View Full Version : Roe v Wade
Rumors are it is overturned, the logical end to not your body, your choice, you will lose your job if not vaxxed and must wear a mask.
iris lilies
5-3-22, 8:49am
I understand the constitutional argument and I’m always happy when the constitution is upheld, even when it hurts.
I’m not at all happy that abortion will be severely restricted in so many places in the United States.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not like Roe versus Wade and the subsequent Casy ruling because it was constitutionally illogical and unsupported.
So, the red states get what their constituents want and the blue states can continue as always? The news I heard was no exceptions for rape or incest.
iris lilies
5-3-22, 9:26am
So, the red states get what their constituents want and the blue states can continue as always? The news I heard was no exceptions for rape or incest.
Theoretically, I never understand those exclusions anyway. I say this as probably the most liberal person here on this forum on the issue of abortion. If one is defending the rights of the unborn one is defending the rights of the unborn regardless of the unborns’ circumstances in coming into being.
Remember that what you “heard” is the Supreme Court basically saying “not our issue, Not our issue to determine. This decision belongs to the states.” That includes any exclusion, limitation, freedom, etc.
I always thought the arguments in favor of Roe we’re, in Charlie Cooke’s words. “a box of clouds”. If it’s that important a “right”, it should be voted on as a law, not constructed out of water vapor.
I see the House and Senate leadership are already putting out perfervid statements about “unaccountable judges ripping up the Constitution”. If this is a hoax, it’s a very effective one. If it’s a leak, it may indicate some SCOTUS underling is trying to give the pro abortion forces an extra couple of months to work the issue and rally the base.
iris lilies
5-3-22, 9:51am
I always thought the arguments in favor of Roe we’re, in Charlie Cooke’s words. “a box of clouds”. If it’s that important a “right”, it should be voted on as a law, not constructed out of water vapor.
I see the House and Senate leadership are already putting out perfervid statements about “unaccountable judges ripping up the Constitution”. If this is a hoax, it’s a very effective one. If it’s a leak, it may indicate some SCOTUS underling is trying to give the pro abortion forces an extra couple of months to work the issue and rally the base.
ok but, Can Congress legislat this? If they legislate it why wouldn’t it circle straight back to the Supreme Court?
Either it is a states’ right issue or it isn’t.
No one is pro-abortion per se, and the base is already on high alert.
I'm with Iris Lily in having an unshakeable belief that women should control their own reproductive matters. But if it is determined that there is no right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, the floodgates are open to overturning Griswold, Loving, Obergefell, and frankly, a lot of other issues--which should grease the skids on our steep slope to a quasi-theocratic authoritarian state.
ok but, Can Congress legislat this? If they legislate it why wouldn’t it circle straight back to the Supreme Court?
Either it is a states’ right or it isn’t.
They could always initiate the process to amend the Constitution. Personally, I’m more comfortable leaving it with the States.
iris lilies
5-3-22, 10:00am
No one is pro-abortion per se, and the base is already on high alert.
I'm with Iris Lily in having an unshakeable belief that women should control their own reproductive matters. But if it is determined that there is no right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, the floodgates are open to overturning Griswold, Loving, Obergefell, and frankly, a lot of other issues--which should grease the skids on our steep slope to a quasi-theocratic authoritarian state.
The constitutional scholars of Reddit :)are not in agreement that this thing goes any further than abortion. But we shall see.
Theoretically, I never understand those exclusions anyway. I say this as probably the most liberal person here on this forum on the issue of abortion. If one is defending the rights of the unborn one is defending the rights of the unborn regardless of the unborns’ circumstances in coming into being.
Remember that what you “heard” is the Supreme Court basically saying “not our issue, Not our issue to determine. This decision belongs to the states.” That includes any exclusion, limitation, freedom, etc.
I assume also that generally this will open the door to an absolute ban regardless of time from conception, which of course could also be up to the red states. And also any issues around the mother's life being in danger. I suppose our state, being a blue island in a sea of red will see an increase in visitors?
Washington citizens having voted twice to uphold reproductive rights, we're good so far.
In November 1970, Washington held a referendum on legalizing early pregnancy abortions, becoming the first state to legalize abortion through a vote of the people.[25] When Washington made abortion legal by referendum, it was the first state in the country to do so. In 1991, a ballot box measure passed that made abortion legal up to the point where a fetus was viable. Wikipedia
Obviously this won't end abortion. It'll just end safe, legal abortion for a lot of poor women. Anyone with enough money who wants an abortion will simply take an abortion vacation to California or any other state that where they are still legal.
Washington citizens having voted twice to uphold reproductive rights, we're good so far.
In November 1970, Washington held a referendum on legalizing early pregnancy abortions, becoming the first state to legalize abortion through a vote of the people.[25] When Washington made abortion legal by referendum, it was the first state in the country to do so. In 1991, a ballot box measure passed that made abortion legal up to the point where a fetus was viable. Wikipedia
I understand a number of states have “trigger laws” that will go into effect if and when Roe is overturned.
I assume also that generally this will open the door to an absolute ban regardless of time from conception, which of course could also be up to the red states. And also any issues around the mother's life being in danger. I suppose our state, being a blue island in a sea of red will see an increase in visitors?
If laws aren’t passed making it illegal to travel for the procedure, or to aid someone else in traveling….
iris lilies
5-3-22, 10:38am
If laws aren’t passed making it illegal to travel for the procedure, or to aid someone else in traveling….
That is pretty clearly unconstitutional, outlawing someone to go to another place to do something that is perfectly legal.
I’m not too worried about that one holding up.
That is pretty clearly unconstitutional, outlawing someone to go to another place to do something that is perfectly legal.
I’m not too worried about that one holding up.
It seems to be in the playbook for some states:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/19/travel-abortion-law-missouri-00018539
Possibly it might be found unconstitutional if adopted, but that process takes time and money. Years, decades sometimes. So it's a convenient way to oppress people in the meantime, and you can always pass a slightly different bill the very next day and restart the clock.
Isn't government wonderful?
It seems to be in the playbook for some states:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/19/travel-abortion-law-missouri-00018539
Possibly it might be found unconstitutional if adopted, but that process takes time and money. Years, decades sometimes. So it's a convenient way to oppress people in the meantime, and you can always pass a slightly different bill the very next day and restart the clock.
Isn't government wonderful?
I would think the feds would use the interstate commerce clause to attack something like that. They’ve done it before on thinner pretexts.
I would think the feds would use the interstate commerce clause to attack something like that. They’ve done it before on thinner pretexts.
Once you bring out the ICC, no pretext is too thin, ever since Wickard v. Filburn.
That is pretty clearly unconstitutional, outlawing someone to go to another place to do something that is perfectly legal.
I’m not too worried about that one holding up.
Don't be so sure. Unvaccinated Canadians are not allowed to travel internationally.
Don't be so sure. Unvaccinated Canadians are not allowed to travel internationally.
Does Canada use the US Constitution and judicial system?
If laws aren’t passed making it illegal to travel for the procedure, or to aid someone else in traveling….
My brief bit of research says that about half of abortions are done by medication rather than surgery. No doubt some similar rules could apply or be challenged but it seems like a whole nother legal quagmire. I suppose Mexico could still be an option.
They could always initiate the process to amend the Constitution. Personally, I’m more comfortable leaving it with the States.
Which is totally redundant since people will just cross state lines to get their abortions. My take is leave it as it is. From what I am hearing over 70 some percent of people want the law to remain unchanged.
I would think the feds would use the interstate commerce clause to attack something like that. They’ve done it before on thinner pretexts.
Doesn't meet the definition of commerce.
Doesn't meet the definition of commerce.
Just as most people would say that interstate commerce doesn’t include growing wheat and feeding it to your own livestock. But as bae noted according to the Supreme Court that is, in fact, commerce.
I am mad, sad, angry and disappointed. I am 62 years old and grew up during the women's movement. I've seen the ERA fail. Women just 10 years older than I am made it easier for me to attend law school and not be "the girl in the class." We've worked so hard and have so much more to do for just basic equality. Add in climate change and I mourn for my children.
Climate change
Covid
Inflation
Housing availability problems
Insurrection in the Capitol, and a continuing effort to press the point
Attacks on voting rights, especially targeted at "those people"
Jingoism
Attacks on women's rights, LGBTQ rights
Decaying infrastructure - bridges, roads, ports, ...
A government more focused on Twitter/TikTok soundbites than governance
Internet-enabled viral transmission of fringe wacky beliefs
WWIII in Europe
Autocrats/plutocrats joining hands worldwide
Growing concentration of wealth at the top
Ah, well, it's time to go work in the garden.
https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/being-there.jpg
ToomuchStuff
5-3-22, 3:35pm
My brief bit of research says that about half of abortions are done by medication rather than surgery. No doubt some similar rules could apply or be challenged but it seems like a whole nother legal quagmire. I suppose Mexico could still be an option.
Sorry I don't keep up with all that stuff, too much life going on. Did they ever approve the day after pill?
Doesn't meet the definition of commerce.
Exchange of goods or SERVICES for money?
ToomuchStuff
5-3-22, 3:45pm
Climate change
Covid
Inflation
Housing availability problems
Insurrection in the Capitol, and a continuing effort to press the point
Attacks on voting rights, especially targeted at "those people"
Jingoism
Attacks on women's rights, LGBTQ rights
Decaying infrastructure - bridges, roads, ports, ...
A government more focused on Twitter/TikTok soundbites than governance
Internet-enabled viral transmission of fringe wacky beliefs
WWIII in Europe
Autocrats/plutocrats joining hands worldwide
Growing concentration of wealth at the top
You have me trying to remember the name of that movie, however your listing made this song stick in my head:
https://youtu.be/m50p-XScreM
You have me trying to remember the name of that movie.....
Being There
ToomuchStuff
5-3-22, 3:58pm
Being There
Thank you.
Climate change
Covid
Inflation
Housing availability problems
Insurrection in the Capitol, and a continuing effort to press the point
Attacks on voting rights, especially targeted at "those people"
Jingoism
Attacks on women's rights, LGBTQ rights
Decaying infrastructure - bridges, roads, ports, ...
A government more focused on Twitter/TikTok soundbites than governance
Internet-enabled viral transmission of fringe wacky beliefs
WWIII in Europe
Autocrats/plutocrats joining hands worldwide
Growing concentration of wealth at the top
Ah, well, it's time to go work in the garden.
...
Interesting times, indeed.
Just as most people would say that interstate commerce doesn’t include growing wheat and feeding it to your own livestock. But as bae noted according to the Supreme Court that is, in fact, commerce.
An activity does not need to have a direct effect on interstate commerce to fall within the commerce power, as long as the effect is substantial and economic.…. disgustingly You may be right?
An activity does not need to have a direct effect on interstate commerce to fall within the commerce power, as long as the effect is substantial and economic.…. disgustingly You may be right?
Personally I think the decision was absurd and just shows that judges can use whatever jiggery pokery they want to come to the decision they desire. Especially if they are the supreme court and no one is allowed to question the decision in any meaningful way.
On this note I expect at some point in the next few years the absurd judgement that osha can't have a vaccine requirement because people can catch covid outside of work will be used to eviscerate all of OSHA's safety rules. As one example, people lift heavy items outside of work so why should their be limitations and other safety requirements around that for people on the job? And on and on and on.
Teacher Terry
5-4-22, 12:18pm
As my mom used to say if men got pregnant abortions would be a god given right. Taking away women’s right to control their bodies disgusts me. It will of course hurt poor women, women will die trying to abort and more kids will be abused. We unfortunately are returning to the 1950’s.
One difference about today is that there are multiple forms of effective birth control.
Very odd, but Groot, the Chicago mayor, seems to be angling to promote abortion tourism, for lack of a better description
One difference about today is that there are multiple forms of effective birth control.
Well, my daughter exists today because of a failure of multiple layers of birth control. So there's that.
And I suspect women still get raped, so there's that. Someone told me yesterday that in many states rapists get parental rights if a child results, which I thought didn't sound at all possible, until I did a little digging. Ick.
DD is wondering about the future of IVF embryo storage and procedures - especially in a state like Texas where she lives. Somehow I think, half the burden and hardship of unwanted pregnancy choices has to shift to the involved males. For some odd reason when abortion cons are discussed, I always think about the end result of so many unwanted humans being brought into the world.
ApatheticNoMore
5-4-22, 2:26pm
I think a lot of people would agree abortion should be available for women because birth control sometimes fails, not because it usually does, so it's often somewhat theoretical, but because it's not impossible. So people who find themselves in that situation ... they might ultimately choose to have the kid, but then again they might not, afterall they were using birth control for a reason!!! Because they didn't want a(nother) kid! 3rd trimester, and so on, at a certain point it's not completely crazy to expect people to have decided already what to do with a pregnancy, but that's probably mostly health of the mother or kid anyway at that point, and of course health of the mother matters more.
I'm the result of failed birth control, but the pill these days is better than it was then, they've worked out a lot of the bugs, and there are a few more options as well. Life is funny, I heard so much as a kid about how "we never should have had kids", then to only find out later I was "an accident" anyway (!!!) rather than some result of bad decision making or something (but no I don't think abortion was ever considered and my parents were several years into marriage). An even greater shock was finding out from some of his old coworkers at my dad's funeral that he had been so proud of his kids (when we were kids). He was? *in shock* Greatest man I never knew ... though I knew him like my own breath.
DD is wondering about the future of IVF embryo storage and procedures -...
Don't those fertilized embryos in storage right now have a right to be born?
iris lilies
5-4-22, 3:09pm
Don't those fertilized embryos in storage right now have a right to be born?
I know! The whole world of reproductive ethics is so much bigger than the narrow issue all abortion arguments cover.
when you start looking into all the permutations of unfertilized eggs, fertilized eggs, egg storage, ownership of eggs, rights of eggs, implantation of fertilized eggs, ownership of the product of implantation, damaged eggs, damaged fertilized eggs and fetuses and rights/ responsibilities, etc. etc. etc.…
… many complex issues arise. The medical ethics world knows about these, but it seems like those discussions NEVER hit mainstream social media and so are never discussed in any venue I frequent.
I searched out a book from a physician/ethicists about these reproductive issues and honestly it was so dense I skimmed a bit of it and sent it back to it’s home library. I just couldn’t grok it.
Another group that looks into this with a fine detail I assume would be the old men in skirts at the Vatican. I’m sure their medical ethicists are delving into these issues.
ApatheticNoMore
5-4-22, 3:25pm
I know! The whole world of reproductive ethics is so much bigger than the narrow issue all abortion arguments cover.
but those issues affect a lot less people than potential pregnancy does. And it likely seems really extreme to most people, even if they have some ambiguity about abortion of an actually developing pregnancy somewhere along the line, to say just a fertilized egg itself needs saving. And anyway miscarriage happens regardless. I mean I guess a few Catholics might have their issue, but why subject everyone who does not subscribe to Catholicism to whatever beliefs are unique to Catholicism. Talk about minority rule.
why subject everyone who does not subscribe to Catholicism to whatever beliefs are unique to Catholicism. .
I'm not Catholic, but oddly enough Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are. WTF?
I'm not Catholic, but oddly enough Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are. WTF?
If I remember my Catechism correctly, even aiding in procuring an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
ToomuchStuff
5-4-22, 5:24pm
Rape by owner, failed abortion attempt (at least one, think a couple), then taken in by Nun's in a program to set up unwed mothers with spouse. So can't stop the pregnancy, but more then fine to horsewhip the evil out of them, and continue berating that line of the family, comparing them to the rapist.
Yeah because people are so good.
I'm not Catholic, but oddly enough Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are. WTF?
I can call myself a golfer. But that doesn’t mean I’m not terrible at it.
You can look at being Catholic as being part of a religious community with a particular body of doctrine, or as a sort of superficial cultural or ethnic identity you can brandish when it’s politically convenient.
iris lilies
5-4-22, 9:33pm
but those issues affect a lot less people than potential pregnancy does. And it likely seems really extreme to most people, even if they have some ambiguity about abortion of an actually developing pregnancy somewhere along the line, to say just a fertilized egg itself needs saving. And anyway miscarriage happens regardless. I mean I guess a few Catholics might have their issue, but why subject everyone who does not subscribe to Catholicism to whatever beliefs are unique to Catholicism. Talk about minority rule.
Well no I don’t think everyone should be subjected to what the Catholics think, I’m just saying that I bet the Catholic theologians have position papers on these nuances that the lawmakers will HAVE TO face into.
I don’t have faith that my state legislators can write a law that covers all issues that will come up. Before Row versus Wade, science was far far less developed, and there was not so many made-by
-science possibilities of human reproduction.
For instance, one example of hundreds, something that was featured in a Netflix program: A married couple really wanted children and went the IVF route. They ended up with twins. The twins had some sort of medical problem, maybe it was lack of nutrients, and it was determined that one twin would have to be sacrificed in utero or else both would die.
I find it hard to believe that any abortion law is going to take that situation into consideration.
I find it hard to believe that any abortion law is going to take that situation into consideration.
I was trained to deliver babies in the field in some particularly-hellish trauma situations. And have done so a few times in not-terrible situations. I'm not sure the legislators will craft things that won't make first responders criminals in some cases.
For instance, one example of hundreds, something that was featured in a Netflix program: A married couple really wanted children and went the IVF route. They ended up with twins. The twins had some sort of medical problem, maybe it was lack of nutrients, and it was determined that one twin would have to be sacrificed in utero or else both would die.
I find it hard to believe that any abortion law is going to take that situation into consideration.
Considering that the "medical experts" in at least a few state legislatures don't seem to even understand about the absolute non-viability of ectopic pregnancies I think you're probably right.
Considering that the "medical experts" in at least a few state legislatures don't seem to even understand about the absolute non-viability of ectopic pregnancies I think you're probably right.
I doubt most of the old fossils involved in making these outrageous laws could find a vulva on a map, let alone understand basic reproduction.
I doubt most of the old fossils involved in making these outrageous laws could find a vulva on a map, let alone understand basic reproduction.
I don't know, Rep. Cawthorn says he's constantly being invited to orgies...
I don't know, Rep. Cawthorn says he's constantly being invited to orgies...
Sometimes political news is at least good for a laugh...:D
Rape by owner, failed abortion attempt (at least one, think a couple), then taken in by Nun's in a program to set up unwed mothers with spouse. So can't stop the pregnancy, but more then fine to horsewhip the evil out of them, and continue berating that line of the family, comparing them to the rapist.
Yeah because people are so good.
I think this is a reference to something that happened within your family, is that right? I'm a little unclear and just want to understand rather than passing over something that sounds so horrible.
ToomuchStuff
5-5-22, 9:48am
I think this is a reference to something that happened within your family, is that right? I'm a little unclear and just want to understand rather than passing over something that sounds so horrible.
Yes.
And some people know they shouldn't be a parent. What is next, I already know of cases of forced adoption, they could just as easily take that away.
rosarugosa
5-5-22, 10:45am
I always knew that parenthood wasn't for me, and I'm beyond grateful to live in a place and time that it is actually optional.
I always knew that parenthood wasn't for me, and I'm beyond grateful to live in a place and time that it is actually optional.
Amen to that! I hope it stays that way, but the trend is ominous.
gimmethesimplelife
5-9-22, 12:22am
I'm late to this and gave not read the preceeding. Scored lots of OT before my mid May return to Nogales for my last dental work this time around.
I wonder if the Mexican border towns/cities wii now have a new growth industry, abortion? And if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, activism will be going far beyond mine.....and more pressure for the US to dissolve/split.
My gut is overturning Roe vs. Wade will not end well.
Rob
...and more pressure for the US to dissolve/split.
And what would that look like?
So we have abortion at the forefront of the culture war, a shooting war where we're helping one side while trying to avoid getting sucked into it directly and galloping inflation. If my hair wasn't so gray, I might think I was back in 1973.
ToomuchStuff
5-9-22, 9:06am
And what would that look like?
Blue and Grey, with red all over.
And what would that look like?
Well, we did get a bit of damage in Madison WI. Some courageous warriors broke into a pro-life organization’s headquarters and set it afire. They tried throwing Molotov cocktails through the windows, but they failed to ignite. Must have been liberal arts majors.
Somebody painted “If abortions aren’t safe then neither are you” on a wall.
Biden is saying if Roe goes then other rights like gay marriage go, and I've been thinking about this.
Since people like JP were not nice to me (recently rubbed in my face my son's estrangement from me), I am not going to worry about any of other people's rights. I am going to worry about my own rights to bodily autonomy and vote accordingly. He could have made a bodily autonomy alliance with me, where we each protect each other's rights, but instead he attacked me.
The burkha is back in Afghanistan. There are more ways to oppress women than denying them abortions, and forcing them to cover their faces is one of them.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
So we have abortion at the forefront of the culture war, a shooting war where we're helping one side while trying to avoid getting sucked into it directly and galloping inflation. If my hair wasn't so gray, I might think I was back in 1973.
Great point. Yes, it's deja vu all over again. As a musician of that age, Peter Seeger, wisely sang,
"When will you ever learn? Oh, when will you ever learn?"
Great point. Yes, it's deja vu all over again. As a musician of that age, Peter Seeger, wisely sang,
"When will you ever learn? Oh, when will you ever learn?"
I wonder how the guy they used to call “Stalin’s Songbird” would feel about the current war.
I wonder how the guy they used to call “Stalin’s Songbird” would feel about the current war.
"I'm singing about old Joe, cruel Joe / He ruled with an iron hand / He put an end to the dreams / Of so many in every land / He had a chance to make / A brand new start for the human race / Instead he set it back / Right in the same nasty place / I got the Big Joe Blues / (Keep your mouth shut or you will die fast) / I got the Big Joe Blues / (Do this job, no questions asked) / I got the Big Joe Blues."
gimmethesimplelife
5-9-22, 6:53pm
And what would that look like?Probably not the safe and pleasant separation of extreme opposing sides I would wish for. For once, and no snark intended, I believe TMS has a valid point/take. Do I want a war? NO!!!
But I do believe it's not far fetched that one may be coming. And I believe this issue particularly could set it off.
Advice - Follow the Austrian proverb - When one teaches you who they are, takes notes, remember, pay attention. This issue will show the true character of many people.
Rob
"I'm singing about old Joe, cruel Joe / He ruled with an iron hand / He put an end to the dreams / Of so many in every land / He had a chance to make / A brand new start for the human race / Instead he set it back / Right in the same nasty place / I got the Big Joe Blues / (Keep your mouth shut or you will die fast) / I got the Big Joe Blues / (Do this job, no questions asked) / I got the Big Joe Blues."
And it only took him until 2007 to come to that conclusion. Either he was less than sincere or a very slow learner.
And it only took him until 2007 to come to that conclusion. Either he was less than sincere or a very slow learner.
My father-in-law, after serving in the US Army in Europe during and immediately after WWII, elected to stay in Eastern Europe for several years helping "build a bold new socialist world". He was also a member of the John Reed Society at Harvard.
Upon his return he somewhat moderated his beliefs as he aged. Indeed, when I first met him, he was a fairly successful slum lord in his spare time.
ApatheticNoMore
5-9-22, 7:50pm
My dad co-owned an apartment building in a poor area at one time, but found he was a failed slum lord, kept feeling sorry for the poor little old lady and so on tenants, couldn't do it, got rid of that place.
And if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, activism will be going far beyond mine.....and more pressure for the US to dissolve/split.
My gut is overturning Roe vs. Wade will not end well.
Rob
I doubt much activism will go beyond yours, and I think ending Roe vs Wade would be a good thing for all involved. At that point Pelosi and Schumer will plan a full court press in their respective legislative bodies to ensure that abortions at any point in a pregnancy, including the day before natural birth, are legalized. The Republicans will insist that the life of the baby must be given equal protection which will force the Democrats to consider the rights of someone other than a potential voter in the next election. They'll all fight amongst themselves and call each other names until the Democrats are forced to acknowledge the other life involved and everyone will eventually settle upon a similar model that most other countries use. The fetus will be granted the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, along with all the same civil rights as the mother somewhere around the 15th week of gestation and any abortions after that point will be limited to specific instances where the life of one party is in jeopardy or where other specific circumstances are present. And our society will be better for it.
We transplant livers, hearts, kidneys. Why can't we transplant a fetus to someone who wants a baby?
We transplant livers, hearts, kidneys. Why can't we transplant a fetus to someone who wants a baby?
Because ‘the science’ hasn’t figured out how to do that any better than they’ve figured out how to make an ectopic pregnancy viable.
Teacher Terry
5-9-22, 10:31pm
Alan, if things work out the way you suggested that’s a decent compromise provided as you also mentioned abortions can occur later when the mom’s life is in danger or the pregnancy no longer viable, etc. I would certainly hope that late term abortions are reserved for these types of situations. However, I am afraid that we are returning to the 1950’s and your reasonable compromise won’t happen.
iris lilies
5-9-22, 10:59pm
I doubt much activism will go beyond yours, and I think ending Roe vs Wade would be a good thing for all involved. At that point Pelosi and Schumer will plan a full court press in their respective legislative bodies to ensure that abortions at any point in a pregnancy, including the day before natural birth, are legalized. The Republicans will insist that the life of the baby must be given equal protection which will force the Democrats to consider the rights of someone other than a potential voter in the next election. They'll all fight amongst themselves and call each other names until the Democrats are forced to acknowledge the other life involved and everyone will eventually settle upon a similar model that most other countries use. The fetus will be granted the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, along with all the same civil rights as the mother somewhere around the 15th week of gestation and any abortions after that point will be limited to specific instances where the life of one party is in jeopardy or where other specific circumstances are present. And our society will be better for it.
I think that would be ok except that there’s not going be a uniform federal act to do what you described.
It may be that the majority of states settle on what you state more or less. A few outlier states will go beyond 15 weeks in either direction.
ApatheticNoMore
5-9-22, 11:31pm
It's enough time to know you are pregnant usually, and like a tumor there will be urgency to remove it ASAP, no time to waste I guess.
I don't think anyone's life will be better because this was not a decision decided by the majority of women. If we lived in a society ruled by women and they came to this conclusion, then maybe you could argue it, so yea if a matriarchy came to the conclusion maybe. But of course that's now how it is.
iris lilies
5-10-22, 11:56am
I am reading the 30 page Missouri “trigger “ law that goes into effect when Roe v. Wade falls. At least, I think it is the right legislation i am reading.
It is 30 pages of stuff that seems unnecessary to me. However —if we as society need to have legislation by each state, this “draconian “law from “conservative” Missouri still allows for abortion. The number is eight weeks. After that it is allowed under provision for Health of the mother.
To bad it takes 30 pages to say that.
While this is more restrictive than I personally want to see, I try to apply the reasonable person view to things like this. Women are really going to have to pay attention if they live in Missouri to their reproductive calendar and timelines. Despite the hysterical twittering on my Nextdoor newsfeed, Plan B is not outlawed in this law, that I can see anyway.
And you know, I sit back and think about these effective birth control methods that exist now that did not have live in the 70s and 80s. That one where you put the thing in your arm and it works for months? That is a wonderful thing. Go get that ladies.
And I can’t see that it addresses a real area of concern I have which is a deformed fetus. But I need to spend more time with this 30 pages before I draw that conclusion for sure.
ApatheticNoMore
5-10-22, 12:25pm
While this is more restrictive than I personally want to see, I try to apply the reasonable person view to things like this. Women are really going to have to pay attention if they live in Missouri to their reproductive calendar and timelines. Despite the hysterical twittering on my Nextdoor newsfeed, Plan B is not outlawed in this law, that I can see anyway.
not always possible with some things like endometriosis and stuff I think. I suppose people could take a pregnancy test at least weekly, maybe that should be advised, take a weekly pregnancy test if sexually active.
And you know, I sit back and think about these effective birth control methods that exist now that did not have live in the 70s and 80s. That one where you put the thing in your arm and it works for months? That is a wonderful thing. Go get that ladies.
I'd definitely recommend IUDs over that, that seems to have a lot of side effects. And IUDs none ever? Noone really knows, any type of hormonal bc can have some hormonal side effects including hormonal IUDS but should be less than most hormonal birth control, as it's low dose, just progestogins in the IUD. Copper IUDs have the advantage of having no hormones at all, so no hormone side effects, some say copper IUDs lead to too much copper in the body, but it's little studied anyway. Come now why would anyone study women's healthcare much, women's bodies are primarily male pleasure and then birthing devices right. But anyway it seems we're talking rare or long term side effects. And pregnancy leads to all kinds of health problems itself, so yea. An effect of an IUD is in the rare case of pregnancy it is more likely to be ectopic than without an IUD, so yea one does need an abortion if such a pregnancy happens, but pregnancy is rare with them as it's the most effective birth control out there.
catherine
5-10-22, 12:38pm
I'd definitely recommend IUDs over that, that seems to have a lot of side effects. And IUDs none ever? Noone really knows, any type of hormonal bc can have some hormonal side effects including hormonal IUDS but should be less than most hormonal birth control, as it's low dose, just progestogins in the IUD. Copper IUDs have the advantage of having no hormones at all, so no hormone side effects, some say copper IUDs lead to too much copper in the body, but it's little studied anyway. Come now why would anyone study women's healthcare much. But anyway it seems we're talking rare or long term side effects. And pregnancy leads to all kinds of health problems itself, so yea. An effect of an IUD is in the rare case of pregnancy it is more likely to be ectopic than without an IUD, so yea one does need an abortion if such a pregnancy happens, but pregnancy is rare with them as it's the most effective birth control out there.
Yes, I think you are talking about Depo-Provera, and from my previous research in women's health, it was really targeted for people who simply a) didn't want a pregnancy under any circumstances PLUS b) was not reliable or compliant with other forms contraception. I agree with ANM--IUDs are a much better choice.
happystuff
5-10-22, 12:47pm
When I had an IUD (granted, decades ago), the warnings to their use still included possible pregnancy, heavier period, infection and the risk that the IUD could possibly move/relocate in uterus or actually come out. Granted, like pretty much all methods of birth control, the percentages of such things happening were small, but still possible. Just an fyi from my experience.
Yes, I think you are talking about Depo-Provera, and from my previous research in women's health, it was really targeted for people who simply a) didn't want a pregnancy under any circumstances PLUS b) was not reliable or compliant with other forms contraception. I agree with ANM--IUDs are a much better choice.
For those who don't want a pregnancy under any circumstances, I recommend tubal ligation--no drugs, quick recovery, and--at least in my case, no side effects but peace of mind.
ApatheticNoMore
5-10-22, 12:56pm
When I had an IUD (granted, decades ago), the warnings to their use still included possible pregnancy, heavier period, infection and the risk that the IUD could possibly move/relocate in uterus or actually come out.
the infection risk was with earlier forms of IUDs, that issue is largely fixed.
Granted, like pretty much all methods of birth control, the percentages of such things happening were small, but still possible. Just an fyi from my experience.
compared to the health risks of pregnancy it's like comparing the risks of the covid vaccine to the risk of getting covid without a vaccine IMO. In other words the vaccine may have rare risks, but it's really no comparison.
iris lilies
5-10-22, 1:06pm
For those who don't want a pregnancy under any circumstances, I recommend tubal ligation--no drugs, quick recovery, and--at least in my case, no side effects but peace of mind.
My main reason for not doing that is because I am physician resistant. Every couple years I would think gosh I should do that. Then I would think oh no then you have to go to the doctor, and a hospital or clinic is involved. And etc.
I’m soon to be 68 years old and have never spent a day in the hospital or clinic as an adult. When I was a kid I was in the hospital a few times.
My tubal ligation was an outpatient surgery.
iris lilies
5-10-22, 1:27pm
My tubal ligation was an outpatient surgery.
Sure, with full anesthesia. That’s some heavy duty surgery right there in my book.
Go get that ladies.
If I were a woman of childbearing age in one of the restrictive states, I'd not have intercourse with men (or Republican women) until the laws were changed to respect my agency.
https://patch.com/img/cdn/users/357427/2013/09/raw/cefaf9b88a1f9b2dd4e5e4b96f8e5cf0.jpg
iris lilies
5-10-22, 1:48pm
If I were a woman of childbearing age in one of the restrictive states, I'd not have intercourse with men (or Republican women) until the laws were changed to respect my agency.
https://patch.com/img/cdn/users/357427/2013/09/raw/cefaf9b88a1f9b2dd4e5e4b96f8e5cf0.jpg
Well, I think a more thoughtful approach to sex that could result in procreation is not a bad thing, but the Lysistrata analogy has been invoked all over the Internet. I personally think it’s Impractical, but I don’t think it’s meant as a practical solution.
But whatever. Choose your sexual partners based on whatever tenuous criteria you wish. It’s a free country.
ApatheticNoMore
5-10-22, 1:50pm
If I were a woman of childbearing age in one of the restrictive states, I'd not have intercourse with men (or Republican women) until the laws were changed to respect my agency.
and the thing is it isn't the sacrifice men think it is either. It might be that much of a sacrifice for (probably young) men, but men really need to stop projecting their ultra high sex drives on to women (and then hating women for it).
If I were a woman of childbearing age in one of the restrictive states, I'd not have intercourse with men (or Republican women) until the laws were changed to respect my agency.
I think that's a very reasonable approach. It might need someone to create a movement in order to make a real difference, but it's so crazy it just might work!
and the thing is it isn't the sacrifice men think it is either. It might be that much of a sacrifice for (probably young) men, but men really need to stop projecting their ultra high sex drives on to women (and then hating women for it).
In my experience, most men don't have a clue about sex. Most women, too, but the burden of disappointment falls overwhelmingly on the poor ladies.
I note that the forces busily trying to eliminate abortion and reproductive healthcare services are also seemingly opposed to education about sexuality.
Here's the research/reference library on human sexuality in my "office"... If folks at a younger age studied and understood just a handful of those texts, I think they'd have a more satisfying and healthy emotional and sexual life.
https://i.imgur.com/lP7VYjc.jpg
In my experience, most men don't have a clue about sex. Most women, too, but the burden of disappointment falls overwhelmingly on the poor ladies.
I note that the forces busily trying to eliminate abortion and reproductive healthcare services are also seemingly opposed to education about sexuality.
Here's the research/reference library on human sexuality in my "office"... If folks at a younger age studied and understood just a handful of those texts, I think they'd have a more satisfying and healthy emotional and sexual life.
https://i.imgur.com/lP7VYjc.jpg
You're an expert on sex too - along with everything else. Pat yourself on the back, you are such an awesome Renaissance man. Who can compare to you?
You're an expert on sex too - along with everything else. Pat yourself on the back, you are such an awesome Renaissance man. Who can compare to you?
It must be horrible to have such a constrained life that you can't imagine people having expertise in a variety of subjects.
I can point you at some counseling resources in your area.
Perhaps someone can explain to me how viewing every failed pregnancy as a potential criminal act is at all reasonable.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JannekeParrish/status/1523680953087913985?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1523680953087913985%7Ctwgr% 5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstory%2F2 022%2F5%2F10%2F2097095%2F-Suspect-in-death-of-something-I-didn-t-know-existed-Texas-virtually-criminalizes-miscarriages-too
Here's the research/reference library on human sexuality in my "office"... If folks at a younger age studied and understood just a handful of those texts, I think they'd have a more satisfying and healthy emotional and sexual life.
That's an interesting list of titles in your library. In your informed opinion, at what age should we begin teaching young people about alternate genders, sadomachism and assorted kink?
And on a side note, how do you tie those into a discussion of Roe vs Wade?
That's an interesting list of titles in your library. In your informed opinion, at what age should we begin teaching young people about alternate genders and sadomachism?
Not all of those texts are for all audiences. You know this of course....
I mean, my math/physics library contains a copy of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's "Gravitation", but I wouldn't take that to a middle/high school science class....
In my experience, most men don't have a clue about sex. Most women, too, but the burden of disappointment falls overwhelmingly on the poor ladies.
I note that the forces busily trying to eliminate abortion and reproductive healthcare services are also seemingly opposed to education about sexuality.
Here's the research/reference library on human sexuality in my "office"... If folks at a younger age studied and understood just a handful of those texts, I think they'd have a more satisfying and healthy emotional and sexual life.
https://i.imgur.com/lP7VYjc.jpg
If you really pored through all that material on sex, I’m impressed you found the time to have any.
Sure, with full anesthesia. That’s some heavy duty surgery right there in my book.
There was no pain-- just muscle stiffness from the gas inflation for about a day, and nausea from the anesthetic. Surgery was in the morning, and I left before my surgeon's visit in the afternoon because my ride arrived.
My main reason for not doing that is because I am physician resistant. Every couple years I would think gosh I should do that. Then I would think oh no then you have to go to the doctor, and a hospital or clinic is involved. And etc.
I’m soon to be 68 years old and have never spent a day in the hospital or clinic as an adult. When I was a kid I was in the hospital a few times.
YOU'RE doctor-resistant! :D
Aside from the several hours it took to sleep off the anesthetic, the last time I was in the hospital was to attend my birth. I never had a moment's doubt that my tubal ligation was the right choice. I had it when I was 29, after a consultation a year earlier. I've heard horror stories about women being refused; I'm thankful that mine was hassle-free.
If you really pored through all that material on sex, I’m impressed you found the time to have any.
I guess I'm bibliosexual :-)
I read 1-2 books a day, like clockwork. (Reading quite rapidly, and having near-total control of my own time helps a lot). A few years back, I donated ~6000 volumes to the library book sale, which was quite a few pickup-trucks full. This made space for...MORE BOOKS! I mostly have switched to Kindle to reduce the clutter, but I still purchase a few physical books, especially if I intend to loan them out to people.
"In my experience, most men don't have a clue about sex. Most women, too, but the burden of disappointment falls overwhelmingly on the poor ladies.
I note that the forces busily trying to eliminate abortion and reproductive healthcare services are also seemingly opposed to education about sexuality."
...
They seem to be opposed to many--if not all--contraceptives, as well.
I suspect they're mostly latter-day Puritans at heart.
That's an interesting list of titles in your library. In your informed opinion, at what age should we begin teaching young people about alternate genders, sadomachism and assorted kink?
And on a side note, how do you tie those into a discussion of Roe vs Wade?
Bolding mine. Isn't it generally accepted that you explain concepts--at an age-appropriate level of language--when the student asks?
ApatheticNoMore
5-10-22, 5:09pm
They seem to be opposed to many--if not all--contraceptives, as well.
I suspect they're mostly latter-day Puritans at heart.
It probably works (as well as anything does, there is no single right way to live) in a certain cultural context where you are supposed to be married quite young and sure pump out some kids (but really how many kids does anyone want, 6 of them or something? That's why of course even most Catholics use some form of *birth control*, and world population and resource limits being what it is these days, 6 kids for everyone on the planet is a really bad idea anyway).
But also also we don't live in that cultural context!! Few in the modern world do, and the attempt to force us back to it culturally by gunpoint kicking and screaming as is being done .... yea, and it's not even going to work. Outlaw birth control and you still wouldn't get everyone back to marrying at 18 or something, but there would be a lot more unwanted pregnancies.
Well thank God for our loosely-interpreted Second Amendment, or they wouldn't have enough guns for the job! :~)
IOutlaw birth control and you still wouldn't get everyone back to marrying at 18 or something, but there would be a lot more unwanted pregnancies.
Doesn't the draft decision mention problems with "the domestic supply of infants"?...
I bet there's some unpacking to be done there...
Doesn't the draft decision mention problems with "the domestic supply of infants"?...
I bet there's some unpacking to be done there...
There are thousands and thousands of kids in foster care, but I suspect these people want "new" children.
Also, Alito's source (Sir Matthew Hale) promoted witch burning. Do you suppose they're planning to bring that back?
"Alito relies on sources such as Hale without acknowledging their entanglement with legalized male supremacy.... Hale was a man who believed women could be witches, assumed women were liars and thought husbands owned their wives’ bodies. It is long past time to leave that misogyny behind."
More appalling backstory on Maddowblog: https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/justice-alitos-unusual-sources-start-generate-closer-scrutiny-rcna28085
ApatheticNoMore
5-10-22, 6:08pm
And he's not even American, didn't we have a revolution about that? I have no idea if anyone would be any worse or better under British rule, just it's completely irrelevant to the country we actually live in. If you have to reach back before the start of this country for legal precedence ... and btw abortion may have some limits but is far from illegal in the UK, so even they aren't going on that precedence in that country!
I fear we're rapidly hurtling backwards toward a third-world tin-pot dictatorship. I hope I'm wrong.
iris lilies
5-10-22, 6:38pm
There are thousands and thousands of kids in foster care, but I suspect these people want "new" children.
oh please, that tired old chestnut.
First of all, the percentage of children in foster care who are available for adoption is not nearly as high as you think. Just because they are wards of our government doesn’t mean that they can be adopted.
their crappy parents still have rights to them. Current social work practice calls for everything under the sun to be done to get parent and child back together into the dysfunctional family. And then of course there are the race based requirements that black children be placed in black homes. And etc. These impede adoption.
Secondly, so many of these children are damaged, So you blame someone who doesn’t want to take that on.? And the damage is not even apparent or diagnosable in the littlest kids.
Unfortunately used children are not used dogs, and we can’t give them a temperament test and put them down when they’re not adoptable. Unlike the majority of dogs that come into our rescue program, these foster children do not come from a strong loving family home. So many of my rescue dogs come from a home where they’ve been well treated. They’re good dogs. I’ve said many times that the dogs who come in to my house as foster dogs are often better behaved than my own dogs. They come from a home that has a shake up of some sort that causes them to have to give up their family dog.
That is simply not true with children, they have traumatic experiences that throws them into foster care. That’s too matic experience says cause lasting damage.
I’m all for parental rights trumping most things but it really is too bad, all of it.
So what is the answer for the "damaged" children? Just let them age out of foster care and whatever happens to them as they stumble through life happens?
ApatheticNoMore
5-10-22, 9:24pm
So what is the answer for the "damaged" children? Just let them age out of foster care and whatever happens to them as they stumble through life happens?
I don't know, but I suspect they should definitely be given more social help when they turn 18 (as in programs to get them into apprentice training/college/pay expenses while they get job training etc.).
It's one of the populations (like veterans) that has a disproportionate chance of ending up homeless. And all duties to support them end at 18. As they do for other children of course, but many get parental help well past 18 obviously, and even when they don't usually had more functional childhoods (that hopefully somewhat better prepared them for adulthood). Kids noone really cared for, dumped into the deep end of the adult world, at 18.
I believe it is considerably cheaper to educate them, provide them other essential services, and get them into productive lifestyles, than to end up directing them to the prison system.
And it's cheaper to start this process very early.
ToomuchStuff
5-10-22, 9:43pm
Doesn't the draft decision mention problems with "the domestic supply of infants"?...
I bet there's some unpacking to be done there...
Bigger tax base, unfortunately also bigger welfare base and....
So what is the answer for the "damaged" children? Just let them age out of foster care and whatever happens to them as they stumble through life happens?
More prison slave labor.
Because
https://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk
Roe verses Wade, well how about a motor on that boat.
iris lilies
5-10-22, 10:07pm
So what is the answer for the "damaged" children? Just let them age out of foster care and whatever happens to them as they stumble through life happens?
Gee I don’t know what nanny G can do with her laws and taxing to solve this social problem. I’m sure you can think of something (largely impractical and liberty limiting) though!
Gee I don’t know what nanny G can do with her laws and taxing to solve this social problem. I’m sure you can think of something (largely impractical and liberty limiting) though!
I can yeah. I imagine that there would be a lot more of these kids today if women who knew they weren’t capable of raising them were unable to have abortions as undoubtedly someone subset of those women have been doing. But if we’re going to let the nanny g force every pregnant woman to carry the baby to term then yeah, we need to plan on nanny g taking responsibility for those kids.
iris lilies
5-10-22, 10:44pm
I can yeah. I imagine that there would be a lot more of these kids today if women who knew they weren’t capable of raising them were unable to have abortions as undoubtedly someone subset of those women have been doing. But if we’re going to let the nanny g force every pregnant woman to carry the baby to term then yeah, we need to plan on nanny g taking responsibility for those kids.
I’m having a hard time following your logic since we’re talking about children in foster care, that was your query.
There’s quite a huge demand for newly born babies, so newborn babies with parental rights relinquished are quite a different animal than the foster children you started talking about. If they really are one and the same in your mind then I don’t really know how to talk with you.
Theoretically, a woman forced to carry her pregnancy to term might try to raise the resulting child and fail at the task, leaving the offspring in foster care.
Theoretically, a woman forced to carry her pregnancy to term might try to raise the resulting child and fail at the task, leaving the offspring in foster care.
Exactly. If there are X number of ‘damaged’ kids in foster care today, once women no longer have bodily autonomy there will likely be 2x or 3x times as many kids in foster care. What is the Republican plan for dealing with that? I suspect it’s about as well thought out as their never presented plan to replace the ACA. In other words they will shrug their damn shoulders and then wail and screech about all these kids once they reach adulthood without the ability to live in society.
Theoretically, a woman forced to carry her pregnancy to term might try to raise the resulting child and fail at the task, leaving the offspring in foster care.
I believe I have related the sordid tale of my sister on these forums before. She and her abusive husband, to support their on-the-lam life of crime, would arrange a pregnancy to get free off-the-radar housing and food from various well-intentioned religious groups, and then "sell" the baby. I've found several of the kids so far, and they are all doing far better than the two children my sister managed to keep.
Whenever they would get caught by law enforcement with a pregnancy-in-progress, my sister would abort the child, because it is dreadfully inconvenient to be pregnant in prison.
Fun times.
iris lilies
5-10-22, 11:17pm
Bolding mine. Isn't it generally accepted that you explain concepts--at an age-appropriate level of language--when the student asks?
No is that my impression that that is the generally accepted path, because a class room teacher can’t wait for every student to ask and then give private instruction. Instructions given at general age appropriate times but some kids are ready some kids are not but one size fits all.
iris lilies
5-10-22, 11:18pm
Theoretically, a woman forced to carry her pregnancy to term might try to raise the resulting child and fail at the task, leaving the offspring in foster care.
Oh is THAT the connecting dot? Yes I can see that.
No is that my impression that that is the generally accepted path, because a class room teacher can’t wait for every student to ask and then give private instruction. Instructions given at general age appropriate times but some kids are ready some kids are not but one size fits all.
So is your concern that teachers are going to be randomly sharing inappropriate gender specific topics with kids? If it is can you provide some examples of that happening. And if not i look forward to hearing what your concern actually is.
iris lilies
5-10-22, 11:42pm
So is your concern that teachers are going to be randomly sharing inappropriate gender specific topics with kids? If it is can you provide some examples of that happening. And if not i look forward to hearing what your concern actually is.
I am countering Jane’s idea that there is “private “instruction. Of course there isn’t. Perhaps that’s not really what she meant. Are you saying there is? How does that take place? Or you could give some specific examples.
No is that my impression that that is the generally accepted path, because a class room teacher can’t wait for every student to ask and then give private instruction. Instructions given at general age appropriate times but some kids are ready some kids are not but one size fits all.
Reading your subsequent responses I am 100% unclear what you were trying to say in this post.
happystuff
5-11-22, 12:20am
YOU'RE doctor-resistant! :D
Aside from the several hours it took to sleep off the anesthetic, the last time I was in the hospital was to attend my birth. I never had a moment's doubt that my tubal ligation was the right choice. I had it when I was 29, after a consultation a year earlier. I've heard horror stories about women being refused; I'm thankful that mine was hassle-free.
Have a sibling who went to schedule one and the doctor would not sign off until after he talked to her husband and got HIS "okay".WTF?????
Have a sibling who went to schedule one and the doctor would not sign off until after he talked to her husband and got HIS "okay".WTF?????
Why would a doc sign off on that. Then the woman would be free to have all the sex she wanted without fear of nanny G coming to punish her. Can’t have that…
Why would a doc sign off on that. Then the woman would be free to have all the sex she wanted without fear of nanny G coming to punish her. Can’t have that…
Plus the doctor might have been worried about liability concerns from damaging the man's property.
happystuff
5-11-22, 12:40am
I’m having a hard time following your logic since we’re talking about children in foster care, that was your query.
There’s quite a huge demand for newly born babies, so newborn babies with parental rights relinquished are quite a different animal than the foster children you started talking about. If they really are one and the same in your mind then I don’t really know how to talk with you.
The key here being "parental rights relinquished" which is where the foster care system comes in and where that newborn infant becomes a three - four - five year old, then often considered "damaged". Most of your adoptions of "newborns" are done through private agencies or are private lawyer adoptions or illegally and are very, very, very expensive.
Edited to add: Many people who look to adopt through the foster care system become foster parents as "foster - adopt" and then wait for that infant assignment. They then must fulfill the role of foster parent until the relinquishment of parental rights, which usually gives them first option for the adoption.(As long as there are no qualified biological relatives wanting custody.) The benefit they have has been in fostering the child as an infant and, even if it takes a couple years for relinquishment, they have been the care-givers the entire time.
Most of your adoptions of "newborns" are done through private agencies or are private lawyer adoptions or illegally and are very, very, very expensive.
Yes, my sister and her husband made quite a bit of money selling their children. They had one deal fall through for a bit, and brought the newborn home for several months, so my two nieces that they kept got to see the wee bairn for a while before it got sold again.
happystuff
5-11-22, 12:48am
Plus the doctor might have been worried about liability concerns from damaging the man's property.
1990's women were still considered to be "man's property"? ROFLOL. Men and the silly ideas they had. >8)
And men with those ideas today? >:(
Edited to add: Gotta love an icon for almost every situation. :laff:
iris lilies
5-11-22, 8:48am
I think there are so many issues about human reproduction in relation to abortion and adoption and parental rights that we could have some very interesting discussions here.
Too bad we fall into the familiar old grooves of bludgeoning these points “dead babies!” “Controlling women!” And etc . This group is unable to move all those dimes.
happystuff
5-11-22, 9:38am
I think there are so many issues about human reproduction in relation to abortion and adoption and parental rights that we could have some very interesting discussions here.
Too bad we fall into the familiar old grooves of bludgeoning these points “dead babies!” “Controlling women!” And etc . This group is unable to move all those dimes.
Experiences and discussion beyond "dead babies", "controlling women", etc are being discussed, but - face it - these and other points ARE issues which ARE part of human reproduction, abortion, adoption, parental rights, etc.
I am countering Jane’s idea that there is “private “instruction. Of course there isn’t. Perhaps that’s not really what she meant. Are you saying there is? How does that take place? Or you could give some specific examples.
Actually, I was thinking in general, so including parents. I rather doubt sadomasochism comes up in early education much, but I suppose it might serve as a teaching moment. I had a devil of a time trying to spell it.
gimmethesimplelife
5-11-22, 10:22am
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10160212267192490&id=527902489
ApatheticNoMore
5-11-22, 11:45am
Well the foster system and how and if it should be reformed really has almost nothing at all to do with the topic of Roe v Wade. Also very few have any experience with the foster system. I do happen to have read info about foster kids and homelessness, so sad. Does everyone have experience with abortion? Well no, can't say I do, but with being terrified of pregnancy yea, single motherhood doesn't sound fun.
I see that Chuck Schumer is going to force a show vote today in the Senate for a bill legalizing unrestricted abortion up to the very moment of birth, no restrictions. I think the Democrats are mis-reading their constituents by a wide margin.
I see that Chuck Schumer is going to force a show vote today in the Senate for a bill legalizing unrestricted abortion up to the very moment of birth, no restrictions.
Odd, that's not what the text appears to say. It seems to protect abortion "at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability", and allows it "after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health".
Teacher Terry
5-11-22, 12:25pm
Some states provide care after a child is 18 such as Wisconsin and Kansas when I lived there. They had caseworkers to help with getting a apartment, job or schooling, etc. Nevada of course has nothing which is one reason our taxes are so low. Back in the early 90’s Wisconsin had a fast track to sever parents rights if they couldn’t get things together within a year.
I have seen foster kids so damaged by 18 months that I wouldn’t want them. I had a 5 year old that I had to put in the front seat of my car because he started a fire in another worker’s car. He was horrifically abused by his mom and asked me to run her over when she stepped in front of my car. I would have been afraid to sleep in the same house as that kid.
I had 3 kids born to a woman with a IQ below 70 that didn’t realize she was starving the first two. We got the third into foster care before he was starved. The older 2 were born normal but had low IQ’s from lack of food. The dad was in prison. On top of that they were disgusting little kids in every way. There’s worse things than abortion.
Odd, that's not what the text appears to say. It seems to protect abortion "at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability", and allows it "after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health".
I think the issue under this proposed legislation there is no effort to balance the harm of a perhaps minor health issue for the mother as opposed to the absolute execution of a viable child.It also doesn't allow state legislatures the opportunity to pass legislation requiring that balance.
I think the issue under this proposed legislation there is no effort to balance the harm of a perhaps minor health issue for the mother as opposed to the absolute execution of a viable child. It also doesn't allow state legislatures the opportunity to pass legislation requiring that balance.
The bill under debate proposes a *more stringent* standard than my state currently has. Yet we have very few "late-term" abortions here. (And you claimed, and I quote: "a bill legalizing unrestricted abortion up to the very moment of birth, no restrictions.", which is incorrect.)
I think your argument is a red herring. (And I'm not sure how any legislature could quantify the risk and produce usable objective regulations. Perhaps some sort of Hearings Board that reviews each case on its own merits...? I mean, they do such things when evaluating who gets organ transplants.)
The bill under debate proposes a *more stringent* standard than my state currently has. Yet we have very few "late-term" abortions here. (And you claimed, and I quote: "a bill legalizing unrestricted abortion up to the very moment of birth, no restrictions.", which is incorrect.)
Yep, my bad. I should have said "without easily bypassed restrictions."
Yep, my bad. I should have said "without easily bypassed restrictions."
"Easily-bypassed" restrictions which are more stringent than my own state currently has. Where we don't seem to have many "late-term" abortions. Hmmm.
I guess the theory is that health care providers will act in an unethical fashion?
I guess the theory is that health care providers will act in an unethical fashion?
I thought it was unethical for several health care providers counseling my daughter to have an abortion when she was pregnant with her second baby. The only basis being that her first born had special needs. So yes, I expect some health care providers to act in an unethical fashion.
ApatheticNoMore
5-11-22, 2:07pm
I don't even think this stuff exists, minor health issue for the mother, like what? What would be considered a minor health issue, maybe having to get a c-section, episiotomy, potential for post partum depression, pregnancy diabetes? Ok those are very common potential consequences of pregnancy. You could almost say they come with the territory as a risk of being pregnant at all.
But most of the time health issues are not minor things. So it really just sounds like you want women to accept health problems because they don't meet your criteria as major and for restrictions to be so hard to bypass that doctor's can't provide health care to the mother.
Because it really just sounds like you want women to accept health problems because they don't meet your criteria as major and for restrictions to be so hard to bypass that doctor's can't provide health care to the mother.
Well, I suppose some might construe anyone speaking on behalf of the baby to be somehow against the mother. But someone has to do it and I can't recall anyone else here ever being brave enough to do so.
happystuff
5-11-22, 2:22pm
Well, I suppose some might construe anyone speaking on behalf of the baby to be somehow against the mother. But someone has to do it and I can't recall anyone else here ever being brave enough to do so.
Want to talk about being brave? How about actually being pregnant - wanted, unwanted, healthy, unhealthy, alone, with the other biological parent - all the knowns and unknowns, including having other people - friends, family, strangers - telling you what you should or shouldn't, can't or can't do, etc... that's bravery in my opinion.
Want to talk about being brave? How about actually being pregnant - wanted, unwanted, healthy, unhealthy, alone, with the other biological parent - all the knowns and unknowns, including having other people - friends, family, strangers - telling you what you should or shouldn't, can't or can't do, etc... that's bravery in my opinion.
As a father and grandfather I'm absolutely astounded at the fear and bravery displayed by those close to me while struggling through routine as well as problematic pregnancies. Speaking for the child takes nothing away from that.
As many have pointed out, termination of pregnancy should be between a woman (child, transman) and her doctor. I would hope the doctor in question would have sound medical reasons, in the third trimester, to sign off on the procedure
My working philosophy of life and death is that each of us has an eternal soul, so a zygote making a sudden U-turn in utero seems like just another vicissitude to me.
happystuff
5-12-22, 9:29am
As a father and grandfather I'm absolutely astounded at the fear and bravery displayed by those close to me while struggling through routine as well as problematic pregnancies. Speaking for the child takes nothing away from that.
While it may not seem like it on these forums, what makes you think I have never spoken for a fetus/unborn child? As an fyi, I have. But when/if it comes down to the fetus or the woman pregnant with that fetus, my speaking is for the pregnant woman being able to make HER decision(s).
iris lilies
5-12-22, 9:52am
While it may not seem like it on these forums, what makes you think I have never spoken for a fetus/unborn child? As an fyi, I have. But when/if it comes down to the fetus or the woman pregnant with that fetus, my speaking is for the pregnant woman being able to make HER decision(s).
Yes this is where I am as well because it is inherently a conflict between woman’s choice or the continuing life of the baby.
Both require consideration from an evolved society.
I want to ask the group at large, let’s say the woman’s body is not involved. As is happening in real life in thousands of cases, there are fertilized eggs sitting in labs. Should the government have any jurisdiction over these eggs? I say no of course because I like to see the government out of most everything except essential government business (I understand “essential “is up for debate. )
There’s no adult body involved. And let’s say science what is Ford enough that it can nurture that fit us in a laboratory.
There is no adult body involved.
Does the government get to make a decision then? By “the government “of course I mean each state because this is a state issue.
catherine
5-12-22, 10:15am
As a person who has Catholicism in her DNA (but not on the books), I understand the argument that all life is sacred. This is why I believe:
All life is sacred, particularly life that is already here. The lives of the poor and disenfranchised, the lives of the cattle, birds and fish that we depend on for our lives, the trees and plants that sustain us, the microscopic life under the soil that supports everything else. I don't think human life is so special that we can consider our specie as the only "sacred" one.
No one wants an abortion. DH was saying "oh, pro-abortionists are going to have a protest"--I told him, "NO ONE is 'pro-abortion.' No one WANTS to have an abortion." I have been in that position and when it is your decision to make it tears you up. But it is YOUR decision. If we're going religious here, God gave us the gift of discernment. That means there is very little black or white in these complex issues, and it should be up to the woman, ultimately, to discern for herself what the outcome should be.
Politically speaking, it's interesting that Republicans are all about deregulation until it comes to the lives of women. I believe perceptions are greatly exaggerated by "pro-life" people--the numbers of late-term abortions, the attitudes of women, i.e.,"Hey, today I think I'll go have a manicure and an abortion," the very fuzzy line between what is a "baby" and what is a cluster of non-sentient cells.
It is a complex issue to be sure.
I think the central moral and legal question is whether you consider the fetus, fertilized embryo, or child to be a human being or just an inconvenient clump of cells. If you don’t, it’s just so much medical waste you can toss out or sell or do whatever you like with it. If you do, then a different standard of care would seem to be needed regardless of the vessel it’s housed in.
As far as I’m concerned, all the other arguments are pretty much of marginal importance. People don’t like to face the terrible question of how to weigh one life against another, so they come up with all sorts of semantic, economic and ad hominem attacks on what they want to believe their opponents believe.
It is only the business of the woman and her provider! All the other arguments are distractions to control a woman's body.
As a person who has Catholicism in her DNA (but not on the books), I understand the argument that all life is sacred. This is why I believe:
All life is sacred, particularly life that is already here. The lives of the poor and disenfranchised, the lives of the cattle, birds and fish that we depend on for our lives, the trees and plants that sustain us, the microscopic life under the soil that supports everything else. I don't think human life is so special that we can consider our specie as the only "sacred" one.
No one wants an abortion. DH was saying "oh, pro-abortionists are going to have a protest"--I told him, "NO ONE is 'pro-abortion.' No one WANTS to have an abortion." I have been in that position and when it is your decision to make it tears you up. But it is YOUR decision. If we're going religious here, God gave us the gift of discernment. That means there is very little black or white in these complex issues, and it should be up to the woman, ultimately, to discern for herself what the outcome should be.
Politically speaking, it's interesting that Republicans are all about deregulation until it comes to the lives of women. I believe perceptions are greatly exaggerated by "pro-life" people--the numbers of late-term abortions, the attitudes of women, i.e.,"Hey, today I think I'll go have a manicure and an abortion," the very fuzzy line between what is a "baby" and what is a cluster of non-sentient cells.
It is a complex issue to be sure.
Bears repeating. But I'm just a "vessel (uterus reference)," an "old bag (uterus reference). and "hysteric" (uterus reference), not credited for having a working brain. Zygotes and early-term fetuses don't have one either, but they're still considered by many to have more value and agency than their "vessel."
ApatheticNoMore
5-12-22, 12:45pm
I think the central moral and legal question is whether you consider the fetus, fertilized embryo, or child to be a human being or just an inconvenient clump of cells.
I don't particularly consider human life anything special. But should we all go around killing each other? Well society works best when we are not going about murdering each other, when we take care of each other to a degree even, some exceptions may apply, but an unborn baby isn't even part of any society, they haven't even known life. But they can feel pain, well all animals with a nervous system do.
I don't particularly consider human life anything special. But should we all go around killing each other? Well society works best when we are not going about murdering each other, when we take care of each other to a degree even, some exceptions may apply, but an unborn baby isn't even part of any society.
Do you think there's a difference between, lets say a 35 week old fetus and a one day old baby other than their residence?
It is only the business of the woman and her provider! All the other arguments are distractions to control a woman's body.
That is a perfectly acceptable argument if you are convinced a fetus isn’t human or if you are comfortable with the idea that a mother has the right to kill a fetus regardless of whether it is human or not.
But I think it is a effort to distract from that position to try to paint people who do consider a fetus to be human life entitled to protection as cartoon villains yearning for a return to the twelfth century. They simply come down on a different side of the question of when human life begins.
happystuff
5-12-22, 1:14pm
Do you think there's a difference between, lets say a 35 week old fetus and a one day old baby other than their residence?
Their "residence"? Sorry, Alan, but - in my opinion - your statement has removed any sign of being a human being on the part of the woman and turns her into an inanimate object!
And, again, in my opinion, the best person to answer that is the particular woman you may be referring to - as I believe every woman would have their own answer depending on their life situation at the time you are asking, what they are doing with their life, who they believe themselves to be at that point in time, etc. *I* personally have no business answering for any other woman.
I truly don't believe there are simple yes/no answers to any of these questions by any one person - especially someone who will NEVER personally be faced (at least in this time of human evolution) with the decisions involved.
The hypocrisy of all this bantering about saving precious human life troubles me. Men murder each other daily and violent wars continue endlessly. We kill death row prisoners. Existing unloved and abused children suffer. I don't think as a collective culture that we value human life at all - only when it becomes political. And as Catherine alluded to, we absolutely do not value non-human forms of life which without, none of us will survive.
ApatheticNoMore
5-12-22, 1:30pm
The hypocrisy of all this bantering about saving precious human life troubles me. Men murder each other daily and violent wars continue endlessly. We kill death row prisoners. Existing unloved and abused children suffer. I don't think as a collective culture that we value human life at all - only when it becomes political. And as Catherine alluded to, we absolutely do not value non-human forms of life which without, none of us will survive.
enough food is produced on earth to feed everyone, just saying. We care about it when it is men very abstractly debating something that for women is not abstract (ok many women may have never personally had to consider abortion, but it's still not abstract).
The hypocrisy of all this bantering about saving precious human life troubles me. Men murder each other daily and violent wars continue endlessly. We kill death row prisoners. Existing unloved and abused children suffer. I don't think as a collective culture that we value human life at all - only when it becomes political. And as Catherine alluded to, we absolutely do not value non-human forms of life which without, none of us will survive.
If you take the position that a concern for life is somehow invalidated by all those other issues, aren’t you saying the same would apply to any life or death policy issues? Could we start shooting people crossing the border illegally and dismiss complaints about it as hypocritical for the same reason?
But I think it is a effort to distract from that position to try to paint people who do consider a fetus to be human life entitled to protection as cartoon villains yearning for a return to the twelfth century. They simply come down on a different side of the question of when human life begins.
I'm happy to stipulate that human life begins at conception. And I believe both the mother and the child deserve consideration of their interests.
However, when examining their competing interests and rights, I believe that the mother's should prevail in many circumstances. That analysis is not based on when precisely "human life begins".
iris lilies
5-12-22, 2:04pm
I'm happy to stipulate that human life begins at conception. And I believe both the mother and the child deserve consideration of their interests.
However, when examining their competing interests and rights, I believe that the mother's should prevail in many circumstances. That analysis is not based on when precisely "human life begins".
I like the way this is stated!
Do you think there's a difference between, lets say a 35 week old fetus and a one day old baby other than their residence?
I guess that's a rhetorical question. Third trimester abortions are rare and subject to medical review. A viable fetus is just that, and should be considered so. I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Their "residence"? Sorry, Alan, but - in my opinion - your statement has removed any sign of being a human being on the part of the woman and turns her into an inanimate object!
And, again, in my opinion, the best person to answer that is the particular woman you may be referring to - as I believe every woman would have their own answer depending on their life situation at the time you are asking, what they are doing with their life, who they believe themselves to be at that point in time, etc. *I* personally have no business answering for any other woman.
I truly don't believe there are simple yes/no answers to any of these questions by any one person - especially someone who will NEVER personally be faced (at least in this time of human evolution) with the decisions involved.
By 'residence' I simply meant in utero or outside the uterus, not every word, deed or action is an assault on the humanity of women or a slight to any party hearing it.
That said, I'd like to thank you for responding to my question even if you have no interest in answering it. Please allow me to ask it in another way.
If you believe that each mother may decide whether a 35 week old fetus in utero may live or die without consequence, do you also believe that the mother may decide whether a one day old baby may live or die without consequence? If not, why?
Again, I'm not talking about a microscopic clump of cells or zygote, but a baby capable of living outside the womb. I ask this specific question because it would appear that 49 of our 100 Senators have gone on record saying that a fetus at 35 weeks, or 36 or 37 or 38 or 39 or even 40 weeks may be killed at the mother's whim as long as she may convince a medical professional (perhaps not even a doctor) that she may suffer depression or some other ailment if the child is not destroyed. I'm actually very much interested in knowing how that 35 week old fetus differs from a one day old child.
I don't particularly consider human life anything special. But should we all go around killing each other? Well society works best when we are not going about murdering each other, when we take care of each other to a degree even, some exceptions may apply, but an unborn baby isn't even part of any society, they haven't even known life. But they can feel pain, well all animals with a nervous system do.
I agree with this, especially the first sentence. I don't belong to the Church of the Holy Fetus.
I would argue that the 88-93% of zygotes/fetuses aborted in the first trimester, having no real nervous system, feel no pain. If it's proven that they do somehow, sedation should be part of the termination.
happystuff
5-12-22, 2:26pm
That said, I'd like to thank you for responding to my question even if you have no interest in answering it. Please allow me to ask it in another way.
If you believe that each mother may decide whether a 35 week old fetus in utero may live or die without consequence, do you also believe that the mother may decide whether a one day old baby may live or die without consequence? If not, why?
I actually liked and agree with Jane's response regarding the in utero. As for the one day old baby which HAS been born and is outside the uterus, again, there are laws. Just as there are laws within our society when it is okay to kill someone (protection of self and/or property, death penalty, etc) and when it is not okay to shoot someone (because I wanted to (generic *I*). For any person to decide and take it upon themselves to decide who or what lives or dies, they take on the responsibility and deal with the consequences.
So there is my answer. :)
enough food is produced on earth to feed everyone, just saying. We care about it when it is men very abstractly debating something that for women is not abstract (ok many women may have never personally had to consider abortion, but it's still not abstract).
I just read an alarmist article predicting Horrible Things will happen if we allow the world population to continue to decline. Amy Coney Barrett is doing her part--what's wrong with you slackers! Maybe that's the invisible motive behind all this coercive pronatalism.
iris lilies
5-12-22, 2:33pm
I guess that's a rhetorical question. Third trimester abortions are rare and subject to medical review. A viable fetus is just that, and should be considered so. I don't know what point you're trying to make.
While I think there’s not many physicians who will perform a third trimester abortion, I don’t know that they are any more “subject to medical review” than any other abortion.
I watched a documentary on late term abortions a couple of years ago and it was reasonably evenhanded, and it showed that yes many late term abortions are due to identified health problems of the fetus, but some are not. At least one case the physician who performs late terms abortion told the woman from Europe “nope, I won’t do that.”
ApatheticNoMore
5-12-22, 2:38pm
I just read an alarmist article predicting Horrible Things will happen if we allow the world population to continue to decline.
I think it's more about supply of cheap labor.
But current much less higher global population makes a lot of existing environmental problems harder to deal with (even more so as more of the planet become uninhabitable due to climate change etc.). It's about use of raw materials and pollution from use of raw materials, both are higher with a higher population. So there's plenty to be said about it not declining also being a problem.
But as for decline it can present some difficulties, but these seem manageable, maybe we should be learning more from Japan. Because they seem able to manage aging of a population, population decline, degrowth, without collapsing.
I'm happy to stipulate that human life begins at conception. And I believe both the mother and the child deserve consideration of their interests.
However, when examining their competing interests and rights, I believe that the mother's should prevail in many circumstances. That analysis is not based on when precisely "human life begins".
I think that can be a morally defensible position, but if we were to adopt such a system we would need some sort of guardian ad litem to advocate on behalf of the unborn.
Teacher Terry
5-12-22, 3:30pm
In the third trimester I think abortions should only be performed to save the life of the mother or if a baby has a illness or disability incompatible with life. Babies have been born only to suffer immensely and then die. In the first 12 weeks it really is a clump of cells and if someone wants a abortion that’s the time to do it. After that time I think it’s more of a medical decision. In life and death situations mothers should have preference over babies. Let’s face the facts that you can’t make everyone satisfied with the law on abortion no matter what. I don’t believe that many late term abortions are because people just change their minds.
ApatheticNoMore
5-12-22, 3:52pm
I don't believe you get clean outcomes no matter what. You can put more limits but then it is quite likely doctors will be unwilling to treat women who are at risk of severe complications etc..
Pro-choice here with nothing else to add.
frugal-one
5-12-22, 5:12pm
'
As a person who has Catholicism in her DNA (but not on the books), I understand the argument that all life is sacred. This is why I believe:
All life is sacred, particularly life that is already here. The lives of the poor and disenfranchised, the lives of the cattle, birds and fish that we depend on for our lives, the trees and plants that sustain us, the microscopic life under the soil that supports everything else. I don't think human life is so special that we can consider our specie as the only "sacred" one.
No one wants an abortion. DH was saying "oh, pro-abortionists are going to have a protest"--I told him, "NO ONE is 'pro-abortion.' No one WANTS to have an abortion." I have been in that position and when it is your decision to make it tears you up. But it is YOUR decision. If we're going religious here, God gave us the gift of discernment. That means there is very little black or white in these complex issues, and it should be up to the woman, ultimately, to discern for herself what the outcome should be.
Politically speaking, it's interesting that Republicans are all about deregulation until it comes to the lives of women. I believe perceptions are greatly exaggerated by "pro-life" people--the numbers of late-term abortions, the attitudes of women, i.e.,"Hey, today I think I'll go have a manicure and an abortion," the very fuzzy line between what is a "baby" and what is a cluster of non-sentient cells.
I was just going to something to this effect too….
They're all about book banning--at least one knuckle-dragging Tennessee legislator is OK with book burning, even.
ApatheticNoMore
5-12-22, 5:39pm
some of them might even be ok with witch burning, even :)
some of them might even be ok with witch burning, even :)
Alito's Sir Matthew Hale certainly was. I know "what goes around comes around," but this is ridiculous.
DH often says when describing an idiot that the best part of that person got left on the sheets. It's all pretty random who comes to be and who doesn't anyway.
While I think there’s not many physicians who will perform a third trimester abortion, I don’t know that they are any more “subject to medical review” than any other abortion.
I watched a documentary on late term abortions a couple of years ago and it was reasonably evenhanded, and it showed that yes many late term abortions are due to identified health problems of the fetus, but some are not. At least one case the physician who performs late terms abortion told the woman from Europe “nope, I won’t do that.”
That would seem to indicate that the physician was not willing to do an abortion on a viable fetus without a medical reason. It sounds like "should be between the woman and her doctor" worked to achieve what most of us would consider the "correct" outcome. No government involvement required.
What are the current rules/laws regarding forcing parents to do something like donate a kidney to a child that will die without that transplant? Or a life saving blood transfusion where the parent and kid have a rare blood-type and no other suitable blood donor can be found. Would that parent be forced to make the donation and, if not willing, charged with homocide if he/she said "nope. Not doing it."
iris lilies
5-12-22, 10:20pm
That would seem to indicate that the physician was not willing to do an abortion on a viable fetus without a medical reason. It sounds like "should be between the woman and her doctor" worked to achieve what most of us would consider the "correct" outcome. No government involvement required.
Yes that was my take on it, and from what I vaguely remember it was a healthy fetus and the woman was from France. There are doctors who would do it however, that guy in Pittsburgh would have done the deed for the right money.
Then, there are plenty of doctors who do perfectly awful things for the money. I think of all the cosmetics surgery horror shows paraded on Instagram.
rosarugosa
5-13-22, 6:58am
I guess if anyone could actually be considered "pro-abortion," it would be me. I've always thought discussions around the development stage of the fetus and whether it was a human being were irrelevant. Even if it's reading a book in there, it's still up to the woman whether it continues or not as far as I'm concerned.
I saw this argument recently and I thought it was a good one, including some points similar to those raised by JP above:
4472
early morning
5-13-22, 8:35am
rosa, what a clear explanation of body autonomy as it relates to this discussion, thanks for sharing. As an aside: It totally floors me that people who won't get vaccinated, or allow their children to be vaccinated, think they should be permitted to tell women what they can and cannot do with their uterus. But if their kids die from a disease they could have protected that child against, it's "God's will" and thus fine and dandy.
Here are interesting data from Gallup over the course of a few years: Those who identify as "pro-life" vs "pro-choice."
Draw your own conclusions.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
As people age and don't need to worry about pregnancy seems to me they quit thinking choice is important. It'd be interesting to see if the 50 and above had the same opinion 30 years ago....
As people age and don't need to worry about pregnancy seems to me they quit thinking choice is important. It'd be interesting to see if the 50 and above had the same opinion 30 years ago....
My opinion on this issue has never wavered. This is true for all my boomer friends and relatives, as well.
My opinion on this issue has never wavered. This is true for all my boomer friends and relatives, as well.
Same. With one set of notable exceptions - my Aunt some years back suddenly became a "quiverfull" fundamentalist Christian, and her opinion changed massively. Luckily her kids managed to escape the worst of it.
catherine
5-13-22, 12:10pm
The only time I've seen the tide turn was when someone I knew was all about pro-life, until his son wound up involved in a pregnancy with a girlfriend with whom the son had no interest in a long-term relationship, and neither did she. All of a sudden "pro-choice" looked pretty good to the family.
Same. With one set of notable exceptions - my Aunt some years back suddenly became a "quiverfull" fundamentalist Christian, and her opinion changed massively. Luckily her kids managed to escape the worst of it.
OMG--Quiverfull. Shades of the Duggars.
ApatheticNoMore
5-13-22, 12:31pm
I've probably become much more pro-choice in time, because one comes to accept a lot can go wrong in life, including birth control, though it's not something I've experienced. I've never been pro-natalist. :) And also stable lasting relationships seem so rare, but you don't want to bring a kid into any other type maybe.
Gen X was maybe raised a lot more culturally conservative than boomers, because just the times, it was a period of great cultural backlash and so on. But that's just how we were raised. On economics, it probably splits, though the economics have been hard enough not to make one think all is well. Younger Gen X have experienced all the same stuff as millenials there. A part of life we have experienced a lot going wrong in :) So boomers are by far the conservative ones there.
Abortions have become much easier with pills now supposedly, so there is no way they won't happen, they'll just be a culture of intimidation with women buying pills on the black market rather than talking to a doctor for a prescription.
Teacher Terry
5-13-22, 12:39pm
Rosa, reading a book made me laugh:)). All the older women I know still care about this issue.
frugal-one
5-13-22, 5:42pm
As people age and don't need to worry about pregnancy seems to me they quit thinking choice is important. It'd be interesting to see if the 50 and above had the same opinion 30 years ago....
Wrong! People I know have either not changed their opinion or become more tolerant.
My opinion on this issue has never wavered. This is true for all my boomer friends and relatives, as well.
+1
rosarugosa
5-14-22, 5:50am
Here are interesting data from Gallup over the course of a few years: Those who identify as "pro-life" vs "pro-choice."
Draw your own conclusions.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
That was interesting, Catherine. Thanks for sharing.
Chicken lady
5-14-22, 11:16am
Well, good news for the pro choice camp - the people most likely to identify as pro life are also the people most likely to die of covid.
Well, good news for the pro choice camp - the people most likely to identify as pro life are also the people most likely to die of covid.
Now there’s a statement that encapsulates the sickness of our times.
Vaccinated people are forming a growing percentage of those hospitalized for and dying of covid:
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/breakthrough-deaths-comprise-increasing-proportion-died-covid-19/story?id=84627182
Gloating is not in order. You are not morally superior to other people if you haven't contracted a respiratory virus - yet - that you know of. Give it time. You will.
Chicken lady
5-14-22, 12:44pm
Sorry, sometimes forget tone is important and I am socially atypical.
said in the same spirit in which I said “well, milking will be easier this year” when one of my dairy goats died eight days before her kids would have been viable.
i wasn’t gloating.
Teacher Terry
5-14-22, 1:28pm
Anyone that’s been on this forum long knows you weren’t gloating CL. It’s sad.
gimmethesimplelife
5-14-22, 5:50pm
This is such a difficult topic for me, in a way I'm thinking not all here will understand. So much of my life has been about surviving the extreme inequality and toxicity of this citizenship.
But I'm doing much better these days...I'm not in that place now. What does that mean? Realistically?
I have the rare right and ability to think of a heated issue such as this in moral and ethical terms - not in terms of surviving the US and it's bottom of the barrel metrics for the developed world. I find that it's not easy to contemplate heated issues when there is not a surviving the.US component involved - there almost always has been in the past. I also feel less confident in my takes if there is not a survival component involved.
At least this coming Wednesday I will be in Mexico again - familiar and comfortable turf.
Rob
I have the rare right and ability to think of a heated issue such as this in moral and ethical terms - not in terms of surviving the US and it's bottom of the barrel metrics for the developed world. I find that it's not easy to contemplate heated issues when there is not a surviving the.US component involved - there almost always has been in the past. I also feel less confident in my takes if there is not a survival component involved.
Would we call your special analytical viewpoint Critical Rob Theory?
gimmethesimplelife
5-14-22, 9:19pm
Would we call your special analytical viewpoint Critical Rob Theory?Not at all. Just fearbased reality for a good 40 to 50 percent of Americans. It's often odd, just incredibly odd, to not be in this situation. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop - it's almost like going above my station in life.
But then I'm not stopping at that station these days. I'm not complaining, mind you, it just can be very disconcerting at times. To have the financial ability to contemplate the morals and ethics of something like abortion - does my passport have a maple leaf on it? Sometimes am floored by the basic human rights halfway decent income buys you - but I also understand that to Austrians, such is a birthright - but to be fair the nearby war is impacting this.
Rob
iris lilies
5-15-22, 1:31am
This is such a difficult topic for me, in a way I'm thinking not all here will understand. So much of my life has been about surviving the extreme inequality and toxicity of this citizenship.
But I'm doing much better these days...I'm not in that place now. What does that mean? Realistically?
I have the rare right and ability to think of a heated issue such as this in moral and ethical terms - not in terms of surviving the US and it's bottom of the barrel metrics for the developed world. I find that it's not easy to contemplate heated issues when there is not a surviving the.US component involved - there almost always has been in the past. I also feel less confident in my takes if there is not a survival component involved.
At least this coming Wednesday I will be in Mexico again - familiar and comfortable turf.
Rob
I don’t even know what this word salad means, I am quite sure that you don’t have any right or ability that is “rare.”
Your "bottom of the barrel metrics for the developed world" struck a chord with me. From affordable education to maternal mortality, we are failing badly to meet international standards.
iris lilies
5-15-22, 12:10pm
Your "bottom of the barrel metrics for the developed world" struck a chord with me. From affordable education to maternal mortality, we are failing badly to meet international standards.
And when you look at the maternal mortality rate, Are there specific demographic areas that push our rates up? I wonder if you have any idea how much advertising and social welfare support goes toward maternal health support for that demographic? Why does that demographic not take advantage of it? Could it be a cultural value?
catherine
5-15-22, 12:57pm
Here is one analysis
Key Findings: The U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries. Obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) are overrepresented in its maternity care workforce relative to midwives, and there is an overall shortage of maternity care providers (both ob-gyns and midwives) relative to births. In most other countries, midwives outnumber ob-gyns by severalfold, and primary care plays a central role in the health system. Although a large share of its maternal deaths occur postbirth, the U.S. is the only country not to guarantee access to provider home visits or paid parental leave in the postpartum period.
Conclusion: The U.S. has a relative undersupply of maternity care providers, especially midwives, and lacks comprehensive postpartum supports.
Source https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/nov/maternal-mortality-maternity-care-us-compared-10-countries
This provides more detail and statistics
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-brief-report/2020/dec/maternal-mortality-united-states-primer
ApatheticNoMore
5-15-22, 1:53pm
And when you look at the maternal mortality rate, Are there specific demographic areas that push our rates up? I wonder if you have any idea how much advertising and social welfare support goes toward maternal health support for that demographic? Why does that demographic not take advantage of it? Could it be a cultural value?
no, no, no and no. California has maternal mortality rates equal to Europe. The lowest maternal mortality rate in the country. But demographics, well California is not majority white (so maybe the problem is white people), and not heavily black, large hispanic population. Likely doesn't differ much in demographics from Texas, but in maternal mortality it really does.
California has the lowest maternal mortality rate of 4.0 deaths per 100,000 births. From 2006 to 2013, California’s maternal mortality rate declined by 55%, from 16.9 to 7.3 and continued to decline thereafter. California is leading the way in efforts to reduce the number of maternal mortalities thanks to the formation of the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative in 2006. This committee found that death from two well-known complications, hemorrhage and preeclampsia, can be prevented through recognition, teamwork, and a list of thoroughly-practiced treatments. Because of this type of preparation in hospitals, California doctors and nurses have been able to save hundreds of lives.
sources:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/maternal-mortality-rate-by-state
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/14/health/maternal-deaths-california/index.html
Did y'all see the Oklahoma bill that got signed into law today?
Did y'all see the Oklahoma bill that got signed into law today?
Yup. Next they'll outlaw contraception.
If I lived in Texas or Oklahoma right now, I would be making plans to leave.
We need a bodily autonomy state, where people aren't told to carry pregnancies to term, or get vaccines, or wear masks.
ToomuchStuff
5-27-22, 10:32am
Yup. Next they'll outlaw contraception.
And don't forget they will make themselves exempt, so they don't get busted for (redacted) over the public.
And don't forget they will make themselves exempt, so they don't get busted for (redacted) over the public.
Most politicians are too old to have kids. Some of them are probably too old to have sex.
Most politicians are too old to have kids. Some of them are probably too old to have sex.
Not if Madison Cawthorn is to be believed...:0!
ToomuchStuff
5-27-22, 4:10pm
Most politicians are too old to have kids. Some of them are probably too old to have sex.
Nope, they are not too old to do it to the general public;)
Not if Madison Cawthorn is to be believed...:0!
Stop that, I'm almost out of eye-bleach!
Stop that, I'm almost out of eye-bleach!
I never saw his naughty pictures, and I'm thankful for that!
Stop that, I'm almost out of eye-bleach!
I read somewhere that the covid butt bleach also works on the eyes. At least the article said ‘that’s what some people are saying’…
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.