On abortion

[Moliere]

I always wonder why the father of the fetus is never factored into the situation. Should he be? I mean what if the dad wants the kid? He has no say. If they dad doesn't want the kid, but the mom does, he has no say. I'm not sure how to take into account all parties involved. I mean the dad is financially responsible up to the age of 24...but he gets no say in any of it.

If the mother has a right (coupled with unfettered access) to abortion the. The father should have the right to give up his identity as the father and not have any financial responsibility. That’s only fair.

[Moliere]

I have a problem with the characterization of an aborted fetus being called a baby. A fetus is not a baby. My mother had two miscarriages. Names weren't assigned. Death certificates weren't signed. No funerals were held. There were no additions to the family tree. I've never mourned the loss of my two dead siblings. That's because, though sad and unfortunate, the product of those miscarriages were not babies, just as the product of abortions are not babies.

I think this is thin ice you are skating on. I’ve seen a lot of mourning over miscarriages, which tend to run in my family (mom and sisters have had more than their fair share). While we haven’t had funerals for them in our family, I’ve seen that done among friends.

[Non Sequitur]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Millions upon millions of aborted babies as a matter of convenience are the excesses of that came from Roe v. Wade. While I think the Oklahoma bill (if characterized correctly by the article you linked, which I haven't read) is bad, I still don't think it is worse than millions than the excesses that came from Roe v. Wade.

I have a problem with the characterization of an aborted fetus being called a baby. A fetus is not a baby. My mother had two miscarriages. Names weren't assigned. Death certificates weren't signed. No funerals were held. There were no additions to the family tree. I've never mourned the loss of my two dead siblings. That's because, though sad and unfortunate, the product of those miscarriages were not babies, just as the product of abortions are not babies.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Amen. Would that all discussions of abortion could be civil, but way too often they degenerate into, as Funk notes, people screaming "baby murderers," "women haters," etc.

I've written before about Arthur Brooks' Love Your Enemies--How Decent People Can Save America From the Culture of Contempt which is filled with great insights about why we disagree. One of the key factors is Motive Attribution Asymmetry, where people ascribe impure or evil motives to those who disagree with them, unwilling to accept that the person on the other side of the argument has legitimate reasons for their beliefs.

BTW, Brooks loves BYU (he's a devout Catholic) and tells an entertaining and insightful story about a fine gift that BYU gave him after one of his several speaking engagements in Provo.

Brooks is awesome. I’m a big fan. He spoke at BYU commencement two or three years ago.

[BigFatMeanie]

uh...isn't that proposal kind of like what Roe said the law should be? No abortion restrictions allowed during the first trimester (12 weeks), then narrowly tailored restrictions only in the second trimester (12-24)?

Careful, BFM, you might be a liberal.

No idea. I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutional law scholar. Although, based on my 9th grade civics class, it's my understanding that the Supreme Court can't say what laws should be, they can only determine whether a given law is constitutional or not.

[The_Tick]

I always wonder why the father of the fetus is never factored into the situation. Should he be? I mean what if the dad wants the kid? He has no say. If they dad doesn't want the kid, but the mom does, he has no say. I'm not sure how to take into account all parties involved. I mean the dad is financially responsible up to the age of 24...but he gets no say in any of it.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Funk, thank you for framing the discussion in an honest and fair manner. I really respect that.

Amen. Would that all discussions of abortion could be civil, but way too often they degenerate into, as Funk notes, people screaming "baby murderers," "women haters," etc.

I've written before about Arthur Brooks' Love Your Enemies--How Decent People Can Save America From the Culture of Contempt which is filled with great insights about why we disagree. One of the key factors is Motive Attribution Asymmetry, where people ascribe impure or evil motives to those who disagree with them, unwilling to accept that the person on the other side of the argument has legitimate reasons for their beliefs.

BTW, Brooks loves BYU (he's a devout Catholic) and tells an entertaining and insightful story about a fine gift that BYU gave him after one of his several speaking engagements in Provo.

[Applejack]

Your proposal is eminently reasonable. Sure, politicians and activists could quibble about where the cutoff lines are drawn but your proposal is ultimately a practical solution that only extremists on both sides would oppose. Where can I contribute to the Funk for President 2024 campaign?

I could also state my position on gay marriage (both in general and in the context of TCOJCOLDS ), transkids/transadults, immigration, critical race theory, racism in general, universal basic income, student loan forgiveness, homelessness, and any number of oft-debated topics.

Unfortunately, I expect I would receive significant backlash because of some of those positions, including from you when the position touches one of your hot buttons (e.g. LGBTQIA+). I'm not afraid to "own" my positions, but it's mostly not worth the hassle of stating them in a pseudonymous forum, even a forum that is a relatively "safe space" such as this one. I find it interesting that my position on abortion is probably one of the least likely to generate backlash from average non-activist folks.

uh...isn't that proposal kind of like what Roe said the law should be? No abortion restrictions allowed during the first trimester (12 weeks), then narrowly tailored restrictions only in the second trimester (12-24)?

Careful, BFM, you might be a liberal.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I appreciate you actually stating your position. This debate gets lost all the time in people screaming "baby murderers," "women haters," etc. It gets lost in the debate over when a embryo/fetus counts as a life, which to me is a red herring in this debate.

To me, the debate is this: how do we balance the rights of the mother against the rights of the embryo/fetus.

For me there are parts of pregnancy where the rights of the mother win. There are parts of the pregnancy when the embryo/fetus wins.

For me it all comes down to this, abortion without restrict in the first 12-16 weeks. Not sure on the cutoff line. Up to 20 weeks, it is still available if there is health and safety concerns, rape, and incest. After 20 weeks, it still is allowed for health and safety of the mother.

Funk, thank you for framing the discussion in an honest and fair manner. I really respect that.

[BigFatMeanie]

I appreciate you actually stating your position. This debate gets lost all the time in people screaming "baby murderers," "women haters," etc. It gets lost in the debate over when a embryo/fetus counts as a life, which to me is a red herring in this debate.

To me, the debate is this: how do we balance the rights of the mother against the rights of the embryo/fetus.

For me there are parts of pregnancy where the rights of the mother win. There are parts of the pregnancy when the embryo/fetus wins.

For me it all comes down to this, abortion without restrict in the first 12-16 weeks. Not sure on the cutoff line. Up to 20 weeks, it is still available if there is health and safety concerns, rape, and incest. After 20 weeks, it still is allowed for health and safety of the mother.

Your proposal is eminently reasonable. Sure, politicians and activists could quibble about where the cutoff lines are drawn but your proposal is ultimately a practical solution that only extremists on both sides would oppose. Where can I contribute to the Funk for President 2024 campaign?

I could also state my position on gay marriage (both in general and in the context of TCOJCOLDS ), transkids/transadults, immigration, critical race theory, racism in general, universal basic income, student loan forgiveness, homelessness, and any number of oft-debated topics.

Unfortunately, I expect I would receive significant backlash because of some of those positions, including from you when the position touches one of your hot buttons (e.g. LGBTQIA+). I'm not afraid to "own" my positions, but it's mostly not worth the hassle of stating them in a pseudonymous forum, even a forum that is a relatively "safe space" such as this one. I find it interesting that my position on abortion is probably one of the least likely to generate backlash from average non-activist folks.

[Northwestcoug]

I appreciate you actually stating your position. This debate gets lost all the time in people screaming "baby murderers," "women haters," etc. It gets lost in the debate over when a embryo/fetus counts as a life, which to me is a red herring in this debate.

To me, the debate is this: how do we balance the rights of the mother against the rights of the embryo/fetus.

For me there are parts of pregnancy where the rights of the mother win. There are parts of the pregnancy when the embryo/fetus wins.

For me it all comes down to this, abortion without restrict in the first 12-16 weeks. Not sure on the cutoff line. Up to 20 weeks, it is still available if there is health and safety concerns, rape, and incest. After 20 weeks, it still is allowed for health and safety of the mother.

This is in my reasonableness spectrum. And like you, I'm not sure where to place cut-off lines. Society will never agree to anything hard and fast. But because of all that is unknowable, I'll still place trust in the decision making of the mother for most cases.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I don't believe all abortion is murder, nor do I believe only "her body and her rights" are in question up until the point that the baby is completely out of the birth canal. I consider both of those positions to be extremist.

For the record, my position on abortion is as follows: I oppose abortion as a means of birth control. I believe abortion should be safe, legal under certain circumstances, and those circumstances should be relatively rare. Thus, I support exceptions for rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger and think that positions which don't allow for these exceptions are extremist.

I appreciate you actually stating your position. This debate gets lost all the time in people screaming "baby murderers," "women haters," etc. It gets lost in the debate over when a embryo/fetus counts as a life, which to me is a red herring in this debate.

To me, the debate is this: how do we balance the rights of the mother against the rights of the embryo/fetus.

For me there are parts of pregnancy where the rights of the mother win. There are parts of the pregnancy when the embryo/fetus wins.

For me it all comes down to this, abortion without restrict in the first 12-16 weeks. Not sure on the cutoff line. Up to 20 weeks, it is still available if there is health and safety concerns, rape, and incest. After 20 weeks, it still is allowed for health and safety of the mother.

[BigFatMeanie]

Agreed! (On the disagreement).

Just for the record, in my world view the vast majority of abortions are nowhere near next to murder, so they are solidly within the rights of the mother to decide whether or not she is willing to carry the pregnancy to term. Whatever we call conveniences it is still her right to decide what she does with her body.

I believe I have Boyd Packer's blessing on believing it isn't murder (don't make me go find that talk).

I don't believe all abortion is murder, nor do I believe only "her body and her rights" are in question up until the point that the baby is completely out of the birth canal. I consider both of those positions to be extremist.

For the record, my position on abortion is as follows: I oppose abortion as a means of birth control. I believe abortion should be safe, legal under certain circumstances, and those circumstances should be relatively rare. Thus, I support exceptions for rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger and think that positions which don't allow for these exceptions are extremist.

[Northwestcoug]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Millions upon millions of aborted babies as a matter of convenience are the excesses of that came from Roe v. Wade. While I think the Oklahoma bill (if characterized correctly by the article you linked, which I haven't read) is bad, I still don't think it is worse than millions than the excesses that came from Roe v. Wade.

Agreed! (On the disagreement).

Just for the record, in my world view the vast majority of abortions are nowhere near next to murder, so they are solidly within the rights of the mother to decide whether or not she is willing to carry the pregnancy to term. Whatever we call conveniences it is still her right to decide what she does with her body.

I believe I have Boyd Packer's blessing on believing it isn't murder (don't make me go find that talk).

[BigFatMeanie]

More insanity:



https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/u...abortions.html

Again, whatever excesses that came from Roe v. Wade pale in comparison to what we're witnessing now.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Millions upon millions of aborted babies as a matter of convenience are the excesses of that came from Roe v. Wade. While I think the Oklahoma bill (if characterized correctly by the article you linked, which I haven't read) is bad, I still don't think it is worse than millions than the excesses that came from Roe v. Wade.