Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade

[Raikiri]

It depends if the choices are regardless of circumstances. If you make an arbitrary law that it's only allowed up to x weeks then it would need to include circumstances where the law included exceptions but whilst the foetus is still under for instance 24 weeks. I think 24 weeks is a bit on the high side though, what is the minimum number of weeks for a premature baby to have a fair chance within SCBU?

Funnily enough, it's 24 weeks. At 22-23 weeks survivability is only 10-30% depending on care level. At 24 weeks it's basically 50/50.

I voted pro-choice until the pre-viability limit, but there should be other options past that limit (induced birth, c section etc.) available if the mother doesn't want to carry to term.

Ended up voting for 6 weeks - not because of the heartbeat, but because that's about the time it takes to miss a period, pee on a stick, book an appointment, and debate it with your partner. At which point I think it's fine to get an opportunity to terminate, but there should be no changing your mind later.

Why not? At 6 or 20 weeks the "baby" has the same survivability rate of 0%. It's a big decision and you're basically saying people should only get 1-2 weeks to make it? What if they rush into an abortion before thinking things through?

 

[Haggisman]

Nah - you've put me in a box with the pro-lifers, which I'm just not in.

Seeing as it's going downhill in terms of quality I'm going to stop the back-and-forth now. I think we've contributed some useful things that give people something to think about, but there's a point where it'll just annoy everyone else. <3

Fair enough, and you're right, my response there was a bit facetious, apologies

 

[bigmike20vt]

We might as well scrap the NHS then cause most people would have been able to do something differently/taken (more) precautions prior to them developing a disease/having an accident, so no one will qualify for free treatment.

dont let Boris hear you say that, it will likely give him ideas.

 

[Haggisman]

Funnily enough, it's 24 weeks. At 22-23 weeks survivability is only 10-30% depending on care level. At 24 weeks it's basically 50/50.

Yup, were told our son born at 26 weeks was around 70/30, at that point they are pretty much fully developed, its just a matter of putting on weight and building up strength

 

[Werewolf]

And finally, there we have it; people should never have sex unless they want a baby....

Stop living in sin, repent, brimstone and hellfire. Etc

Yup

And the onus always seems to be on the Woman to not do it for fun, and to take all the responsibility. It's one of the double standards, a man who sleeps around with dozens of women is often referred to as a "stud" or similar, a woman is a **** if they do anything similar.

As I've seen said elsewhere repeatedly, if the wish is to reduce the number of pregnancies the most effective method is to perform a reversible vasectomy on every male when they hit puberty, then only reverse it when they can prove they are in a stable relationship with a woman who wants a baby and that they are able to cover the financial costs of raising the baby.
The reasoning being that a woman is only able to become pregnant on about 3 days a month between puberty and middle age, with a maximum of just over one pregnancy a year. A man can potentially be the cause of several babies a day, every day from puberty until they die.
Hence the efficient, cost effective and reliable method is the one that won't be taken because it's the one that impedes the ones generally making the rules and impedes on their bodily autonomy.

It's the same with say the contraceptive pill, apparently there is/was a male version that was developed but it wasn't given approval due to the side effects, which were fewer and less severe than the female one.

 

[bigmike20vt]

Yup

And the onus always seems to be on the Woman to not do it for fun, and to take all the responsibility. It's one of the double standards, a man who sleeps around with dozens of women is often referred to as a "stud" or similar, a woman is a **** if they do anything similar.

As I've seen said elsewhere repeatedly, if the wish is to reduce the number of pregnancies the most effective method is to perform a reversible vasectomy on every male when they hit puberty, then only reverse it when they can prove they are in a stable relationship with a woman who wants a baby and that they are able to cover the financial costs of raising the baby.
The reasoning being that a woman is only able to become pregnant on about 3 days a month between puberty and middle age, with a maximum of just over one pregnancy a year. A man can potentially be the cause of several babies a day, every day from puberty until they die.
Hence the efficient, cost effective and reliable method is the one that won't be taken because it's the one that impedes the ones generally making the rules and impedes on their bodily autonomy.

It's the same with say the contraceptive pill, apparently there is/was a male version that was developed but it wasn't given approval due to the side effects, which were fewer and less severe than the female one.

i would love a male pill... most of the women i talk to say they would never trust a man with it, but that is fair enough, i take one, they can take one, double bagged!.

as for side effects..... maybe it is different for different people but most women i know who i am close enough to talk about this sort of thing partly take the pill because it controls periods and actually makes them feel better, not worse......

I dont look at promiscuous men and different to women. So long as they take precautions then so be it. I am not hung up on sex like some prude from decades ago. its just a different type of massage really.

Honestly, much like peoples views on porn stars/page 3 models/lap dancers/sex workers it is often the people who are claiming "it is degrading to women" who are the ones making the moral judgements on them, not the average person on the street.

 

[throwaway4372]

I really hate using condoms, it's like having a bath with your wellies on, would much rather have a pill.

 

[danlightbulb]

Hence the efficient, cost effective and reliable method is the one that won't be taken because it's the one that impedes the ones generally making the rules and impedes on their bodily autonomy.

I think the reason this can't be taken is that it would massively reduce our birth rate. Having a baby would require a conscious choice to go and have the vasectomy reversed, which some people would take of course, but a lot of people are just lazy with anything and this will be no different. Probably a huge amount of babies are born into relationships but not exactly planned, so I think it would for sure at least half the birth rate. That might be a good thing for different reasons which are OT here.

 

[Minusorange]

If they wish to overturn the law, perhaps they should also overturn the financial costs of giving birth in America

 

[Haggisman]

I really hate using condoms, it's like having a bath with your wellies on, would much rather have a pill.

Get snipped. It's quick, not actually that painful, free on the NHS and no need to worry about if you've remembered to take the pill if you're drunk etc.

 

[dowie]

Because its not an issue for the state in any shape or form its down the woman 100% on what she believes is best for her and her alone. Not congress bought by religious group to bolster their numbers.

How is it not an issue for the state? Regardless of what you believe the law should permit it’s still ultimately the state that makes those laws.

Should infanticide be an issue for the state for example? Or is it only not an issue for the state so long as say a viable baby hasn’t passed through the cervix?

 

[adolf hamster]

well if this ain't a loaded loaded topic.....

voted the last, given i believe in reducing population it'd be hypocritical not to vote for some form of choice, but the exact time when an abortion transitions to a murder is something i have no qualification to decide over.

 

[platinum87]

The only issue i have is people who wish to enforce their own beliefs on others.

You having an abortion does not impact me, so do whatever you want.

However if someone objects and would make abortion illegal, then it would be no different if i were to impose my ideology on everyone else.

So essentially you can believe in pro-life, however, if you vote on a law to ban abortions, then you are a nazi, simple.

 

[Harlequin]

Prior to Roe vs Wade abortion under any circumstance was banned in 30 states, and under the tripwire effect, would the very same day be banned again if the law changed. However, there is also the arguement that Griswold v Connecticut, should also be repealed therefore banning contraceptives.

 

[Quartz]

My own view is that women are going to get abortions regardless and I'd rather abortions be done safely in hospitals rather than in back streets.

 

[Werewolf]

My own view is that women are going to get abortions regardless and I'd rather abortions be done safely in hospitals rather than in back streets.

And a very sensible one.

From memory what tends to happen when abortion is banned is the number of successful, to term pregnancies doesn't go up to the same level that the number of abortions has theoretically dropped, but what does happen is the number of people who are of "child bearing ages" and die or need urgent medical care does go up.

Everything I've ever read on the subject by actual historians, researchers or even just listening to people who were old enough to remember tends to suggest that back when it was illegal almost everyone tended to know someone who either died due a lack of one, died (or lost the ability to have any future children) to a botched one, knew someone who'd had an illegal one that went well, or had used a loophole to obtain one for example the better off girl who went for a weekend away to somewhere that completely coincidentally it was legal. The only difference was the better off you were/closer to a border with somewhere you could get it, the more likely you were to have one safely, often as is the case today with the most vocal well off men finding a way for their wife/mistress*/daughter** to get one quietly.

It's like the "teenage mothers" thing where people say "we didn't have this problem with unwed mothers back in..." but when you look at the history they were there, and people who were old enough to remember often knew someone who either got sent to one of the "homes" for unwed girls, disappeared from school/work without a word, or "went to live with their relatives in the country" for several months.


*There have been recent cases with the Republicans and "pro life" "Christian" leaders either pressuring their GF's/Mistresses to get them, or even slipping them abortifacients into their food and drink without consent.

**As it would look terrible for the great Mr Politician or Mr Pastor to have his daughter bring shame on the family name by having premarital sex and it being obvious.

 

[dowie]

From memory what tends to happen when abortion is banned is the number of successful, to term pregnancies doesn't go up to the same level that the number of abortions has theoretically dropped, but what does happen is the number of people who are of "child bearing ages" and die or need urgent medical care does go up.

Kinda the wrong way around, abortions started to become legal/decriminalised. When Roe v. Wade was decided the birth rate (unsurprisingly) dropped.

 

[Pudney]

Kinda the wrong way around, abortions started to become legal/decriminalised. When Roe v. Wade was decided the birth rate (unsurprisingly) dropped.

US birth rates were dropping since 1950 at least. Correlation is not equal to causation.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/birth-rate

 

[Irish_Tom]

And then 20 years after Roe v. Wade there was a huge drop in crime across America… coincidence?

 

[Jono8]

Pro-choice up to viability (and even then, i think if there are medical issues that put the mother and/or child at risk (of long term poor quality of life), abortion should still be allowed).

I'm not totally sure I agree with an abortion so close to birth/after viability due to just a change of mind.

The alternatives (ie the "pro-life" stance) just do not work and only serve to make everything worse for both mother and potential child.