Peter Boghossian presented the claim “Abortion should be legal” to a man and woman in Austin, Texas. The participants discussed bodily autonomy and whether the trimester of pregnancy should have any impact on the law. They came to a mutually satisfactory definition of “abortion” when it became clear that they understood the concept differently.
That was a rough one to listen to. She’s so confident and spouts nonsense, and won’t have it any other way. A true believer
Question that is never asked: Is a woman entitled to bodily autonomy---to be medically rendered "unpregnant," or is she entitled to a dead baby? Because in the case of abortion after so many weeks (I think it's fourteen but might be more), the baby must be delivered just like any birth, either vaginally or by C-section, but the baby doesn't have to be killed first. I see no natural right for the mother to kill a viable fetus; she may have the right to have the fetus removed from her body but once the baby is out, the baby has the same rights as any other premature baby. Compassionate care until death, if the baby is too premature, and medical care with the aim of survival if the fetus is old enough to survive.
Think about it. It happens sometimes that, in the course of dilating the cervix in anticipation of an abortion, the fetus emerges alive. There she or he is, laying on the table, gasping for breath. Hey, the mother came there for a dead baby so I suppose the medical team should step up and inject with poison to enforce the rights of the mother? Suppose the father is there. He had no right to impose nor to deny the abortion, but now that his daughter is born, alive, doesn't he have every right to direct that baby's care?
The incredible mind warp regarding a feotus not being a human child and having no right to life just blows my mind.
I'm just over a minute in, and she has used the term 'pregnant person' unironically. Uh oh.
Yes, there should. Beyond 3 months, no. Why? Because women start to feel movement and will remember that for the rest of their lives. Use the pregnancy tests and stop making excuses. That's what I did in the dark ages, when contraception was the diaphragm.
I appreciated the sincerity of the participants and the differing opinions. What concerns me most about this episode, however, is that people vote for things they can’t define. I blame the media and politicians for the confusion.
Also, leaving things in the hands of experts has a whole new meaning in the past few years.
The manner in which our species reproduces creates an imbalance between the necessary contributions of each sexual participant. The option of terminating the pregnancy largely corrects said imbalance. If we can make a society that's more fair for half its members (and at little to no cost for the other half), it seems like a worthwhile exercise.
As to whether there should exist limits on the latest acceptable point of gestational development under which an abortion can take place, the issue of rights becomes trickier. If a fetus can already survive on its own, yet the mother wants to evict the baby from her uterus, I'm not sure her desires for immediacy trump the benefit of the baby having some additional weeks of intrauterine development. In other words, having an induced, somewhat premature delivery is nearly the same as carrying the baby to term or near-term from the mother's perspective, but those additional weeks make a huge difference to the baby's health and development, and thus, should outweigh the rights of the mom.
The issue of enacting legislation on the matter gets really tricky as well. Even a law drawing the line between legal and illegal termination that adheres to the position I've stated here might be difficult for me to support because I'm certain that some people would want to use the momentum from the proverbial needle having changed position to mount a campaign seeking an outcome that's worse than having no restrictions.