[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Page]

Could I suggest a rewording of the poll? "What is your position on state-mandated rape as a psychological torture tactic required for a woman to get a life saving medical procedure?"

[Grave_n_idle]

It's not even that - the same pressure would be applied even if it didn't guilt-trip people. It's an attrition move. Since Roe v. Wade passed, there has been a constant stream of thin-end-of-the-wedge attempts to ever-so-slightly reframe the debate, one little uncomfortable readjustment at a time.

Take partial-birth abortion bans, for example - even when pushed, it's obviously not going to change anything, because it's not addressing a real issue - but actually changing something isn't the point. The point is to shift the debate little by little, and cut away at the constitutional protections little by little. After half a century, we're within spitting distance of seeing abortion rights overturned.

Partial-birth abortion is an anti-choice propaganda term and it should not be used in any context. It is meant to conjure up mental pictures of a perfectly healthy baby about to be born and then an abortionist chopping it up just for the evilz.

Absolutely. It is a political wedge that risks nothing (because it attacks a type of abortion that effectively doesn't exist) to set an abortion-negative legal precedent.

[Godular]

Could I suggest a rewording of the poll? "What is your position on state-mandated rape as a psychological torture tactic required for a woman to get a life saving medical procedure?"

I should like to retain some semblance of impartiality (even though I heartily agree with your assessment) in my polls... elsewise folks grouse about my choice of phrasing.

[The Free Joy State]

New Poll up.

I said it'd be one-sided.

I am opposed. Not only is a mandatory TV ultrasound state-sanctioned rape, it doesn't even achieve the pro-lifers' aims. A woman who has already decided she wants abortion will almost always still want one after viewing an ultrasound. This linked study of 15,575 women seeking termination found:

Nearly all pregnancies (98.8%) were terminated: 98.4% of pregnancies among women who viewed their ultrasound images and 99.0% of pregnancies among the patients who did not.

The 1.6% of women who decided to remain pregnant fell into the 7.4% of patients who had medium to low certainty about having an abortion in the first place.

[503]

Could I suggest a rewording of the poll? "What is your position on state-mandated rape as a psychological torture tactic required for a woman to get a life saving medical procedure?"

As if women making the choice about whether or not go have an abortion didn't already suffer enough stress, so called "small government" dotard politicians are now pushing forward this nonsense. This situation perfectly illustrates why Americans should be ashamed of themselves and their government.

[503]

According to the Pro-Life folks, it serves to give the woman 'informed consent' about the procedure. Functionally, it's a guilt trip.

It's fucking sadistic. Imagine how rightfully pissed people would be if PETA tried to make a law that you have to watch videos of your pets playing before euthanizing them (PETA is not anti-euthanasia but it's still a good analogy).

Where even animals have more "human rights" than women...sounds very much like a world certain people would like to make reality.

[Grave_n_idle]

I am opposed. Not only is a mandatory TV ultrasound state-sanctioned rape, it doesn't even achieve the pro-lifers' aims. A woman who has already decided she wants abortion will almost always still want one after viewing an ultrasound.

It does achieve their aim - the aim is to be punitive and create one more obstacle to legal abortion in preparation for overturning Roe v Wade.

It does exactly what they want it to do.

[The Free Joy State]

I am opposed. Not only is a mandatory TV ultrasound state-sanctioned rape, it doesn't even achieve the pro-lifers' aims. A woman who has already decided she wants abortion will almost always still want one after viewing an ultrasound.

It does achieve their aim - the aim is to be punitive and create one more obstacle to legal abortion in preparation for overturning Roe v Wade.

It does exactly what they want it to do.

Perhaps I should have put "their stated aim".

It does achieve making abortion more difficult to obtain, causing more days to have to be taken off work (at greater expense to the woman) and delays that may push women out of the limit for a medical abortion, adding trauma to the procedure.

I do not think they are the aims for every pro-lifer. But where pro-lifers want to reduce abortions, it seems to be they could look for methods that actually help.

[The Blaatschapen]

So, what is the prolife people's opinion on ivf?

[Atheris]

So, what is the prolife people's opinion on ivf?

I mean, it works.

Edit: Wait, this says pro-life. Oops.

[Kowani]

Federal court blocks Missouri's multi-part abortion ban from 2019.

The legislation would have banned nearly all abortions after 8 weeks of pregnancy. It also prohibited abortion if the patient was seeking the procedure due to a Down Syndrome diagnosis

[Page]

Federal court blocks Missouri's multi-part abortion ban from 2019.

The legislation would have banned nearly all abortions after 8 weeks of pregnancy. It also prohibited abortion if the patient was seeking the procedure due to a Down Syndrome diagnosis

People should never be asked why they're terminating a pregnancy in the first place.

[Thepeopl]

New Poll up.

I said it'd be one-sided.

I am opposed. Not only is a mandatory TV ultrasound state-sanctioned rape, it doesn't even achieve the pro-lifers' aims. A woman who has already decided she wants abortion will almost always still want one after viewing an ultrasound. This linked study of 15,575 women seeking termination found:

Nearly all pregnancies (98.8%) were terminated: 98.4% of pregnancies among women who viewed their ultrasound images and 99.0% of pregnancies among the patients who did not.

The 1.6% of women who decided to remain pregnant fell into the 7.4% of patients who had medium to low certainty about having an abortion in the first place.

But in Pro Life terms: That's 1.6% babies saved!!
Nevermind the addiction of mum, don't care about Spina bifida because mum didn't ingest extra folic acid.

Truly, "pro life".

I've had several vaginal ultrasounds. I'm not traumatised at all, but if not necessary I'll never have one again tyvm.

[Kowani]

Federal appeals court unanimously rules that North Carolina on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy is unconstitutional and poses a credible threat of prosecution to abortion providers

[Atheris]

Federal appeals court unanimously rules that North Carolina on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy is unconstitutional and poses a credible threat of prosecution to abortion providers

If you don't feel like putting it through PrintFriendly:

North Carolina’s decades-old ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy is unconstitutional and poses a credible threat of prosecution to abortion providers, a federal appeals court unanimously affirmed Wednesday.
The ruling comes one month after the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will review a case challenging Mississippi’s restrictive ban and consider whether “all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions” are unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit was examining a 1973 law generally barring women from terminating their pregnancies after 20 weeks, a measure similar to laws in more than a dozen other states. The court rejected North Carolina’s argument that it was a case without controversy because no abortion providers have been prosecuted under the state’s law.
“As a nation we remain deeply embroiled in debate over the legal status of abortion. While this conversation rages around us, this court cannot say that the threat of prosecution to abortion providers who violate the law is not credible,” Judge Diana Motz wrote in the 15-page opinion.

She pointed to “a wave of similar state action across the country” restricting access to abortion and said, “we cannot reasonably assume that the abortion ban that North Carolina keeps on its books is ‘largely symbolic.’ ”

Motz, a nominee of President Bill Clinton, was joined by Judges Albert Diaz, a nominee of President Barack Obama and Julius Richardson, a nominee of President Donald Trump.

Story continues below advertisement
The lawsuit was filed after the North Carolina legislature amended the statute in 2015 to narrow medical exemptions. The law has been blocked since a district court judge struck down the measure in 2019.

North Carolina officials did not defend the constitutionality of the law but said abortion providers did not have standing to bring the lawsuit because the threat of prosecution was not credible.

Abortion rights advocates and providers praised the ruling, saying it adheres to Supreme Court rulings since Roe v. Wade that have said states cannot block women from having abortions before a fetus is viable and could survive outside the womb.

North Carolina is a “haven where patients can access abortion even as politicians throughout the south pass dozens of restrictions attacking fundamental rights,” Nancy Northup, who leads the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. “As the Court held, ‘[t]he Providers have a right to insist that North Carolina comply with the Constitution — and so do their patients.’ ”

North Carolina is one of 15 states, including Texas, Ohio and Louisiana, with similar laws. The case comes as many Republican-led state legislatures have proposed or passed measures that make it more difficult for women to access abortion services or place restrictions on medical professionals and clinics where abortions are performed.

Abortion opponents are hoping the newly configured Supreme Court, with three justices nominated by Trump, will be more amenable to overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

[Jinghai Suizokukan]

Where even animals have more "human rights" than women...sounds very much like a world certain people would like to make reality.

The difference between a pet and a toddler is that the toddler is a human. The option for a woman to kill her baby is not a human right. The moment you fertilise an egg life is created. I don't know why you think it's acceptable to kill someone who hasn't even had the chance to live long enough to object to it.

But in Pro Life terms: That's 1.6% babies saved!!
Nevermind the addiction of mum, don't care about Spina bifida because mum didn't ingest extra folic acid.

Truly, "pro life".

I've had several vaginal ultrasounds. I'm not traumatised at all, but if not necessary I'll never have one again tyvm.

Just like how we drive our cars every day, there is a tiny chance something can go wrong, like crashing and dying. When someone gives birth, there is also a tiny chance something can go wrong. Just because the baby isn't the perfect hyperborean god you wanted doesn't mean you should kill it.

So, what is the prolife people's opinion on ivf?

It is a bastardisation of what was naturally intended. It should only be allowed in extenuating circumstance, just like abortion (e.g if the mother has a high chance of dying if she goes through with the pregnancy)

As if women making the choice about whether or not go have an abortion didn't already suffer enough stress, so called "small government" dotard politicians are now pushing forward this nonsense. This situation perfectly illustrates why Americans should be ashamed of themselves and their government.

Do you not understand the magnitude of abortion? People undergoing an abortion need to be informed about just how serious the procedure they are about to undertake is. Abortion is not a dental checkup. Abortion is not a visit to the GP. Abortion is a procedure where you take a person's life away, and should correspondingly only be used in extenuating circumstances (as aforementioned).

It does achieve their aim - the aim is to be punitive and create one more obstacle to legal abortion in preparation for overturning Roe v Wade.

It does exactly what they want it to do.

Again, the aim is not to be punitive. Pregnant women have to be sufficiently informed as to the procedure they are undertaking. To treat abortion lightly is to treat a human life lightly.

I shall end this super sperg with one question for all of you:
Where are the human rights for those who cannot speak for themselves?

[San Lumen]

Where even animals have more "human rights" than women...sounds very much like a world certain people would like to make reality.

The difference between a pet and a toddler is that the toddler is a human. The option for a woman to kill her baby is not a human right. The moment you fertilise an egg life is created. I don't know why you think it's acceptable to kill someone who hasn't even had the chance to live long enough to object to it.

But in Pro Life terms: That's 1.6% babies saved!!
Nevermind the addiction of mum, don't care about Spina bifida because mum didn't ingest extra folic acid.

Truly, "pro life".

I've had several vaginal ultrasounds. I'm not traumatised at all, but if not necessary I'll never have one again tyvm.

Just like how we drive our cars every day, there is a tiny chance something can go wrong, like crashing and dying. When someone gives birth, there is also a tiny chance something can go wrong. Just because the baby isn't the perfect hyperborean god you wanted doesn't mean you should kill it.

So, what is the prolife people's opinion on ivf?

It is a bastardisation of what was naturally intended. It should only be allowed in extenuating circumstance, just like abortion (e.g if the mother has a high chance of dying if she goes through with the pregnancy)

As if women making the choice about whether or not go have an abortion didn't already suffer enough stress, so called "small government" dotard politicians are now pushing forward this nonsense. This situation perfectly illustrates why Americans should be ashamed of themselves and their government.

Do you not understand the magnitude of abortion? People undergoing an abortion need to be informed about just how serious the procedure they are about to undertake is. Abortion is not a dental checkup. Abortion is not a visit to the GP. Abortion is a procedure where you take a person's life away, and should correspondingly only be used in extenuating circumstances (as aforementioned).

It does achieve their aim - the aim is to be punitive and create one more obstacle to legal abortion in preparation for overturning Roe v Wade.

It does exactly what they want it to do.

Again, the aim is not to be punitive. Pregnant women have to be sufficiently informed as to the procedure they are undertaking. To treat abortion lightly is to treat a human life lightly.

I shall end this super sperg with one question for all of you:
Where are the human rights for those who cannot speak for themselves?

a fetus is not a person and therefore has no rights. If a fetus is a person should a miscarriage be investigated as a murder, should we count them in the census?

For reasons unknown a significant percentage of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus. Is any woman whose had more than one period therefore a serial killer?

[Genivaria]

Where even animals have more "human rights" than women...sounds very much like a world certain people would like to make reality.

The difference between a pet and a toddler is that the toddler is a human. The option for a woman to kill her baby is not a human right. The moment you fertilise an egg life is created. I don't know why you think it's acceptable to kill someone who hasn't even had the chance to live long enough to object to it.

But in Pro Life terms: That's 1.6% babies saved!!
Nevermind the addiction of mum, don't care about Spina bifida because mum didn't ingest extra folic acid.

Truly, "pro life".

I've had several vaginal ultrasounds. I'm not traumatised at all, but if not necessary I'll never have one again tyvm.

Just like how we drive our cars every day, there is a tiny chance something can go wrong, like crashing and dying. When someone gives birth, there is also a tiny chance something can go wrong. Just because the baby isn't the perfect hyperborean god you wanted doesn't mean you should kill it.

So, what is the prolife people's opinion on ivf?

It is a bastardisation of what was naturally intended. It should only be allowed in extenuating circumstance, just like abortion (e.g if the mother has a high chance of dying if she goes through with the pregnancy)

As if women making the choice about whether or not go have an abortion didn't already suffer enough stress, so called "small government" dotard politicians are now pushing forward this nonsense. This situation perfectly illustrates why Americans should be ashamed of themselves and their government.

Do you not understand the magnitude of abortion? People undergoing an abortion need to be informed about just how serious the procedure they are about to undertake is. Abortion is not a dental checkup. Abortion is not a visit to the GP. Abortion is a procedure where you take a person's life away, and should correspondingly only be used in extenuating circumstances (as aforementioned).

It does achieve their aim - the aim is to be punitive and create one more obstacle to legal abortion in preparation for overturning Roe v Wade.

It does exactly what they want it to do.

Again, the aim is not to be punitive. Pregnant women have to be sufficiently informed as to the procedure they are undertaking. To treat abortion lightly is to treat a human life lightly.

I shall end this super sperg with one question for all of you:
Where are the human rights for those who cannot speak for themselves?

There is no human right to make use of another person's body without that person's consent.

[Falangist Yunnan]

a fetus is not a person and therefore has no rights. If a fetus is a person should a miscarriage be investigated as a murder, should we count them in the census?

For reasons unknown a significant percentage of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus. Is any woman whose had more than one period therefore a serial killer?

A fetus is a person. A fetus is what you get when an egg is fertilized. The moment an egg is fertilized, it will become a human. If you have an egg by itself, no amount of time will turn it into a human. If you have a sperm by itself, it will not turn into a human. The moment the two are combined it will be a human. It is so simple. This is my main account btw. wasn't bothered to log back in the aquarium nation i was using.

[Godular]

Where even animals have more "human rights" than women...sounds very much like a world certain people would like to make reality.

The difference between a pet and a toddler is that the toddler is a human.

Cool irrelevant story. Toddlers are not fetuses.

The option for a woman to kill her baby is not a human right.

The option for a woman to protect her body from being used without her consent is. It protects people from slavery, and it allows people to defend themselves from an attacker, and while you might attempt to say that an unwanted pregnancy counts as neither of those things, it counts as enough of both to satisfy the requirements.

The moment you fertilise an egg life is created. I don't know why you think it's acceptable to kill someone who hasn't even had the chance to live long enough to object to it.

Minimization of pain. A fetus cannot feel until very late into the pregnancy.

But in Pro Life terms: That's 1.6% babies saved!!
Nevermind the addiction of mum, don't care about Spina bifida because mum didn't ingest extra folic acid.

Truly, "pro life".

I've had several vaginal ultrasounds. I'm not traumatised at all, but if not necessary I'll never have one again tyvm.

Just like how we drive our cars every day, there is a tiny chance something can go wrong, like crashing and dying. When someone gives birth, there is also a tiny chance something can go wrong. Just because the baby isn't the perfect hyperborean god you wanted doesn't mean you should kill it.

And like seeking medical treatment for injuries incurred in a car crash, a woman can seek treatment to address her unwanted pregnancy. This is well.

As if women making the choice about whether or not go have an abortion didn't already suffer enough stress, so called "small government" dotard politicians are now pushing forward this nonsense. This situation perfectly illustrates why Americans should be ashamed of themselves and their government.

Do you not understand the magnitude of abortion? People undergoing an abortion need to be informed about just how serious the procedure they are about to undertake is. Abortion is not a dental checkup. Abortion is not a visit to the GP. Abortion is a procedure where you take a person's life away, and should correspondingly only be used in extenuating circumstances (as aforementioned).

It seems that maybe you need to understand that a woman does not seek out abortion services on a fucking whim. They have given the option its due consideration, and you brow-beating them would just make them opt for more drastic and dangerous measures just to avoid being bitched at by the likes of self-righteous dipshits what think that she's not giving it enough thought.

Where are the human rights for those who cannot speak for themselves?

With their next of kin. In the case of a fetus... that would be the woman within which it resides.

[Falangist Yunnan]

There is no human right to make use of another person's body without that person's consent.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Genivaria]

a fetus is not a person and therefore has no rights. If a fetus is a person should a miscarriage be investigated as a murder, should we count them in the census?

For reasons unknown a significant percentage of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus. Is any woman whose had more than one period therefore a serial killer?

A fetus is a person. A fetus is what you get when an egg is fertilized. The moment an egg is fertilized, it will become a human. If you have an egg by itself, no amount of time will turn it into a human. If you have a sperm by itself, it will not turn into a human. The moment the two are combined it will be a human. It is so simple. This is my main account btw. wasn't bothered to log back in the aquarium nation i was using.

And why does this 'person' have special privilege's to this woman's body?

[San Lumen]

a fetus is not a person and therefore has no rights. If a fetus is a person should a miscarriage be investigated as a murder, should we count them in the census?

For reasons unknown a significant percentage of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus. Is any woman whose had more than one period therefore a serial killer?

A fetus is a person. A fetus is what you get when an egg is fertilized. The moment an egg is fertilized, it will become a human. If you have an egg by itself, no amount of time will turn it into a human. If you have a sperm by itself, it will not turn into a human. The moment the two are combined it will be a human. It is so simple. This is my main account btw. wasn't bothered to log back in the aquarium nation i was using.

every miscarriage or stillborn should therefore be investigated as potential murder?

A woman whose a victim of rape or incest should be forced to carry to term a child they don't want?

[Godular]

a fetus is not a person and therefore has no rights. If a fetus is a person should a miscarriage be investigated as a murder, should we count them in the census?

For reasons unknown a significant percentage of fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus. Is any woman whose had more than one period therefore a serial killer?

A fetus is a person.

Cool irrelevant story. Even if it were a person, it still does not have the right to use the body of another person without their consent.

A fetus is what you get when an egg is fertilized. The moment an egg is fertilized, it will become a human. If you have an egg by itself, no amount of time will turn it into a human. If you have a sperm by itself, it will not turn into a human. The moment the two are combined it will be a human. It is so simple.

It is also wrong. You fail to take into account all manner of things that have to happen after fertilization for an embryo to properly develop into a fully-formed human being.

[Genivaria]

There is no human right to make use of another person's body without that person's consent.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Have no idea what you mean by this.