Support NeoGAF

[kinggroin]

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.

I don't see how you can argue in half measures. Either you agree with it at any point or you don't, at least based off the "Is it a person" argument.

 

[Keri]

Has anyone against this actually seen what a baby looks like at week 20? I’m not talking about pictures on the internet, but actually been to an ultra sound at 20 weeks. It’s practially alive and kicking by then and if you’ve seen it, then there is no way that you wouldn’t think that it’s anything other than murder at that point.

This post makes my blood boil.

I've carried a child. I've seen all the scans and I've felt the kicking. I have full understanding of what it means to be 20 weeks pregnant and I do NOT support a 20 week ban, because at that point you are only preventing people from terminating pregnancies which are no longer viable or which have birth defects that will affect quality of life.

 

[MisterShine]

I don't see how you can argue in half measures. Either you agree with it at any point or you don't, at least based off the "Is it a person" argument.

It depends on what we understand "person" to mean.

If you mean 'is a human individual', then it occurs when the zygote is formed after fertilization. There is no disputing that, it is simple biology.

If you mean 'is a conscious being' then we get into sticky territory. The first neurons don't start firing in the frontal cortex of the brain (where much of our cognition takes place) until week 22. I personally have no issue at all with abortions before this time frame, there's nothing meaningful there to 'murder'. After that you're entering bodily autonomy territory - does a woman have the right to revoke access to her resources even if that means killing a 'potentially' conscious being? I believe so, others do not.


edit:

...or which have birth defects that will affect quality of life.

I would leave this point out in future discussions. It makes you appear callous to those born with disabilities or defects.

 

[KernelPanic]

In Canada we were pressured to abort when it was discovered the baby had no brain and would die shortly after birth(if he'd even survive that long). We gave in at 21 weeks, I believe they couldn't do anything after 22 or 24 can't recall.

I'm still haunted whether we did the right thing. My only consolation is our therapist said they've worked with families who made both decisions and the grass isn't any greener on the other side.

But passing a law like this makes no sense to me. We didn't find out until he 18-19 week mark and then we had follow amniocentesis and MRI to confirm which put us over the 20 week mark.

Who wants to have a potential jail sentence hanging over their head at such a time?

 

[Keri]

I would leave this point out in future discussions. It makes you appear callous to those born with disabilities or defects.

I will not leave it out, because it's an important consideration. If I was identifying a specific defect and stating that no one with that defect deserves to live, you would have a point, but I obviously have not done that. And pretending that these considerations do not exist or that there are not defects which seriously diminish quality of life is callous towards the families that deal with these difficult decisions.

 

[Tapejara]

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.

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.

You seem to think I'm arguing against the pro-life movement (which I do disagree with), but my post is addressing the pro-choice people in this thread who consider abortions after twenty weeks to be a murky subject; there was one poster specifically who argued that after twenty weeks it's murder. Additionally, my post is in reference to GOP politicians, not the general pro-lifer. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

But yes, my issue with this (outside of the reduction in women's rights) is precisely that it's not a comprise in good faith. As others have pointed out, many Nordic countries do have similar limits, but abortions up until that point are covered under their healthcare systems, while their governments - at least to my knowledge - aren't simultaneously trying to remove healthcare coverage from average citizens, including new mothers and infants. I'd consider this a real compromise if at the same time, the Trump administration and current Republican congress was also advocating for improved sex education, reducing the stigmatization surrounding abortion, and attempting to provide a healthcare system that serves all people rather than reducing coverage overall. Until then, I can't help but see this as the GOP using late term abortions as a wedge issue to slowly erode women's rights.

 

[kamineko]

I don't see how we can deny medical care to two year-old children. I mean, have you ever seen a two year-old? They have a heartbeat, you can see them move. I don't see how you can't call that murder, it's so obvious.

See how ineffective that is? And that's unambiguously factual.

Maybe if we invested in a society where the basic needs of children are a shared priority, women wouldn't have to wrestle with the moral question of whether or not the child can have a life worth living

I get the squeamishness that surrounds the issue, but if you aren't interested in addressing the underlying issues--for instance, how do we care for our children in a just society--it's hard not to see the hand-wringing as overwrought and impractical. There are ways to reduce abortion for sure, but none of them involve empty moralization. Abortion is a compelling option to people without resources, and until that changes, the pro-life position has no positive positions or actions to offer beyond emotional appeals and willful misapplication of religious doctrine. The orginal pro-life religious argument comes from Thomas Aquinas by way of Aristotle. Evangelicals have no investment in these thinkers, but there they are anyway, as if pictures of ultrasounds ever fed or clothed anyone.

 

[hey_monkey]

This post makes my blood boil.

I've carried a child. I've seen all the scans and I've felt the kicking. I have full understanding of what it means to be 20 weeks pregnant and I do NOT support a 20 week ban, because at that point you are only preventing people from terminating pregnancies which are no longer viable or which have birth defects that will affect quality of life.

Same. And there's no reason to leave out quality of life, because that has vastly different nuanced meanings based on positionality. And some of y'all in here talking about viability: do you know what it takes to support an extremely preterm birth at 23/24 weeks? I know three families who've been through that. They're all still going through it, because those children often need follow-up medical care for years, possibly forever—after months of hospitalization, of course. A ban, even with stipulations about health, even with exceptions, limits discussions women can have with their health care providers. These are painful, impossible choices. Let people make them.

Re: the anti-women argument: this isn't my picture, but damned if it didn't turn out today was one of the "Cemetery of the Innocent" days on campus. This is what students are walking through and by today:

With signs up about innocent lives, about Roe v Wade. Tell me that impacts men in the same way it does women.

 

[llien]

It is 12 weeks in Germany.
More, only if physical or psychological health of the woman is seriously threatened (I think birth defects also apply)

You kinda shouldn't have a say in the matter because it ain't your body?

It ain't just mother's body,

 

[daveo42]

A bunch of old white dudes making judgment calls for all the women in the nation. God Bless America, ya'll!

They need 60 votes for this, it's DOA.

Who is ready for that filibuster tweet from Trump again!

 

[Tapejara]

A bunch of old white dudes making judgment calls for all the women in the nation. God Bless America, ya'll!

I'm always reminded of BoJack Horseman's succinct take on this. "Has the concept of women having choices gone too far? We've assembled this diverse panel of white men in bow ties to talk about abortion."

 

[Chococat]

Is there no possibility of legislating for abortion after twenty weeks but only in the event of massively debilitating conditions?

I'm a man so it's not a decision I'd ever have to make but I can't help but find abortion troubling. Equally a miserable quality of life for parent and child is not something anyone should have to deal with.

20-24 week is an ideal time frame- assuming the women has prompt access to medical care.

There are plenty of case where pro-lifers delay women/girls from getting access to both medical check up and abortion provider to push the women over 20-24 week line so she can't get an abortion. Mommy and daddy are pro life? Just lock the daughter up in her room until after 24 weeks. Jilted husband/boyfriend doesn't want women to have abortion- drag out a court case until 24 weeks.

Why do you think there is such a push against plan Parenthood. It not because pro-lifers really care about fetus- they just don't want women to get access to proper medical care and advice.

Laws have to have caveats because there simple are people who don't want women to have the power to make their own decisions.

 

[KingV]

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


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.

CLINTON: My opponent is wrong. I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice

Her words, not mine. Granted it’s from 2000, but it is really consistent with her 2016 debate statement.

The only way to reconcile all of her statements and actions is “I don’t support a blanket ban on late term abortions” and not “I don’t support any restrictions on a woman’s right to choose”.

Iirc she voted against the partial birth ban specifically because it didn’t have exceptions for health of the mother (and maybe complications with the child, since she alludes to that elsewhere).

 

[ZealousD]

not a woman, so my opinion shouldn't really count for anything

I don't think being a man should disqualify you from having an opinion on when life begins.

 

[Skellig Gra]

I don't think being a man should disqualify you from having an opinion on when life begins.

I agree, everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it. It's when legislation is made is where the real issue lies.

 

[Zaphrynn]

Same. And there's no reason to leave out quality of life, because that has vastly different nuanced meanings based on positionality. And some of y'all in here talking about viability: do you know what it takes to support an extremely preterm birth at 23/24 weeks? I know three families who've been through that. They're all still going through it, because those children often need follow-up medical care for years, possibly forever—after months of hospitalization, of course. A ban, even with stipulations about health, even with exceptions, limits discussions women can have with their health care providers. These are painful, impossible choices. Let people make them.

Re: the anti-women argument: this isn't my picture, but damned if it didn't turn out today was one of the "Cemetery of the Innocent" days on campus. This is what students are walking through and by today:

With signs up about innocent lives, about Roe v Wade. Tell me that impacts men in the same way it does women.

My boyfriend was a premie. Can't remember how early. It nearly bankrupted the family. They were in serious debt for an extremely long time. But hey, as long as you're not living with the debt, then a fetus is a human! Basically all these arguments come down to are "If you're poor and a woman, don't have sex".

These threads, coming from a forum that has a tenuous grasp on how periods work, always make me need to rub my temples.

There should be no limit, because anyone considering an abortion at 20+ weeks had more than likely previously decided to keep the baby. It's an incredibly hard decision at that point to abort. A ban means that you have increased the chances of women having to carry to term a fetus that will possibly die soon after birth, or a fetus with extreme and costly defects. If you are going to have xyz exceptions, then what is even the point? America is not a country with adequate healthcare for many Americans. A ban at 20 weeks hurts women.

This is the reality. We do not live in the world of "what-ifs" and extreme hyperbole. We live in the real world where real women are shat on and called murderers and are denied even the most basic of natal care thanks to location and their bank account. Our decisions about abortion need to be based off of reality.

 

[Polari]

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?

Why do they care about fetuses more than humans and children that are out in the world already existing? A lot of "pro-lifers" are also against Universal Healthcare and gun control. No, they don't get to take a moral high ground on imposing pregnancy laws on women they haven't even asked.

When we talk about gestational periods it's not necessarily pro-choice vs pro-life though. I'm pro-choice, but a fetus can now be viable now at what, 22 weeks? I guess that's the point where I see it as no longer just about women's bodies, but you have to consider the rights of the unborn child. 20 weeks is pretty reasonable to me, and as stated earlier more liberal than the laws of all but a very few countries.

Other people will have their own interpretation though.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Her words, not mine. Granted it's from 2000, but it is really consistent with her 2016 debate statement.

The only way to reconcile all of her statements and actions is ”I don't support a blanket ban on late term abortions" and not ”I don't support any restrictions on a woman's right to choose".

Iirc she voted against the partial birth ban specifically because it didn't have exceptions for health of the mother (and maybe complications with the child, since she alludes to that elsewhere).

As with most criticisms of Hillary from the left, context is everything.

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.

She supports a woman's right to terminate at any point during pregnancy. Her "restrictions" aren't anything. They're just empty words she's saying so people don't think she wants to abort babies minutes after their born and other crazy arguments like that.

If she was president, she wouldn't have signed anything that actually restricted a woman's ability to have an abortion.

 

[Platy]

I don't think being a man should disqualify you from having an opinion on when life begins.

And then there is the "don't matter when life begins" part of the argument that you are missing, mainly the body autonomy one, where even a dead body has the right to choose what happen to their insides even if an adult person's life depends on it and a pregnant woman does not.

 

[CadetMahoney]

And then there is the "don't matter when life begins" part of the argument that you are missing, mainly the body autonomy one

One that has ample legal backing for it too (bodily autonomy/integrity) that would be a clear legal double standard if it only applies to women. Roe already argued all this in court but pro-lifers don't seem well researched on the topic.

 

[StoneFox]

Alright kids, let's sit down and think of the most rational law regarding abortion.

Let's give women the right... to choose when to get them. Whoa, that was easy.

A woman being able to choose to end her pregnancy without limits is easily the best option. The fact of the matter is just because late term abortions would be legal doesn't mean all women will sudden choose to only get late term abortions. Fuck off with any moral or religious arguments. Fuck off with "but only under certain circumstances because my stance is weak and I would feel bad about a fetus that I will never meet or care about since it isn't mine (("

Women will know what's best for themselves and their unborn child. They are literally the most informed person regarding their own bodies, not a bunch of hacks trying to argue hazy limits that serve no purpose other than to make them feel good that they saved some precious nameless baby. Nevermind what the mother went through, at least a baby got born! (Whether or not the baby was healthy, well, good luck with that!)

Excuse me if I sound pissed, but I'm not going to tolerate complete nonsense of men saying they know better than to give women body autonomy. Think about it this way, if abortions were completely illegal, then a DEAD PERSON would have more rights to their own body than a women does when she has a fetus inside her. Doesn't that sound messed up? It just screams "how dare women has rights!" to me. I mean, shit, the fetus could grow up to be a man! What a waste to just kill it off!

 

[hollomat]

Since I feel like many on GAF may not know this, 20 weeks is when most pregnant women have their anatomy scan, which is a detailed ultrasound that looks for signs of birth defects. So, this bill would prevent women from terminating pregnancies where birth defects are detected, almost completely.

This should be added to the OP.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I don't think being a man should disqualify you from having an opinion on when life begins.

You gonna come out here and take care of the life? You gonna carry it to term? Your best idea of what carrying a fetus is is shit you read and heard actual women say. I think you're opinion is several notches lower than actual women.

 

[llien]

A woman being able to choose to end her pregnancy without limits is easily the best option.

The fact that it doesn't work like that even in countries like Sweden (18 weeks), should give you reasons to think again.

This should be added to the OP.

But it's unlikely to be true.

And then there is the "don't matter when life begins" part of the argument that you are missing, mainly the body autonomy one, where even a dead body has the right to choose what happen to their insides even if an adult person's life depends on it and a pregnant woman does not.

That's a fallacy since you are comparing organs to a human being.

 

[Mahonay]

I don't think being a man should disqualify you from having an opinion on when life begins.

It does make your opinion significantly less important. Might be a hard pill to swallow, but sometimes men don't really have a place in a discussion. Like what a women actually goes through in a pregnancy and the decision to have an abortion. We have no idea and never well. Unless you're Arnold Schwarzenegger in Junior.

I'm not sure why having a penis and overwhelming privilege isn't enough.

 

[Polari]

Alright kids, let's sit down and think of the most rational law regarding abortion.

Let's give women the right... to choose when to get them. Whoa, that was easy.

A woman being able to choose to end her pregnancy without limits is easily the best option. The fact of the matter is just because late term abortions would be legal doesn't mean all women will sudden choose to only get late term abortions. Fuck off with any moral or religious arguments. Fuck off with "but only under certain circumstances because my stance is weak and I would feel bad about a fetus that I will never meet or care about since it isn't mine (("

Women will know what's best for themselves and their unborn child. They are literally the most informed person regarding their own bodies, not a bunch of hacks trying to argue hazy limits that serve no purpose other than to make them feel good that they saved some precious nameless baby. Nevermind what the mother went through, at least a baby got born! (Whether or not the baby was healthy, well, good luck with that!)

Excuse me if I sound pissed, but I'm not going to tolerate complete nonsense of men saying they know better than to give women body autonomy. Think about it this way, if abortions were completely illegal, then a DEAD PERSON would have more rights to their own body than a women does when she has a fetus inside her. Doesn't that sound messed up? It just screams "how dare women has rights!" to me. I mean, shit, the fetus could grow up to be a man! What a waste to just kill it off!

We don't live in a society where only people directly affected by something get to decide how we legislate it - that's not how society works, and the lines are particularly blurred here by the point at which you consider the rights of the child should be taken into account. As for a bunch of hacks with hazy limits, again that's how the legislation in all but a few of the 50 odd countries that allow abortion works.

 

[Mahonay]

We don't live in a society where only people directly affected by something get to decide how we legislate it - that's not how society works, and the lines are particularly blurred here by the point at which you consider the rights of the child should be taken into account. As for a bunch of hacks with hazy limits, again that's how the legislation in all but a few of the 50 odd countries that allow abortion works.

We have states like Kentucky where there is now ONE abortion clinic, which they have to fight to keep.

I don't understand how you can gloss over the current and overt denial of vital services for the women in our country. This is NOT the time for placing further restrictions on abortion, even if out of context it doesn't look extreme.

 

[llien]

It does make your opinion significantly less important. Might be a hard pill to swallow, but sometimes men don't really have a place in a discussion. Like what a women actually goes through in a pregnancy and the decision to have an abortion. We have no idea and never well. Unless you're Arnold Schwarzenegger in Junior..

The way you describe it, only women who have experienced pregnancy should be allowed talk about it.

Or, rather, only women who went through abortions, as they surely experienced more than those who didn't.

See where it is heading?

But the main problem with this argument, is what is being discussed is quite different, even in most emancipated countries, unborn child's rights start to matter at some point or another.

 

[Zaphrynn]

The fact that it doesn't work like that even in countries like Sweden (18 weeks), should give you reasons to think again.


But it's unlikely to be true.


That's a fallacy since you are comparing organs to a human being.

Some countries allows adults to marry 14-year olds, so I don't care. And again, in other countries, access to healthcare and social care is drastically better than the US. give me US laws based on a US reality.

And what is unlikely to actually be true about that statement? Canada, a place where there is no limit, does not have an abortion after 20 weeks epidemic, because by 20 weeks, you've more than likely decided to keep the baby.

We don't live in a society where only people directly affected by something get to decide how we legislate it - that's not how society works, and the lines are particularly blurred here by the point at which you consider the rights of the child should be taken into account. As for a bunch of hacks with hazy limits, again that's how the legislation in all but a few of the 50 odd countries that allow abortion works.

Yeah, just ask any minorities in this thread. We know how unfair legislation is for those not born white, cis, and/or male.

 

[Polari]

We have states like Kentucky where there is now ONE abortion clinic, which they have to fight to keep.

I don't understand how you can gloss over the current and overt denial of vital services for the women in our country.

That needs to be fixed and I support greater access to abortions (yes, you can support greater access to abortions while arguing for term limits) but that isn't the argument in this thread.

 

[Mahonay]

The way you describe it, only women who have experienced pregnancy should be allowed talk about it.

Or, rather, only women who went through abortions, as they surely experienced more than those who didn't.

See where it is heading?

But the main problem with this argument, is what is being discussed is quite different, even in most emancipated countries, unborn child's rights start to matter at some point or another.

I don't think it's an unreasonable suggestion that women should be having the majority voice in regards to potential laws that regulate what they can or can not due with their own bodies. But whatever.

 

[llien]

I don't think it's an unreasonable suggestion that women should be having the majority voice in regards to potential laws that regulate what they can or can not due with their own bodies. .

As it has already been said, this legislation isn't about bodies of women, it's about rights of unborn children, about point in time when they are considered humans with rights. In ALL European countries that happens before they are born.

 

[Mahonay]

That needs to be fixed and I support greater access to abortions (yes, you can support greater access to abortions while arguing for term limits) but that isn't the argument in this thread.

But it's the reality American women are currently living in, whom this new law would now be piled onto. So yes, it's directly related. These people don't exist in vacuums.

 

[Mahonay]

As it has already been said, this legislation isn't about bodies of women, it's about rights of unborn children, about point in time when they are considered humans with rights. In ALL European countries that happens before they are born.

I forget, where do babies come from?

Lol how is not about the bodies of women? What a ridiculous statement. Is it about unborn fetuses too? Yes. But come on.

 

[Platy]

That's a fallacy since you are comparing organs to a human being.

The fetus is in the uterus.
If a woman does not want anything to happen to her internal organ, the uterus, she is allowed. If this happens to kill a human being so be it.

A person which is has one chance of survival with a transplant needs a organ
if another person does not want anything to happen to their internal organs they are allowed EVEN IF THEY ARE DEAD. If this happens to kill a human being so be it.

I am comparing organs that might kill a person with organs that might kill something that may not even be a person

Everyone has total control of what happens to their body. Taking out control to take out a fetus is not having total control of what happens to the body.
If the fetus survive outside this is outside the question.

 

[llien]

Some countries allows adults to marry 14-year olds, so I don't care.

It isn't even remotely an "outlandish law out there somewhere". It is the case in countries run by feminist governments.

And again, in other countries, access to healthcare and social care is drastically better than the US. give me US laws based on a US reality.

That's a completely different discussion (US healthcare system does look broken from here). Also note that a lot of medical expertise is needed at later stages, while at early stages a pill would be enough.

And what is unlikely to actually be true about that statement? Canada, a place...

Canada is one of a handful of countries with no limit. Just a side note.

The non-true part of the statement was mixing "at will" and "because... reasons". Again, pretty much everywhere (and limits are pretty much everywhere) in situations discussed abortion is still going to happen, but simply with doctor's approval.

 

[Keri]

As it has already been said, this legislation isn't about bodies of women, it's about rights of unborn children, about point in time when they are considered humans with rights. In ALL European countries that happens before they are born.

Seriously? This statement says so much and pretty well encapsulates how invisible women are and how little our bodily autonomy is regarded.

 

[Mahonay]

Seriously? This statement says so much and pretty well encapsulates how invisible women are and how little our bodily autonomy is regarded.

I'm still kind of flabbergasted someone posted that with a straight face.

 

[llien]

I forget, where do babies come from?

Lol how is not about the bodies of women? What a ridiculous statement. Is it about unborn fetuses too? Yes. But come on.

I'm pretty sure I have already said that, but let me try it for the last time: It is about until when it is OK to "terminate" unborn child, or, if you feel better using that word, fetus. It is inside women's body, but it's about fetus. If you want to regard this as "body law", then it's "body with fetus in it".

The fetus is in the uterus.
If a woman does not want anything to happen to her internal organ the uterus she is allowed. If this happens to kill a human being so be it..

Your position is understandable, although, shocking.
I don't believe you really think that's ok.

 

[RDreamer]

I'm pretty sure I have already said that, but let me try it for the last time: It is about until when it is OK to "terminate" unborn child, or, if you feel better using that word, fetus. It is inside women's body, but it's about fetus. If you want to regard this as "body law", then it's "body with fetus in it".

Women are just bodies with fetuses in them!

As it has already been said, this legislation isn't about bodies of women, it's about rights of unborn children, about point in time when they are considered humans with rights. In ALL European countries that happens before they are born.

It can be said a billion times over but that doesn't make it true. It's legislation regulating women's bodily autonomy. It's absolutely about their bodies.

 

[kamineko]

I'm still kind of flabbergasted someone posted that with a straight face.

I mean, what is a woman without a fetus, anyway?

/s

 

[Mahonay]

I'm pretty sure I have already said that, but let me try it for the last time: It is about until when it is OK to "terminate" unborn child, or, if you feel better using that word, fetus. It is inside women's body, but it's about fetus. If you want to regard this as "body law", then it's "body with fetus in it".

You sure are pretty callous towards women. Jesus Christ.

 

[hey_monkey]

But it's unlikely to be true.

I'm sorry, which part about most women not obtaining necessary scans and tests that reveal birth defects until 20 weeks in the US is not likely to be true now?

We have states like Kentucky where there is now ONE abortion clinic, which they have to fight to keep.

I don't understand how you can gloss over the current and overt denial of vital services for the women in our country. This is NOT the time for placing further restrictions on abortion, even if out of context it doesn't look extreme.

This is a deeply important point which will go ignored or called a distraction while others introduce nonsense into the thread.

And again, in other countries, access to healthcare and social care is drastically better than the US. give me US laws based on a US reality.

This, too, is important. All this information about laws in other countries is relatively meaningless when compared to the US. Many of these tests that happen at 20 weeks are available sooner - at a high cost. With the intersections of health care and women's health policies here, we need more autonomy and support for women in the US, not less. We need positive change, not restriction.

It isn't even remotely an "outlandish law out there somewhere". It is the case in countries run by feminist governments.

the fuck is this now? Can you miss the whole thread with a driveby whataboutism, please?

 

[Gotdatmoney]

It's not about women's bodies?

What the fuck logic is that? Is this real life?

 

[Platy]

Your position is understandable, although, shocking.
I don't believe you really think that's ok.

if it is easier to give birth instead of abortion, which is already a complicated procedure, so be it. If the fetus does not survive outside of the parasitic relationship than nothing can be done, like every other person diying from waiting for organs.

If you are not ok with that what are you waiting to donate an organ ?

 

[RDreamer]

It isn't even remotely an "outlandish law out there somewhere". It is the case in countries run by feminist governments.

And you don't think there's a substantive difference in enacting laws in places with "feminist governments," as you put it along with complete socialized healthcare, maternity leave, and other pro-women policies and enacting this law in a place with almost none of that at all?

There's a large difference between the two.

 

[Mahonay]

And you don't think there's a substantive difference in enacting laws in places with "feminist governments," as you put it along with complete socialized healthcare, maternity leave, and other pro-women policies and enacting this law in a place with almost none of that at all?

There's a large difference between the two.

Fucking HUGE difference.

 

[Keri]

A couple other things worth considering - The United States has the worst maternal mortality rate of all western nations. Women in the U.S. are significantly more likely to die in childbirth than women in Europe and restricting access to abortion in the United States, will ultimately result in some amount of women being forced to give their lives for pregnancies they did not want to carry.

Also, a 20 week ban that doesn't include exceptions based on the health of the fetus (which there is no indication this one does) could ironically cause MORE harm to fetuses - As it could encourage more invasive testing earlier in pregnancies, that include a risk of miscarriage. An amniocentesis for example, if I remember correctly, has a 1/600 chance t
of inducing a miscarriage. If women can't react to information they receive at their 20 week scan and undergo further testing then, they might opt for an amnio earlier and if enough women are making this choice, then there will be unwanted miscarriages as a result.

The point of all of this is that it's important for women to have the time to weigh their options, with their doctors and make the decisions that are best for them and their child.

 

[llien]

A feminist governmen is how Swedish government regards itself. (I thought it was a known fact)


Regarding the rest of comments, bar those putting words into my mouth, I have already expressed my opinion and stated my arguments.

Platy
Ok, so you don't, I'm not as shocked now.

 

[necrosis]

As it has already been said, this legislation isn't about bodies of women,

um

do you understand how pregnancy works