Texas Law Banning Abortion After About Six Weeks Takes Effect

[anna.]

I disagree. Everyone knows what occurs during abortion, but it’s important to base decisions on (and indeed discuss issues using) logic, sound reason and rationality. Terms like “baby” or even “child” defeat the purpose of reasonable discussion because they are not only colloquial in nature, they are emotionally charged monikers.

Are we having a reasonable discussion? I think so. I hope you think so too. The point at which I entered this thread was to discuss my pregnancy terminology, and my knowledge pregnant women who don't use the word fetus in discussing their pregnancies. The term fetus, outside of a legal/scientific usage, is the term preferred by proponents and providers of abortion.

Why do you think the term baby is too emotionally charged for a reasonable discussion? I'm genuinely curious.

To label it as a child or baby is misleading and inaccurate, relying on emotional language rather than discussing the facts.

What label would you use at 26 weeks gestation?

Now if you personally feel that the procedure is taking a life, then that’s your right and you’re entitled to your opinion. I personally find abortion to be “sinful.” But at the same time, having a child can also in certain circumstances be considered “sinful.” And not for the reason of wedlock either.
But anyway, the term “life” when used colloquially and indeed spiritually/religiously doesn’t equate to the scientific definition. Which can in certain circumstances include things such as cancer, depending on which scientist you ask.

I agree that in a legal/scientific context, legal/scientific language is appropriate. However, the claim that no one says "expectant mother" is just wrong, and the idea that the vast majority of pregnant women speak of their pregnancy in legal/scientific terms is also wrong. They know they're having a baby. But emotionally, for a lot of women (not all, to be sure), calling it a fetus removes them to a distance from it that they can deal with.

So we do not use words like “life” in the discussion, it is too emotionally and religiously charged. It gets people easily derailed. We need to stick to the facts and that might sound cold, but it’s the best way to have a proper discussion, even if the subject matter is distasteful or uncomfortable. More important in such circumstances, imo

I'm not changing the way I have a discussion, but you seem reasonable and I'll continue with you if you like.

Late term abortion (which I sense that’s what your really hinting at) is indeed incredibly unfortunate. But will only occur in extreme medical emergencies. Like the skull not being developed causing the brain to literally fall out or extremely painful medical conditions which will only cause unnecessary suffering and an agonising death for the fetus among others. That’s why they should always be between the mother and doctor. Regardless of our personal feelings, those are just the facts of reality and we have no choice but to acknowledge them. Well you could bury your hand in the sand I suppose. But who does that help?

Later abortions don't "only occur in extreme medical emergencies." That's an overstatement that's not supported by even the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute.

People sometimes choose to terminate a pregnancy because of fetal medical conditions or because the pregnancy poses a threat to their health; these diagnoses can be received throughout pregnancy.

And, from an older Guttmacher paper (2009)

While a small proportion of women who have abortions do so because of health concerns or fetal anomalies, the large majority choose termination in response to an unintended pregnancy.

That paper's survey was populated by 85% of respondents at less than 12 weeks gestation, 15% at more than 12 weeks gestation.

I like the last para of that paper though, because it gets to the crux and the solution:

Although the focus of this study was women’s reasons for having abortions, our findings have broader implications regarding the burden of unwanted pregnancy and the need for increased access to and use of contraceptive services. Better access to emergency contraception, for example, could lead to a reduction in unintended pregnancy, a decrease in the national abortion rate and, on the individual level, a decline in the number of women confronted with the difficult decision of how to resolve an unwanted pregnancy. The fact that an increasing proportion of women having abortions are poor underscores the importance of public assistance for family planning programs as an effective means of reducing the incidence of both unintended pregnancy and abortion.​

 

[anna.]

I don't mind people using colloquial language in everyday circumstances.
But the moment we debate the legality of something we should use the appropriate legal terminology. Failing to do so and even refusing to do so shows only that that interlocutor is trying to appeal to emotion. It also opens up all kinds of equivocation fallacies. (Which is the strategy of most anti choice people (see what I did there?).) If an argument doesn't sound convincing when you use precise language, maybe it isn't.

@ecco said "In point of fact, pregnant women are not referred to as mothers"

That was a mistake. Society does indeed often refer to them as "expectant mothers." I was clarifying that in everyday usage, by the average person, the term "expectant mother" is common.

Now, you can claim I'm appealing to emotion by using the word baby, but in return I'd say perhaps you're leaning into an appeal to authority.

 

[Watchmen]

I’m not going to read 13 pages to see if this point was already made, but I hope everyone understands the Supremes have not ruled on Constitutionality of the Texas Law. Rather, they denied an emergency challenge in a case with an incredibly unique procedural posture and lack of precedent. Does this help the women who will want/need an abortion after six weeks? No, but it is not the Court’s final say in the matter. There’s more to come.

 

[Friend of Mara]

It doesn't need to be. If a person isn't ready to be a mother, she can allow the child to be adopted. Why is it so hard to adopt and so easy to kill a baby?

There are several good answers for your questions. I will not be brining them up because they are irrelevant.

Why do you think you should get any say what so ever in what a woman does with her body?

 

[SomeRandom]

Are we having a reasonable discussion? I think so. I hope you think so too. The point at which I entered this thread was to discuss my pregnancy terminology, and my knowledge pregnant women who don't use the word fetus in discussing their pregnancies. The term fetus, outside of a legal/scientific usage, is the term preferred by proponents and providers of abortion.

I think we are having a reasonable discussion. I’m still in the air about this thread on that point lol. But that’s neither here nor there.

I think it’s important to define parameters in language when discussing issues, particularly controversial ones. All too often one can get bogged down in semantics, which is distracting. Besides the English language isn’t the most consistent languages out there, just saying.

Why do you think the term baby is too emotionally charged for a reasonable discussion? I'm genuinely curious.

Because colloquially it is used for well babies. People are naturally protective of their offspring. Instincts and all that. So people will hear the word “baby” and automatically think of a healthy cute newborn. That’s not always appropriate or even accurate when discussing pregnancy. At best it’s a potential future baby. I mean have you seen what a first term fetus actually looks like? Either way it’s misleading language at best and emotional manipulation at worst. We need to set aside emotions and figure out what is the outcome that causes the least amount of suffering. And I’m sorry but based on what stats I’ve seen over the years, banning abortion (particularly during early stages) just causes more unnecessary suffering for all involved.

What label would you use at 26 weeks gestation?

In a serious discussion on abortion, fetus. With my friends, baby. That’s the beauty of having an oddly intense language like English. There will always be weirdly specific nuance.

I agree that in a legal/scientific context, legal/scientific language is appropriate. However, the claim that no one says "expectant mother" is just wrong, and the idea that the vast majority of pregnant women speak of their pregnancy in legal/scientific terms is also wrong. They know they're having a baby. But emotionally, for a lot of women (not all, to be sure), calling it a fetus removes them to a distance from it that they can deal with.

Well is that such a bad thing? Maybe their baby is the product of a rape. Or they are suddenly homeless. Or their boyfriend just died. Sometimes removing emotions is necessary for doing what you have to do to survive.
But every woman has a right to choose what is best for them and their specific circumstances, regardless of their word choice. No one chooses to abort lightly, unless they’re like a sociopath or something. So I don’t see the issue with trying to be detached. It might be better in some circumstances in the long run.
I mean would you like a child raised by someone who thinks nothing of having multiple abortions? Red flag much?
(See? I’m not adverse to using such language. Still the same outcome for me. Pro choice.)

I'm not changing the way I have a discussion, but you seem reasonable and I'll continue with you if you like.

Fair enough. I would prefer we stick to scientific terminology as that is often the best objective language we have. But you can use whatever words you want. I’m not an English teacher. (Seriously, I once misused the word “literally” in front of my cousin who teaches English. I’m still traumatised lol.)

Later abortions don't "only occur in extreme medical emergencies." That's an overstatement that's not supported by even the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute.

People sometimes choose to terminate a pregnancy because of fetal medical conditions or because the pregnancy poses a threat to their health; these diagnoses can be received throughout pregnancy.

And, from an older Guttmacher paper (2009)

While a small proportion of women who have abortions do so because of health concerns or fetal anomalies, the large majority choose termination in response to an unintended pregnancy.

That paper's survey was populated by 85% of respondents at less than 12 weeks gestation, 15% at more than 12 weeks gestation.

I like the last para of that paper though, because it gets to the crux and the solution:

Although the focus of this study was women’s reasons for having abortions, our findings have broader implications regarding the burden of unwanted pregnancy and the need for increased access to and use of contraceptive services. Better access to emergency contraception, for example, could lead to a reduction in unintended pregnancy, a decrease in the national abortion rate and, on the individual level, a decline in the number of women confronted with the difficult decision of how to resolve an unwanted pregnancy. The fact that an increasing proportion of women having abortions are poor underscores the importance of public assistance for family planning programs as an effective means of reducing the incidence of both unintended pregnancy and abortion.​

Interesting
I think that just proves that in order to reduce late term abortions, more should be done to help women in earlier stages of pregnancy use abortion or family services, does it not? So basically pro choice options reduce abortions overall, right? Is that the takeaway? I think so, but I’m no scientist so.

 

[Shakeel]

A woman should know she's pregnant by 6 weeks though. If she has the longest cycle of 38 days or an irregular cycle, it might be tough. If not, she will know if she's smart and organised.

Better yet, don't want children, don't have sex.

People who would have an abortion would kill to have sex. So how come it's the women with the lesser sexual needs that do it?

 

[crossfire]

The baby showers are given before the baby is born. And - they still don't call it a fetus shower.
















Let me know what word you plan to use when you're pregnant.

In all fairness, there is a difference between a woman saying, "I'm pregnant" and "I'm going to have a baby."

 

[crossfire]

A woman should know she's pregnant by 6 weeks though. If she has the longest cycle of 38 days or an irregular cycle, it might be tough. If not, she will know if she's smart and organised.

Just about anything can throw your menstrual cycle off--being sick can cause you to delay or even skip your menstrual cycle. Even being around other menstruating women can mess up your cycle--women who are around each other tend to have their menstrual cycles synchronize--but it can get rather whacky during the time while the cycles are changing to attempt to synchronize.

Better yet, don't want children, don't have sex.

People who would have an abortion would kill to have sex. So how come it's the women with the lesser sexual needs that do it?

I can't say why one woman would choose to abort while another woman wouldn't even consider it. All the surrounding circumstances are unique to each individual. Whatever the case might be, it is not an easy choice to make, and a woman may be haunted by their choice for years.

 

[oldbadger]

A law that bans abortion after about six weeks has taken effect in Texas:



Texas Law That Bans Abortion Before Many Women Know They're Pregnant Takes Effect

Furthermore, the law makes no exception for pregnancies from rape or incest:



The Governor Of Texas Has Signed A Law That Bans Abortion As Early As 6 Weeks

For a party that includes so many politicians and supporters citing "freedom," "bodily autonomy," and the "Constitution" as among their primary reasons when opposing mask and vaccine mandates as well as increased restrictions on gun ownership, the Republican Party seems quite inconsistent and anti-freedom in this case.

I wonder what the Governor of Texas thinks of the Taliban's policies on gender equality.
Whatever he thinks he will need to keep his mouth shut.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm imagining mostly 2, with the lightest sprinkling of 1.
But that's just a guess.

Yes! Brilliant.... it's hardly a crime to report a belief about somebody being pregnant.

'Is that the sheriff? I'm worried about old Mrs Wenlock down the road....she's putting on a lot of weight and.....'

 

[Shakeel]

Just about anything can throw your menstrual cycle off-

And almost nothing ever does. Majority of women have regular periods. And rarely does any illness make them irregular - let alone make them 2 weeks late. In any case, you see, when your period was supposed to arrive a week ago, you take a pregnancy test if you've been having sex. Costs nearly nothing, takes 5 minutes.

being sick can cause you to delay or even skip your menstrual cycle

That's unlikely, and even if you're ill, you can take a pregnancy test. Let's face it, women who have regular periods — most women — think of pregnancy first thing when missing their period. They don't shrug and think, "maybe I have endometrial polyps."

Whatever the case might be, it is not an easy choice to make, and a woman may be haunted by their choice for years.

That's only appropriate, but hardly an excuse.

 

[Revoltingest]

I’m not going to read 13 pages to see if this point was already made, but I hope everyone understands the Supremes have not ruled on Constitutionality of the Texas Law. Rather, they denied an emergency challenge in a case with an incredibly unique procedural posture and lack of precedent. Does this help the women who will want/need an abortion after six weeks? No, but it is not the Court’s final say in the matter. There’s more to come.

It does seem odd that the court would refuse to pause a
law of questionable constitutionality, when its enforcement
would have immediate deleterious effect.
It seems that for some justices, are more swayed by personal
opposition to abortion than the law & stare decisis.

 

[pearl]

The right to abortion isn't specifically granted in the Constitution.

One of the most conservative justices was Anton Scalia who stated the Constitution simply does not speak to abortion, the Court never should have heard it in the first place and if it were to revisit it he would not be in favor of overturning it for the same reason. In an article Scalia wrote ' God's Justice and Ours'; in reference to the death penalty “My difference with Roe v. Wade is a legal rather than a moral one: I do not believe . . . that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. And if a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would—and could in good conscience—vote against an attempt to invalidate that law for the same reason that I vote against the invalidation of laws that forbid abortion on demand: because the Constitution gives the federal government (and hence me) no power over the matter.”
God’s Justice and Ours by Antonin Scalia | Articles | First Things

 

[ecco]

I haven't, but I know many people who have and it's always a very difficult process.

My point wasn't about the difficulty of adopting, it was about people who insist that women carry unwanted pregnancies to term. This often results in an infant being placed in an orphanage waiting for adoption.

There are thousands of such children.

You assert that women should not abort pregnancies, yet you have done nothing to alleviate the overabundance of orphans.

Your actions and your rhetoric are in conflict.

 

[Wildswanderer]

There are several good answers for your questions. I will not be brining them up because they are irrelevant.

Why do you think you should get any say what so ever in what a woman does with her body?

It's not her body that is at stake here. It's the body of another helpless human.

 

[ecco]

Seriously? What do people give at shower? Are the diapers for the fetus or are they for the baby after it is born? Are the onsies for the fetus or are they for the baby after it is born? Is the crib for the fetus or is it for the baby after it is born?

Oh! They are for the baby that can use these things. Hence the term baby shower.

The baby showers are given before the baby is born. And - they still don't call it a fetus shower.

Perhaps you need to read and understand what I wrote.


The baby showers are given to provide items for the baby to use. You don't put diapers on a fetus, do you?

Stop pretending that "fetus" is some sort of seldom used esoteric scientific word. It is specifically to differentiate between the unborn (fetus) and the born (baby).

Google, or ask a teacher, or ask a friend how big a six-week-old fetus is.
Google, or ask a teacher, or ask a friend how big a six-week-old baby is.

The answers are very different.




You and yours like to propagate the picture of a seven-pound baby being killed to further your religious agenda. That's much more powerful than the image of a 1/2 inch embryo being extracted. It's also intentionally deceptive.

 

[Wildswanderer]

My point wasn't about the difficulty of adopting, it was about people who insist that women carry unwanted pregnancies to term. This often results in an infant being placed in an orphanage waiting for adoption.

There are thousands of such children.

You assert that women should not abort pregnancies, yet you have done nothing to alleviate the overabundance of orphans.

Your actions and your rhetoric are in conflict.

For one thing, I would not be accepted, as my house would not be perfect enough for the authorities to allow me to adopt. And we have already raised a family. And I could not afford it. Those who can't have thier own kids are looking to adopt and it's a very difficult process. If that process were easier, and cheaper there would be less kids in foster care. And people would not be forced to go overseas to adopt.

 

[ecco]

Let me know what word you plan to use when you're pregnant.

When people find out they are pregnant they say "We are going to have a baby, I am going to be a mother". I've never heard a pregnant woman say "I have a baby, I am a mother".


Let me ask, why are you against abortions as approved by the Supreme Court in 1973?

 

[Heyo]

For one thing, I would not be accepted, as my house would not be perfect enough for the authorities to allow me to adopt. And we have already raised a family. And I could not afford it.

Funny how they require a perfect home from someone who adopts a child but nobody cares about the circumstances of a woman who is about to have one.
Shouldn't they first make sure that the child will be raised in perfect conditions before forcing the woman to have that child?

 

[ecco]

For one thing, I would not be accepted, as my house would not be perfect enough for the authorities to allow me to adopt. And we have already raised a family. And I could not afford it. Those who can't have thier own kids are looking to adopt and it's a very difficult process. If that process were easier, and cheaper there would be less kids in foster care. And people would not be forced to go overseas to adopt.

That's a lot of excuses. The bottom line is that you speak out against the evils of abortion but you have done nothing to help those who were born and abandoned. Some of whom were born because the mother was coerced into not getting an abortion.

There are a lot of people like you. They are anti-abortion - they like to call it right-to-life - but do nothing to alleviate the consequences.