Abortion in the U.S.

[Realitytrembles]

If a child is being born the new laws state the abortion can be legally conducted until the child's head is our of the birth canal. you agree with this ?... if so please explain to me why. because that is the issue i am trying to figure out not all the other abortion morality religious mumbo jumbo.. this one issue is what i need to figure out.

My answer is found in the last line of the post you quoted.

[Caerule]

For someone who dislikes strong opinions, I do think that you hold rather a strong opinion.

Men are allowed to disown a child - that seems fair. Women are also allowed to, which is fair, but in addition are allowed to kill it at any time for any reason? Why?! You say that it doesn't affect anyone but the mother, but you forgot an important factor in this conversation: There's 3 people involved! The mother, the father, and the baby!

As explained previously, I sometimes understand why an abortion is needed or highly desirable, but this standpoint where women should just be allowed to kill babies because they are women just strikes me as extremely sad and immoral. I strongly assume the baby wants to be born! Why is the baby never part of this discussion? Why has the left of America literally dehumanised babies? It's disgusting!

Okay, that's a bit strong. Let me unpack a little here.

I never said women should be allowed to choose an abortion at any time, for any reason. I may have used the wrong words. What I meant was that women should decide on where society draws the accepted lines on the limits to abortion. Not any individual woman, deciding for herself when and why to abort. I feel men shouldn't be deciding on women's rights on this subject. As it is clear male opinions are both statistically different, and they are less impacted by this problem. I am not arguing for complete freedom for everyone to abort everything everywhere. Though I am arguing that as this is never a problem I will face, my opinion should be valued less in the actual making of the laws surrounding this.

I would however like to partially argue against your assertion that the baby is involved in this decision. A fetus is dehumanised because it is not a human yet. You are projecting a future person onto it that is not in existence at this time. We can't take the opinion of fictional people into it. At this moment, your opinion, a completely unrelated person, matters more than whoever this fetus will be. Because you are an actually existing person that is clearly emotionally impacted by the fate of this fetus. I can assign a value to that. But I can't assign a value to the opinion of a person that has yet to exist.

What does matter, of course. Is the opinion of the baby now. But that itself is a low factor. Even a fully born and healthy baby has limited understanding of the world. They can feel pain, perceive the world, and experience the very basis of emotions. But they lack object-permanence, have yet to develop morals, and the brain structures to comprehend things like the future. We value babies because we look at them through human eyes and see people in them. Form connections to them. Place desires onto them. But, every value something has is human value. And as such, we can declare the value of a baby to be high. They matter. A lot. And keeping them from harm reduces the suffering of us all. So it is very important.

But the discussion is about where that line is drawn. Where do we go from clump of cells, to a creature enough like us that its survival gains higher priority than the will and wellbeing of its mother. A fetus has no will like ours about whether it is born or not. This discussion is about when we feel it has enough properties we value to be considered to have enough human value that its survival becomes the greater good. When that point is, is a question society should decide on and set the standards for. And in my opinion, the portion of society that actually has the potential to face this decision.

[Dug]

I don't know what prompted that law but I want to say with almost 100% certainty virtually 0 mothers are going to be willingly pregnant for 8 and a half months and then just decide to abort it on a dime. Law itself is weird though I agree...

[Kylie Hope]

The baby is drawn from their cells and created inside their womb. Technically, it is an extension of the woman. I don't think you should necessarily have the absolute right to decide what another person does with their body.

That being said I think the Danish laws that were cited earlier in this thread may make the most sense right now. A balance of autonomy of the woman, while respecting the life that is forming within her.

Babies are not an extension of their body, it's a separate life form. By that logic it would also be an extension of the man's body, because his sperm is involved. Every man who has ever jizzed into a woman is now part of that woman's body, so he should have control over her.

Whatever dumb logic you use to try and justify your baby killing, it still doesn't change that you are killing babies. Your position is immoral.

[Criz]

I dont agree with late term abortions if the baby is healthy. I'm aware this very rarely happens. The newest bill being brought up allows the mother to abort at any point if she feels having the baby affects her "mental health". That's too ambiguous for me and I feel it could be abused.

I agree 100%. We have laws that protect a mother though birth if her health is in danger and i feel those are the limit. The new laws are making me seriously re think my pro choice beliefs. I still firmly believe in a woman's right to choose but i also believe a fully formed fetus being birthed is a human and also has rights. I am hoping that someone will have a magic post that makes a light in my head shoot on and say... "oh i get it cool beans back to my normal non caring ignoring this situation life"
because its making me bitter and i dont like it and cant stop feeling that way.


Dug i would like to believe that as well. But then i get concerned about emotionally distressing situations and people making less than good judgement calls on the spur of the moment to end a situation that is terrifying them to only live with regret. or worse. not be able to live with that regret.

[Magd]

Having a child is a blessing and not a curse or a disease. I have now read several times in this post of children being likened to being parasites which is absolutely horrible. Claiming compassion for women does not justify the killing of their child.

Life begins at conception. If it is just a mass of tissue with no life, then what harm is it? It's only because it truly is a human being that lives with its own unique DNA that it is a threat. It will be born. Can you prove there is no life at conception? I can understand people believing otherwise given all the hatred, politics and confusion that's out there that clouds the subject, but to side with the right for a mother to kill her own helpless child at 9 months under the guise of "it's her body. It's her right, the child is a parasite" is just plain evil. What about the child's right to live? What about it's choice? The poor thing is helpless at that stage and we take advantage of that and kill it for our own conveniences. Furthermore, NY passes a law to enable this and there is applause?

For those of you who say it's about women's health, 50% of those children you are killing are women. Many poor women regret having abortions and they are likewise devastated when the reality of what they have done has hit them. What about the health of their souls? What about their dignity? I keep hearing that we should let a woman do what she wants with her body but that is a deflection from the reality that it is not her body but her child's that she is killing.

The same people who push these laws also claim that their opponents are biggots who hate women, homosexuals and all sorts of other races and yet it is all of these groups who we are trying to defend in the womb along with the rest. Look up Margaret Sanger and read her quotes. I'm not talking about going to her Wikipedia page which glorifies her. Dig in and do your research. She was the foundress of planned parenthood. See how and why it started. Read her quotes especially on black people.

As far as separation of church and state, this was established by our founders who fled tyranny and wished to protect a persons choice of religion from government persecution. It was not the other way around. I don't believe it's right for pro abortionist to say our moral beliefs are invalid because the same beliefs come from a position of faith and thereby we must be silent because these beliefs have no position in government. This is a method often used to silence opponents and to force their own beliefs upon the rest via laws mostly passed in courts. RvW was never voted upon by the people. It was forced upon us by the court. From their the dominos fell.

I tell you, we need to regain our moral sense as a country because everyday, we are being desensitized to the dignity of human life and there will not be an end to where this will be taken if it continues. If man has no soul and no purpose, if all is lost at death, what purpose is there to life if it means nothing in the end? Where is mans dignity? In that case, what difference does it make if we kill? Or is there a purpose to life and is it truly wrong to kill? We should really think about this.

[Endus]

No, no it isn't. It's about morality. A human fetus is still a life. I do believe that a women should have the right to abort up towards a certain point. There are people wanting to ABORT when the baby is delivered after the 9 months... There are extremes on both sides who are morally bankrupt. Abortions should also not be used as a form of birth control, imo.

Pro-life views are inextricably based on faith, not science nor ethics. Without exception.

Here's the obvious reason why; you argue that the fetus is a human life. I would contest that, to a certain degree, but let's set that aside, and see how things work out even if a fetus is considered a human life.

In this hypothetical, then, it's a question of whether the host woman's right to control her own body and its use is a higher order right than the fetus' right to life. Whenever rights come into conflict, one always has to bow to the other. And in the case of bodily autonomy versus right to life, the answer is unequivocally clear. Bodily autonomy is the higher order right. It wins this contest, every time.

I guarantee you will not find any other case where one person's right to life trump's another person's bodily autonomy. If it did, you could be forced to donate a kidney to someone you don't know, against your will. You could wake up and find someone has been attached to you, so your organs can support their life, and would have no right to say "no". That's what a world where right-to-life trumps bodily-autonomy looks like. It's an atrocity.

So why the hell would we accept the exact same atrocity, in the particular case of women who want an abortion? We shouldn't. Her bodily autonomy trumps any potential right to life of the fetus, whether it exists or not. Right to life is not a functional argument, even if it were a given, which it is not.

The only way to claim you're pro-life and not basing it on faith, somehow, means one of two things;

1> You think bodily autonomy should be subservient to right-to-life, in which case you support forced organ and tissue donations, for the same reasons, or

2> You don't think women deserve basic human rights.

And that's really it. There isn't another rational argument to back pro-life.

Edit: I also want to be clear that I am making an allowance for faith-based views, here. I'm not condemning them, I'm condemning the idea that there's any non-faith-based justification for pro-life views that isn't monstrous.

It's just that faith-based views should never inform policy. They aren't about what other people should be allowed to do, they're about what you, personally, should choose to do. If your faith says abortions are bad, just don't get an abortion. That's your right. Nobody's forcing you. But your abortion is the only one your religious views get to have a say in. Otherwise, you're attacking other people's religious rights.

[ellieg]

I agree 100%. We have laws that protect a mother though birth if her health is in danger and i feel those are the limit. The new laws are making me seriously re think my pro choice beliefs. I still firmly believe in a woman's right to choose but i also believe a fully formed fetus being birthed is a human and also has rights. I am hoping that someone will have a magic post that makes a light in my head shoot on and say... "oh i get it cool beans back to my normal non caring ignoring this situation life"
because its making me bitter and i dont like it and cant stop feeling that way.

In an ideal world abortions never happen. This is the real world tho so I understand some leeway is needed. I believe this new law swings the pendulum too far. I believe it was to streamline the process cause it cuts the doctors needed to sign off on it from 3 to 1. I think it opens up too many areas for abuse tho. Allowing "any" reason is too much. At some point, the fetus has to have some sort of right to life. Allowing 1 doctor to say "ya you can get this abortion" 30 mins before delivery, is too much.

[Mrbleedinggums]

Here's a modest proposal. Anyone pro-life and demands that a woman carries out any fetus to term, regardless of scenario, should be snipped and required to adopt at least 3 children who were given up by parents that were forced to carry to term and then ended up leaving the child for adoption.

But let's be honest and address the elephant in the room, pro-life people are really just anti-women people. They don't give a fuck about the child or the mother after birth because "oh if you couldn't afford a child why did you open your legs?" "Why should I pay taxes to support you and your child's free-loading asses?" "It's not my fault if your child ends up falling through the cracks of society" or other absurd arguments they thrash out at the mother for being forced to give birth due to their doctor/community/state.

It is literally impossible that anyone can be pro-life and pro-women, even if they delude themselves into doublethinking. That's like saying you're pro-segregation or pro-slavery, but you're pro-black rights.

[IIamaKing]

What if I told you I object to that based off of non religious beliefs?

Id tell you that all the "pro-life" propaganda stems from religious groups and your opinion, thusly is shaped by religious views.

[Unholyground]

In every place they have given women the absolute control of their reproduction it has vastly improved the quality of life for everyone including the governments they reside within.

- - - Updated - - -

If abortion is legal because it's the womans body, and she gets to command anything involving it, I should be able to murder anyone I deem to hinder my life, because it's my life, I shouldn't have to suffer because of them. My life, my choice.

A fetus just like my cum is not a person end of argument.

[Shaderas]

Whatever dumb logic you use to try and justify your baby killing, it still doesn't change that you are killing babies. Your position is immoral.

Ok, then, I'm immoral! Let's kill some babies!!!! I want my baby back, baby back, baby back, baby back ribs....

Perhaps we can reach a more beneficial compromise for all parties in this instance... have you read "A Modest Proposal"?

/s

[Calimon-ZJ]

If abortion is legal because it's the womans body, and she gets to command anything involving it, I should be able to murder anyone I deem to hinder my life, because it's my life, I shouldn't have to suffer because of them. My life, my choice.

This has to be one of the dumbest nonsensical things I have read to date.

[lummiuster]

I always thought there was 51 states in the us

[Endus]

If abortion is legal because it's the womans body, and she gets to command anything involving it, I should be able to murder anyone I deem to hinder my life, because it's my life, I shouldn't have to suffer because of them. My life, my choice.

You almost have a point.

Ask yourself this; if someone tried to cut your kidney out, would you be justified in defending yourself, even to the point of killing your attacker?

[Shaderas]

If abortion is legal because it's the womans body, and she gets to command anything involving it, I should be able to murder anyone I deem to hinder my life, because it's my life, I shouldn't have to suffer because of them. My life, my choice.

Only if they are inside you... so if you're getting butt-fucked, and you determine that the fucker is hindering your life, go for it

/s

[bloodykiller86]

Abortion is a very touchy subject that most people prefer to avoid talking about. It seems that the people willing to talk about abortion do so without using facts and rely solely on personal feelings. I hope to dispel some of the LIES being spread about abortion regarding RvW. Also i hope we can have a civil discussion of this topic understanding it is not easy to stay calm but please do try.

DISCLAIMER: This is a gathering of factual information that is not opinion it is FACTS. My personal opinion on abortion will be at the bottom to help start the discourse.



Roe vs Wade(RvW): 1973 RvW made it Legal and PRIVATE to have an abortion in ALL states. Each state was then allowed to adopt terms and conditions on abortion but were not allowed to make abortion 100% illegal. Some states mandated that abortions could not be performed on minors without consent of a parent/ legal guardian. Some states imposed limits on abortions only before a fetus was "viable". In all 50 states abortion when the mothers life is in danger or if the fetus is proven to not be viable (major birth defects that could / would result in death of the infant)

So as of Today
50/50 states it is legal for a woman to have an abortion if her health is in danger due to the pregnancy
50/50 states it is legal for a woman to have an abortion if the pregnancy is due to incest or rape
50/50 states it is legal for a woman to have an abortion until fetal viability (usually 20 weeks of pregnancy)

43/50 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.
17 states impose prohibitions at fetal viability.
2 states impose prohibitions in the third trimester.
24 states impose prohibitions after a certain number of weeks; 17 of these states ban abortion at about 20 weeks post-fertilization or its equivalent of 22 weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period on the grounds that the fetus can feel pain at that point in gestation.

Summary: - It is 100% legal in EVERY state for a woman to get an abortion before the third trimester, in the case of incest or rape, or if her health is in danger. EVERY STATE.



This is the information i have found pertinent to abortions as it stands in the united states. So after giving the pertinent facts (to me) I ask others to also give factual information about abortion. What have i missed that is factually relevant in the discussion? I will add information that is factual either in favor of or against without bias.



My opinion and why i make this post.

My entire adult life I have been on the sidelines and ignored the topic of abortion as a "non of my business does not affect me" situation. The new laws being passed in states like New York and laws being voted on in other states have changed my standing.
I no longer feel as if it does not impact me I now feel as if I and many others need to educate ourselves on this issue (and many more) instead of having cater walling screaming sessions at others or ignoring it completely.

The laws passed in the state of New York(Reproductive Health Act) in part say this: "reasons that might threaten the health of the mother include "all factors relevant to the well being of the patient – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age." The Law states that for any of the above reasons it is legal to conduct an abortion until birth.

I will not argue against ALL abortion I believe abortion should be a woman's right abortion should be legal (AND IS). Abortion like EVERY other action we take should not be a free for all. It needs to be regulated just as does free speech right to bear arms rights of the press rights of EVERYTHING.

You have free speech but can not legally threaten someone or cause through your speech an event leading to someone being harmed or worse. You have the right to bear arms but you can not own a nuclear weapon or many other insane weapons. The press has the right to inform the American people of the truth of our government (they prefer to lie and push agendas but they have the right to tell the truth and that's whats important).

You have the right to get an abortion but IN MY OPINION A partial birth abortion is murder. In my opinion when a woman begins giving birth "it hurts" is not a justification to then abort the fetus.

The laws in all 50 united states currently protect a woman's right to get an abortion to protect her own health or in the case of rape or incest and to have an abortion within 20 weeks of pregnancy. Please help me understand the laws being passed now changing RvW. Are the laws not for the protection of women ?because i thought that's what RvW was and why i supported it.

I have been annoyed by EVERY president and political party at some points and supported EVERY president at other points and i have never felt anger over political things before. But today after reading as much of the new laws as i can (hundreds of lines of "act 2 of part 3 of law 6 will be changed to coincide with act 1 part 5 of law whatever) with very little actual substance hidden very well within the hundreds of lines of political legal jargon I am upset. Not outraged not full of hate I am genuinely upset that a child can be seconds away from being born and be terminated. I just want to understand.

Please help me understand these new laws and why they are being supported so that i can make a more informed opinion on this topic.

you have a huge misconception on what that ny law is about. you obviously fell for the media bs....sigh

[Caerule]

Off course we don't consider it the same. The eggs we eat are not fertilized and will never become chickens.

I'm a bit disappointed that you read that entire post and picked at the "but most eggs we eat are not fertilized". I did not think I had to actually elaborate on that part in an already long post. In the example I am stealing the eggs from a farm where they are clearly going to hatch. I know very well that most chickens that lay the eggs you buy in the super market never see a rooster. A lot of people buy eggs from hobby farms or keep chickens, where that isn't the case. In places like that, every freshly laid egg is picked before the mothers can brood them for long enough for a fetus to form.

Either way, the only time the point you are raising would be relevant, is if you are arguing that you would feel much different cracking open an egg from a place where it was fertilized. I do not. But if that is a big factor to you, then I will concede to your criticism of people's actual feelings in my fictional example.

[Nerovar]

Pro-choice views are inextricably based on faith, not science nor ethics. Without exception.

Here's the obvious reason why; you argue that the fetus is a human life. I would contest that, to a certain degree, but let's set that aside, and see how things work out even if a fetus is considered a human life.

In this hypothetical, then, it's a question of whether the host woman's right to control her own body and its use is a higher order right than the fetus' right to life. Whenever rights come into conflict, one always has to bow to the other. And in the case of bodily autonomy versus right to life, the answer is unequivocally clear. Bodily autonomy is the higher order right. It wins this contest, every time.

I guarantee you will not find any other case where one person's right to life trump's another person's bodily autonomy. If it did, you could be forced to donate a kidney to someone you don't know, against your will. You could wake up and find someone has been attached to you, so your organs can support their life, and would have no right to say "no". That's what a world where right-to-life trumps bodily-autonomy looks like. It's an atrocity.

So why the hell would we accept the exact same atrocity, in the particular case of women who want an abortion? We shouldn't. Her bodily autonomy trumps any potential right to life of the fetus, whether it exists or not. Right to life is not a functional argument, even if it were a given, which it is not.

The only way to claim you're pro-choice and not basing it on faith, somehow, means one of two things;

1> You think bodily autonomy should be subservient to right-to-life, in which case you support forced organ and tissue donations, for the same reasons, or

2> You don't think women deserve basic human rights.

And that's really it. There isn't another rational argument to back pro-choice.

Edit: I also want to be clear that I am making an allowance for faith-based views, here. I'm not condemning them, I'm condemning the idea that there's any non-faith-based justification for pro-choice views that isn't monstrous.

It's just that faith-based views should never inform policy. They aren't about what other people should be allowed to do, they're about what you, personally, should choose to do. If your faith says abortions are bad, just don't get an abortion. That's your right. Nobody's forcing you. But your abortion is the only one your religious views get to have a say in. Otherwise, you're attacking other people's religious rights.

A really good argument. I think you misused "pro-choice" and "pro-life" a few times though.

[Kylie Hope]

Ok, then, I'm immoral! Let's kill some babies!!!! I want my baby back, baby back, baby back, baby back ribs....

Perhaps we can reach a more beneficial compromise for all parties in this instance... have you read "A Modest Proposal"?

/s

Are you retarded?