USA abortion rights

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › USA abortion rights

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2923160 6-Jun-2022 11:12

Rikkitic:

I find it hard to fathom how someone as obviously intelligent and educated as you are, can seriously put up an argument built across such a gaping moral sinkhole. Have you ever met a frightened 15 year-old girl? Or even one as young as 12? Human females are capable of conception as soon as they hit puberty and the biological imperative doesn’t give a damn about ‘choice’ or family values or personal responsibility or the bible or any other moralistic crap. A child can be the victim of rape or incest and many are. A child can also engage in sexual activity without fully understanding the possible consequences. So can many adults, for that matter. Yet you seem to be saying that any female who becomes pregnant under any circumstance must be made to carry the foetus to term, regardless of the damage this does her. How can you possibly believe this?

Children who become pregnant are not that exceptional, but let’s pretend for a moment they are. You say the foetus ‘got there by you deciding to take part in an activity that will quite possibly result in you becoming pregnant. This outcome should not be a surprise. I'm not talking about any male making a decision for you.’

Actually, you are talking about an act that cannot occur without male participation. And just like all the other Moses males who feel they have some kind of special moral authority to make decisions for women, you gloss over that fact and make it all the woman’s problem. In any case, her ‘decision’, if that is what it was, is none of your damned business. If you really have such a huge need to appoint yourself guardian of the galaxy, why not start with all the underfed children already on the planet, instead of obsessing over those not yet born?

Please think about this some more. You seem to assume every unwanted pregnancy is the result of female carelessness during a moment of pleasure-seeking abandon. This is so far from the reality that it makes one wonder if you actually even know any women.

If you want to talk about responsibility, how about the responsibility to not bring another unwanted and unloved child into the world? How about the responsibility to not drive frightened and desperate girls to back-alley knitting needle abortionists? I don’t know how old you are, but I well remember the time when this was the only ‘choice’ for many. That is why safe medical abortion was made legal.

My reply was written in the context that I was replying to someone whom I assumed was not a frightened 15 year old. Perhaps I was mistaken. Perhaps I was wrong in assuming my response was to someone somewhat more mature/older than a 15 year old.

Your response to my post raises a whole lot of issues that need addressing in our society. Suggesting abortion as one solution to these problems is in my opinion abdicating our collective responsibility to fix those problems. There should be no frightened 15 year olds wanting to have an abortion.

I have no need to be the guardian of anything but when we have a society that is sees equality for race, gender etc as being so important, I see a major disconnect when that society does not value all life the same way.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2923161 6-Jun-2022 11:25

Technofreak:

Your response to my post raises a whole lot of issues that need addressing in our society. Suggesting abortion as one solution to these problems is in my opinion abdicating our collective responsibility to fix those problems. There should be no frightened 15 year olds wanting to have an abortion.

I have no need to be the guardian of anything but when we have a society that is sees equality for race, gender etc as being so important, I see a major disconnect when that society does not value all life the same way.

I agree completely but I think you are approaching this from the wrong end. Banning abortion makes things worse, not better.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2924185 9-Jun-2022 11:02

I tend to find most arguments for and against try to simplify a complicated subject too much.

My personal belief is abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy should be allowed. The cut-off should be long enough that the woman should reasonably be able to know she's pregnant and had enough time to consider her options. The fetal heartbeat criteria that conservatives use as a cut-off point (6-7 weeks) is far too early as, even if a woman knows she's pregnant at that point, it gives her very little time to really consider her options. But at the same time, late-term abortions do seem a lot like "killing babies" to me. I would have thought somewhere in the 2nd trimester would be an appropriate cut-off point (I'm not sure exactly how this would be defined though).

Exceptions should be made to allow late-term abortions when the woman's health or life is in serious risk from the pregnancy, but should require medical approval. Exceptions should also be allowed in cases of incest when the woman/girl has been prevented from seeking help or advice during the earlier stages of the pregnancy.

As others have suggested, contraception (including the morning after pill) should be provided for free. Education should also be freely available so more people realise pre-emptive contraception (pill, condoms, IUD, etc) is preferable over re-active contraception (morning after pill) when possible. And preventing unwanted pregnancies should always be preferable over terminating them after they happen.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2924204 9-Jun-2022 12:34

An awful lot of male talk here about what's best for the little lady. Maybe she should also have a say.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2924234 9-Jun-2022 13:01

Rikkitic:

An awful lot of male talk here about what's best for the little lady. Maybe she should also have a say.

Perhaps you could consider what they say rather than dismiss them out of hand as not being allowed to have an opinion. What about what I said do you find so disagreeable? Or is it as I suspect that I'm just not allowed an opinion?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2924244 9-Jun-2022 13:23

Paul1977:

Perhaps you could consider what they say rather than dismiss them out of hand as not being allowed to have an opinion. What about what I said do you find so disagreeable? Or is it as I suspect that I'm just not allowed an opinion?

Of course you are fully entitled to an opinion, but people (not only you) keep going on about 'the woman this' and 'the woman that' and it gets a little tiresome.

Any rigid criterion defined by law is going to be necessarily arbitrary. If it's okay up to six weeks, what about six weeks and one day? Wherever you draw a line, someone is going to suffer.

My main objection to your post is the statement about women considering their options. This is a very middle-class way of looking at things. It assumes that women in this situation have the luxury of being able to sit down over a cup of tea and rationally go through their options. For many, this may not be the case at all. I don't think you are considering the emotions involved, or the differences in background and capability.

I agree that late-term abortion can be a difficult issue, but that is all the more reason why the law should stay out of it. Such things must be dealt with individually, on a case by case basis. One size fits all doesn't work here.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2924266 9-Jun-2022 14:28

Rikkitic:

Of course you are fully entitled to an opinion, but people (not only you) keep going on about 'the woman this' and 'the woman that' and it gets a little tiresome.

Any rigid criterion defined by law is going to be necessarily arbitrary. If it's okay up to six weeks, what about six weeks and one day? Wherever you draw a line, someone is going to suffer.

My main objection to your post is the statement about women considering their options. This is a very middle-class way of looking at things. It assumes that women in this situation have the luxury of being able to sit down over a cup of tea and rationally go through their options. For many, this may not be the case at all. I don't think you are considering the emotions involved, or the differences in background and capability.

I agree that late-term abortion can be a difficult issue, but that is all the more reason why the law should stay out of it. Such things must be dealt with individually, on a case by case basis. One size fits all doesn't work here.

A criterion isn't necessarily arbitrary, but it can be imprecise. It could be defined as when a fetus could viably survive outside the uterus for example - this isn't arbitrary but it is impossible to definitively measure.

I plain don't understand how saying women need to be allowed sufficient time to consider their options can be interpreted as anything but a good thing. I may be wrong, but it seems like you're trying to find misogyny in what I said when there really isn't any there.

We actually seem to disagree on very little concerning this, so I was surprised by your (what I took as) offense.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2924287 9-Jun-2022 14:49

I wasn't offended, I just think you are looking at this too narrowly. Also nothing wrong with having time to consider options, but that statement implies someone being in a position to approach that calmly and rationally. For many this is simply not the case. Discovering you are unintentionally pregnant pushes a panic button for many. Not having a supportive environment or friends you can turn to makes it worse. Lack of education or maturity clouds judgement. There are all kinds of circumstances that can get in the way of considering options. That can be part of a process for some, but it is not a solution.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2924347 9-Jun-2022 15:36

Rikkitic:

I wasn't offended, I just think you are looking at this too narrowly. Also nothing wrong with having time to consider options, but that statement implies someone being in a position to approach that calmly and rationally. For many this is simply not the case. Discovering you are unintentionally pregnant pushes a panic button for many. Not having a supportive environment or friends you can turn to makes it worse. Lack of education or maturity clouds judgement. There are all kinds of circumstances that can get in the way of considering options. That can be part of a process for some, but it is not a solution.

I don't think it does imply that, but even if it did we're talking about rights and legislation which can never change a persons mindset or their personal support environment. The best the law can provide is time to make a decision (and ideally provide independent and unbiased support systems to help them do that).

If I understand your position, you think abortions should be allowed (theoretically) right up until birth? That's just more time, so don't see that it addresses any of your points above? But it does add a whole lot of other moral, ethical, and legal considerations.

An admittedly extreme example: A woman who delivers prematurely at 30 weeks and "disposes" of it because it's unwanted vs a woman having an abortion at 30 weeks. Is the former not OK, but the latter is? Are they both OK? Are neither OK?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2924359 9-Jun-2022 15:58

Paul1977:

Rikkitic:

I wasn't offended, I just think you are looking at this too narrowly. Also nothing wrong with having time to consider options, but that statement implies someone being in a position to approach that calmly and rationally. For many this is simply not the case. Discovering you are unintentionally pregnant pushes a panic button for many. Not having a supportive environment or friends you can turn to makes it worse. Lack of education or maturity clouds judgement. There are all kinds of circumstances that can get in the way of considering options. That can be part of a process for some, but it is not a solution.

I don't think it does imply that, but even if it did we're talking about rights and legislation which can never change a persons mindset or their personal support environment. The best the law can provide is time to make a decision (and ideally provide independent and unbiased support systems to help them do that).

If I understand your position, you think abortions should be allowed (theoretically) right up until birth? That's just more time, so don't see that it addresses any of your points above? But it does add a whole lot of other moral, ethical, and legal considerations.

An admittedly extreme example: A woman who delivers prematurely at 30 weeks and "disposes" of it because it's unwanted vs a woman having and abortion at 30 weeks. Is the former not OK, but the latter is? Are they both OK? Are neither OK?

My position is that abortions should neither be allowed nor disallowed. It is a matter for the one carrying the foetus. She should not have to ask anyone's permission.

Anyone who is pregnant already has plenty of time to make a decision. Up to nine months as far as the biology is concerned.

Of course I am not in favour of late-term abortions. But it is not up to me.

The law is an ass. Necessary, but by definition still an ass. Extreme examples like the one you use just illustrate this. What is the difference? One is legal, the other is not. Get over it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2924367 9-Jun-2022 16:30

Rikkitic:

My position is that abortions should neither be allowed nor disallowed. It is a matter for the one carrying the foetus. She should not have to ask anyone's permission.

Anyone who is pregnant already has plenty of time to make a decision. Up to nine months as far as the biology is concerned.

Of course I am not in favour of late-term abortions. But it is not up to me.

The law is an ass. Necessary, but by definition still an ass. Extreme examples like the one you use just illustrate this. What is the difference? One is legal, the other is not. Get over it.

But at some point the fetus becomes a human being, and it's proximity to the uterus seems like an incredibly problematic way to make that determination to me.

You've said I'm looking at things too narrowly, but I'd say the same about you.

No point in continuing - something about an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object springs to mind. I'm not sure which is which.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

kingdragonfly

11996 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12893

Subscriber

#2934458 25-Jun-2022 22:38

New York Times: Special Edition: Roe v. Wade Is Overturned

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade ended the constitutionally protected right to abortion after nearly 50 years. It will lead to bans on the procedure in about half of the states.

All three of former President Trump’s appointees were in the majority in the 6-to-3 ruling. The decision vindicated a decades-long Republican campaign to install conservative judges and justices. It also reversed Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a Supreme Court case that reaffirmed Roe in 1992.
...
Thirteen states have trigger laws that will ban the procedure either immediately or in the coming days. Abortion bans went into effect today in nine states — Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah and Wisconsin — in response to the court decision. The procedure is likely to be banned in another 11 states. Abortion clinics in Montgomery, Ala. and Sioux Falls shut down immediately.

kingdragonfly

11996 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12893

Subscriber

#2934461 25-Jun-2022 23:13

I've heard several Californians discuss this. They are more angry with the Democrats than the Republicans.

Republicans said what they were going to do. For fifty years, they openly discussed their plans. And they did exactly what they said they were going to do.

Anger toward Democrats are also exacerbated by some immediately asking for donations within hours of the decision.

It's as if a security guard held the gates open for someone carrying a lit torch and a gasoline can. With the building firmly alight, the guard then asks for money to help put out the fire.

American Medical Students Association: Future Physicians Outraged Over Loss of Basic Rights

While we knew this day was coming following the SCOTUS draft leak in early May, we are still shocked and appalled by the deadly decision to overturn the landmark decision, Roe v Wade, which set the standard for reproductive rights for over 50 years. Even this standard was not enough. This decision, made by six un-elected officials, five of whom were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, and confirmed by a Senate that is fundamentally undemocratic, waves state recognition of the full humanity, autonomy, and agency of pregnant people, and waves state recognition of the full humanity, autonomy, and agency of women, broadly. This decision puts over 75 million people of childbearing age and capacity at risk. Statistically, 1 out of 4 of women will have an abortion by age 45. Significantly, this decision will have greatest negative consequences for Black, Indigenous, and all women and pregnant people of color. AMSA vehemently condemns this decision and demands Congress do what they should have done years ago and make abortion rights federal law.

Abortion has long been a fundamental part of healthcare; an intimate decision for a patient in consultation their doctor. What right do Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, and Roberts have to tell women and physicians what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? The moral answer is none… whatsoever. Instead, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that states have the power to surveille and regulate what you can do with your uterus, but not with your guns. It does not take a genius to understand that this ruling was not made on the basis of being “unconstitutional.” No. This decision is the first outcome of a concerted effort by the Republican Party, Trump, and other right-wing extremists to weaponize the Supreme Court to push their own fascist ideologies on the United States, to perpetually degrade and keep families, primarily people of color, locked into cycles of poverty. This is nothing short of an attack on the freedom of our patients to make decisions for their own health and safety and violates the human right of bodily autonomy.

The courts do not represent the will of the people. They are an entirely undemocratic process, undermining every single one of us. The vast majority of Americans support the right to choose, just like the overwhelming majority support gun regulation, which SCOTUS had the audacity to also overturn just one month following Uvalde. Physicians on the other hand are sworn to do no harm, and we will continue to do so.

Let’s not kid ourselves. This is as much Democrats’ fault as it is Republicans’. Democrats sat on Roe v Wade for 50 years and DID. NOT. DO. ANYTHING. They had opportunities to make abortion federal law and did not. They could have eliminated the filibuster to do so. They did not. ...

alexx

867 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 291

#2934640 26-Jun-2022 16:54

New Zealand activists might need to get ready, because stupid ideas in the United States often arrive here quite fast (look at all those anti-vax groups that sprung up overnight, some with more obvious US connections than others) and the United States is country full of stupid ideas right now.

There will be a number NZ political candidates (and would be candidates) calculating whether this could be a voter winner here and whether there is a source of funds from US anti-abortion groups to help fund their campaigns.

#include <standard.disclaimer>

Daynger

444 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 313

#2934657 26-Jun-2022 18:40

alexx:

New Zealand activists might need to get ready, because stupid ideas in the United States often arrive here quite fast (look at all those anti-vax groups that sprung up overnight, some with more obvious US connections than others) and the United States is country full of stupid ideas right now.

There will be a number NZ political candidates (and would be candidates) calculating whether this could be a voter winner here and whether there is a source of funds from US anti-abortion groups to help fund their campaigns.

Simon Oconnor posted up on social media something about it being a great day for the US.

Today is not going well for him.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6