Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade

[dowie]

I'm not sure Saudi is a good example, they require three doctors + the patient's husband/partner to approve the abortion... which could lead to all sorts of the same higher-order effects as you have in the US too where abortions are restricted, technically allowed for medical reasons but fear of prosecution/litigation has its own impacts.

I think the other worrying thing with the US is that simply because lots of this is new and so you're going to get additional higher-order effects of bureaucrats being overly cautious bureaucrats, common sense can go out of the window in favour of a massively risk-averse (in terms of legal risk) approach even if at great cost to the patents.

 

[Angilion]

Land of the free eh?

No words can describe the sheer amount of rage and contempt I feel for those who think a clump of cells matter more than a woman's life and the choices she wants to make. **** everyone who supports this.

Everyone can be defined as "a clump of cells". Including you, right now. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is where.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Everyone can be defined as "a clump of cells". Including you, right now. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is where.

Clearly viability would be where the line should be drawn and as viability comes down with medical advancements so would the line. With exceptions for the health of the mother obviously.

 

[Twinz]

Clearly viability would be where the line should be drawn and as viability comes down with medical advancements so would the line. With exceptions for the health of the mother obviously.

Just because a baby cannot survive without it's mother doesn’t mean it's okay to kill it.

I think brain activity should be the cutoff. Most people agree that a brain-dead person in a hospital bed is "gone".

Likewise it should be reasonable to consider a baby with no brain activity to not yet have "arrived".

Viability alone doesn't account for the possibility of fear, pain, or suffering as it is killed. While I understand that not all brain activity is the same, an absence of brain activity ensures no human experience and thus no pain or suffering.

 

[MatsyLR]

I think brain activity should be the cutoff. Most people agree that a brain-dead person in a hospital bed is "gone".

Is there even anything that shows when brain activity officially "happens"?
The only thing I can find is things start happening around the 6-7 mark (first trimester) allowing the fetus to move, which is FAR too soon and gives little to no time for the female to decide after finding out they are pregnant.
Also I think its down to the whole if it cant survive without a host, its just a parasite at that point. I would tend agree with the viability cut of for abortions but I don't think men should have any say in the matter, its nothing to do with us.

Viability alone doesn't account for the possibility of fear, pain, or suffering as it is killed. While I understand that not all brain activity is the same, an absence of brain activity ensures no human experience and thus no pain or suffering.

What's so special about humans? we are just mammals with a superiority complex. What about other animals that we murder for meat? the common example is pigs which have shown to experience pain in a similar way to humans.
What about all the baby ducks that are hatched and then the get ground up shortly after because they are not females? loads of animals are murdered for our consumption that can feel pain. The meat industry is quite gruesome.

Are you a vegan by any chance? you should be by your statement. Unless you think human live is something special for some religious reasons.

 

[Twinz]

Is there even anything that shows when brain activity officially "happens"?
The only thing I can find is things start happening around the 6-7 mark (first trimester) allowing the fetus to move, which is FAR too soon and gives little to no time for the female to decide after finding out they are pregnant.
Also I think its down to the whole if it cant survive without a host, its just a parasite at that point. I would tend agree with the viability cut of for abortions but I don't think men should have any say in the matter, its nothing to do with us.

Do you care if it suffers when it's killed?

 

[MatsyLR]

Do you care if it suffers when it's killed?

I care more about a woman's bodily autonomy, but of course its not good when any animal suffers, be it human, pigs, dogs, cats etc

 

[Twinz]

I care more about a woman's bodily autonomy, but of course its not good when any animal suffers.

Don't human "animals" deserve more consideration than other animals?

It seems like you are more concerned about parents then their offspring. The fact that the rights of the offspring are (seemingly in your view) inversely proportional to their level of dependency on the parent seems like an unethical approach to me.

Dependency on a parent should not invalidate rights of the offspring. I would argue that the offspring's dependency and parental *responsibility* are directly proportional to one another, and that brain activity (or, at the very least the ability to suffer) is the kind of marker we should use.

 

[MatsyLR]

Don't human "animals" deserve more consideration than other animals?

I'd probably say no to that, humans are nothing special. However our life is setup to contradict that.

It seems like you are more concerned about parents then their offspring. The fact that the rights of the offspring are (seemingly in your view) inversely proportional to their level of dependency on the parent seems like an unethical approach to me.
Dependency on a parent should not invalidate rights of the offspring. I would argue that the offspring's dependency and parental *responsibility* are directly proportional to one another.

This is something that no amount of discussing will change some peoples opinions on it.
When do "rights" start? at what point is the fetus a human? when the brain activity starts? (7 weeks or so), when it can survive without feeding on another? when its born? when the first cell divides?

There most certainly should be a cut off point for abortion but it needs to be done in such a way that doesn't trump the rights of the person who was here first and is choosing to carry something in their body. The only way I can justify it is the cut of being when the it can survive on its own outside the womb as up till that point the woman is choosing to act as life support. We all have different opinions on it and I don't think much can be done to change those opinions. Then again as said, I don't think men should have anything to do with it at all.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Just because a baby cannot survive without it's mother doesn’t mean it's okay to kill it.

I think brain activity should be the cutoff. Most people agree that a brain-dead person in a hospital bed is "gone".

Likewise it should be reasonable to consider a baby with no brain activity to not yet have "arrived".

Viability alone doesn't account for the possibility of fear, pain, or suffering as it is killed. While I understand that not all brain activity is the same, an absence of brain activity ensures no human experience and thus no pain or suffering.

Do you honestly think women take this decision lightly? Its not like deciding whether to pop down the pub or have a night in. Even if its just a tablet it often comes with pain and of course the psychological fallout. If it requires surgery then I know from being there for my partner at the time that it is traumatic to say the least and the emotional scars stay for years.

Viability makes sense because in the end its her body and before viability it can't survive outside her body. I don't believe we have the right to force anyone to lose autonomy over their body. Lots of people who want to take control of women's bodies in the US also called wearing a mask child abuse, I find their cognitive dissonance sick.

I can't imagine a foetus is capable of fear. I'm sure if there is any pain it is the absolute minimum possible. Abortion isn't nice, there should be as few as possible, contraception should be available and very affordable. Sex education should be taught to kids at an age before they become sexually active. Unwanted pregnancies will still happen and women should have the choice not to carry on with the pregnancy if they don't want to.

 

[Kirkyl85]

Everyone can be defined as "a clump of cells". Including you, right now. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is where.

You're missing the point. This isn't about you, me or anyone who possess a Y chromosome.

This is about women who can no longer have a choice what they can do with their lives and bodies. A fundamental human ******* right!

What about a woman who was raped? Because of this crap, a rapist can get to choose the mother of their offspring. A bunch of out of touch crusty ***** appointed by a orange inhuman turd shouldn't have any say in this matter or the lives of millions of women and their bodies. Period!

 

[Werewolf]

Seeing reports that the first utterly preventable deaths are already happening.
Apparently a woman with an ectopic pregnancy* died a couple of days ago whilst the hospital were waiting for it to be confirmed that it was legal for them to do the operation that would have saved her, as it's utterly predictable that when you have a law that says you can't do anything until the mothers life is in active danger (even when there is no other outcome) you are going to get a lot of women dying who should never have been at serious risk.


*About 1% of all pregnancies, which when you're talking hundreds of thousands of pregnancies in the forced birth states per year is going to add up to a LOT of dead women if doctors can't act fast enough, and apparently it looks like it requires either two doctors from different "networks" (basically different hospital groups) or doctors AND a judge to sign off on it, which is great when someone is bleeding out into their abdomen and suffering an ever increasing level of internal injuries (there are also reports of a woman having to have an emergency hysterectomy after the doctors waited until her life was in immediate danger).

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

When you have people like this making and enforcing laws you can expect a lot more deaths of women. They are extremists and IMO have mental health problems and shouldn't be anywhere near positions of power. Demonic possession ffs is it 2022 or 1692?

Trump-backed Michigan secretary of state nominee said abortion is 'child sacrifice'​

Trump-backed Michigan secretary of state nominee said abortion is 'child sacrifice'

Before becoming the Trump-backed Republican nominee for Michigan secretary of state, Kristina Karamo said that abortion is "child sacrifice" and a "satanic practice."

edition.cnn.com

 

[platinum87]

Everyone can be defined as "a clump of cells". Including you, right now. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The question is where.

The line is at the intersection of your business and my business.

 

[Angilion]

The line is at the intersection of your business and my business.

Which is where, in your opinion?

 

[Rai200]

Which is where, in your opinion?

When the clump of cells is living inside my body I think it becomes my business.

Is removing a tapeworm animal cruelty?

 

[Angilion]

You're missing the point. This isn't about you, me or anyone who possess a Y chromosome.

This is about women who can no longer have a choice what they can do with their lives and bodies. A fundamental human ******* right!

What about a woman who was raped? Because of this crap, a rapist can get to choose the mother of their offspring.

You're missing the point. Your statement made it OK for any woman to kill anyone. A random stranger in the street. Someone they just wanted to kill for any reason. Someone they wanted to rob. Anyone. In your rush to blurt out deliberately deceptive catchphrases, you supported any killing of anyone as long as the killer was a woman.

You seem to be in favour of abortion on demand up to the point of birth. But maybe afterwards as well. You won't say where you draw the line. Or what your position actually is.

A bunch of out of touch crusty ***** appointed by a orange inhuman turd shouldn't have any say in this matter or the lives of millions of women and their bodies. Period!

So you must be in favour of the recent SC ruling since it was that the SC shouldn't have any say in this matter. Assuming you meant what you wrote. Ignoring your facile insults and dehumanisation of people you dislike, of course.

 

[Angilion]

When the clump of cells is living inside my body I think it becomes my business.

So you're in favour of abortion on demand up to the point of birth because you believe that's when the soul enters the body (since that's the only way a clump of cells can become something other than a clump of cells despite no physical changes occuring). Why not just say so?

EDIT: No, that's not necessarily true. You might believe that all humans are just clumps of cells at any age. Or maybe up until a certain level of maturity, like being able to read or do maths or something. But then how would you justify murder being illegal? Do you think murder should be illegal?

 

[Angilion]

When you have people like this making and enforcing laws you can expect a lot more deaths of women. They are extremists and IMO have mental health problems and shouldn't be anywhere near positions of power. Demonic possession ffs is it 2022 or 1692?

Trump-backed Michigan secretary of state nominee said abortion is 'child sacrifice'​

Trump-backed Michigan secretary of state nominee said abortion is 'child sacrifice'

Before becoming the Trump-backed Republican nominee for Michigan secretary of state, Kristina Karamo said that abortion is "child sacrifice" and a "satanic practice."

edition.cnn.com

I agree with you. Which is as strange as a flock of pigs doing formation flying, but it's happened.

 

[Angilion]

Seeing reports that the first utterly preventable deaths are already happening.
Apparently a woman with an ectopic pregnancy* died a couple of days ago whilst the hospital were waiting for it to be confirmed that it was legal for them to do the operation that would have saved her, as it's utterly predictable that when you have a law that says you can't do anything until the mothers life is in active danger (even when there is no other outcome) you are going to get a lot of women dying who should never have been at serious risk.


*About 1% of all pregnancies, which when you're talking hundreds of thousands of pregnancies in the forced birth states per year is going to add up to a LOT of dead women if doctors can't act fast enough, and apparently it looks like it requires either two doctors from different "networks" (basically different hospital groups) or doctors AND a judge to sign off on it, which is great when someone is bleeding out into their abdomen and suffering an ever increasing level of internal injuries (there are also reports of a woman having to have an emergency hysterectomy after the doctors waited until her life was in immediate danger).

Maybe a possibly workable interim measure would be for doctors to classify ectopic pregnancies as not actually pregnancies. I think the difference is fundamental enough to justify classifying them as being different things. Without intervention, one will usually result in two living people and the other will only ever result in death.