Is 6 weeks unreasonable?
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
50 points (100.0% liked)
Legal News
272 readers
130 users here now
International and local legal news.
Basic rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flag
Some cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules apply
All lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
all 28 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
I'm going to rephrase your question into one that is much more valuable. At what point in fetal development is an abortion ban reasonable? And the answer is... at no point is a ban reasonable.
Any arbitrary number you pick to start the ban is going to result in women needlessly dying. It's a fucking medical procedure. One that is often needed to be used to save a woman from a fetus that has no chance of survival. By thinking you're more moral than the people actually making real, difficult moral decisions, people who have all of the relevant info needed to make such a decision while your ban has none, you will cause unnecessary death and suffering.
Let the people who will actually be affected by the decision make it, and keep your crayon-colored rules of morality to yourself.
An outright ban is never reasonable if it is a matter of safety.
It is however worth noting that general viability for survival outside of the womb is 24 weeks (6 months), so there are some arguments to be made about a ban on "voluntary" abortions past that point. Not saying they're good arguments, but that's where the line is if anyone is looking for the clearest one we currently have.
You're taking a very specific scenario and applying that across the board like it should be a free pass. Women generally aren't dying in childbirth. If you read my comments elsewhere in this post, you'll see I'm fine with picking the lesser evil when it's necessary.
You don't get to pick the lesser evil with a fucking ban. Since the Dobbs Decision, this is the reality on the ground. Women dying or nearly dying because of miscarriages or stillbirths and doctors won't help because they know their R Attorney General is chomping at the bit for someone to be made an example of. Since Dobbs, OBGYNs in states with bans have been closing their practices and moving to other states, because they don't want to have to choose between letting their patient die or breaking the law and definitely get sued. Women dying in spite of a clear federal cut-out if a women's life is in danger, because either way you're going to court.
Oh, and to clarify, the Evangelical myth of a sex maniac woman who has abortions cause she likes it isn't a fucking thing. Ending of voluntary abortion is just an excuse to punish women who have sex, as far as I've seen.
Besides, abortion bans don't even do the thing you want them to do. They don't make abortions less prevalent, they make them more prevalent. Unless, of course, you actually want to punish women who have sex, in which case you can log off.
You want to reduce the amount of abortions, for real? This is how you do it. Basic sex education before puberty begins (8 years old, in case you don't know basic human biology) where anatomy, function, and the changes that occur during puberty is discussed. Comprehensive sex education before students become sexually active (12 years old, since 7.1% of young people lose their virginity before 13) which includes discussion of sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, and the use of prophylactics. Freely available condoms. Done, abortions will reach historic lows and no one will have had to die to do it. Or does your crayon morals think teaching about sex increases its prevalence? Cause it doesn't. Or maybe you just don't like the idea of it being discussed? In which case, you're choosing people dying over having awkward conversations.
You're arguing against a lot of stuff that I'm not saying. Did you assume I'm defending this ban? Is that why everyone in here is down voting me? Y'all need to act less vicious in conversation. I'm only interested in ethics. I'm no statesman trying to buff up births for economics it whatever reason they claim. I'm actually literally an antinatalist.
Y'all need to act less vicious in conversation
Did you just fucking hatch out of the ground yesterday? How in the actual fuck did you think questioning when an appropriate time to implement a fucking ban on abortion was going to lead to light-hearted discussion? People had their fucking rights stolen and their lives put in very real danger, but I'm sorry for not playing nice with your purely theoretical line of questions. You fucking suggested that people had abortions to get back at partners based on... nothing? Vibes? And you expect people to treat you with respect after that?
Civility is an agreement between parties. It requires a mutual understanding of the weight of topics being discussed and an understanding of what the stakes are. You broke that agreement when you treated the topic of abortion with the same social weight that people use when idly gossiping. This isn't some fun thought experiment or theoretical moral quandary with no stakes. People are dying because of this and you're treating it like a fucking game. Fuck all the way off.
This is you.
Babies are people too.
Yeah, and like I already said abortion bans don't save any fetuses. Comprehensive sex ed does (because then they never get made).
But you were having a theoretical conversation in the corner, weren't you? Maybe once you've graduated to having a real conversation, you'll be able to actually read and understand what others say.
Also, I already told you to fuck off. So do that already.
You aren't even having a conversation. You're assuming I'm defending a man and running with that. You just decided I'm a bad guy and got mad over literally nothing.
Yeah, most people don't find out theyre pregnant until about somewhere around 5-6 weeks https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5269518/. This means that a six week ban is effectively a ban on abortions, as even those that find out in week 5 won't necessarily be able to schedule the abortion in time.
How long is it supposed to be before there's a brain with any capacity for thought, abstract or otherwise?
No idea, but at the end of the day, doesn't matter what part of the baby has developed, abortions can be required at any stage of a pregnancy for all sorts or reasons.
Complete ban is a ban on medical care.
It does matter at the end of the day. Just because sometimes you gotta pick a lesser evil doesn't mean you get a free pass when there's evil vs no evil.
Can you describe what you'd qualify as an "evil" abortion?
I suspect a couple of follow-ups will start narrowing your definition - people aren't getting them recreationally.
To answer your question about brain activity, basic brain development starts around 10 weeks, with rudimentary brain activity like adjusting to stimulus like suppressing startle responses starting in the final trimester. For comparison, this is a lower level of cognition than you'd observe in the livestock I assume you routinely eat.
You ever hear about the women who fight for custody of the dog in a divorce so they can kill the dog just to hurt their ex? The abortion equivalent of that after the baby is capable of thought is pretty evil.
5 months seems like plenty of time to make a decision before it can be unethical. The point of ethics is generally to avoid doing stuff to others where being in their shoes would be scary prospects.
You ever hear about the women who fight for custody of the dog in a divorce so they can kill the dog just to hurt their ex?
No. The sounds like someone is making shit up because they have no real argument here. Since you've used the plural "women," I'm absolutely positive you'll be able to link multiple sources, right?
...right?
Do I gotta do everything for you?
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=woman+kills+dog+after+divorce
You make a claim, you get to back it up. Whining about that simple fact doesn't help your position.
So you've got a story about one woman doing something horrible. The sane response would be to take away ALL women's rights based on the actions of a single person.
And looking at the comments you make in the nsfw communities, maybe you should shut up on the abortion issue...
ONE? Jesus Christ, we are done here. You can't do anything yourself and are literally looking away when showed.
Normally I wouldnt bother responding when realizing someone wasn't asking their questions in good faith, but I can't get past the use of the word "evil". While there might be evil people out there having "evil" abortions, I can't bring myself to consider the situations where someone must decide between mother and child as evil. The only word that comes to mind is sadness, the heavy weight of an impossible decision.
Maybe all abortions arent created equal, but I know that it isn't something that can be legislated as a black and white, or good vs evil, issue.
A hell of a lot closer to 6 months than 6 weeks.
The idea that you can just force a woman to be an incubator for 9 months is disgusting.
Seems to me it's perfectly ethical to just call it 5 months to be safe and everyone's got time to make their decisions before that decision is unethical.
General viability for survival outside the womb is 24 weeks, or 6 months in. That's the clearest line we have right now.
Edit: and as another commenter said, the first steps of basic brain development occur around the 10 week mark.
Why is what you're saying not lining up with what Google and another commenter here have told me?