What overturning Roe v. Wade could mean for birth control access, maternal care - by Dia
Starker on 19/10/2022 at 04:26
What you don't know about Estonia is that healthcare is more or less readily available, and there aren't constant hurdles being tossed in front of women seeking it. We don't try to come up with regulations to shut down abortion providers or harass women who need one by making them jump though hoops. The 12 weeks limit is only for abortions that are performed regardless of the reason. Abortions after that are still allowed if necessary. In any case, 12 weeks is plenty of time to become aware of the pregnancy and make the necessary appointments and come to a decision.
State-forced pregnancy is exactly the right description, nothing inaccurate about it. If you are forced to carry a pregnancy to term when there's a safe alternative available, that's what it is. Parents likewise can give up their parental rights, but otherwise yes, there are state-forced parental obligations and if you don't act in your child's interests, or worse, act against their interests in a way that harms them, the state can intervene and punish you. It's because a child is legally (and otherwise) a person that has rights in a way that a fertilised egg doesn't.
Speaking of which, I've never even heard of a woman holding a funeral for a fertilised egg and if someone were to do it, I don't think people would consider it quite normal. Furthermore, in fertilisation clinics, huge amounts of fertilised eggs are discarded during the procedure. What you're suggesting is that the routine process of it is in fact mass murder. The absurdity here is not my creation, it follows logically from your arguments.
Quote:
The fact is there are no laws punishing a woman for self-performing an abortion. Is it dangerous? Yes. Can you go to an emergency room and get treated after, and most likely survive? Yes. Will you cause permanent sterility? Pretty good chance, I'd say.
The desire to punish women inevitably shows itself.
BritKnee on 20/10/2022 at 15:09
Just to add a new conversation, what do people here think of enforced abortions? Like the government pays for them and requires them unless special permission is retrieved.
Nicker on 22/10/2022 at 00:32
Forcing people to have abortions against their will is as much of a violation of their bodily autonomy as forcing them to take a pregnancy to term.
Are you talking hypotheticals or about governments using abortions and forced sterilizations to commit genocide?
Draxil on 22/10/2022 at 07:36
Quote:
In any case, 12 weeks is plenty of time to become aware of the pregnancy and make the necessary appointments and come to a decision.
You would sure think so, and if Democrats had agreed they probably could have had abortion codified on the federal level after
Dobbs. Instead they itried to pass the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022, which was so radical and so permissive that they couldn't even get staunchly pro-choice Republican senators to back it. Now, with abortion pollling in the single digits as the most pressing issue on voters' minds, it is extremely unlikely that they'll keep the House or Senate in the next few weeks, and they look to be losing quite a few gubernatorial elections, also. Against the whack-job Republican candidates that they financially backed as the most beatable, too, which is deliciously ironic. They're losing (
https://www.yahoo.com/now/independent-women-swing-hard-toward-144439526.html) independent women. Election day might see a nationwide pandemic of self-inflicted bloody noses and loose teeth if Dia had her way. Time will tell.
Quote:
State-forced pregnancy is exactly the right description, nothing inaccurate about it.
It's not the right description because it's grossly simplistic. As an example take gun control, which I know you favor. Does the state forbidding citizens to own weapons that they could use to defend their lives, property, or health make the state complicit or responsible for the murders, assaults, and robberies that happen as a result of the citizens' lack of self defense options? I think you would argue "no", because the state has a compelling interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of the populace for a multitude of reasons. I actually think there's a better argument for "yes" to that question, but that's neither here nor there. The state forbidding a
third party from employing lethal violence against the the lives of the unborn (which even
Roe and you acknowledge the state has a compelling interest in) in no way makes the state responsible for the pregnancy that happened as a result of a consensual action
or a birth that naturally occurs as a result of that action.
"Forced-birther" is actually an entirely accurate accusation to level, but not against pro-life advocates. Medication abortions in this country and many others utilize either a combination of Mifeprex and Cytotec or Cytotec alone (sometimes methotrexate, also). Mifeprex blocks the effect of progesterone on the uterus with the purpose of making it inhospitable to the fetus. Cytotec (misoprostol) is a drug given to induce premature labor and force the uterus to expel the child. If the mifeprex worked, the child is probably dead. It works about 66% of the time (from memory). If it didn't work, but the cytotec does, the living fetus is expelled from the uterus and (since this normally happens at home, 48 hours after taking mifeprex) flushed down the toilet like literal human waste. If both failed, the now almost certainly deformed and grossly damaged child is usually dealt with surgically.
Quote:
Speaking of which, I've never even heard of a woman holding a funeral for a fertilised egg and if someone were to do it, I don't think people would consider it quite normal. Furthermore, in fertilisation clinics, huge amounts of fertilised eggs are discarded during the procedure. What you're suggesting is that the routine process of it is in fact mass murder. The absurdity here is not my creation, it follows logically from your arguments.
I said "mourn", not "hold a funeral". I'm in my OB/GYN rotation currently, and thought of this thread and its participants on Wednesday when assisting in breaking the news to two women that they had miscarried, both very early in their pregnancy. As they were crying, it occurred to me that it would be unspeakably cruel to tell them "don't worry, it wasn't human--it was just a fertilized egg". No one here would do that, but it's illustrative of the cognitive dissonance that grips this country in regards to pregnancy and abortion. Life lost when the woman wants a baby is to be mourned, and she is to be comforted; if it's an "unwanted pregnancy", then the ending of that life is to be championed, #shouted, and celebrated as a victory for women. As if our desires could change what
is.
I'm not suggesting the routine process is mass murder, as murder is a legal definition that isn't met by what happens in fertility clinics. It is mass homicide, and that's not an absurdity but a logical conclusion and scientific fact, if very uncomfortable to contemplate. In a country that has yawned at the violent death of 63 million unborn children over the past 50 years, though, why would a few million more cause undue concern? And if you don't think abortion is violent, I would challenge you to do some research and look into what you are supporting, if you haven't. I have watched open heart surgery, limb amputations, major abdominal cases, and many, many other surgeries, all in the actual operating room. I know the smell of fulgurating flesh, blood, fat, and bone, and it has never upset me. I've been with people when they've succumbed to disease, and exhausted myself administering CPR, turning a recently operated-on rib cage into the consistency of a crushed head of cabbage. It's emotionally exhausting for a while.
I've never seen anything in my life, in reality or on TV, that approaches the brutality or utter savagery of the video of a surgical abortion that I watched, with clinical focus on the dismembered remains after.
Quote:
The desire to punish women inevitably shows itself.
No, you fool. The desire to not have my profession or the medical profession turned into a painting by Bosch. I would never refuse to compassionately care for a woman post-abortion; I've done so many times without judgement. I don't blame women for wanting to be free of the burden of pregnancy, I blame a society that let's men dodge their responsibilities as fathers and as men; I blame the snakes that sell abortion as an easy answer to a difficulty and a way to escape suffering, ignoring the pain, guilt, and grief it so often causes; I blame doctors and medical professionals who betray their calling and oaths, and I blame politicians who are too spineless to stand up and support the most voiceless and needy in society--the unborn and the mothers that would abort them.
I have no beef with anyone who argues for abortion from a values standpoint--that the mothers' autonomy is more important than the life of the unborn. That is what it is, and I frankly respect the honesty while disagreeing with them 100%. I have an issue with people who try to distort the scientific fact of what abortion is, what the organism growing in the uterus is, and trying to pretend that it's not clear when a human life starts. That's willful ignorance or vile dishonesty, and irks the living crap out of me.
Quote:
Just to add a new conversation, what do people here think of enforced abortions? Like the government pays for them and requires them unless special permission is retrieved.
I think that would make a lot of people in this country comfortable using aagainst public officials, frankly.
Nicker on 22/10/2022 at 13:06
Dia:
Quote:
State-forced pregnancy is exactly the right description, nothing inaccurate about it.
Draxil:
Quote:
It's not the right description because it's grossly simplistic.
But "all abortion is murder" is not at all simplistic. Very nuanced.
Quote:
As they were crying, it occurred to me that it would be unspeakably cruel to tell them "don't worry, it wasn't human--it was just a fertilized egg". No one here would do that...
And you think that people here WOULD?
Quote:
The desire to not have my profession or the medical profession turned into a painting by Bosch.
How is forced pregnancy not one of the vignettes in that nightmare. The nature of a Bosch painting is that everybody finds different elements appalling or laughable and presumes that everybody else sees them the same way.
Starker on 22/10/2022 at 14:37
Forcing a child to go through pregnancy that quite likely kills them would be a bit too much even for a Bosch painting.
As for the other points...
Quote Posted by Draxil
Now, with abortion pollling in the single digits as the most pressing issue on voters' minds, it is extremely unlikely that they'll keep the House or Senate in the next few weeks, and they look to be losing quite a few gubernatorial elections, also. Against the whack-job Republican candidates that they financially backed as the most beatable, too, which is deliciously ironic.
I don't know how the abortion issue will play out politically in the US, I guess we'll have to wait and see. I've seen polling that suggests women do care quite a bit about this, even Republican voting women, and not necessarily in the way conservatives would hope.
By conventional political wisdom, the opposing party should gain seats in both houses, if we disregard any and all current issues. In the history of modern US politics, there have been only two times when that hasn't happened: Clinton impeachment and 9/11. I guess it would take an upheaval of at least somewhat similar proportions to tilt the scale.
Quote:
As an example take gun control, which I know you favor. Does the state forbidding citizens to own weapons that they could use to defend their lives, property, or health make the state complicit or responsible for the murders, assaults, and robberies that happen as a result of the citizens' lack of self defense options? I think you would argue "no", because the state has a compelling interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of the populace for a multitude of reasons.
I would say no, but not for the reasons you think. You see, we do have gun control, and guns are still legal. I have several friends who own and even carry firearms. One of them is in law enforcement, another works in security, and yet another is just a regular guy who had as many as three guns at one point -- one for protection, one for sport, and I forgot what the third one was for, but he sold it shortly thereafter. So you see, the point of gun regulation is not to ban all guns, but to regulate a dangerous weapon that can easily lead to death and injury if not handled responsibly. A knife, in comparison, can't go off by accident and accidental stabbings are much less rare as a result, not to mention way more survivable.
Rather, I would say that having no gun control is forcing people to live in a society where gun violence is more prevalent. You're not robbing your citizens of self-defence when you have less people with loose trigger fingers around. And the numbers easily back that up. You're more likely to be harmed by gun violence when you have a gun in the house:
Quote:
(
https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/)
Millions of Americans may have asked themselves these questions, or versions of them—especially in the wake of horrific mass shootings like those in Buffalo and Uvalde. Record-breaking spikes in gun sales over the last two years, alongside surveys indicating that self-protection continues to be the dominant reason for buying guns, underscore a widely-held belief that a gun in the home has security benefits.
A new study from my research team, recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, shows no such benefits. We found the opposite: people living in homes with guns face substantially higher risks of being fatally assaulted.
Quote Posted by Draxil
I said "mourn", not "hold a funeral".
And you are entirely missing the point, then. Or deliberately trying to shift the goalposts. The point is that a fertilised egg is not treated the same way we treat a child, and for good reason. Not by society and not by individuals.
Quote Posted by Draxil
I would challenge you to do some research and look into what you are supporting, if you haven't.
I have looked into what I'm supporting and the numbers are on my side. Making abortion legal has resulted in less maternal deaths and abortions have steadily decreased thereafter. It's almost as if making abortion safe and legal and providing women with information and support in making choices about their own bodies works out for everyone involved.
Quote Posted by Draxil
No, you fool. The desire to not have my profession or the medical profession turned into a painting by Bosch. I would never refuse to compassionately care for a woman post-abortion; I've done so many times without judgement.
Yet you glibly suggest women self-performing an abortion as a viable alternative. What are you, Mother Teresa? Do you really want to care for suffering women so badly that you would have their number increased?
BritKnee on 22/10/2022 at 14:48
Quote Posted by Nicker
Forcing people to have abortions against their will is as much of a violation of their bodily autonomy as forcing them to take a pregnancy to term.
Are you talking hypotheticals or about governments using abortions and forced sterilizations to commit genocide?
I'm more so talking hypothetically, however I would be in support of people's ability to give birth be monitored simply due to the amount of idiots "raising" kids. Then again this is something I (nor my hypothetical partner) could physically go through so I don't have much of an opinion.
Dia on 23/10/2022 at 16:22
Quote Posted by BritKnee
I would be in support of people's ability to give birth be monitored simply due to the amount of idiots "raising" kids
And whom would be making the decision of which people are responsible enough (i.e., not 'idiots') to give birth?? Back in the 1950s, dozens of leading eugenicists publicly recommended forced abortion, sterilization and contraception for non-white and poor populations, believing that non-white and poor people possessed a lesser degree of intelligence than white and more affluent people. This practice was made illegal. As in a crime against humanity type of illegal. If this is what you endorse, then that's just plain despicable.
Quote Posted by BritKnee
what do people here think of enforced abortions? Like the government pays for them and requires them unless special permission is retrieved.
No person may force, coerce, or pressure a person into having an abortion. An abortion that is forced or coerced can generate penalties and/or criminal prosecution for persons involved. In regards to the government paying for abortions, research the Hyde Amendment. Sounds like you favor an authoritarian rule, like in China where the law against having more than one child was strictly enforced. Your posts reek of sensationalism, btw. *smh*
BritKnee on 25/10/2022 at 13:50
Quote Posted by Dia
And whom would be making the decision of which people are responsible enough (i.e., not 'idiots') to give birth?? Back in the 1950s, dozens of leading eugenicists publicly recommended forced abortion, sterilization and contraception for non-white and poor populations, believing that non-white and poor people possessed a lesser degree of intelligence than white and more affluent people. This practice was made illegal. As in a crime against humanity type of illegal. If this is what you endorse, then that's just plain despicable.
No person may force, coerce, or pressure a person into having an abortion. An abortion that is forced or coerced can generate penalties and/or criminal prosecution for persons involved. In regards to the government paying for abortions, research the Hyde Amendment. Sounds like you favor an authoritarian rule, like in China where the law against having more than one child was strictly enforced. Your posts reek of sensationalism, btw. *smh*
My posts don't reek of anything, I was just bored of seeing the same responses to that Draxil dipshit and thought I'd bring another angle to the topic. I really don't care about these things.
(edit: Yeah that whole eugenics argument is why I stay out of conversations like this, it can be too easily doctored by malicious people. Doesn't change the fact alot of people are awful parents.)
june gloom on 7/11/2022 at 14:30
Quote Posted by BritKnee
I'm more so talking hypothetically, however I would be in support of people's ability to give birth be monitored simply due to the amount of idiots "raising" kids.
This sounds an awful lot like support for eugenics despite your attempting to distance yourself from it. At the very least, depending on how you define "idiots" your argument ranges from classist to ableist.
Just so we're clear, you're not just a sock of Draxil's that he can point to and claim this is what his opponents actually want, yes?
