Support NeoGAF

[RDreamer]

24 weeks is the soft limit in the UK.

There's no need for people to be instantly hostile talking about best scientific estimates on best abortion practice.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx

If your argument is simply you want the ability to abort at any length of weeks, then you do have to accept most places around the world that Americans say have better Governments than them, have limits like we do in the UK, with the caveat above.

I think the argument here is 20 weeks should be at 24 weeks, and the mention of severe disability. Unfortunately, the Republicans will probably be hostile to that.

That's correct with only that one metric but there's one big difference between the UK/Germany and the US: Socialized healthcare. You talk about ultrasounds to check and people talk about scans and all this stuff people should get beforehand. It's a completely different environment to talk about what women should get before they make that decision in a country that helps them pay for that and/or pays that altogether and a country that they may not be able to do that at all.

I think that's one of the other points missing in this entire debate. Putting up hurdles to abortions makes legal abortions even harder to get for those that can't pay for it or may have to travel great distances to do so.

 

[cromofo]

I believe a well-researched and argumented time limit for abortion is the way to go. Gives the person to think it through and make a decision. I also believe that proper counseling regarding the abortion should be given for free to anyone who seeks it.

At some point in pregnancy(later), I don't believe it's solely a womans choice. Yes, it's her body, but it's still a person inside of her which would have essentially no say on it's life. That's my major gripe.

 

[DrROBschiz]

That's correct with only that one metric but there's one big difference between the UK/Germany and the US: Socialized healthcare. You talk about ultrasounds to check and people talk about scans and all this stuff people should get beforehand. It's a completely different environment to talk about what women should get before they make that decision in a country that helps them pay for that and/or pays that altogether and a country that they may not be able to do that at all.

I think that's one of the other points missing in this entire debate. Putting up hurdles to abortions makes legal abortions even harder to get for those that can't pay for it or may have to travel great distances to do so.

Yup agreed

Maybe the middle ground would be that this legislation attempt is acceptable in an environment where Womens health care is a priority for this country

I always found it ironic that access to Planned Parenthood most likely prevented and reduced the rate of abortions overall by providing education and health care to women in need of it

I would be interested to see the actual RATE of abortions as I have always assumed the measure was only used in extreme cases and that so called "frivolous use" of abortion as an out was a myth or at least quite rare

This debate is one of the few hot button issues I can actually see coming to a reasonable resolution if people would fucking allow us to move forward with the debate

 

[Slaylock]

For those against a 20 week limit, what should the limit be? 24 weeks? 30 weeks? No limit?

 

[Audioboxer]

That's correct with only that one metric but there's one big difference between the UK/Germany and the US: Socialized healthcare. You talk about ultrasounds to check and people talk about scans and all this stuff people should get beforehand. It's a completely different environment to talk about what women should get before they make that decision in a country that helps them pay for that and/or pays that altogether and a country that they may not be able to do that at all.

I think that's one of the other points missing in this entire debate. Putting up hurdles to abortions makes legal abortions even harder to get for those that can't pay for it or may have to travel great distances to do so.

Sure, I'd argue that itself is the bigger issue in America, healthcare in general. You also have the issue of individual states making their own laws

Forty-one states have enacted abortion restrictions at different stages of pregnancy. The chart below shows at which point after a woman’s last menstrual period that state laws ban abortion. Each bar’s height is proportional to the state’s population.

The majority of states do seem to be at around 24 weeks

More than half of Americans live in states where abortion is prohibited at about 24 to 26 weeks of pregnancy. In many of the states, the law bans abortion when a fetus is deemed viable outside the womb, which is generally in the range of 24 to 26 weeks.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html

If the current bill passed would it then force say Arkansas and North Dakota to go to 20 weeks? What happens as things currently stand with someone travelling outwith Arkansas and having an abortion in another state?

 

[hey_monkey]

The problem with the anti-woman argument is that scores of women are pro-life. Now that doesn't mean these women aren't opposed to their own interests but it's a reality. I've long thought that if the left toned down the anti-abortion rhetoric they'd win a lot of pro-life women voters who are single issue voters.

Oh, sure, if we just tone down the rhetoric, we'll batter through decades of religious programming and propaganda. I wonder why no one's thought of that.

There are young women (and men) on my college campus, the campus of a highly respected STEM-focused school who stand on the main mall by fake pictures of aborted fetuses and spout facts from skewed studies. They chalked up the Black Cultural Center with messages about the hostility of black women's wombs. These students know better. They're taught better. They're taught to read studies. They still do this. Passionately, constantly. I've seen those students in forums and discussions with reasoned, reasonable people, people presenting evidence about poverty, about medical care, about law, about human rights. They just shake their heads and talk about being a voice for the unborn.

And that's just one micro example. Except they're part of a huge network across college campuses in this country. They are indoctrinated like this from a young age. There have been a few great articles in the past years about people who've broken out of that lifestyle, about kids who treat anti-abortion protests like party days because that's how they're raised. Not all stay so fanatical, protesting on the regular, but that training runs deep.

But sure, it's the rhetoric of choice activists that's the problem.

Most modern societies, I'd guess.

There is a huge shortage of foster parents in America. There are so many children who go unadopted. We're not leaving them in the desert to die, but I don't know if I'd say we're caring for them, either. And that's not thinking about the women who have babies they can't afford because they don't have access to their rights or good health education or reliable birth control.

We live in a global world. In a global world, the rich with the means to travel enjoy global rights. If abortion is legal somewhere then anyone who can afford to travel has the right to an abortion.

Poor women should demand that if they're reproductive rights get taken then so should rich women's too. Poor women should demand a new fully staffed bureau be created to monitor, investigate and prosecute rich women who fly to foreign lands to get abortions past 20 weeks.

Rich women support these laws because it makes them feel good but also knowing they can afford a plane ticket to Canada or Europe to get an abortion if they need it. Take that comfort away from them. Let them know that if they take away your rights then you're going to make sure they get convicted of murder if they themselves flee to Europe for an abortion. The day rich women lose that comfort they might just rethink their stance on voting republican.

Tit for tat. You screw us. We screw you. We rise or fall together.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this, this, this

 

[RDreamer]

For those against a 20 week limit, what should the limit be? 24 weeks? 30 weeks? No limit?

The point at which the doctor and the woman in the individual situation decide.

Why is there some sort of god-given rule that there has to be some sort of limit somewhere? Why is the burden of proof on those that don't want the limit. How about you prove there should be one.

My view is that there should most definitely not be a line in the sand even talked about until we have full socialized healthcare in this country and pretty much everything is taken care of. Until such a time I don't think the debate is something we can or should have at all. After such a time then the line for me might be individual viability outside the whom. Not a hard line in the sand but something flexible for every situation.

 

[Aiustis]

Yup agreed

Maybe the middle ground would be that this legislation attempt is acceptable in an environment where Womens health care is a priority for this country

I always found it ironic that access to Planned Parenthood most likely prevented and reduced the rate of abortions overall by providing education and health care to women in need of it

I would be interested to see the actual RATE of abortions as I have always assumed the measure was only used in extreme cases and that so called "frivolous use" of abortion as an out was a myth or at least quite rare

This debate is one of the few hot button issues I can actually see coming to a reasonable resolution if people would fucking allow us to move forward with the debate

This so much. Most occur not because women want abortions, but because kids are expensive and they don't feel like their life is in a place where having a kid is an option.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

For those against a 20 week limit, what should the limit be? 24 weeks? 30 weeks? No limit?

No limit. I challenge anyone to find me a woman willing to be pregnant for 8 months who wants an aborion for no valid reason and a doctor who'll perform it.

I mean you can literally look at Canada which has less late term abortions than the US despite having no criminal law surrounding abortion at all.

 

[Mahonay]

The point at which the doctor and the woman in the individual situation decide.

This. That's it. This is the answer.

 

[KingV]

I’m surprised he is taking the exact same political position Hillary said she was fine with.

CLINTON: "No -- I have been on record in favor of a late pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother.

"I object to the recent effort in Congress to pass a law saying after 20 weeks, you know, no such exceptions, because although these are rare, Bret, they sometimes arise in the most complex, difficult medical situation."

If there are exceptions for heath of mother, rape, and incest, then this is basically the same position as the last Democratic Presidential candidate.

 

[RDreamer]

I just love the fact that our country somehow thinks everyone is good and rational enough to own a gun by right but that women aren't good and rational enough to their own bodily autonomy. People are fine with the power to destroy lives sitting on their nightstands or stockpiled in the basement awaiting some flare up of domestic violence or other rage, but give women the power to make their own choices with the consent of their doctors and... well... that's just too fucking much. What if they go through the hardships of carrying a fetus 9 months and then those horrible, dumb monsters just decide they don't feel like it. What if!? Can't have that. There has to be a hard limit so they can make the right choice.

 

[Mahonay]

I just love the fact that our country somehow thinks everyone is good and rational enough to own a gun by right but that women aren't good and rational enough to their own bodily autonomy. People are fine with the power to destroy lives sitting on their nightstands or stockpiled in the basement awaiting some flare up of domestic violence or other rage, but give women the power to make their own choices with the consent of their doctors and... well... that's just too fucking much. What if they go through the hardships of carrying a fetus 9 months and then those horrible, dumb monsters just decide they don't feel like it. What if!? Can't have that. There has to be a hard limit so they can make the right choice.

Pretty insane.

 

[ShyMel]

I’m surprised he is taking the exact same political position Hillary said she was fine with.



If there are exceptions for heath of mother, rape, and incest, then this is basically the same position as the last Democratic Presidential candidate.

Unless I am misreading something, I do not see anything in that quote from Hilary about fining and imprisoning doctors who do perform later abortions.

 

[kmag]

For those against a 20 week limit, what should the limit be? 24 weeks? 30 weeks? No limit?

In the UK, the limit is 24 weeks, this coincides with the horribly named abnormality scan at 20 weeks and for the results of blood work to come through. 24 weeks is before accepted viability if there's an early delivery (which is 26 weeks). The four week window allows for second scans, time for second opinions, and time for the parent(s) to process and come to decision if there's something on the scan. It's also late enough for almost all women to be aware that they're actually pregnant in time to arrange an abortion.

That would seem to be a fair compromise.

 

[legacyzero]

Keep the babies coming. But once they're out of the womb, they don't give two shits about them.

This is my biggest issue with it.

I'm pro-life as well, but not anti-abortion. I personally don't think that being pro-life is a bad thing. I know women who are both religious and non-religious who are anti-abortion simply because it's a human life. And even on the left, that's hard to reconcile.

But the main point is- Rowe V Wade happened.

And Republicans spend more time trying to circumvent Rowe V Wade and abortion rights, while not giving a damn about other better options.

My stance on it is, the Woman's right to chose comes first. Period. And your post highlights why Republicans are a joke when it comes to the pro-life conversation. They wanna pretend Rowe-V Wade didn't happen, bitch when they get shot down, cry about the baby's life, and then when approached with other solutions like free and easy access to protection, education, and social programs for women's health and life? HELL NO. Why?

It costs money. Even if a little.

I was born and raised in the evangelical south and it was always "You gotta save those babies lives! But I don't wanna pay for it!!". Like, you gotta fuckin PICK something, righties. It always pisses me off when folks on the right sees a clear issue, are given multiple ways to address it, but always default to -NOTHING- because all the other answers violate some stupid core republican belief.

We saw that yesterday. White dude kills and injures hundreds for no clear reason. "That's the price we pay for LIBERTY! Don't you take my guns!" It's fucking shameful and irritating.

Let these women have the right to chose, pay for the nation to have free and easy access to basic protection, both male and female, increase education in middle schools, and help provide teen moms with support so it isn't so life crushing. Etc etc etc

And the left is pretty interesting in this issue too. Pro-lifers are shamed for being "anti-woman" almost instantly. If you're a man, you shouldn't get a say (which is hard to argue because of how embarrassingly BAD men in office handle this stuff). And if you're a woman, it's "Patriarchy and internalized oppression!" (Which again, carries some legitimacy, though it's debatable how much exactly). One of my best friends is Atheist, but humanist as well. She has two children, refused to get abortion simply on the grounds of life. I'm Atheist as well, and my beliefs aren't religious in nature.

Is it really that black and white? Can people not be concerned with the life of the baby, while caring for the woman's right to choose as well? Shit, republicans believe it's straight up a baby at the moment of conception which is so goddamn laughable. But is having a conversation about reasonable limits to abortion for the sake BOTH the woman's right to chose and the right of the child's life really off the table? Of course, 20 weeks is not a reasonable limit as discussed in this thread, but actual limits that can appease both? Remember, there's a lot of DEMOCRATS that are pro-life too. Wasn't Hillary and Tim Kaine Pro-Life? IIRC, Hillary was for term limits, but higher than what Trump is supporting.

Red and purple state Democrats that we could certainly use on our side.

 

[chaosblade]

For those against a 20 week limit, what should the limit be? 24 weeks? 30 weeks? No limit?

There shouldn't be a limit because a woman isn't going to carry a child they don't intend to have for over 5 months and then abort for no reason. An arbitrary ban with a list of exceptions does nothing but cause problems and grief that wouldn't exist if there was simply no ban at all.

 

[Resident_UA]

This whole thing reminds me of Veep episode where they were trying to come up with arbitrary number of weeks that would make abortion an OK concept for the voters.

 

[ChainedMaster]

They don't involve women in the conversation. They are making a choice for them about their own bodies. How is this not inherently anti-women?.

Of course they are. Many women are pro-life. I still don't see how that makes it anti-women.

The very fact that I've spent my entire adult life fighting for basic knowledge about being a woman, that I've been made ashamed over my anatomy, that I have to keep having this conversation, that the threat of bans and bureaucracy and the end of Roe v Wade constantly lingers... all that and more feels pretty anti-woman to me. Inherently.

Nothing about this explains how it's anti-women. Fear that that a SCOTUS law will be overturned is not inherently anti-women.

 

[RDreamer]

Of course they are. Many women are pro-life. I still don't see how that makes it anti-women.

Why does some women being for it make it not anti-women?

 

[ChainedMaster]

Why does some women being for it make it not anti-women?

Read who I quoted. They are making an assertion, not me.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Unless I am misreading something, I do not see anything in that quote from Hilary about fining and imprisoning doctors who do perform later abortions.

You expect "BOTH SIDES R DA SAMMMEE" people to actually read what they post?

PS: Here's Hillary stance on abortion (from her recent book)

As I see it, the issue comes down to the question: Who decides? We can debate the morality of abortion forever . . . but at the end of the day, who decides whether a woman gets or stays pregnant? A Congressman who has never met her? A judge who has spoken with her for maybe a few minutes? Or should the woman be able to make this momentous decision about her life, her body, her future, for herself? Someone's got to decide. I say let women decide.

So get out of here with this "HILLARY WANTED THIS TOO" thinly veiled sexism crap.

 

[Oersted]

Of course they are. Many women are pro-life. I still don't see how that makes it anti-women.

They are not pro-life, they are against abortions. Pro-choice inherently also implies saying no to abortion, against abortions puts the life of women at risk.

Yes, women can be in favor of risking other women's life, just like black people can be racist towards black people.

 

[RDreamer]

Read who I quoted. They are making an assertion, not me.

Alright, sorry for the confusion. Then I guess they deserve that question

 

[Ryuuroden]

I was going to say this myself. 20 weeks is one of the biggest days in a pregnancy, testing wise.

We didn't even tell our extended family about our first child until after this date and the 20 week scan results were clear.

Right, our 20 week is coming up but only a few people know. We are waiting until after the 20 week tests to tell the kids and our parents.

 

[ChainedMaster]

They are not pro-life, they are against abortions. Pro-choice inherently also implies saying no to abortion, against abortions puts the life of women at risk.

Yes, women can be in favor of risking other women's life, just like black people can be racist towards black people.

Well they said women were not part of the debate and used it as evidence that's it's anti-women. I pointed out that was incorrect. And no, many pro-lifers support abortion in the case of a woman's life. Few are against it, but from I've seen the majority support that life-saving measure.

 

[RDreamer]

Well they said women were not part of the debate and used it as evidence that's it's anti-women. I pointed out that was incorrect. And no, many pro-lifers support abortion in the case of a woman's life. Few are against it, but from I've seen the majority support that life-saving measure.

Having exceptions for the life of the woman doesn't suddenly make it not anti-woman, though. That's not the only anti-woman part of the "pro-life" side. Taking away women's bodily autonomy is anti-woman and there's no way to not take away bodily autonomy and have any abortion ban at any time. It's fundamentally anti-woman at its core.

 

[ChainedMaster]

Having exceptions for the life of the woman doesn't suddenly make it not anti-woman, though. That's not the only anti-woman part of the "pro-life" side. Taking away women's bodily autonomy is anti-woman and there's no way to not take away bodily autonomy and have any abortion ban at any time. It's fundamentally anti-woman at its core.

Well in their view, the unborn child's autonomy is being infringed upon by abortion. Again I'm pro-choice, but I'm willing to understand their viewpoint. Many (not all) do not hold mysogonistic sentiment.

 

[RDreamer]

Well in their view, the unborn child's autonomy is being infringed upon by abortion. Again I'm pro-choice, but I'm willing to understand their viewpoint. Many (not all) do not hold mysogonistic sentiment.

But that doesn't matter. It's still anti-woman. The inclusion of some outside beneficiary also doesn't do anything to stop it from being anti-woman. It's something that is by its very definition against them. No matter how good or godly or moral you think the thing that prevents is, it's still anti-woman.

You're removing women's bodily autonomy. That's the core of it. Doing that is anti-woman. Full stop. You can believe it's moral to be anti-woman about that thing. That's perfectly fine, but you don't get to change the definition of words.

 

[ChainedMaster]

But that doesn't matter. It's still anti-woman. The inclusion of some outside beneficiary also doesn't do anything to stop it from being anti-woman. It's something that is by its very definition against them. No matter how good or godly or moral you think the thing that prevents is, it's still anti-woman.

You're removing women's bodily autonomy. That's the core of it. Doing that is anti-woman. Full stop. You can believe it's moral to be anti-woman about that thing. That's perfectly fine, but you don't get to change the definition of words.

It's no more anti-women than abortion is anti-fetus. Or banning drug use is anti-human.

 

[Oersted]

Well they said women were not part of the debate and used it as evidence that's it's anti-women. I pointed out that was incorrect. And no, many pro-lifers support abortion in the case of a woman's life. Few are against it, but from I've seen the majority support that life-saving measure.

On a legislation level, they aren't.

Than these anti-abortionists are pro-choice.

 

[RDreamer]

It's no more anti-women than abortion is anti-fetus. Or banning drug use is anti-human.

I mean, I'm not sure I'd argue that abortion isn't anti-fetus. It is.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I don't get why a bunch of men who will never have a baby get to decide who can and cannot have an abortion. Like shouldn't it be women primarily who decide this? And further more Republicans don't give a shit about the chiod when it's born or the quality of life and ability for care. They gut every social program they can. They block access to contraceptives. They block education. Who the fuck are these people to say anything about abortion?

It's no more anti-women than abortion is anti-fetus. Or banning drug use is anti-human.

And? No one ever implied otherwise. What are you actually trying to say?

 

[ChainedMaster]

On a legislation level, they aren't.

Than these anti-abortionists are pro-choice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nd-planned-parenthood/?utm_term=.858075259d92

Congresswomen are among some of the strongest pro-lifers. One even had a 450k ad run against her by Planned Parenthood

 

[hammysaurusrex]

I'm kinda fine with it?
Rape, incest, mother life are covered, and 20 weeks give decent time for decision?

Thank you for granting women your permission to make health care decisions for them. I'm positive they greatly appreciate it.

 

[ChainedMaster]

No one ever implied otherwise. What are you actually trying to say?

What I'm saying is they are the equivalent. And most people would disagree that banning cigarettes or drugs is inherently anti-human. It's absurd to say you're against people because certain regulations are put in place to save lives. But hey if you feel that way then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[kamineko]

Let's let CHIP expire, though. Keep 'em alive then let 'em die of dumb shit like tetanus

There might be a debate to have about abortion, but let's be honest. That's not what this is about. Trump & the repub legislature don't give a single fuck about children's lives. No medicine, no education, no food, just red meat for their dumb base. If somebody wants to save a baby, there are some pretty desperate ones in Puerto Rico RN.

EDIT

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nd-planned-parenthood/?utm_term=.858075259d92

Congresswomen are among some of the strongest pro-lifers. One even had a 450k ad run against her by Planned Parenthood

Yes, three out of 104 women in congress are ridiculously hostile towards reproductive freedom for women. What is this proving, exactly? A massive chunk of the electorate votes against their own interests, too.

 

[Oersted]

What I'm saying is they are the equivalent.

Yes, you do. You still haven't made an argument why people should follow you on that trip to crazy town.

 

[hey_monkey]

Nothing about this explains how it's anti-women. Fear that that a SCOTUS law will be overturned is not inherently anti-women.

When something disproportionately has a negative affect on women because of their inherent biology - here, the biological infrastructure to bear children, and thus the burden of dealing with the medical reality of abortion, yes, it's anti-women. It does not affect anyone in the same way.

And then there are the social/cultural aspects. Men aren't held as responsible for birth control. Unless women pursue child support and take legal action, men are free to bounce. Men aren't told they are slutty murderers over abortion discussions, either; that sure happens.

I could continue, but honestly, in these threads, I wonder about the point of entering a male-dominated space and trying to be heard when so many of you-not all-simply aren't interested.

I'm tired. Tired of doing this over and over.

 

[CadetMahoney]

It's a common approach pro-lifers sue with these topics, they just go into every abortion thread and say

them - "I am against late term abortions"
someone else - "elective late terms have been banned since 1973"
them - "I am against late term abortions"
someone else - "elective late terms have been banned since 1973"
*loop infinitely*

I believe a well-researched and argumented time limit for abortion is the way to go. Gives the person to think it through and make a decision. I also believe that proper counseling regarding the abortion should be given for free to anyone who seeks it.

At some point in pregnancy(later), I don't believe it's solely a womans choice. Yes, it's her body, but it's still a person inside of her which would have essentially no say on it's life. That's my major gripe.

Using viability is a scientific line in the sand.

Elective late term abortions have been illegal since 1973.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I've long thought that if the left toned down the anti-abortion rhetoric they'd win a lot of pro-life women voters who are single issue voters.

Hahahaha fuck this

The pro-lifers are those pushing their Christian "morality" on others and trying to shame women for their choices, picketing clinics and harassing clinic workers and patients, distributing dishonest leaflets showing pictures of dead babies, but the left is the one with the harsh rhetoric?

Bitch please.

 

[gcubed]

Hey guys, we fucked up our promise on Obamacare but have a failed abortion vote as a consolation prize

 

[Gotdatmoney]

What I'm saying is they are the equivalent. And most people would disagree that banning cigarettes or drugs is inherently anti-human.

Because the two may be equivalent in theory but they aren't equivalent in practice. Which is why laws and regulations shouldn't just be based off of an idea of moral compass. A fetus does not have autonomy to make its own decisions, it can't support itself, it can do any of the things or grasp any of the implications that a pregnant woman can. That's why going "well then abortion is anti fetus" carries no weight. Okay say it all you want. The tangible real world effects are obviously different.

It's absurd to say you're against people because certain regulations are put in place to save lives. But hey if you feel that way then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Before I'm even interested in a debate about banning abortion, people have to solve a huge number of the reasons that make women want to have one. They also have to solve the constant blockade against women having the resources to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy. I really don't give a shit about what a bunch of Christian Republican men think with their track record.

Women wont stop attempting abortions if you make it illegal and punish them for it.

 

[Tapejara]

It's so obvious what the GOP is doing by specifying twenty weeks, you can see it in this thread. Despite plenty of posts here pointing out that 1) late term abortions are super rare and 2) if they do occur, it's overwhelmingly likely because of a health defect/birth could put the mother at risk, you still get people responding that an abortion beyond twenty weeks is an unequivocal case of murder. I'm pro-choice, but when you take it to a hypothetical of "should a woman be able to terminate at week 36" I'll admit it starts to be a bit unsettling. But that's what the GOP wants you to feel, despite the fact that few if, any women, are going to take a pregnancy that far and decide on a whim they don't want the baby anymore (let alone how difficult it would be to find a doctor willing to provide an abortion that late, or the cost of a late term abortion). They're purposefully trying to elicit these emotions so you'll stop considering the greater context of late term abortions and why they occur, allowing the GOP to further encroach on women's rights without push-back from the general public. It's completely disingenuous, especially when they continue to erode health care rights for women and children in parallel.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Hahahaha fuck this

The pro-lifers are those pushing their Christian "morality" on others and trying to shame women for their choices, picketing clinics and harassing clinic workers and patients, distributing dishonest leaflets showing pictures of dead babies, but the left is the one with the harsh rhetoric?

Bitch please.

I made another post saying the rhetoric was harsh on both sides but the left has more in common with female voters interests than the right does. Hence why I think a decent chunk can be turned.

 

[KingV]

Unless I am misreading something, I do not see anything in that quote from Hilary about fining and imprisoning doctors who do perform later abortions.

Well, if she supported a 20 week abortion ban, as it had exceptions for health of the mother, rape, and incest, doesn’t it follow that there would be some kind of enforcement mechanism?

If it’s not fines or imprisonment, what do you think it is?

She has been consistent on being willing to “compromise” on a late term abortion ban for damn near 20 years, so it’s not like this is a new position.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Well, if she supported a 20 week abortion ban, as it had exceptions for health of the mother, rape, and incest, doesn't it follow that there would be some kind of enforcement mechanism?

If it's not fines or imprisonment, what do you think it is?

She has been consistent on being willing to ”compromise" on a late term abortion ban for damn near 20 years, so it's not like this is a new position.

Hillary doesn't support a 20 week abortion ban (I mean, on paper she does, but I'll explain in a bit that she doesn't really)

Here's what she said a year ago

”I have met with women who have, toward the end of their pregnancy, get worst news one can get," she said. ”That their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term. Or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions."

She said this on live TV in front of millions during a debate. This is not something someone says that wants to "compromise"

Stop

Trying

To

Blame

Both

Sides


ffs, she voted against a late term ban on abortions!!

Do you think her critics would paint her as wanting to abort babies days before they're being born if she actually agreed with them?

The idea that Hillary isn't a proponent of women's health is ludicrous.

I think you're really misunderstanding Hillary's position based off one out of context quote. Her plan is a pragmatic, political one. She get's to play one side, while actually getting what she wants.

Her plan was to restrict abortion at a non-specific period in time, except in some cases. And those exceptions are the context needed. Her exceptions were in the event of a medical issue with the mother, or a medical issue with the baby. Now, this still isn't enough context. Her criteria for a "medical issue" with the mother is any actual medical issue, or the mother's mental or emotional health. And the latter is decided by the mother, herself. Under Hillary's plan, anyone could get whatever abortion they wanted whenever they wanted for whatever reason they wanted, they just need a reason. And that reason is the patient's own reason. In practical terms, this would mean unrestricted abortions with no late term ban, but with a late term ban on the books to make people uneasy with late term abortions think they're banned.

It's a classic Hillary thing, and it annoys some people she does this, but at the same time it's just stupid to try and use an out of context quote to pretend that Trump is somehow using Hillary's plan for restrictions. It leaves one to question the motives of why someone needs to bend backwards and mislead to try and make someone who is on their side look like the real bad guy.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Hahahaha fuck this

The pro-lifers are those pushing their Christian "morality" on others and trying to shame women for their choices, picketing clinics and harassing clinic workers and patients, distributing dishonest leaflets showing pictures of dead babies, but the left is the one with the harsh rhetoric?

Bitch please.

Its not just a "christian thing" but they are the easy targets for being mind bogglinly unreasonable

I can see straddling the line between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice based on individual circumstances alone

Abortion should be kept available as a tool but its also an unpleasant last resort tool that has weight

I doubt anyone takes their abortion decisions lightly and Im sure the majority of people would be in favor of keeping the need for abortion a medical rarity if possible

That said demonizing those who chose to abort and getting involved in important medical decisions is bullshit

There is a reasonable solution that benefits our society as a whole should we chose to come together on it

 

[necrosis]

For those against a 20 week limit, what should the limit be? 24 weeks? 30 weeks? No limit?

not a woman, so my opinion shouldn't really count for anything, but ideally it would be when a supermajority of them become viable outside of the womb (so 25-26 weeks)

 

[MisterShine]

But that's what the GOP wants you to feel, despite the fact that few if, any women, are going to take a pregnancy that far and decide on a whim they don't want the baby anymore (let alone how difficult it would be to find a doctor willing to provide an abortion that late, or the cost of a late term abortion). They're purposefully trying to elicit these emotions so you'll stop considering the greater context of late term abortions and why they occur, allowing the GOP to further encroach on women's rights without push-back from the general public. It's completely disingenuous, especially when they continue to erode health care rights for women and children in parallel.

Except most of the western world has very similar term limits on abortions, and they've pretty much considered the matter closed for decades. I think though that there is a fair argument to be made that the Republican party has no intention of making a 'compromise' in good faith. And that's what this is: a compromise. Pro-life doesn't mean 20-week bans are okay: they want 0 week bans. I'm not familiar with any that would dispute exceptions for health reasons but even rape/incest cases they can be on the fence about.

But lets be real about this: nobody* really cares about the # of weeks, or any supporting details like potential punishments for the doctors/mother (this bill doesn't seem to mention the women who get abortions at all), it is entirely about a political football to wield in elections. Democrats want more to keep female voters (PoC especially as they are more vulnerable to these restrictions) and will not give any ground. Republicans are playing to their evangelical base that won't ever be happy without complete bans. No-one* actually WANTS a compromise because then they lose a valuable tool each election.

It's so obvious what the GOP is doing by specifying twenty weeks, you can see it in this thread. Despite plenty of posts here pointing out that 1) late term abortions are super rare and 2) if they do occur, it's overwhelmingly likely because of a health defect/birth could put the mother at risk, you still get people responding that an abortion beyond twenty weeks is an unequivocal case of murder.

None of this has any bearing on the moral calculus of abortion. If you think it is murder, even 1 is too many to allow. Why do you think people bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors? Why wouldn't you kill someone who is murdering babies? That is the completely rational and obvious decision to make.

edit:*I'm using generalized statements here, I don't mean literally no one wants a compromise. I mean the parties at large and politicians in general. Though I'd clarify.