Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade

[R.P.L]

I'm always in favour of the power being with the individual and the state staying out of people's lives, so definitely support abortion being legal. That's nothing to do with my personal feelings about abortion, which are that it's a pretty extreme measure that I would only choose / support in extreme circumstances (rape victims and severely disabled babies being the most obvious ones), and I hope people that do go through with it do so for the right reasons. Of course there will be people who use it recklessly, and I guess that is what it is - I'm not going to try to suggest that the majority of people who get abortions are either responsible or reckless in order to support a partisan stance on the issue, as others have tried to do.

 

[Robbo]

The poll is interesting, the vast majority (83%~) are in support of abortion up to at least the pre-viability limit.

 

[C Kent]

The poll is interesting, the vast majority (83%~) are in support of abortion up to at least the pre-viability limit.

Viability is tricky one is it not, obviously the UK is at 24 weeks, but babies are born prematurely prior to this and live, as medical science improves you'll get more and more survive.

I do think it's very disturbing that 15% of the people that voted would be quite happy to kill a baby that's been carried for 9 months, physcopaths imo.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Viability is tricky one is it not, obviously the UK is at 24 weeks, but babies are born prematurely prior to this and live, as medical science improves you'll get more and more survive.

that was what i voted for, but that said i would in principle be supportive of reducing the 24 weeks slightly without a medical reason .

at some point you should sh** or get off the pot as it were, and for arguments sake 20 weeks should still be long enough to have had a long serious think if you actually want a child or not, and there are not many people who do not know without a doubt they are pregnant by then.
I am happy to accept that there gets to a point where if you have not made the decision then your indecision is a decision in and of itself, and at that point if you really don't want the child then adoption would be your way out.
But the exact time should be determined by qualified people (ie by medical/scientific people) not the general public and absolutely nothing to do with religion, and it should be allowed to adapt depending on medical knowledge at the time...

 

[bigmike20vt]

Really depends on the term of the pregnancy as discussed above.
Personally, I would just have the baby, even though it would be a nightmare (isn’t going to happen I’ve had a vasectomy to avoid this sort of problem) but obviously personal circumstance would come into it.
We have used the morning after pill, (years ago - I’m 50) had condoms split etc.

but that is just your own line in the sand......... some would argue - and have argued - that life is life the moment the egg is fertilised, in which case morning after pill would be a no no too (this is absolutely not my stance, i am just highlighting that you are by your own admission the same scale, just at a different point. btw not having a pop at you in any way )

PS vasectomies can fail as well!.

not relevant to the quote but i dont want to multi reply.

on the subject of rape............. (please dont take offence anyone at my thoughts, i mean no insults and it is something i cannot comprehend so hopefully i can have a bit of slack here if i am a little club footed with my words)

but IF you are going to take the line that life is life and abortion is murder, well at that point, abortion due to rape seems an odd acceptance as well is it not? I mean if the foetus is healthy then, it isnt its fault that its father was an evil POS..........

but that isnt my main concern (because I strongly support it being the parents choice at least initially) but my main concern is

if abortion was banned hypothetically for everything other than health reasons or rape, then that puts a LOT of pressure on a person who may be from a very closed minded family. As it is it isnt unheard of of a girl to be pressured to accuse someone of assault after a drunken mistake...................... but add to that if she happened to get pregnant but the ONLY way she could legally get rid of the child would be to accuse the father or rape.............................. I am not saying it would happen a lot, but even the potential of someone to be falsely accused due to external pressure due to not wanting a child is something any bloke should be concerned about imo.

 

[Haggisman]

that was what i voted for, but that said i would in principle be supportive of reducing the 24 weeks slightly without a medical reason .

at some point you should sh** or get off the pot as it were, and for arguments sake 20 weeks should still be long enough to have had a long serious think if you actually want a child or not, and there are not many people who do not know without a doubt they are pregnant by then.
I am happy to accept that there gets to a point where if you have not made the decision then your indecision is a decision in and of itself, and at that point if you really don't want the child then adoption would be your way out.
But the exact time should be determined by qualified people (ie by medical/scientific people) not the general public and absolutely nothing to do with religion, and it should be allowed to adapt depending on medical knowledge at the time...

The vast majority in the UK at least (iirc it was 88% when I looked at the stats) are done at <10 weeks, at which point the foetus is barely developed. As you say, when you start getting to 20+ weeks then I would imagine something has gone seriously wrong/your circumstances have significantly changed for abortion to suddenly become a consideration (from the same stats only 1% are done> 20 weeks).

Viability is tricky one is it not, obviously the UK is at 24 weeks, but babies are born prematurely prior to this and live, as medical science improves you'll get more and more survive.

Born and live, but at what quality of life (both for the child and parents)?

Our youngest was born at 26 weeks and he was touch and go for the first few days. He is now 2 years old (adjusted), but is in the 0.8th percentile for body weight, has a hole in his heart, chronic lung disease meaning he is extremely susceptible to respiratory illnesses and has bone structure deformities on one side of his ribs due to the weeks he had to spend on a ventilator. He's spent more time in hospital in the first 2 years of his life than I have in almost 40, and while he's too young to tell at the moment, babies born that early are also at significantly higher risk for mental conditions such as autism.

While I obviously wouldn't change him for anything, we were definitely very lucky - the list above is actually relatively mild in comparison to some of the problems that such a premature birth can result in. 2 weeks earlier and he almost certainly would have had no chance, and if he had survived would most likely have a much longer list of problems!

 

[Werewolf]

Correct, they haven't banned abortion, they've simply voided a previous judgment that placed restrictions on the ability of states to legislate on abortion.

It's an effective ban for millions/tens of millions of Americans, and does mean that your status as citizen with freedom over your body is now dependent on where you can afford to live.

Before the ban there were states where the nearest abortion provider was 12+ hours drive away because several states were down to one or two clinics, now it could be a couple of days drive for many people if you're unlucky enough to live in a state where the neighbouring states have the same ban.

I was reading a bit from the association of Obgyn's in Missouri I think it was last night, where their members are now basically waiting for women with ectopic pregnancies (which are never viable and will kill them if left) to reach the point where they are going into shock from the blood loss (and in agony) because the law only makes an exception for instances where the mother's life is in immediate danger. It doesn't take into account that the pregnancy was never viable and the threat to life was inevitable, or that by taking action before the mother is on the verge of death will both make it far more likely the mother will survive, but that they'll be able to have a child in the future.
This will result in a lot of women dying completely unnecessarily because the people making the law don't care about actual life and don't care about what is scientifically possible, as can be seen by comments by some of the idiots who passed this sort of law who were demanding the doctors reimplant the foetus in ectopic pregnancies.

 

[Haggisman]

It's an effective ban for millions/tens of millions of Americans, and does mean that your status as citizen with freedom over your body is now dependent on where you can afford to live.

Before the ban there were states where the nearest abortion provider was 12+ hours drive away because several states were down to one or two clinics, now it could be a couple of days drive for many people if you're unlucky enough to live in a state where the neighbouring states have the same ban.

I think people forget how big the US actually is. Driving to the "next state" is not like driving from Birmingham down to Bristol, take Texas as an example, it's almost 1,000 miles North to South. If you live near the South of Texas then it's the equivalent of driving from Lands End to John O'Groats just to get to the state border.

 

[Deleted User 234324]

I think people forget how big the US actually is. Driving to the "next state" is not like driving from Birmingham down to Bristol, take Texas as an example, it's almost 1,000 miles North to South. If you live near the South of Texas then it's the equivalent of driving from Lands End to John O'Groats just to get to the state border.

That's where interstate flights come in, they are significantly cheaper than travelling by road, specially at that sort of distance. Austin, Texas to Pheonix Arizona for example is <$100 and considering many companies have come forward and said they would cover travel costs and expenses for abortions, only the unemployed would be screwed. It also makes perfect sense for the companies to offer this as it would likely cost them way less to pay for the abortion than it would to pay maternity costs should the employee take time off work for several weeks/months.

 

[Haggisman]

That's where interstate flights come in, they are significantly cheaper than travelling by road, specially at that sort of distance. Austin, Texas to Pheonix Arizona for example is <$100 and considering many companies have come forward and said they would cover travel costs and expenses for abortions, only the unemployed would be screwed. It also makes perfect sense for the companies to offer this as it would likely cost them way less to pay for the abortion than it would to pay maternity costs should the employee take time off work for several weeks/months.

Does this include small companies such as independent shops and restaurants (e.g. the kind of place who typically employ young women with few/no qualifications)? If so then great

Although, it wouldn't surprise me if some of these states (looking at you again Texas!) will do their best to legislate some kind of loophole which makes doing so illegal

 

[Werewolf]

That's where interstate flights come in, they are significantly cheaper than travelling by road, specially at that sort of distance. Austin, Texas to Pheonix Arizona for example is <$100 and considering many companies have come forward and said they would cover travel costs and expenses for abortions, only the unemployed would be screwed. It also makes perfect sense for the companies to offer this as it would likely cost them way less to pay for the abortion than it would to pay maternity costs should the employee take time off work for several weeks/months.

Flights can be more problematic than driving*, and "many companies" is basically the big multistate companies that typically need** to have employees in the forced birth states.

A lot of the same states that are implementing these laws have only the absolute bare minimum of protections and pay for staff and will happily fire you for the most minor reasons.

So basically unless you're in a good supportive job/have well off family you're out of luck.

*By the time you've got to an airport that has a flight in the right direction, gone through the TSA checks etc, had the flight (assuming not delayed/cancelled), arrived at the other end and got to the clinic it can be remarkably similar timescales.

**A lot of them aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart, they know their staff have the ability to leave them and work with a company that doesn't require them to put their lives/wives/daughters at risk. Hence the offers to relocate staff completely from some of them.

 

[mid_gen]

I suspect the continuing removal of people's freedoms and rights by the extremist fringes of the conservative political spectrum is going to lead to increased talk of secession in the US, just as it is driving nations towards independence in the UK.

 

[dlockers]

Flights can be more problematic than driving*, and "many companies" is basically the big multistate companies that typically need** to have employees in the forced birth states.

A lot of the same states that are implementing these laws have only the absolute bare minimum of protections and pay for staff and will happily fire you for the most minor reasons.

So basically unless you're in a good supportive job/have well off family you're out of luck.

*By the time you've got to an airport that has a flight in the right direction, gone through the TSA checks etc, had the flight (assuming not delayed/cancelled), arrived at the other end and got to the clinic it can be remarkably similar timescales.

**A lot of them aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart, they know their staff have the ability to leave them and work with a company that doesn't require them to put their lives/wives/daughters at risk. Hence the offers to relocate staff completely from some of them.

To add, I am just watching a YouTuber who just jumped in his car and said he's going to drive to the airport and it is 2 hours away, excluding traffic. lol.

 

[Jono8]

The poll is interesting, the vast majority (83%~) are in support of abortion up to at least the pre-viability limit.

Thats because most of us are not backwards religious fanatics like ~40% of the USA.

 

[dowie]

It's an effective ban for millions/tens of millions of Americans, and does mean that your status as citizen with freedom over your body is now dependent on where you can afford to live.

Not really, nothing to stop people from receiving abortion pills in the post or traveling to another state for example so it's not an effective ban for tens of millions of Americans, most of them will still get an abortion if desired or needed it's just their local legislators might make things trickier. Overall you might have some cases where people who were considering one end up being put off from having one due to the additional faff and/or there are issues that need to be ironed out with overly cautious hospital bureaucrats too but abortions are available in the US after this ruling, state lines aren't some magical barrier.

The other poster (and perhaps others) seem to be under the impression that the SC just banned abortion when they've not done anything of the sort, they've just removed some restrictions on states legislating on it, this means some states have now tightened laws on abortion.

It will be interesting to see if there is any move to house abortion clinics on federal land in some states or if any Indian nations opt to house abortion clinics.

 

[krooton]

Not really, nothing to stop people from receiving abortion pills in the post or traveling to another state for example so it's not an effective ban for tens of millions of Americans, most of them will still get an abortion if desired or needed it's just their local legislators might make things trickier. Overall you might have some cases where people who were considering one end up being put off from having one due to the additional faff and/or there are issues that need to be ironed out with overly cautious hospital bureaucrats too but abortions are available in the US after this ruling, state lines aren't some magical barrier.

The other poster (and perhaps others) seem to be under the impression that the SC just banned abortion when they've not done anything of the sort, they've just removed some restrictions on states legislating on it, this means some states have now tightened laws on abortion.

It will be interesting to see if there is any move to house abortion clinics on federal land in some states or if any Indian nations opt to house abortion clinics.

The main issue that most people have is the removal of rights and body autonomy for women, not specifically just how many hoops one might have to jump through to get an abortion.

 

[dowie]

The main issue that most people have is the removal of rights and body autonomy for women, not specifically just how many hoops one might have to jump through to get an abortion.

Well, it wasn't the supreme court's job to grant those rights, lots of the anger is getting directed at the wrong people. This is an issue for legislators to solve not the judiciary.

 

[dlockers]

Abortion isn't effectively banned because folk can order pills off of the internet?

Let's just ignore the whole pastoral care side of abortion then shall we.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Viability is tricky one is it not, obviously the UK is at 24 weeks, but babies are born prematurely prior to this and live, as medical science improves you'll get more and more survive.

I do think it's very disturbing that 15% of the people that voted would be quite happy to kill a baby that's been carried for 9 months, physcopaths imo.

Or those people realise that problems can occur in later pregnancy that makes the foetus unviable, either it won't survive outside the mother for long or it will endanger the life of the mother. Many states will ban an abortion for women in these cases. So I very much doubt they voted to pro choice up to birth because a women might decide at 8.5 months that she isn't up for it. This is the real world and in the real world bad things can happen. Put yourself in the situation where your pregnant partner finds out there is a major problem but is forced to carry the term and give birth knowing it is either dead or soon will be or even worse that it could kill your partner but there is nothing you can do about it because some religious nut jobs want to impose their beliefs on you.

 

[dowie]

Viability is tricky one is it not, obviously the UK is at 24 weeks, but babies are born prematurely prior to this and live, as medical science improves you'll get more and more survive.

I do think it's very disturbing that 15% of the people that voted would be quite happy to kill a baby that's been carried for 9 months, physcopaths imo.

Yeah, I agree, that is dubious, both extremes are silly.

On one extreme; conception is a magical event, can't dispose of the bag of cells if the mother wishes to is a ridiculous view.

On the other extreme; passing through the vagina is a magical event, can totally kill a viable baby just because you want to even minutes before then so long as you do it when it's in the womb.

Or those people realise that problems can occur in later pregnancy that makes the foetus unviable,

If that is the case then they've not read the OP, the poll is re: limits, if any, for abortion on demand.

Abortions for medical reasons such as the mother's life being at risk or the baby not being viable are a different question entirely.