Overturning Roe V Wade

[Kenny]

“Pro-abortion” is a false representation. Thinking it should be a legally available option doesn’t mean someone thinks it’s a great i. But there are times when it’s one of several unfortunate choices.

I think it is a good representation. "Pro - Choice" is there when you decide to have a baby or when you decide to terminate it. Both are choices. The choice is either life or abortion so It is either pro-life or -pro-abortion IMO

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it isn't.

How would you prove that a fetus is a "person"?

You want to limit the rights of others. That does put a burden of proof upon you.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do they have rights? That is a big question.

It is a big question and the answer lies in what one believes about when life begins.

 

[fantome profane]

There is no "one - issue" that encompasses a politician. Suffice to say I am PRO helping pregnancy women when necessary and would disagree with the politician who wanted to take that social safety net away.

Fair enough. But at least it plays a part in your choice of who to vote for.

And I hope it plays a big part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it is a good representation. "Pro - Choice" is there when you decide to have a baby or when you decide to terminate it. Both are choices. The choice is either life or abortion so It is either pro-life or -pro-abortion IMO

Prochoice people tend to be far more prolife than most of the Prolife people. Limiting the term Prolife to just abortion is not justified.

 

[Kenny]

Perhaps they realize that the pregnant woman is a person, who deserves autonomy over her own body, while a fetus is not a person.

Yes... many believe that. The question is and some people would ask, if you have different blood-type, different heart-beat, different brain, different fingerprints, different body, is it the same body?

 

[sun rise]

It is interesting that with all the helps that are offered

This is a big issue for me so I'm going to weigh in in spite of your comment being a reply to someone else.

I don't see there is anywhere near sufficient help. What I define as sufficient is fully paid for medical care like medically first world nations have. A pregnant woman (and everyone else) should not have to be concerned about medical bills and affording prenatal care etc. (How we get there is a different debate).

It should in addition be super easy with all legal and other issues not a factor for adoption to take place. AFAIK is not "smooth as silk" for that now.

Women who don't want a baby should have all available psychological and other counseling available along with free birth control so whatever led to the pregnancy won't happen again (hopefully).

I'd also have universal sex education for kids at the point where they start maturing sexually. Before then I'd only mention sex in age appropriate ways.

I'm sure there's more but I don't see what help as available now as anywhere close to sufficient.

At what age of gestation do you agree with the position of "It is no longer acceptable to abort"?

To save the life of the mother? If the mother's life is truly and utterly seriously at risk and the fetus is not viable outside the womb and Cesarean can't for some reason be done, I'd leave that decision to the woman and her doctor. Period.

Because I don't believe the soul enters the fetus at conception, I'd draw the line at 20 weeks which is a bit before the earliest date where the fetus is viable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a big question and the answer lies in what one believes about when life begins.

True. It may be impossible to answer. So I leave the decision making up to the woman. At the very least for the length of the first trimester. And then there are mitigating factors for late abortions. Very late term abortions are almost never abortions of convenience. They are expensive, and not covered by insurance if a person just wants one. They are limited. Very few doctors will do them and most only for cases that will still exist after Roe v.. Wade. The abortions that probably distress you the most are going to happen anyway.

 

[Kenny]

Why not just go all the way back to the woman?

It goes further than that, when people make a decision.

Why is it that when people see the baby in the womb through sonogram, they choose to keep it? Why do certain States and Planned Eugenics Parenthood fight the passing of a bill to have a mother see the child through a sonogram before making a decision?

 

[Kenny]

.

This is a big issue for me so I'm going to weigh in in spite of your comment being a reply to someone else.

I don't see there is anywhere near sufficient help. What I define as sufficient is fully paid for medical care like medically first world nations have. A pregnant woman (and everyone else) should not have to be concerned about medical bills and affording prenatal care etc. (How we get there is a different debate).

It should in addition be super easy with all legal and other issues not a factor for adoption to take place. AFAIK is not "smooth as silk" for that now.

Women who don't want a baby should have all available psychological and other counseling available along with free birth control so whatever led to the pregnancy won't happen again (hopefully).

I'd also have universal sex education for kids at the point where they start maturing sexually. Before then I'd only mention sex in age appropriate ways.

I'm sure there's more but I don't see what help as available now as anywhere close to sufficient.

Yes, that is another subject - and an extensive one too.

To save the life of the mother? If the mother's life is truly and utterly seriously at risk and the fetus is not viable outside the womb and Cesarean can't for some reason be done, I'd leave that decision to the woman and her doctor. Period.

Because I don't believe the soul enters the fetus at conception, I'd draw the line at 20 weeks which is a bit before the earliest date where the fetus is viable.

I think 99.999999% of the people are ok with a decision to save the life of the mother (as there are mothers who also chose life for their baby at the expense of their lives). Nor do I think there are any laws that prohibit the safety of a mother in those extreme cases.

But that isn't the parameters of my question.

 

[Trailblazer]

How would you prove that a fetus is a "person"?

It is my religious belief that the soul comes into existence at the time of conception and the soul is a person. That cannot be proven because religious beliefs cannot be proven.

You want to limit the rights of others. That does put a burden of proof upon you.

I do not consider abortion a human right.
There are reasons when abortion is medically necessary but that is not why most abortions are performed. Most abortions are performed because of an oops and now it is inconvenient to carry a baby to term. That is a selfish reason. Moreover, the woman should have thought of the possibility or pregnancy before she hopped in bed. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Are in the hands of the mother.

Rights are given by governments not individuals.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are in the hands of the mother.

and on her conscience, if she has one.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Abortion, like birth control, is sometimes needed medically. Criminalizing abortion makes live-saving care harder to get, as doctors don't want to do procedures for fear of liability and witch-hunts. Women who have miscarriages find themselves under suspicion of murder when about a third of pregnancies miscarry in the first trimester.

This is something that needs to be brought up whenever the topic of abortion comes up. Yes we do need to love unborn children and protect them as much as we can, but we also must not criminalize women and doctors who have to deal with real problems.

Ectopic pregnancies, which are not viable and will lead to the death of the mother are also relatively common and abortion is the only treatment. Religious people use incorrect images of near full term abortions to scare people, when in reality abortions are done when it's a clump of cells, not a baby.

Good points. I would take 'Religious people' out and put in 'Anti abortion lobby' to keep the conversation precise.

Some ... ... people also have a problem with birth control, like Hobby Lobby won't pay for it on their health plan for their employees, when many women take birth control pills because it is the only treatment for polycystic ovaries, which is a common problem.

Yes, this is a point nobody seems to know about in debates about abortion issues.

The religious arguments are draconic, and create social problems and often mischaracterize exactly in what circumstances abortions are occurring.

As in characterizing it as murder. That is a frequent claim. The best response is to admit that it might in rare cases be murder but that in almost all cases it is not and is the same thing as death from illness. This is both true and turns the conversation back towards a place where people can agree and find the best course of action to save the most lives with everyone working together. Lets eliminate the political gobbledygook and stick to helping women and unborn with a shared conversation.

Elective abortion isn't the only kind of abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure that is called for in several medical and social circumstances (like rape of a minor, or rape at all). No one should be forced to have a relationship with their rapist because a child was produced. I find modern prohibitions on early term abortion as kind of humorous given that in human history unwanted babies were exposed at birth or drowned. Aborting a clump of cells is far more humane than that.

This is a more difficult argument to make, because it requires a bit more empathy. Also most people don't have any idea of the risks involved in bringing a child to term once you've been raped. Its a kind of nebulous to imagine the various situations, unless a list is presented. Anyways the stronger point is that sometimes abortion is necessary, so criminalizing people makes trouble rather than saving lives. To someone who has experienced this (rape) or knows someone who has it is probably a much stronger argument, but to someone who has little experience it seems distant and hard to concretely think about about compared to sound bites like 'Murder' or sound bites like 'right to life'. Partly its because we avoid thinking about rape. That may seem ironic, but partly that is why its difficult to then immediately see the impact of rape. The absolute best argument for general discussion is that first one: sometimes its medically necessary and criminalizing it literally puts women at risk of breaking the law if they have a miscarriage.

Most elective abortions occur very early (first trimester). There is no such thing as an elective "late term abortion". Abortions that occur late are from medical necessity.

That is another vastly important point which needs to be raised when we are talking about the laws and abortion. There is no need to fork off into a conversation about whether fetuses have souls either. Its pretty obvious if you keep bringing the conversation back to this basic fact. There are no elective late term abortions, and most elective abortions occur in the first trimester. If we are to get this national dialogue going again instead of a shouting match this has to be doggedly remembered.

 

[Trailblazer]

The abortions that probably distress you the most are going to happen anyway.

They probably will happen anyway but at least they won't be as easy to get as going to the corner store for a soda, perhaps giving those women time to think about what they are doing and why.

 

[Sirona]

Most abortions are performed because of an oops and now it is inconvenient to carry a baby to term. That is a selfish reason. Moreover, the woman should have thought of the possibility or pregnancy before she hopped in bed. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

There may be nymphomaniac women too, as well but most women who have been in relationship with men can tell that overall, many men tend want sex more (often) than women and some keep nagging and begging like little children until they get what they want. Men also tend to have affairs or go to prostitutes more than women to fulfill their sexual urges. I find it very interesting that all "blame" for unwanted children is put on women only and none on the responsibility of men although it takes two to tango, especially in this matter.

 

[metis]

It already has. But what difference will that make?

At least 70% of Americans don’t want Roe overturned. And 56% of Supreme Court Justices don’t care what 70% of Americans think.

Again, it may have implications for the 2022 and 2024 elections, especially since I think a great many women and some men will be up in arms of this decision if it goes through as is. Now, what happens after that I don't know, but I do tend that SCOTUS and the Republican Party may run across some backlash.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is my religious belief that the soul comes into existence at the time of conception and the soul is a person. That cannot be proven because religious beliefs cannot be proven.

That is fine for you. Then simply do not get an abortion. Problem sovled.

I do not consider abortion a human right.
There are reasons when abortion is medically necessary but that is not why most abortions are performed. Most abortions are performed because of an oops and now it is inconvenient to carry a baby to term. That is a selfish reason. Moreover, the woman should have thought of the possibility or pregnancy before she hopped in bed. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

It is not necessarily a selfish decision. If the person cannot afford, a baby, if it would put an undue hardship upon a person it is not selfish. It is rational. What you are suggesting is not just nine months of slavery for an oops, it is 18 years or more. When are you not allowed to interfere in the lives of others when you have only a belief that you cannot support properly?

When it comes one's own life, then it takes much less justification to not have an abortion over when it is someone else's life that you are talking about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They probably will happen anyway but at least they won't be as easy to get as going to the corner store for a soda, perhaps giving those women time to think about what they are doing and why.

I have known women that got abortions. Not due to my actions by the way. It was never an easy decision. It is also immoral to put a delay on abortions. There is no good reason to do so. It is often done to make it harder for a woman to get services that she needs.

And remember, if you believe in God he is the biggest abortionist of all.

 

[Yerda]

I find it hard to see how anyone can really
think abortion at any age can be morally
acceptable above the level of it being an
unfortunate expedient.

On what grounds would it be morally unacceptable?