Pregnancies from rape occurring in abortion-ban states
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
In particular, it's pointing out that the exceptions for rape are difficult to use. There are few facilities that can perform the procedure, and they are rarely nearby. So the nominal exception turns out to not really exist in practice, and large numbers of raped women are in fact being forced to carry involuntary pregnancies to term.
That's a way too common topic - it's just the same with unemployment insurance or a range of other social benefits, or the right to claim asylum... it exists on paper but the hurdles placed in front of accessing said benefits make them all but useless.
Yeah.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/man-raped-12-old-awarded-114904992...
This man raped a child, was convicted of raping that child, was convicted of raping another child, and then successfully sued said child for access to the offspring conceived in court.
It puts all non-profits into really bad light! Administrative work like filing police reports, should be their main focus to help victims!
And (need I point this out??) this is all utterly unnecessary
They're so worried about immigrants taking jobs what about the anti abortion baby boom making jobs more scarce in 18 or 20 years, and changing whole political landscapes?
This probably is the central question on this topic:
* When does the gamete/zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/whatever go from being not-human to being human?
Next:
* Just because it is/may be human, is it owed anything? [0]
Peter Singer for example has argued (in the past?) that even up to ~two years of age, the 'entity' should not be considered human:
> In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.
> Similar to his argument for abortion rights, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[65]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living".[66]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Euthanasia_and_in...
The various positions on the topic, if taken to their logical end, may lead to conclusions that folks may not realize if they haven't thought about it thoroughly:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_aspects_of_the_a...
[0] Thomson for one argued that we do not,[1] and even if you were (e.g.) in a cabin in the woods,[2] and one day there was a bay left on your front door, you could step over it and without any moral qualms
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
[2] > Some philosophers, like Thomson, think so, but very many philosophers disagree. If I live alone in the woods and wake one day to find an infant on my doorstep, am I obligated to care for it? Or may I simply step over it and go on about my day, until it dies from exposure and neglect? To think I am obligated in justice to help it, as a great many people (philosophers and non-philosophers alike) do, is to think we owe things to other people simply because they are people. And if we can owe things to other people simply because they are people, then Thomson’s argument falls apart. If the fetus becomes a person long before birth — as even Thomson concedes — and if we can owe things to people simply because they are people, then we can owe things to the fetus as well, long before birth. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/phi...
I disagree; that question is not relevant. Many people say it is relevant, but I disagree with that. Whether or not it is "human life" does not somehow mean it is better than everyone else.
What is relevant is: Conditions are not ideal, and if the child is a part of mother's body before they have been born then it is up to the mother to decide what to do with their body, to save themself, or if they prefer, to take a risk. Sometimes, the unborn child can be a danger to both themself and to their mother, although not always. It is best not to do abortion but conditions are not ideal so sometimes that might be better than the alternative. It is better to not even be pregnant at first if you do not want any children, if that is possible; but sometimes, unfortunately that does not work that way. So, sometimes the abortion will be a "necessary evil", possibly lesser than the other "evil" in some cases, because it is not as simple as they would have you to believe. You should perhaps consider something else first, but maybe you can't, for whatever reason; if you cannot, then abortion sooner rather than later will probably be better, for some reasons.
> If I live alone in the woods and wake one day to find an infant on my doorstep, am I obligated to care for it?
That is also not relevant for abortion, and they should not confuse it as such. If you are an orphanage then probably you should care for the child (if the orphanage is not completely full, I suppose), but otherwise you will have to decide yourself what (if anything) you will do (e.g. perhaps, you might try to figure out where the child came from and who put it there).
Wikipedia says, about "Judaism and abortion", that "The existing life takes precedence over the potential life." I have seen something similar before in a different context. I think that is reasonable. Whether or not it is "human life" is not the point (regardless of whether or not that is the point in the context it comes from; I am just taking that sentence for itself, in the general context of the discussion of abortion). That does not mean that potential life is worthless. It should mean, that sometimes is necessary to consider the risk and how to consider such a risk in such a case, because the existing life is considered "better" for this purpose, if necessary.
However, the above is only about if abortion should be moral; none of that is the same as considering whether or not abortion should be legal. I think that, being illegal causes more problems, and that it should be legal, even if not encouraged. (Unfortunately, sometimes making something legal will cause people to encourage it, so that is a possible argument against it.) The law could not consider the circumstances properly; people can consider their own body by themself, and any doctors they wish to consult; not the difficulty of dealing with government, police, etc. However, nobody should be allowed to give an abortion to someone who does not wish it.
(Making exceptions for rape, etc isn't the solution either, since then they would have to know if it is rape, which just adds delays and other legal issues.)
Apparently in some jurisdictions there is "double homicide" if you kill someone who is pregnant, even if abortion is legal. I think it makes sense, at least in some cases, such as if they were deliberately trying to kill the child (for their inheritance or for whatever other reason they may have had a motive to do so).
Rather, the laws should be made to reduce needing abortion; that will reduce abortion, because even if something is illegal, the people will do it anyways (possibly less than if it is legal, but still it will be done anyways).
I do not think there is (necessarily) any claim that if it is a human life/person it is "better", but rather 'just' equal to any other human life (including the mother's).
Generally the only two situations that most (Western?) societies have allowed the taking of life is self-defence and capital punishment (which can sometimes be treated as 'societal self-defence' if (e.g.) prison infrastructure cannot keep dangerous offenders locked up safely: the only way to prevent them from further harming people in society is to remove the threat).
If a life (mother's) is in danger, than one can claim an action is self-defence in order to save it. But if there is no threat to a life, what right is there to take another's? What has the fetus done to 'deserve' death in the latter case?
> (Making exceptions for rape, etc isn't the solution either, since then they would have to know if it is rape, which just adds delays and other legal issues.)
Even if it is rape, if the Entity involved is a human person, what has it done to deserve to die?
Per the US constitution, they are considered a person (an individual with human rights) after being born.
Per the Jewish faith (ditto Buddhist, Unitarian), upon their first breath.
I'm not (that) familiar with the US constitution, so is there a specific reference?
Philosophizing here: One fetus could come come out at 8.5 months gestation and have rights, and another at 9.5 and gain rights. But the one that came out at 9.5 would have no rights at 8.5 because it just happens to still be in the uterus. What property of the fetus/whatever changes post-birth versus pre-birth that makes it have rights?
Another legal jurisdiction could have it defined in another fashion, so that would mean that they are both considered both a person and not a person, completely depending on an accidental characteristic (the location). Is there an 'objective' property to them/it that would lead to a classification regardless of location (uterus/not-uterus)?
Slightly sci-fi-y: what happens when artificial wombs are developed? I wonder what will being "born" be classified as in those (currently imaginary) situations.
In your example 8.5 months vs 9.5 months they may have actually have been conceived quite close to each other as well since gestation time is not actually based on date of conception but date of the last menstruation. So this, as well, is a relatively arbitrary measurement.
It's the reality of having to have universal absolute measures and terms in a world of edge cases and grey areas.
Being a thinking/aware person wouldn't happen suddenly, it would be gradual. Gradual rights would be damn near impossible to codify, so like everything else we have to pick some point that feels reasonable and yet will feel silly and arbitrary at the same time.
So they played around with numbers until they got a result they liked? Come on. This “study” is just rage bait.
It doesn't look like they tried multiple parameters to get a result they liked, they just looked at the time frame that made sense.