Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYes, it's a viability argument, but the conclusion I drew was different. There is also the observation that if abortion were banned then we would start seeing back-street abortions again, so one would both fail to save the foetus and endanger the woman. If I felt it was my choice then I would look at brain stem development and probably leave the boundary age where it is in the U.K., which I think is similar to the U.S..
This sounds like a viability argument. The fetus has no moral considerability - no right to live - so long as she is housed within the body and dependent on that housing for survival. Do I have that right?
If so, it seems an inadequate justification for abortion on demand up to the moment before birth. Here's why.
1) Procedures like Cesarian Sec ...[text shortened]... o the idea that we cannot morally kill a human baby simply because it cannot survive on its own.
However, there are always exceptions. In the event there are complications with the pregnancy and both woman and child were going to die unless the pregnancy was aborted then there is no point in proceeding with it. In most cases of rape the risk of pregnancy will be apparent from the start, but in some cases, especially if incest is involved, the victim may not be able to seek medical support so I'd regard that as an exceptional case.
But my main conclusion was that this is something women and not men have to face and so it is they who should decide the law on it and not us. If women collectively decide that they want abortion, on demand, up until the point of birth, then that is their call. If they decide they want abortions banned then again it is their prerogative. My guess is that if there were a women only referendum on the issue in either the UK or the US they'd leave the law more-or-less where it is.
02 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI don't see how a democratic system can work well like this. Allowing blocks of people to be excluded from voting sets a dangerous precedent. Further, who's going to decide who gets excluded from votes?
But my main conclusion was that this is something women and not men have to face and so it is they who should decide the law on it and not us. If women collectively decide that they want abortion, on demand, up until the point of birth, then that is their call. If they decide they want abortions banned then again it is their prerogative. My guess is t ...[text shortened]... eferendum on the issue in either the UK or the US they'd leave the law more-or-less where it is.
Next thing you know, white people won't get to vote on affirmative action, urban dwellers won't get to vote on farm subsidies, etc.
Practical problems aside, it should not be just the women who vote on this. Claiming that men don't have to face the issue is simply untrue. Under the current US law, a couple could be planning to have a child, but the wife could back out at the last minute and get an abortion. Obviously, this will effect the would-be father, even if not to the same extent as the woman.
02 Mar 15
2 edits
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWell in the case of farm subsidies it would largely be the urban population paying the subsidy, so there isn't a case for excluding them. With both farm subsidies and affirmative action there is also a potential escalation of the scope of legislation so there is a reason not to do it. In the case of abortion legislation I do not see that there is any possible escalation of scope. They could not, for example, vote that men should be sterilized to prevent unwanted pregnancies, since that would directly affect men's bodies. I think that the effect of a pregnancy on a woman's body is so fundamental and exceptional that it would not set a precedent on other matters.
I don't see how a democratic system can work well like this. Allowing blocks of people to be excluded from voting sets a dangerous precedent. Further, who's going to decide who gets excluded from votes?
Next thing you know, white people won't get to vote on affirmative action, urban dwellers won't get to vote on farm subsidies, etc.
Practical pr ...[text shortened]... n. Obviously, this will effect the would-be father, even if not to the same extent as the woman.
Further, in the UK Scots voters recently voted against seceding from the United Kingdom. English and Welsh voters, despite the significant effect it would have had on us, were excluded from the vote. So why should secession votes involve a section of the electorate but not some other things?
The decision as to who should be allowed to vote on such a matter would be Parliament's in this country, in the US the House and the Senate.
With regard to your last paragraph. Yes, it's one of those things. I don't think that it changes the argument. If the woman changes her mind about the pregnancy then there is little to be done to stop her ending it. I don't think that trying to stop her would help anyone, especially if she tried using pennyroyal or some such which can do liver damage.
As it happens there is something I forgot about English law on this, which is that abortions in the UK are only legal on medical grounds, although G.P.s invariably agree to prescribe abortions. This is section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 as amended by section 37(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, I've copy and pasted from Wikipedia, the clause most abortions are prescribed under is section (a):
Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -
(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
02 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYes, I understand where babies come from! As I pointed out I don't care
Yes, but this is the problem with your position. For a pregnancy to proceed a woman's body has to house the foetus, which requires several hormonal and immune system modifications as well as the straightforward physical presence of the foetus. Whether this is to happen can only really be the woman's choice. Therefore, I feel that any socially determin ...[text shortened]... a man should be able to prevent an abortion is by not causing the pregnancy in the first place.
what side the law falls on, it will always be, will the mother care for her
child or not? It can be a lawful choice, or one that isn't lawful, it will still
always boil down to will the mother care for her child?
02 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThat is outright sexism. Not all women will face this, yet you are giving votes to all women based solely on their gender. Why not only give the vote to women likely to want an abortion.
But my main conclusion was that this is something women and not men have to face and so it is they who should decide the law on it and not us.
But then one woman's abortion doesn't affect other women. So why not give the vote to each individual woman on a case by case basis ie let the woman decide.
My own opinion is that it shouldn't be a criminal act (for a start, punishing women for having abortions doesn't really achieve much) but the man should have a say too. So maybe the father should be allowed to bring a civil case against the woman.
02 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIf use of government funding gives people the right to vote on how those funds are spent, then men get to vote on government funding of abortions. While this does not grant the power to outlaw abortion, it's probably enough to make them unaffordable for the vast majority of the population.
Well in the case of farm subsidies it would largely be the urban population paying the subsidy, so there isn't a case for excluding them. With both farm subsidies and affirmative action there is also a potential escalation of the scope of legislation so there is a reason not to do it. In the case of abortion legislation I do not see that there is any p ...[text shortened]... would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.[/quote]
With escalating issues, it seems that a new vote with a wider group of eligible voters could be called if necessary. I see no reason to anticipate something that may or may not happen.
The precedent I was referring to was not due from the abortion issue itself, but rather a precedent of having votes with certain demographic groups excluded deliberately.
States have their own governments that are within the larger government. Those states generally have some degree of local sovereignty, including the right to decide to renounce membership in the larger government. This is not at all the same as excluding a person based on gender.
In the US we have enough problems with 'gerrymandering' which is the deliberate re-drawing of political districts in order to help candidates of a specific political persuasion win elections. This is what comes from arbitrary exclusion of people from votes. This is one example of why I support limited voting only in specific cases that are well-defined in advance.
I think some people obey the law even when they'd rather not. Certainly some women would not want to risk the peril of an illegal abortion even if they had decided that they'd abort if possible. The question is, would enough of them take the risk for this to be a major factor in the legal question? I have no data on how many illegal abortions were being done before it was made legal. I imagine there may not be undisputed figures to be had.
02 Mar 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd while we're at it - this task of making sure only the most directly affected get to even vote - do post-menopausal women get to vote?
That is outright sexism. Not all women will face this, yet you are giving votes to all women based solely on their gender. Why not only give the vote to women likely to want an abortion.
But then one woman's abortion doesn't affect other women. So why not give the vote to each individual woman on a case by case basis ie let the woman decide.
My own opin ...[text shortened]... d have a say too. So maybe the father should be allowed to bring a civil case against the woman.
02 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThey have lived with the fear of unwanted pregnancy and the constraints required to avoid it. We have not.
And while we're at it - this task of making sure only the most directly affected get to even vote - do post-menopausal women get to vote?
The difficulty with my suggestion is that these things are decided by Parliament and as we have a representative democracy it is unavoidable that men would end up voting. If only female members of parliament voted then considerable numbers of female voters would be excluded because their representatives were men. Men whose representative was a women would be represented in the vote; so it won't work. However, my basic point stands which is that men are on very dicey ground telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
02 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou don't think men have lived with the fear of unwanted pregnancy?! You must not have talked to many men who pay child support. 🙂
They have lived with the fear of unwanted pregnancy and the constraints required to avoid it. We have not.
The difficulty with my suggestion is that these things are decided by Parliament and as we have a representative democracy it is unavoidable that men would end up voting. If only female members of parliament voted then considerable numbers of f ...[text shortened]... s that men are on very dicey ground telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
02 Mar 15
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes - we've made prisons into a profitable corporate venture, much to the detriment of many non-violent drug offenders.
I actually strongly object to removing the vote from prisoners - especially in a country like the US that has very high incarceration rates.
Probably the argument goes that a murderer shouldn't be able to vote for legal killing, but do we really think they could win that one?
I suppose my biggest concern with letting felons vote is that white-collar criminals could vote against financial regulation laws.
02 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIf that were a sound point, then women would be on very dicey ground telling other women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. If you put female genital mutilation to the vote in certain countries, the women voters would come out in favor. But almost invariably in favor of it being done to someone else. Similarly most of your women voters would not expect it to happen to them, and many would vote on religious or societal grounds that have nothing to do with them having empathy due to their similar biology.
However, my basic point stands which is that men are on very dicey ground telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
02 Mar 15
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemBut this applies to any law. If you put people in prison for breaking a law, then don't allow them to vote to change that law, then you are basically subverting democracy. If murderers want murder made legal, let them vote for it: that's democracy. Who are you to say that your view point is superior and they get no say in the matter? Of course you may be able to stop them on constitutional grounds as most constitutional issues are less subject to democracy.
I suppose my biggest concern with letting felons vote is that white-collar criminals could vote against financial regulation laws.
Obviously one of the current issues is drug control where many prisoners would probably vote in favor of legalizing drugs.
But suppose we decided that it was illegal to be a republican. Chose the right year, vote for the law, get a slim majority, lock up all the republicans, and they can never vote to change it back!
My other big complaint is votes for foreigners. (legal or illegal). I believe all residents should be allowed to vote regardless of citizenship.