Original headline adds crucial context: Tens of thousands of pregnancies from rape occurring in abortion-ban states
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.
> So the nominal exception turns out to not really exist in practice
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.
Not to mention, agency over one's corporeal self essentially dictates the right to abortion. I uncompromisingly assert the right to decide what happens to my body and decide what medical procedures to undergo.
They sure can. It's their right[0]. It might be a bad choice, but it's theirs to make. There are enough sensible people to attain a good % of vaccination for whatever transmissible illness. We can avoid trampling on others' rights by ensuring a high standard of education -- the problem solves itself when people understand how/why things work the way they do.
Yes! I think its fair though to have schools refusing to accept unvaccinated people if immunodeficient kids are present (and refuse non-vaccinated nurses in immunology and cancer wards), but absolutely, you should decide by yourself.
...of... course. Particularly following the shoddy rollouts of the past few years, and the Gruber and Krause resignations, and the general limelight shown on VRBPAC and the FDA processes, it's pretty obvious that coercive uptake creates a set of horrible incentives. I'd think that's one of the lessons enjoying consensus henceforth.
Good vaccines are sufficiently awesome to drive adoption by dint of their effects. The most palpable effect of coercion is the presence of subpar vaccines on the market, tarnishing the reputation vaccination as a concept - which of course is dangerous for public health.
They think, maybe rightfully so that this hurts the out group more than the in group (minorities), disclaimer: I'm a white male, except say that group is black or Hispanic, and have families that tend to vote the opposite way, then they're in effect hurting their own power hold by forcing more births.
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]
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:
[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
[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...
> 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?
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 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.
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.
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.
Ultimately we need to pick some point. Someone doesn't undergo some transformation upon becoming the age of a legal adult on midnight when becoming of age. Nor does age of consent suddenly confer reasoning capabilities that didn't exist the day prior. Legal definitions don't do well with nuance, we end up having to define thresholds that up close seem ridiculous. Whether it's a certain number of weeks, or upon birth, up close it would always look ridiculous like any other threshold.
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.
Agree, along with the fact that there've been 65K rapes just since Roe was overturned. I don't know what number I was expecting but certainly nothing that high. That's horrifying.
that's only in those 14 states and that's only rapes resulting in pregnancy, I'm sure there's like 10x as many just in those states, I mean how often does intercourse not turn into pregnancy randomly, since there's only a small fertility window per month.
> To estimate state-level rapes, they proportioned the rapes by states based on the FBI's 2022 crime data, which includes rapes. They then multiplied each state's rapes by the fraction of rapes likely to result in pregnancy. And finally, adjusted for the months between July 1, 2022 and January 1, 2024 that an abortion ban was in effect in each of the 14 states. Among the 14 states, the number of months in which a ban was in effect ranged from four to 18 months.
So they played around with numbers until they got a result they liked? Come on. This “study” is just rage bait.
Maybe so, but if the logic is sound, then that's a reasonable estimate of rape pregnancies, and the interesting observation is that the number of legal abortions in that time was way smaller. More interesting would be to know what percentage of rape pregnancies were aborted before a state made abortion illegal.
Is there at least a law to deprive the rapist of parental rights? Otherwise it is a very evil loophole allowing one to benefit from a very serious crime.
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.
No it doesn’t. The law’s application is ambiguous and the public discourse is rife with stories of doctors that won’t take the risk because the punishment is drastic and the legal details have yet to be properly established. Simply put, the non-profits can’t find enough doctors to perform the abortions.
And (need I point this out??) this is all utterly unnecessary
35 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 70.7 ms ] threadIn 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.
[0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/... (article 3)
(And I'm curious: by your logic, do you support re-adoption of the oral polio vaccine? Some interesting developments: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/polio/who-prequalifies-next-gener...)
Good vaccines are sufficiently awesome to drive adoption by dint of their effects. The most palpable effect of coercion is the presence of subpar vaccines on the market, tarnishing the reputation vaccination as a concept - which of course is dangerous for public health.
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...
[2] https://archive.is/y3DVM
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.
Yeah.
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.
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