djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,183
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 12, 2022 21:27:12 GMT -5
I don't get the heartbeat as the current marker for some people. I think viability is a better marker. I know this is probably not true of scgal, but many of the people who want to force woman to carry to birth no matter what couldn't even be persuaded to wear a mask to protect currently living people for 30 minutes, an hour in a store or several hours on a flight. Carrying a child to term is a much bigger commitment. If you show you won't protect living people, why should I think you are at all sincere and worthy when pretending to protect a fetus? Well, to top it off...there's still a chance that a heartbeat doesn't appear at 6 weeks. 7 weeks is the standard for detecting the heartbeat in my parts. The RE clinic we went to for the peanut wouldn't do heart beat scans until 7 weeks. And my HCG was high enough they were worried I was carrying twins with the peanut.
Viability I think is harder.. is it? i thought viability means "able to survive outside the womb". if that is the definition, there is absolutely an answer for it: www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2021/11/worlds-most-premature-baby-defies-sub-1-survival-odds-to-break-record-681851the answer is 21 weeks. that is just slightly over half way to term. that is where our current abortion laws draw the line already. so, as i said earlier, drawing the line at viability (though a standard i like) doesn't change existing law, really.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,738
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 12, 2022 21:41:30 GMT -5
I don't get the heartbeat as the current marker for some people. I think viability is a better marker. I know this is probably not true of scgal, but many of the people who want to force woman to carry to birth no matter what couldn't even be persuaded to wear a mask to protect currently living people for 30 minutes, an hour in a store or several hours on a flight. Carrying a child to term is a much bigger commitment. If you show you won't protect living people, why should I think you are at all sincere and worthy when pretending to protect a fetus? Well, to top it off...there's still a chance that a heartbeat doesn't appear at 6 weeks. 7 weeks is the standard for detecting the heartbeat in my parts. The RE clinic we went to for the peanut wouldn't do heart beat scans until 7 weeks. And my HCG was high enough they were worried I was carrying twins with the peanut.
Viability I think is harder.. Who defines what viable is? And what a good quality of life is? I had a work colleague that gave birth to a 22-23 weeker. It might have been closer to 22 weeks. Because literally, she found out the gender at 20 weeks, and then bam! the baby was born via emergency c-section. 22/23 weeks is not the 3rd trimester. Her kiddo spent 9 months in the NICU. He was mostly blind. I think he could hear though. When he cam home, he was still on machines that helped him breath and a feeding tube. Last I saw him...when he was about 2 years age adjusted, he was starting to catch up. He could run, could feed himself, etc. He was looking at multiple heart surgeries, over his lifetime, and there were other physical issues (I'd like like say kidney) that required a few surgeries to correct. When last we talked, she still wasn't sure where her kiddo would land cognitively.
Yea I agree viability is harder. While I like your example, nothing would be different under a heartbeat ban or abortion restrictions since apparently your colleague hoped to save the baby. And quality of life is something many won't agree on. All these forced birth folks intentionally ignore that the largest percentage of women having abortions are lower income.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on May 12, 2022 21:59:53 GMT -5
Can't we tell Republicans that the only people who would even consider having an abortion are far left atheist, liberal activists and by outlawing it, they will have babies and raise them to be far left atheist, liberal activists? Maybe we can piggy back and tell them that women are mad and they all went out and bought assault rifles. Maybe we can get some gun control as well as bodily autonomy. Every time they whine about murdering babies every life is sacred, I want to scream "but what about banning guns? Logically, to save lives, we should ban guns." A gun's purpose IS to kill somebody. Unfortunately I think their argument will be that there are more abortions than those killed by guns.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,738
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 12, 2022 22:07:12 GMT -5
VB is going to love this because its a Fox News article, but its interesting some of the thinking in it. www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/twitter-roasts-aclu-tweet-complaining-about-all-the-people-abortion-bans-disproportionately-harm/ar-AAXcbKT?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=4c91bd8a6fbb4ee484199413b4231b66Twitter users reacted strongly to a tweet put out Wednesday by the ACLU touting all the people who are allegedly harmed when abortions are banned in this country.
Critics pointed out the ACLU refused to acknowledge abortion bans protect the lives of the most victimized group of in this situation: unborn babies. The American Civil Liberties Union tweeted a list of all the demographic groups that "abortion bans disproportionately harm."
The tweeted stated, "Abortion bans disproportionately harm:," and listed in bullet form, "Black, Indigenous & other people of color, the LGBTQ community, immigrants, young people, those working to make ends meet," and "people with disabilities."
The tweet added, "Protecting abortion access is an urgent matter of racial and economic justice."
Of course, the tweet about protecting various people made no mention of the lives saved by abortion bans: those of unborn children. Conservatives slammed the ACLU over this. Other Twitter users wondered aloud how LGBTQ people are affected and some even criticized the fact that the organization made no mention of "women" in any way whatsoever.
Did the Twitter users brains break or something? Do they really think that LGBTQ people are not subject to rape and incest? And the thing that bothers me about all of this is that forced birth people look at this in a slice of time ignoring what might happen over a woman's lifetime. Some women have abortions when young and/or poor and go on in the future to marry and have kids. Single poor women can get trapped in a cycle. And their children might be subject to far more dangers than just inadequate nutrition. I hate reading about young children killed by boyfriends or even neglect. I don't think having more of that saves lives. Heck some of the mothers get beaten by the fathers or boyfriends. And think of all the women with horrible lives who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. The father probably is too. Do we really need more fetal alcohol syndrome or crack babies? Maybe we should just advertise now that all people who can't afford abortions just start dropping off babies they can't afford at these justice's homes. See if they still think its a great idea after they see all those lives they want to save on their doorstep.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,291
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 12, 2022 22:09:42 GMT -5
Well, to top it off...there's still a chance that a heartbeat doesn't appear at 6 weeks. 7 weeks is the standard for detecting the heartbeat in my parts. The RE clinic we went to for the peanut wouldn't do heart beat scans until 7 weeks. And my HCG was high enough they were worried I was carrying twins with the peanut.
Viability I think is harder.. is it? i thought viability means "able to survive outside the womb". if that is the definition, there is absolutely an answer for it: www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2021/11/worlds-most-premature-baby-defies-sub-1-survival-odds-to-break-record-681851the answer is 21 weeks. that is just slightly over half way to term. that is where our current abortion laws draw the line already. so, as i said earlier, drawing the line at viability (though a standard i like) doesn't change existing law, really. My OB said 25 weeks is more accurate. Most babies do not survive before that and even at 25 weeks require massive intervention because lungs are not fully developed. 35 weeks is when a baby can survive outside the womb without intervention. There are exceptions in all stages of pregnancy but why should some white male legislator be making that decision? Especially since he's not going to vote to fix health care so I'm not facing thousands upon thousands of dollars in medical bills just for birth alone. I'm not jumping to I should abort at 25 weeks if I feel like it but that survival and viability should be a matter between the mother/parents and trained medical professionals. It shouldn't be someone who has no actual stakes in the outcome.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,738
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 12, 2022 22:10:58 GMT -5
Every time they whine about murdering babies every life is sacred, I want to scream "but what about banning guns? Logically, to save lives, we should ban guns." A gun's purpose IS to kill somebody. Unfortunately I think their argument will be that there are more abortions than those killed by guns. And that is true. They don't think every life is sacred. If they did, they'd be taking care of all the poor children born now instead of begging for even more of them to be born without support.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on May 12, 2022 22:20:52 GMT -5
A six week old fetus when a heartbeat is detected. Looks more like the creature which came out of the crewmembers chest in Alien. Fetal development week by weekNot to mention it's the size of lentil... I'm guessing a 1/4 inch or less in diameter.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on May 12, 2022 22:21:12 GMT -5
OMG same abortion = vaccine shithead just posted about how when she was sick her bf had to call in her parents to help him look after the kids. I feel like it's important to point out THEY'RE NOT HER KIDS. He had them with whoever he was with before her.
She made it as some rah rah it takes 3 people to replace mom and I just want to yell "you want to stop women from controlling their fertility when you just have a great example of a father being a total piece of shit when it comes to raising his kids. THAT is why women should have to choose, damn boy had to call people who aren't even related to his kids to save him from being a dad".
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,170
|
Post by tallguy on May 12, 2022 22:41:00 GMT -5
Well, to top it off...there's still a chance that a heartbeat doesn't appear at 6 weeks. 7 weeks is the standard for detecting the heartbeat in my parts. The RE clinic we went to for the peanut wouldn't do heart beat scans until 7 weeks. And my HCG was high enough they were worried I was carrying twins with the peanut.
Viability I think is harder.. is it? i thought viability means "able to survive outside the womb". if that is the definition, there is absolutely an answer for it: www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2021/11/worlds-most-premature-baby-defies-sub-1-survival-odds-to-break-record-681851the answer is 21 weeks. that is just slightly over half way to term. that is where our current abortion laws draw the line already. so, as i said earlier, drawing the line at viability (though a standard i like) doesn't change existing law, really. Not really an appropriate response for the thread, but the joke fits, soooo...... I was just watching an old DVD set from the library: The Best of An Evening at the Improv. The original shows were from the early '80s, I think, and Harvey Korman was one of the guest hosts. One of the lines from his bit was about the official Jewish position on abortion. "It's a fetus until it graduates medical school." Good thing that's not the rule, isn't it?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,183
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 12, 2022 23:42:28 GMT -5
My OB said 25 weeks is more accurate. Most babies do not survive before that and even at 25 weeks require massive intervention because lungs are not fully developed. 35 weeks is when a baby can survive outside the womb without intervention. There are exceptions in all stages of pregnancy but why should some white male legislator be making that decision? Especially since he's not going to vote to fix health care so I'm not facing thousands upon thousands of dollars in medical bills just for birth alone. I'm not jumping to I should abort at 25 weeks if I feel like it but that survival and viability should be a matter between the mother/parents and trained medical professionals. It shouldn't be someone who has no actual stakes in the outcome. i am sure that is true, but debatable. there is no debate at 21 weeks. no baby has EVER survived that early a delivery.
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on May 13, 2022 8:10:26 GMT -5
Well, according to Ex 2.0 that is VERY pro-life, "Women should not have that kind of power. At the very least the father should have a say in if his child is murdered" The more you tell us about him, the more I want to punch him in the face. The more I write about him the more I wonder if he drugged me before the wedding. Well...I know he drugged me AT the wedding, but I mean leading up to it so I ever agreed to it in the first place.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,051
|
Post by teen persuasion on May 13, 2022 8:15:21 GMT -5
Every time they whine about murdering babies every life is sacred, I want to scream "but what about banning guns? Logically, to save lives, we should ban guns." A gun's purpose IS to kill somebody. Unfortunately I think their argument will be that there are more abortions than those killed by guns. I realized I have no idea of the relative numbers here, for gun deaths or abortion, so went down the Google rabbit hole looking for hard numbers. No hard numbers, lots of different numbers, but, yes, abortion is at least an order of magnitude greater than gun deaths. Along the way, I found this: Psychology Today:Abortion doesn't justify ignoring gun violenceIt's from 2018. He logically breaks down WHY this argument fails. The part that struck me was how much his assessment relied on the fact that abortion was legal, full stop, and gun deaths are not, while also referencing how few Americans wanted to make all abortions illegal, vs the large majority that are ok with legal abortion. That 4 years later the *fact* of legal abortion might soon be past tense (despite the same broad opinions) is a complete paradigm shift, one the author obviously NEVER contemplated at all. He also uses a related argument against contraception (prevents babies from being born), as an analogy - if contraception prevents even more babies from being born than abortion does, logically the anti-abortion side should go after contraception BEFORE abortion, just as they claim abortion takes priority over guns. Which frighteningly plays right into the next steps Rs are setting up...
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on May 13, 2022 8:20:37 GMT -5
I don't get the heartbeat as the current marker for some people. I think viability is a better marker. I know this is probably not true of scgal, but many of the people who want to force woman to carry to birth no matter what couldn't even be persuaded to wear a mask to protect currently living people for 30 minutes, an hour in a store or several hours on a flight. Carrying a child to term is a much bigger commitment. If you show you won't protect living people, why should I think you are at all sincere and worthy when pretending to protect a fetus? Well, to top it off...there's still a chance that a heartbeat doesn't appear at 6 weeks. 7 weeks is the standard for detecting the heartbeat in my parts. The RE clinic we went to for the peanut wouldn't do heart beat scans until 7 weeks. And my HCG was high enough they were worried I was carrying twins with the peanut.
Viability I think is harder.. Who defines what viable is? And what a good quality of life is? I had a work colleague that gave birth to a 22-23 weeker. It might have been closer to 22 weeks. Because literally, she found out the gender at 20 weeks, and then bam! the baby was born via emergency c-section. 22/23 weeks is not the 3rd trimester. Her kiddo spent 9 months in the NICU. He was mostly blind. I think he could hear though. When he cam home, he was still on machines that helped him breath and a feeding tube. Last I saw him...when he was about 2 years age adjusted, he was starting to catch up. He could run, could feed himself, etc. He was looking at multiple heart surgeries, over his lifetime, and there were other physical issues (I'd like like say kidney) that required a few surgeries to correct. When last we talked, she still wasn't sure where her kiddo would land cognitively.
I have a cousin that was born somewhere around 22 weeks. Maybe not even that. I know his weight was in ounces, not pounds. He is blind, deaf, can't walk or talk or do anything for himself. He does go to therapy a few times a week, but spends most of his day just laying on a rug at home. He can't weigh much because my 5 foot tall 73 year old aunt can pick him up and get him into his wheel chair. I think he's 40 years old now. Sometimes I think we take the heroics too far in saving preemies.
|
|
|
Post by empress of self-improvement on May 13, 2022 9:22:40 GMT -5
I had the same conversation with my parents. DH hit the roof when I said the same thing to Gwen. I'm sorry but I'm stuck if you refuse abortion and you're probably going to refuse adoption as well. But yet you can leave with zero repercussions at any time. So no until the man is considered by law to be just as responsible as me and our system is set up to protect me and ensure you're on the hook this is how it goes if the girls get pregnant.
It's one of the few areas I've told him.no.vagina no opinion. And sometimes it has nothing to do with finances. Sometimes the woman does not want to be forced to maintain ties with the father. She might be desperately trying to figure out how to get away from him entirely. Finding out you're pregnant in this situation can be devastating.
This right here. A fríend had one years ago because she did not want to maitain contact with the father. The fact that he was in jail at the time for mugging and beating an old lady kind of cemented it for her.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,564
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 13, 2022 9:29:24 GMT -5
Louisiana lawmakers withdraw bill declaring abortion homicide(Reuters) - A bill in the Louisiana legislature aiming to charge women and their doctors with murder for obtaining or providing abortion services was withdrawn from consideration on Thursday amid outrage and a successful effort to amend it. The measure by state Representative Danny McCormick would have would have abolished abortion in the state, granted constitutional rights to "all unborn children from the moment of fertilization" and classified abortion as a homicide crime. The measure drew international attention and was criticized by people on both sides of the abortion debate. It was removed from discussion by McCormick late Thursday after opponents amended it to say that women could not be charged with murder for seeking or obtaining an abortion and by inserting an exception to the state's abortion ban for the life of the mother, the state's legislative information website showed. Prosecuting women for obtaining abortions is not favored even by many anti-abortion groups, and the Louisiana Right to Life group said last week that it opposed the bill. The group said on its Facebook page on Thursday that it did not expect the measure to return for further consideration during the current legislative session. Rest of article here: Louisiana lawmakers withdraw bill declaring abortion homicide
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 13, 2022 9:35:42 GMT -5
I suspect it would have shut down the in vitro fertilization clinics as well. If a fertilized egg is human, discarding embryos would be murder, right?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,564
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 13, 2022 9:49:28 GMT -5
The below bothers me from reply #466 above:
Prosecuting women for obtaining abortions is not favored even by many anti-abortion groups...
Many of these state laws state they only want to prosecute the doctor who performed the abortion for pay from the woman seeking the abortion. In my mind, a woman wanting an abortion and then paying the doctor for the completed abortion is akin (to me anyway) of someone wanting someone dead and paying a hit man to complete the killing. Both are complicit in the murder of the 'victim'.
Yet these conservative states making these laws to punish only the doctor but not the woman seem to feel a bit of empathy for the woman and the critical situation of being pregnant.
So if we give the woman a pass for seeking and receiving an abortion, then why don't we also give passes to people who hire and pay contract killers.
So that there is no misunderstanding my position above, abortion should remain legal and it involves only a woman and her doctor. I'm pointing out the weakness and hypocrisy of these conservative state laws and position (don't punish woman for getting and paying for an abortion but charge the doctor with murder).
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,738
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 13, 2022 10:05:26 GMT -5
I'm going to put this here and possibly in a separate thread. Tim Scott the senator is playing poster boy for the anti abortion movement even though he was born to two married parents both with jobs. www.lifesitenews.com/news/black-gop-senator-schools-biden-treasury-secretary-on-abortion-and-poverty/WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) – Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) responded to U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen’s suggestion that women need abortion to succeed by expressing his gratitude for his mother, who raised him despite difficult circumstances.
On Tuesday, while testifying before the Senate Banking Committee, Yellen claimed that Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which imposed abortion on demand across the U.S., increased women’s participation in the workforce.
“In many cases abortions are of teenage women, particularly low income, and often black, who aren’t in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability, often, to continue their education,” she continued.
“I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty, I am thankful to be here as a United States senator,” Scott responded.
Not the best link, but- American politician Tim Scott was born Timothy Eugene Scott on the 19 September 1965in North Charleston, South Carolina to Ben and Frances Scott. His parents divorced when he was seven years old, and his father was in the US Air Force based in Colorado. His mother, a nurse’s aide, raised her children on her own.
www.sunsigns.org/famousbirthdays/d/profile/tim-scott/
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 13, 2022 10:09:21 GMT -5
They know that that is a bridge too far to go, so they won't. They have some understanding of the line they cannot cross right now. But, if the more draconian laws get little pushback, they will likely try to extend it further.
But, they may find that recruiting OBGYN physicians is more difficult. If you could choose where to work, and know you will make a good salary anywhere, would you not take into consideration the environment you will practice in if they get their way. As I said, some in vitro clinics may close.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,738
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 13, 2022 10:19:26 GMT -5
So from the above bolded line, one might assume he was born to a poor single black woman which isn't true. He probably had a decent start in life for his first seven years and his mom may have chosen her educational attainment already. A very different circumstance from being born to a poor single black woman who might not even have a HS diploma. In fact, nothing suggests he was even in danger of being aborted, but he wants to use part of his story to pretend he gets it. Congrats on him for being a senator, but it seems like he's partially riding on her sacrifice. From his senate webpage- www.scott.senate.gov/about/biographyGrowing up in a poor, single parent household in North Charleston, South Carolina, a young Tim Scott grew accustomed to moving every few years, as well as the long hours his mom worked to keep a roof over their heads. After failing four classes his freshman year of high school, Tim’s path forward was murky at best.
But thankfully, he had a mom who stuck with him, and met a mentor that showed him the wisdom of conservative principles. Through their belief and his own determination, Tim got his grades back on track, graduated from Charleston Southern University, and eventually built his own successful small business.I notice how he selectively lets us know about his past, ignoring his dad and the divorce. According to my searches, the mentor is most likely a business owner he worked for when he was in HS. Situations like his mom's sacrifice are unlikely to be affected no matter what happens to Roe v Wade.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,738
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 13, 2022 10:30:10 GMT -5
Interesting article, very long. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8101771/A number of studies have linked the legalization of abortion to women’s advancement in education and in the labor market. In particular, Kalist [70] found that by reducing unwanted births, legalization of abortion in the United States led to increased labor force participation rates for women, especially for single black women. A similar result was found in Angrist and Evans [71], with substantial increases in high school graduation, college attendance, and employment for black women who were teenagers when state abortion laws were liberalized. Additional evidence indicates that women who were denied an abortion because of restrictive state laws not only were less likely to be employed full time, they were also more likely to live in poverty and to require public assistance compared to women who obtained abortions [72]. Bloom et al. [73] took this point about women’s employment one step further and found that lower fertility (instrumented by the legalization of abortion) increases women’s labor supply and contributes positively to GDP growth.
In the United States, children born after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade ruling were more likely to graduate from college and less likely to be welfare recipients or single parents [46].
The political economy around abortion law is complicated and controversial From the complete criminalization of all abortions to abortion upon request, legislation on abortion varies substantially across countries. Countries with no restrictions are largely found in the Global North, while countries with the most restrictions tend to be in the Global South, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean and in Sub-Saharan Africa.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,738
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 13, 2022 10:38:45 GMT -5
The below bothers me from reply #466 above: Prosecuting women for obtaining abortions is not favored even by many anti-abortion groups...Many of these state laws state they only want to prosecute the doctor who performed the abortion for pay from the woman seeking the abortion. In my mind, a woman wanting an abortion and then paying the doctor for the completed abortion is akin (to me anyway) of someone wanting someone dead and paying a hit man to complete the killing. Both are complicit in the murder of the 'victim'. Yet these conservative states making these laws to punish only the doctor but not the woman seem to feel a bit of empathy for the woman and the critical situation of being pregnant. So if we give the woman a pass for seeking and receiving an abortion, then why don't we also give passes to people who hire and pay contract killers. So that there is no misunderstanding my position above, abortion should remain legal and it involves only a woman and her doctor. I'm pointing out the weakness and hypocrisy of these conservative state laws and position (don't punish woman for getting and paying for an abortion but charge the doctor with murder). I think its simple. I don't think its compassion. Punishing doctors is the easiest and quickest way to discourage abortions. Punishing every woman would cost more and be less effective. Plus the MAGAs and forced birth folks want us to become a third world country and destroy our economy. Maybe some of these reality challenged folks should consider that part of the reason China is on the upswing is from their old policy of only allowing one child per family thus concentrating support and resources to fewer children. All those scary brown people coming to the US are generally coming from countries with very restrictive abortion policies. Maybe conservatives can find all those countries with restrictive abortion laws and crappy social welfare and show how rich and wonderful they are for most of their citizens.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,564
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 13, 2022 11:15:58 GMT -5
Column: Republican 'pro-life' advocacy ends with a child's birthFrom red-state capitals to Washington, Republican politicians are conceding what’s been obvious for decades: Their “pro-life” advocacy ends with a child’s birth. That’s not what they intend to convey, of course. Since the leak last week of the draft Supreme Court opinion to end the constitutional protection for abortion rights, Republicans have rushed to mics, TV studios and social media to promise that once the justices rule there will come a new phase in the “pro-life” crusade: support for government aid for needy pregnant women, mothers and kids. What is that if not an admission that they’ve been blind to any such need until now? And why should we believe they’ll change? How better to underscore Republicans’ shamelessness than for their message about the coming beneficence to be delivered nationally — on the Sunday TV news programs — by Gov. Tate Reeves of Mississippi. His state has the nation’s highest poverty, maternal mortality and child poverty rates, a foster care system that’s been embroiled in a long-running lawsuit, and a legislature that only recently rejected a bill to expand Medicaid assistance for postpartum care. On Mothers Day, Reeves said on CNN and then repeated almost verbatim on NBC: “We must show that being pro-life is not just about being anti-abortion.” He claimed that his state would “do everything we can to make it easier on those moms who may be in unwanted pregnancies,” and to ensure “that those babies, once born, have a productive life,” and if necessary, through adoptions and an improved foster care system. Such talk is just election-year babble from a party fearful of a voter backlash if — when — the majority of Republican appointees on the Supreme Court overturns the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, leaving each state to decide whether abortion will remain legal. Thirteen red states, including Mississippi, have “trigger laws” to ban abortions as soon as the justices strike down Roe; other states will follow suit. Years of study and experience suggest that poor women will be disproportionately hurt, unable to afford either travel to a state that allows abortion or the resources to have a child. The Republican Senate campaign committee was out fast with a memo offering advice to candidates. It says in all caps: “BE THE COMPASSIONATE, CONSENSUS BUILDER ON ABORTION POLICY.” Democrats will be “angry, strident, rigid, science deniers on the issue of abortion,” the memo says. “Republicans must be the opposite, demonstrating compassion and kindness toward all people, mother and child, born and unborn.” The memo suggests no policy specifics. It’s just words — from the party that, in Congress, has stood united against President Biden’s proposals for paid parental and medical leave for working mothers, expanded day-care subsidies and a more generous child tax credit. A party that still opposes the 12-year-old Affordable Care Act, which, among other benefits, bans higher insurance premiums for women of child-bearing age, mandates coverage of FDA-approved birth control and pays for states to expand Medicaid for poor women and children. Which brings us back to Reeves, and to Mississippi, one of a dozen Republican-led states that has rejected Obamacare’s expanded Medicaid coverage for the working poor who make too much to qualify for federal healthcare assistance and too little to afford private insurance. “I am opposed to Obamacare expansion,” Reeves has said repeatedly. Since 2014, Mississippi — ranked 50th in healthcare — has rejected more than $7 billion from Washington to extend Medicaid coverage to up to 300,000 more residents. And now we’re supposed to believe it would spend its own money to help people have and raise children? Consider this, from the state’s Department of Health website: “Mississippi ranks last, or close to last, in almost every leading health outcome. … The result is a disproportionate burden of disease and illness that is borne by racial and ethnic minority populations and the rural and urban poor.” A state maternal mortality report released three years ago, and updated last year, found that 33 women died within a year of giving birth for every 100,000 live births, nearly double the national average. Deaths were significantly higher among Black women. The report recommended that the state provide a year of postpartum care under Medicaid. Yet in March, just as it had last year, the state legislature declined to do so, despite new federal incentives and support from business and grassroots groups. Mississippi House Speaker Philip Gunn, who’s campaigned as a “pro-life” Republican, refused to even bring the measure to a vote. “I’m opposed to Medicaid expansion,” he said. “We need to look for ways to keep people off, not put them on.” Reeves, on national television, didn't mention his legislature’s back-of-the-hand to new mothers. He did, however, boast that Mississippi is spending more than $100 million to improve its foster care system. That money reflects the settlement in the foster care lawsuit; the director of the ACLU of Mississippi told local reporters that the governor’s comments were “like a man bragging about paying his child support that he has been ordered by a court." Forget what Reeves and other Republicans say about helping women forced to give birth. It’s what they do that matters, and they’ve done nothing to suggest they’ll actually put state money where their mouths are. To be “pro-life” still means cheating on child support. Column: Republican 'pro-life' advocacy ends with a child's birth
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,183
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 13, 2022 11:25:46 GMT -5
this is one of the many reasons i think that abortion is a Trojan Horse for neo-fascism.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,738
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 13, 2022 11:44:41 GMT -5
This is why I prefer to call them forced birth advocates. Maybe they want to make more lesser people in the US so they can feel good about themselves.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,183
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 13, 2022 11:46:21 GMT -5
This is why I prefer to call them forced birth advocates. Maybe they want to make more lesser people in the US so they can feel good about themselves. or continue the pool of low paid, under-educated folks to clean their toilets and serve their food.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,738
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 13, 2022 11:47:59 GMT -5
this is one of the many reasons i think that abortion is a Trojan Horse for neo-fascism. It reminds me of the worst of the Catholic church. All the abuses of unmarried pregnant girls along with the organizational desire to punish.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on May 13, 2022 16:06:19 GMT -5
Uggh... that teenage girls (not white) account for most abortions thing... fries my hide! Maybe I'm reading this wrong.. but there's this from the cdc: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm From the Results section In 2019, women in their 20s accounted for more than half of abortions (56.9%). Women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years accounted for the highest percentages of abortions (27.6% and 29.3%, respectively) and had the highest abortion rates (19.0 and 18.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20–24 and 25–29 years, respectively). By contrast, adolescents aged <15 years and women aged ≥40 years accounted for the lowest percentages of abortions (0.2% and 3.7%, respectively) and had the lowest abortion rates (0.4 and 2.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged <15 and ≥40 years, respectively). However, abortion ratios in 2019 were highest among adolescents (aged ≤19 years) and lowest among women aged 25–39 years. Abortion rates decreased from 2010 to 2019 for all women, regardless of age. The decrease in abortion rate was highest among adolescents compared with any other age group. From 2018 to 2019, abortion rates decreased or did not change among women aged ≤24 years; however, the abortion rate increased among those aged ≥25 years. Abortion ratios also decreased or did not change from 2010 to 2019 for all age groups, except adolescents aged <15 years. The decrease in abortion ratio was highest among women aged ≥40 years compared with any other age group. From 2018 to 2019, abortion ratios increased for all age groups, except adolescents aged <15 years. In 2019, 79.3% of abortions were performed at ≤9 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (92.7%) were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation. During 2010–2019, the percentage of abortions performed at >13 weeks’ gestation remained consistently low (≤9.0%). In 2019, the highest proportion of abortions were performed by surgical abortion at ≤13 weeks’ gestation (49.0%), followed by early medical abortion at ≤9 weeks’ gestation (42.3%), surgical abortion at >13 weeks’ gestation (7.2%), and medical abortion at >9 weeks’ gestation (1.4%); all other methods were uncommon (<0.1%). Among those that were eligible (≤9 weeks’ gestation), 53.7% of abortions were early medical abortions. In 2018, the most recent year for which PMSS data were reviewed for pregnancy-related deaths, two women died as a result of complications from legal induced abortion.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,423
|
Post by thyme4change on May 13, 2022 16:07:45 GMT -5
The below bothers me from reply #466 above: Prosecuting women for obtaining abortions is not favored even by many anti-abortion groups...I think its simple. I don't think its compassion. Punishing doctors is the easiest and quickest way to discourage abortions. Punishing every woman would cost more and be less effective. Plus the MAGAs and forced birth folks want us to become a third world country and destroy our economy. Maybe some of these reality challenged folks should consider that part of the reason China is on the upswing is from their old policy of only allowing one child per family thus concentrating support and resources to fewer children. All those scary brown people coming to the US are generally coming from countries with very restrictive abortion policies. Maybe conservatives can find all those countries with restrictive abortion laws and crappy social welfare and show how rich and wonderful they are for most of their citizens. And punishing employers that hire undocumented workers would be the most efficient way to slow illegal immigration- but they still insist the best way to stop it is walls, border control and such. But, why would a politician (of either party) who is bought and paid for by corporate money put in a policy like that. I guess doctors don't donate enough.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on May 13, 2022 16:25:06 GMT -5
I think its simple. I don't think its compassion. Punishing doctors is the easiest and quickest way to discourage abortions. Punishing every woman would cost more and be less effective. Plus the MAGAs and forced birth folks want us to become a third world country and destroy our economy. Maybe some of these reality challenged folks should consider that part of the reason China is on the upswing is from their old policy of only allowing one child per family thus concentrating support and resources to fewer children. All those scary brown people coming to the US are generally coming from countries with very restrictive abortion policies. Maybe conservatives can find all those countries with restrictive abortion laws and crappy social welfare and show how rich and wonderful they are for most of their citizens. And punishing employers that hire undocumented workers would be the most efficient way to slow illegal immigration- but they still insist the best way to stop it is walls, border control and such. But, why would a politician (of either party) who is bought and paid for by corporate money put in a policy like that. I guess doctors don't donate enough. Isn't the reasoning to not punish employers is because it's difficult for an employer to determine if the person they are employing is undocumented? Which by that logic - perhaps we just create a "condition" that would cause a woman to need to have a procedure that is not called an abortion... so it would be perfectly legal and fine to treat the new "condition" and the anti-abortionist can then claim that no abortions are happening. TBH, I will NOT be surprised if something like that happens - I'm sure it will be considered some sort of "cosmetic" procedure - that people with enough money will be able to afford and get.... just saying...
|
|