Abortion Repeal?

[Marauder06]

All comes back to religion playing an all to active role in American lives.

I’ve yet to see a cogent, non religious opposition to abortion, from anyone, ever.

The most truly conservative option would be for everyone to have easy access to abortion. If it doesn’t affect me, who gives a fuck.

A famous quote attributed to various American authors and politicians, and frequently repeated by the American Left, goes something along the lines of "the true measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members." You don't have to be religious to concur with such a sentiment. If you believe the preceding quote, it is hard to see how any member of our society is weaker than an unborn child. If you believe life begins when a fetus is viable outside of the womb, which is a scientifically-based assessment vs. a religious one ("life begins at conception"), then aborting said child is killing it.

So if you believe that extra-judicial killing of people is wrong because it interferes with the effective functioning of society, then killing children, i.e. the weakest members of our society, via abortion, is morally wrong. That is a totally values-based, secular argument.

I also don't know why you think the bolded part would ever be a "conservative option." Libertarian, maybe, but definitely not conservative.

 

[Devildoc]

I think this Row V Wade is more personal to most of us

 

[TLDR20]

I can respect that.

Anyone else:


So if one thinks abortion is not ok on constitutional grounds, one must agree that the government, specifically state governments have the right to tell you to get a vaccine and wear a mask? Right? Or am I misunderstanding?

I’m certainly conflating two arguments. But they aren’t unrelated. I want to hear what our constitutional experts think. I’m not one. But lots of people were bitching about freedom, and they aren’t doing so now, at least not about this.

A famous quote attributed to various American authors and politicians, and frequently repeated by the American Left, goes something along the lines of "the true measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members." You don't have to be religious to concur with such a sentiment. If you believe the preceding quote, it is hard to see how any member of our society is weaker than an unborn child. If you believe life begins when a fetus is viable outside of the womb, which is a scientifically-based assessment vs. a religious one ("life begins at conception"), then aborting said child is killing it.

So if you believe that extra-judicial killing of people is wrong because it interferes with the effective functioning of society, then killing children, i.e. the weakest members of our society, via abortion, is morally wrong. That is a totally values-based, secular argument.

I also don't know why you think the bolded part would ever be a "conservative option." Libertarian, maybe, but definitely not conservative.

I think life begins at viability. I have a hard time imagining that it does before then, because you know, it isn’t viable.

I personally would be fine with completely and totally outlawing choice non medically necessary abortion after viability.

ETA: this is almost 6 months pregnant. I think it is irresponsible to not decide before then.

 

[TLDR20]

Here is your 20k bill for delivery….

 

[757]

Contraception.

Echoing some points @Cookie_ made about contraceptives and education, recently I got briefly stuck on the UPR team at my office and one of the countries I had the "pleasure" of researching was Ghana. Anyway, one quote I found while researching was,

"This study examined the rate and sociodemographic factors associated with induced abortion among women in Ghana, based on data from the 2007 and 2017 Maternal Health Surveys. The overall prevalence of abortion was found to have decreased significantly from 31.9% in 2007 to 7.5% in 2017, resulting in a 24.4% decline over the ten years. This improvement could be attributed to the increasing use of contraceptives in Ghana, as the rising use of contraceptives decreases the rate of abortion..."

Viability Cons.

I'm not sure how much I'll add to this convo going forward, other than I tend to agree with @Devildocs general opinion overall. That said, I really struggle with the logic of the "viability" argument, as I understand it at least.

Lets create a hypothetical example with a man named Joe as the key player. Joe lives in a lovely home in the Alaskan wilderness. In said home, Joe has everything he needs to survive. It's January 15th. On this particular day, a group of men break into Joe's house, remove him, and drop him off 200 miles away from anything and everyone in casual attire.

In this scenario, Joe would almost certainly die due to exposure from the elements. He is not "viable" in those conditions.

For me, the cross application of the viability argument, in the case of abortion at least, causes the most problems because the underlying argument seems to deal with, essentially, location. If left to it's own devices, the fetus, especially after the first trimester, will continue to grow and eventually be born as a human child.

Personal Perspective.

Personally, I think human life begins at fertilization. Logically, once the thing has it's own unique DNA and becomes a ticking child-bomb, I just struggle with the idea of terminating that clump of cells, remembering that I am also a clump of cells.

Last thing...My wife gave birth to our daughter a little over a year ago. Even though the pregnancy was fairly easy all things considered, going through pregnancy is NOT an easy process. I understand that my argument has two obvious side effects:

1) Forcing mothers to go through 9 months of pregnancy and give birth/C-section and live with the physical/emotional side effects of having undergone a pregnancy,

and

2) Needing to provide for those kids after birth if their mothers don't want them.

The first one can somewhat be alleviated by sex ed and easy access to contraception (see Ghana) and issue two requires people willing to adopt and funding for adoption agencies/those who adopt. If you believe as I do, then I think it is incumbent on you to put your money where your mouth is, and support adoption agencies and/or adopt.

Hopping off my soapbox now.

 

[Marauder06]

Viability Cons.

I'm not sure how much I'll add to this convo going forward, other than I tend to agree with @Devildocs general opinion overall. That said, I really struggle with the logic of the "viability" argument, as I understand it at least.

Lets create a hypothetical example with a man named Joe as the key player. Joe lives in a lovely home in the Alaskan wilderness. In said home, Joe has everything he needs to survive. It's January 15th. On this particular day, a group of men break into Joe's house, remove him, and drop him off 200 miles away from anything and everyone in casual attire.

In this scenario, Joe would almost certainly die due to exposure from the elements. He is not "viable" in those conditions.

For me, the cross application of the viability argument, in the case of abortion at least, causes the most problems because the underlying argument seems to deal with, essentially, location. If left to it's own devices, the fetus, especially after the first trimester, will continue to grow and eventually be born as a human child.

In such a scenario, would the people who caused Joe's death not have committed homicide? I think that's the point a lot of pro-lifers are trying to make.

 

[757]

In such a scenario, would the people who caused Joe's death not have committed homicide? I think that's the point a lot of pro-lifers are trying to make.

That is correct.

 

[RackMaster]

@757 "Joe" isn't immediately given all available medical care and put in a "climate controlled" bubble for his survival. Now if you made the same scenario with Joe being dropped off in some downtown park of a major city, it's a good comparison.

The youngest premature birth to survive was at 21 weeks, 1 day.

Premature birth - Diagnosis and treatment - Mayo Clinic.

 

[757]

@757 "Joe" isn't immediately given all available medical care and put in a "climate controlled" bubble for his survival. Now if you made the same scenario with Joe being dropped off in some downtown park of a major city, it's a good comparison.

The youngest premature birth to survive was at 21 weeks, 1 day.

Premature birth - Diagnosis and treatment - Mayo Clinic.

Fair point.

The premise I was trying to underline, forgive me if I didn't make it clear, was that if a fetus or "Joe" is allowed to stay in it's natural environment (home or womb) it is "viable." It is only when they are removed from that environment that they become non-viable.

Maybe a better hypothetical comparison would be Joe living in a house next to a 100 foot sheer cliff that goes in both directions for 100 miles. One night a support beam fails and his bed room becomes unstable, jettisoning him out of his house down the cliff, only to land on 20 feet of snow, temporarily surviving. (hopefully this example better exemplifies a premature birth as more of a freak thing instead of mal intent).

The argument that Pro-choice individuals tend to make is that the fetus cannot survive outside of its natural environment pre-20 weeks, which is medically accurate, as you cited. But even in that case, through the age of at least 2, without somebody providing food, water, and shelter a kid would most likely not be able to survive on its own.

So why is viability outside of ones natural environment a good or relevant litmus test regarding the termination of a living organism that will, eventually, be recognized as human and afforded all the rights and protections thereof? And, if it is a good test, where do we draw the line and why?

I am in part asking this because California is toying with the idea, depending on how you interpret it, of adding a law that could allow for babies that are born to be left on their own post birth with no consequences if they die. I haven't come to a conclusion on this law, because I haven't talked to a Pro-choice attorney and I like to have both sides of the story to try and eliminate blind spots and personal bias.

 

[TLDR20]

Fair point.

The premise I was trying to underline, forgive me if I didn't make it clear, was that if a fetus or "Joe" is allowed to stay in it's natural environment (home or womb) it is "viable." It is only when they are removed from that environment that they become non-viable.

Maybe a better hypothetical comparison would be Joe living in a house next to a 100 foot sheer cliff that goes in both directions for 100 miles. One night a support beam fails and his bed room becomes unstable, jettisoning him out of his house down the cliff, only to land on 20 feet of snow, temporarily surviving. (hopefully this example better exemplifies a premature birth as more of a freak thing instead of mal intent).

The argument that Pro-choice individuals tend to make is that the fetus cannot survive outside of its natural environment pre-20 weeks, which is medically accurate, as you cited. But even in that case, through the age of at least 2, without somebody providing food, water, and shelter a kid would most likely not be able to survive on its own.

So why is viability outside of ones natural environment a good or relevant litmus test regarding the termination of a living organism that will, eventually, be recognized as human and afforded all the rights and protections thereof? And, if it is a good test, where do we draw the line and why?

I am in part asking this because California is toying with the idea, depending on how you interpret it, of adding a law that could allow for babies that are born to be left on their own post birth with no consequences if they die. I haven't come to a conclusion on this law, because I haven't talked to a Pro-choice attorney and I like to have both sides of the story to try and eliminate blind spots and personal bias.

Can you specify where you saw that example in that law. The California law specifies viability.

 

[757]

Can you specify where you saw that example in that law. The California law specifies viability.

So here is the logic as I understand it, again not perfectly. *bolding is my own*

27491.​

"It shall be the duty of the coroner to inquire into and determine the circumstances, manner, and cause of all violent, sudden, or unusual deaths; unattended deaths; deaths where the deceased has not been attended by either a physician or a registered nurse, who is a member of a hospice care interdisciplinary team, as defined by subdivision (g) of Section 1746 of the Health and Safety Code in the 20 days before death; known or suspected homicide, suicide, or accidental poisoning; deaths known or suspected as resulting in whole or in part from or related to accident or injury either old or recent; deaths due to drowning, fire, hanging, gunshot, stabbing, cutting, exposure, starvation, acute alcoholism, drug addiction, strangulation, aspiration, or where the suspected cause of death is sudden infant death syndrome; death in whole or in part occasioned by criminal means; deaths associated with a known or alleged rape; deaths in prison or while under sentence; deaths known or suspected as due to contagious disease and constituting a public hazard; deaths from occupational diseases or occupational hazards; deaths of patients in state hospitals serving the mentally disordered and operated by the State Department of State Hospitals; deaths of patients in state hospitals serving the developmentally disabled and operated by the State Department of Developmental Services; deaths under circumstances that afford a reasonable ground to suspect that the death was caused by the criminal act of another; and any deaths reported by physicians or other persons having knowledge of death for inquiry by coroner. Inquiry pursuant to this section does not include those investigative functions usually performed by other law enforcement agencies."


ME: Alright, so one of the coroner's jobs is to determine cause and circumstances of death in the hospital. Got it.

103005.​

"(a) The coroner shall, within three days after examination of the fetus, state on the certificate of fetal death the time of fetal death, the direct causes of the fetal death, the conditions, if any, that gave rise to these causes, and other medical and health section data as may be required on the certificate, and shall sign the certificate in attest to these facts. The coroner shall, within three days after examining the body, deliver the death certificate to the attending funeral director.

(b) This section shall not be used to establish, bring, or support a criminal prosecution or civil cause of action seeking damages against any person, whether or not they were the person who was pregnant with the fetus. person who is immune from liability under Section 123467. Through its courts and statutes and under its Constitution, California protects the right to reproductive privacy, and it is the intent of the Legislature to reaffirm these protections."


ME: Ok, so the coroner's report seems like it cannot be used as evidence in a civil or criminal case against anybody who is immune under section 123467...so what does that say?

123467.​

"(a) Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights under this article, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero.
(b) A person who aids or assists a pregnant person in exercising their rights under this article shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise be deprived of their rights, based solely on their actions to aid or assist a pregnant person in exercising their rights under this article with the pregnant person’s voluntary consent."


Me: so this is the part that catches most people's eye. A person cannot be prosecuted for not doing something or nothing. SO what if they just left the baby on a table for days, or in a closet or killed it outright post birth. It's the Coroner's job to determine what occurred, but his report cannot be used for civil or criminal cases.

Again, I'm not saying that I fully agree with this logic, just that it does seem odd, at the very least, that the person responsible for determining criminality cannot use his own report as evidence. At the very LEAST the enforcement mechanism to protect newborns seems woefully inadequate imho.

 

[ThunderHorse]

and

2) Needing to provide for those kids after birth if their mothers don't want them.

The first one can somewhat be alleviated by sex ed and easy access to contraception (see Ghana) and issue two requires people willing to adopt and funding for adoption agencies/those who adopt. If you believe as I do, then I think it is incumbent on you to put your money where your mouth is, and support adoption agencies and/or adopt.

Hopping off my soapbox now.

Depending on the State, the "state" makes it very hard to adopt children. California is one example (but somehow easy to foster there, and they pay you) where it costs you a lot to adopt a ward of the state. That's why adoption agencies make tons of money both with domestic children and those from abroad. Why do people adopt foreign babies? Because it's cheaper.

We have a populace of people who can't have children, but are choosing artificial insemination or going so far as to have their mother's be surrogates. I understand at one point most states made it illegal for gays or lesbians to adopt...but that is no longer the case. Yet guy people aren't adopting. I'm seeing more and more lesbians that I know go to spend banks because they want the "experience", even though legitimately that is evolutions way of removing them from the gene pool on a best fit basis. (You can agree or disagree) But we'd have a lot less wards of the state if these people who literally can't have children (one by choice/programming of not liking men and the other by not liking women) chose to adopt.

That gets to abortion, most are clearly for convenience. I'm not saying it's not a difficult choice, but if you knew you were pregnant say by 8 weeks, but you pull the rip cord at 20 weeks, well you're a gaping asshole and definitely going to hell.




Rape and incest account for hardly any abortions. So why are they now a focus?

So the overwhelming majority of abortions aren't for health of the mother, rape, or incest. The data is out there, so this whole right to choose thing is funny.

Contraception is heavily encouraged in our society. You can get birth control for free. You can get condoms for free. Hell you can even get plan B for free. The rest of this shit is excuses for people who should be responsible. But one thing the Army taught me. Most adults are not responsible people.

 

[Marine0311]

I am for abortion up until the baby is considered alive/live then my view shifts.

 

[RackMaster]

Something to broaden and lighten the conversation.

 

[pardus]

I am for abortion up until the baby is considered alive/live then my view shifts.

The issue with that is that the moment the first cell divides it is alive, maybe not viable, but it is most certainly alive.

 

[pardus]

Full disclosure, I haven't read the thread, I just skimmed the last page.
As a 17 year old during basic training, our padre, who happened to be Catholic, kindly made us watch a film of an abortion being performed, I guess it was taking via xray or ultrasound, as it showed the baby and exactly what happend. It was fucking disturbing and horrific to watch.
The baby was actively fighting against the instrument, which was basicly a set of garden shears built for purpose, I was shocked at the fight the baby put up, I just didnt think they were capable at that stage of life. The baby was killed when it was decapitated, then it's limbs were chopped off and the pieces were removed from the womb. I'll never unsee that shit.
Abortion is killing, plain and simple, I hate when people try to play that down, I've fucking seen it with my own eyes.
Now that said, I'm not against abortion per se. I think they are too many people in the world as it is, and I think a lot more need to die.
But seeing all these liberals loosing their minds because they don't have the right to kill a baby makes me laugh in a sick way, particularly the one's that are parents. I view this as I do with other things, this is as far as I'm concerned a state's rights issue, the feds have no mandate to decide this either way, if you live in a blue state, you'll be able to kill as many babies as you want, so relax and enjoy that right.
There are medical, social, economic etc... reasons to have an abortion, and I'm cool with that, I'd even take someone to have one performed, but stop the lies and bullshit surrounding it.

 

[Chopstick]

@pardus many, many years ago when I was a newly minted CMA, I was assigned to assist at a "selective reduction" at the University hospital where I was working. Basically the patient had an IVF with implantation of 5 embryos. In those days, it was rare for more than 2 embryos to to survive. This particular patient had 5 which were "viable" (the doctor's terminology) and it was coming to a point in the pregnancy that if all 5 continued they would all most likely not survive. So during the preliminary US survey to this selective reduction, the parents and doctors were discussing which 2 to "keep" and which to not "keep". I could see that they all had had beating hearts. I could not believe the conversation between the doctor and parents. How do you "pick" which 3 to "selectively reduce"? I excused myself and told my boss that there was no way I was staying for this procedure. I was 19 years old at the time and this had such a huge impact on me . I really didn't "get it" until I saw that with my own eyes. That was the day that I decided I personally was against abortion. I don't propose to make that decision for anyone else but as for me, I would not work at that clinic again. I transferred to oncology later that day.

 

[Marauder06]

Controversial/uncontroversial opinion.


This is all Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s fault.

I've seen the same sentiment in a couple of other places, but I don't quite get it. Wasn't the decision 6-3? So if Justice Ginsburg had retired and Democrat president appointed a liberal justice, wouldn't the vote have been 5-4? Is that still not enough to overturn Roe v. Wade?

 

[TLDR20]

I've seen the same sentiment in a couple of other places, but I don't quite get it. Wasn't the decision 6-3? So if Justice Ginsburg had retired and Democrat president appointed a liberal justice, wouldn't the vote have been 5-4? Is that still not enough to overturn Roe v. Wade?

If she would have retired, a liberal justice would have replaced her. Robert’s likely would have leaned with the liberal side, as he did not find the legal argument compelling. Instead 3 Trump appointees and Thomas and Alito voted to overturn. Should have been 1 Trump appointee.

Remember Barrett was confirmed a week before the election despite what we were told by Mitch and company relating to Gorsuch.

 

[ThunderHorse]

If she would have retired, a liberal justice would have replaced her. Robert’s likely would have leaned with the liberal side, as he did not find the legal argument compelling. Instead 3 Trump appointees and Thomas and Alito voted to overturn. Should have been 1 Trump appointee.

Remember Barrett was confirmed a week before the election despite what we were told by Mitch and company relating to Gorsuch.

Nothing was stopping Roberts from siding with the Liberal justices in this. He has often done so in the past and written dissents. He found the arguments compelling enough to make it be a big majority rather than narrow. So I highly doubt he would have sided with the liberal side of the court.

Given the trash of a confirmation process that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett had to go through due to the Democrats being evil and vile scum. It is just desserts that this ruling came down. Kentaji Brown got an easy pass by comparison.