the amount of procrastination I'm doing here). But you can criticise it if you want.

 

[excreationist]

Yeah. Video, extreme claims. There's no reason to even try to fact check.

I gave evidence for some of the most extreme claims - like the story of the abortion of a 37 week old. I guess you are just assuming that a lot of those claims are impossible and will ignore any evidence I give.

Your source did not give the actual reason.

FACT SHEET: Why do women have abortions? - Lutherans for Life

Below are some research findings carried out on

www.lutheransforlife.lca.org.au

BTW here is a list of some psychosocial reasons:

The reasons women offered for having an abortion were largely psycho-social. They included: timing, feelings of un-readiness to be a mother, existing children, influence of others (family/partner), and inadequate financial resources or housing.

 

[excreationist]

I thought this was interesting though it goes against my stance of being against abortion in this thread

Legalized abortion and crime effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A theory regarding the effect of legalized abortion on crime (often referred to as the Donohue–Levitt hypothesis) is a controversial hypothesis about the reduction in crime in the decades following the legalization of abortion. Proponents argue that the availability of abortion resulted in fewer births of children at the highest risk of committing crime. The earliest research suggesting such an effect was a 1966 study in Sweden. In 2001, Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University, citing their research and earlier studies, argued that children who are unwanted or whose parents cannot support them are likelier to become criminals. This idea was further popularized by its inclusion in the book Freakonomics, which Levitt co-wrote.

I saw the movie "Freakonomics" a while ago.

 

[Elixir]

people already are against abortions

Yeah. So what? I am “against abortions”.
People are GENERALLY inclined toward the path of least harm when faced with difficult choices. But not in the case of criminalizing abortion, unless they’ve been directly exposed to the harmful outcomes wrought by abortion laws.

I saw the movie "Freakonomics"

If you base decisions on movies you’ve seen, outcomes are virtually guaranteed to be sub-optimal.
Are you old enough to vote?

 

[Toni]

Yeah. Video, extreme claims. There's no reason to even try to fact check.

I gave evidence for some of the most extreme claims - like the story of the abortion of a 37 week old. I guess you are just assuming that a lot of those claims are impossible and will ignore any evidence I give.

The issue here that you are going to run into (and it's a perfectly valid issue to have put in your way), is this:

If you wish to convince someone who is rational of a claim, the claim must be true, and supported by statistical evidence rather than mere case study.

I studied to be a professional Christian. I went to camps and retreats and seminars and conventions for that shit.

Then AFTER that, I went to college to study to be a professional academic, then how to be a professional software engineer.

When I was learning to be a professional Christian, we were taught to use "case study" to make arguments, like you are now.

In college, I had that thoroughly lectured out of me, because it turns out NOBODY likes that shit; it gives bad results and leads to shit like anti-vaxxers and "Reefer Madness", "Satanic Panic", and other such bullshit purity movements designed to hide and perfect fascist populist messaging.

I won't say it doesn't happen.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that every time this thread gets reincarnated, it gets brought up that it does happen, and I know this because I'm usually the one that brings it up just so people stop fighting over red herrings:

Wealthy Republicans and other Conservative sorts are pretty infamous for the lengths they go to force abortions on their daughters and mistresses.

I'm sure that some folks intentionally cause the event that triggers medically necessary third trimester abortion through directing injury at a fetus (pushing pregnant people down stairs, punching them, etc). In fact, I see it happening more often due to "shitty men" rather than "selfish women" that late term abortions happen.

That said, it is vanishingly rare for such events to happen. There are handfuls of such events that have ever happened, mostly because the means to make them happen are already limited to 1% or less of society.

If truly elective events were frequent, these would be attached to statistics, and there would be something there that could convince the likes of me or Loren. Anything approaching it has been published only by sources which have bad track records for cooking statistics.

I’m not at all certain that individuals attempting to cause a miscarriage or necessitate an abortion by committing violence against a pregnant woman is that rare.

Yeah. Video, extreme claims. There's no reason to even try to fact check.

I gave evidence for some of the most extreme claims - like the story of the abortion of a 37 week old. I guess you are just assuming that a lot of those claims are impossible and will ignore any evidence I give.

Not so much that, as the fact that such events are so extremely rare

The point is that the week 37 abortion where the mother and child were healthy happened at all, not that it happens a lot. It shows that the alledged "up until birth" abortion policy can literally mean that.

but you do not know AT ALL what the circumstances are because it’s just one point in a bunch of statistics.

YOU

DO

NOT

KNOW.

Full Stop.

 

[Toni]

@Elixir

Also do you believe that ordinarily a pregnancy at 37 weeks involves a human baby?

As usual in this thread people are ignoring the more difficult questions.

No. You are ignoring when people express an opinion.

YOU are ignoring the question of WHY you think that YOU get a say about what someone else does with her body.

Btw, I’m guessing that a big part of the issue is the her part. And another part is that you have some romanticized ideas about pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing.

I was happy to be pregnant and to carry my children. I am still sad about the early miscarriage I suffered even as I know as a fact that if I had carried that pregnancy to term, I would never have conceived or given birth to one of my beloved children.

I am currently watching and enjoying and occasionally helping one of my children and their partner raise my grandchild.

Let me tell you it has brought back ALL of the life threatening risk of pregnancy even for otherwise healthy women. That threat to life and health dies NOT end with delivery! That was brought home for me when my grandchild was delivered early because of the life threatening condition of preeclampsia and when mother and child were re-hospitalized two days after coming home for post partum pre-eclampsia. Which was followed by post partum depression. Which was not helped by the economic necessity of the mother returning to work earlier than she should have, despite us offering what economic help we could.

I have put on time ( gratefully, joyfully) helping to care for the baby and new family and vet the past months and let me tell you:

I had forgotten exactly how exhausting and overwhelming it is to do. Mind you: both parents love and adore and take exemplary care of that baby. That baby has loving and devoted grandparents and aunts and uncles and a supportive community,

It is still EXHAUSTING. It still has curtailed some of the economic stability and life plans of the parents. And grandparents, if I’m honest.

The parents would not trade their child for all of the money in the world and neither would any of their family or friends.

I adore my grandchild. I would willingly give my life for my grandchild.

I would never, ever, ever expect anyone to undertake a pregnancy and delivery and post partum recovery, much less raising a child unless they enthusiastically agreed to it.

 

[Jarhyn]

I’m not at all certain that individuals attempting to cause a miscarriage or necessitate an abortion by committing violence against a pregnant woman is that rare.

Oh, I'm guessing most of those 37 deaths out of 100k abortions were relating to trauma sustained by the mother in attacks.

It would certainly be a good number to try and uncover.

 

[excreationist]

people already are against abortions

Yeah. So what? I am “against abortions”.
People are GENERALLY inclined toward the path of least harm when faced with difficult choices. But not in the case of criminalizing abortion, unless they’ve been directly exposed to the harmful outcomes wrought by abortion laws.

My point was that I'm not aware of people who already want to ban lawnmowers.

I saw the movie "Freakonomics"

If you base decisions on movies you’ve seen, outcomes are virtually guaranteed to be sub-optimal.
Are you old enough to vote?

Like I said the movie is pro-abortion "though it goes against my stance of being against abortion in this thread".

 

[excreationist]

@Elixir

Also do you believe that ordinarily a pregnancy at 37 weeks involves a human baby?

As usual in this thread people are ignoring the more difficult questions.

No. You are ignoring when people express an opinion.

Yeah sorry I was being hostile and sometimes hypocritical.

YOU are ignoring the question of WHY you think that YOU get a say about what someone else does with her body.

Though I originally was saying that maybe late-term abortion could be considered murder I wasn't saying it should be banned if that makes sense. I was kind of playing the devil's advocate.