Intrade: 70.5% chance Obama will win third debate

[MikeH]

It would be nice if pro-abortion folks wouldn't hide behind canards like rape babies all the time, and instead actually address the issue.

1. We have, many times.
2. pro-abortion is a ridiculous term. Suggests actively encouraging abortions. No-one does that. Certainly no-one here.

[Hauldren Collider]

Pro-abortion is shorthand for pro-abortion rights. It's far less annoying to me than "pro-choice" and "pro-life", as if anyone is really against those things in principle.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well.

I think that if you think abortion should be illegal for moral reasons, you should also see it as a moral obligation to ensure that there is a healthcare system in place to care for any unborn babies who's prospective parents can't afford to pay for them, and to care for them as children until they can get jobs and pay for themselves.

I don't think it matters whether this is a public or a private scheme, but normally there would need to be some kind of governmental regulation to ensure the private firms follow their obligations there.

I absolutely agree.

[MikeH]

pro-choice is shorthand for being pro-abortion-rights-choice too though isn't it. What a ridiculous argument.

but yes they are all crap terms. Especially as so many pro-lifers are slavishly in favour of the death penalty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well.

I think that if you think abortion should be illegal for moral reasons, you should also see it as a moral obligation to ensure that there is a healthcare system in place to care for any unborn babies who's prospective parents can't afford to pay for them, and to care for them as children until they can get jobs and pay for themselves.

I don't think it matters whether this is a public or a private scheme, but normally there would need to be some kind of governmental regulation to ensure the private firms follow their obligations there.

Most definitely. But the way in which you'd do it can vary.

FWIW, I think I'd have a more "European" view on both abortion and health care for unborn children. In that I'd allow it in the 1st trimester without restriction, restrict it some in the 2nd trimester, and make it very difficult in the 3rd trimester - but also increase government support for pregnancy medical bills, adoption programs, and support for the child after it is born.

[regexcellent]

1. We have, many times.
2. pro-abortion is a ridiculous term. Suggests actively encouraging abortions. No-one does that. Certainly no-one here.

I don't like the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" so I use "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion."

I wasn't really talking about poly either; when I have the misfortune of being in an abortion discussion in general, and when observing abortion discussions on talk shows, what you would call the "pro-choice" crowd has a tendency to hide behind that. I really appreciate it when they don't.

[MikeH]

I absolutely agree.

So yes, on that basis saying you can't be both against abortions and against public healthcare is not a valid argument - IMO.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Separate from my feelings on the matter, which I generally don't discuss, I think that the comments were unsurprising and entirely reasonable from his point of view; but entirely unreasonable from an irreligious point of view. And that is the fundamental problem with the abortion debate. Both sides have entirely reasonable stances from their point of view (and, as opposed to most of the other fundy wackiness, both sides have reasonable points of view on the matter from an objective standpoint). However, the two sides' stances are inherently in conflict; there is not really the possibility of compromise at the end of the day. I imagine the Pro Choice side could (and has, somewhat) compromise away some of the more elective abortions - ie, I don't think very many people would support abortion if it were solely women who realized a few months in that they didn't really want a baby. Some would, but it's not quite so fundamental (nor quite so easy to defend) that it couldn't be compromised away, in exchange for keeping very early electives (ie, morning-after pill and within a few weeks) and non-electives (rape, health, etc.).

But on the other side, you really do have a hard time seeing the compromise at all. Maybe mother's health, if it's assured the baby will kill the mother and likely die itself. But even that I think is difficult for the religious - because it's taking the power of life and death into human hands from God, or similar lines of thought. Euthanasia is not that dissimilar after all from the baby's point of view. And a lot of the other ones - rape victims, Downs Syndrom babies, etc. - really are from their point of view murdering an innocent child, and that's pretty hard to compromise on I think if that is your point of view.

Honestly from an objective viewpoint, in the abortion debate the pro-choice side tends towards the 'fundamentalist' bent as much or more so than the pro-life, in the sense of ignoring the fact that the other side does have a valid argument (whether you personally agree with it or not). That's unfortunate, in my opinion, and why it's nearly impossible to have a meaningful debate on the subject.

Quoted for awesomeness

A great post on the subject, snoopy.

[MikeH]

Most definitely. But the way in which you'd do it can vary.

FWIW, I think I'd have a more "European" view on both abortion and health care for unborn children. In that I'd allow it in the 1st trimester without restriction, restrict it some in the 2nd trimester, and make it very difficult in the 3rd trimester - but also increase government support for pregnancy medical bills, adoption programs, and support for the child after it is born.

And, the most important part, massively improve access to and quality of sex education and contraception to prevent getting that far in the first place.

[MikeH]

Separate from my feelings on the matter, which I generally don't discuss, I think that the comments were unsurprising and entirely reasonable from his point of view; but entirely unreasonable from an irreligious point of view. And that is the fundamental problem with the abortion debate. Both sides have entirely reasonable stances from their point of view (and, as opposed to most of the other fundy wackiness, both sides have reasonable points of view on the matter from an objective standpoint). However, the two sides' stances are inherently in conflict; there is not really the possibility of compromise at the end of the day. I imagine the Pro Choice side could (and has, somewhat) compromise away some of the more elective abortions - ie, I don't think very many people would support abortion if it were solely women who realized a few months in that they didn't really want a baby. Some would, but it's not quite so fundamental (nor quite so easy to defend) that it couldn't be compromised away, in exchange for keeping very early electives (ie, morning-after pill and within a few weeks) and non-electives (rape, health, etc.).

But on the other side, you really do have a hard time seeing the compromise at all. Maybe mother's health, if it's assured the baby will kill the mother and likely die itself. But even that I think is difficult for the religious - because it's taking the power of life and death into human hands from God, or similar lines of thought. Euthanasia is not that dissimilar after all from the baby's point of view. And a lot of the other ones - rape victims, Downs Syndrom babies, etc. - really are from their point of view murdering an innocent child, and that's pretty hard to compromise on I think if that is your point of view.

Honestly from an objective viewpoint, in the abortion debate the pro-choice side tends towards the 'fundamentalist' bent as much or more so than the pro-life, in the sense of ignoring the fact that the other side does have a valid argument (whether you personally agree with it or not). That's unfortunate, in my opinion, and why it's nearly impossible to have a meaningful debate on the subject.

Dunno about the US but certainly in the UK and Europe it's widely accepted that abortion is only allowed in certain circumstances, much as Imran just described. There's no-one here calling for universal right to abort any foetus at any time, and I'm not really sure anyone in the US is calling for that either are they? If they are then yes, that's equally as fundamentalist as saying it should never be allowed no matter what the circumstance and both those two positions are clearly wrong.

[Hauldren Collider]

So yes, on that basis saying you can't be both against abortions and against public healthcare is not a valid argument - IMO.

This is written unclearly. Are you saying you can't be against public healthcare AND abortion, or that you can?

I make a distinction between public services available for children and those available for adults. I think there's a fundamental difference there.

[Hauldren Collider]

Dunno about the US but certainly in the UK and Europe it's widely accepted that abortion is only allowed in certain circumstances, much as Imran just described. There's no-one here calling for universal right to abort any foetus at any time, and I'm not really sure anyone in the US is calling for that either are they? If they are then yes, that's equally as fundamentalist as saying it should never be allowed no matter what the circumstance and both those two positions are clearly wrong.

Organizations like Planned Parenthood oppose any restriction on abortion. They believe in elective abortions right up until the day before birth and vigorously oppose any efforts to restrict this at all. Most americans are of course more moderate on the issue.

From what I understand, it is actually easier to get an abortion in the US than the UK.

[MikeH]

Sorry - I was agreeing with Imran's point that it's not unreasonable to be againts both.

ie. I am saying that you can be against both.

Though I'd think you were wrong in both cases.

[Hauldren Collider]

By the way, I suspect that part of the reason organizations like planned parenthood oppose restrictions on abortion is not because they agree with it but because they are afraid of a sort of slippery slope of further restrictions. I also kind of think some simply believe in infanticide, but I doubt they'd admit it.

[MikeH]

Organizations like Planned Parenthood oppose any restriction on abortion. They believe in elective abortions right up until the day before birth and vigorously oppose any efforts to restrict this at all. Most americans are of course more moderate on the issue.

From what I understand, it is actually easier to get an abortion in the US than the UK.

Really? Agree with the assessment of them as fundamentalist nutters if that is the case.