SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Gestopft]

Hmm, and why is that? I just read through a dozen posts showing that it's foolhardy to consider it an issue beside bodily autonomy. Are pregnant women unaware that their baby's continued existence is akin to a forced organ donation?

Is this supposed to be a gotcha?

Emergency delivery, without making sure the baby is dead beforehand, is a thing. Adoptions, safe surrender, reform of the medical expenses surrounding childbirth, reform of state services are all on the table.

It's like you didn't even read the next thing you quoted...

I have yet to hear a major pro-choice presidential, senatorial, or gubernatorial candidate speak up for restrictions in line with post-viability abortions. Stacey Abrams was just asked if she favors any, and had a pretty typical response:

Congratulations: you've discovered that Democrats tend to use highly inclusive language (not always to their benefit, it would seem).

As to why they don't speak about restrictions? They aren't needed. Abortions past viability are already incredibly rare. And when they do happen it is usually because of an emergency to the mother or fetus. This idea/fear that some pregnant woman is going to get 34 weeks in, go "NOPE," and their doctor won't bother trying to save the life of the fetus is a conservative-concocted nonsense. This idea out there that there are all these malicious OBGYNs that aren't going to try and save an otherwise viable child is nothing more than fear mongering. Democrats would prefer to have medical professionals rather than some GoP State AG decide what does or doesn't constitute a medical emergency. Hence no need for restrictions.

I'm going to say it hasn't been a de-facto standard in any meaningful way.

Because Conservatives have been frothing at the mouth and calling Democrats "baby killers" for too long to understand that "let's intentionally end the life of a viable fetus that could otherwise lead a normal life" isn't really a position that people hold. I've also never heard any politician explicitly endorse the existence of stop signs. Kinda figure they don't really need to though. They usually don't say things that are that obvious.

The de-facto standard is to NEVER talk about any restriction and ONLY talk about the woman and/or her doctor, effectively saying they should have indisputable authority the whole way through.

As I said: doctors don't need to be constantly worried about government officials (who are not qualified in medicine) investigating them over their medical decisions. Makes caring for patients harder, ya know?

See additionally:
https://archive.ph/Ufg9u

Or maybe "rare" being gone has more to do with the proliferation of TRAP laws across red states. The GOP made abortions increasingly rare: not by improving economic conditions such that fewer women want to get abortions, but by making it harder for providers to perform them legally. Hence the Democrats' focus on accessibility.

Hint: Pro-choice advocates would be wise to re-establish common-sense limits if they want to change state laws, instead of whine about newfound powerlessness. Pages 149-150-151-152-153 of this thread are pretty instructive for any new person that thinks reasonable limits are a core to pro-choice dialogue. Frame it on the wall and gesture at it each time people get confused in this next decade's legislative fights.

Or maybe pro-life advocates could stop telling bold faces lies and spreading ignorance about what the pro-choice position actually entails in reality?

[Endus]

Hint: Pro-choice advocates would be wise to re-establish common-sense limits if they want to change state laws, instead of whine about newfound powerlessness.

There are no "common-sense limits". Abortion rights are an issue like slavery. If you compromise and allow some slavery (or some restrictions on women's bodily autonomy), then what you're actually saying is that you're still a slave state (still restrict women's bodily autonomy).

There is no "compromise", because rights like bodily autonomy are absolutes; you either have it, or you don't. Saying there's "common-sense limits" is like arguing there's "common-sense limits" to how "human" a black person can be legally considered to be.

Even asking the question is an affront and demonstrates a significant level of malice on the asker's part.

[Rasulis]

I double checked, and I seem to be partially wrong.

Of the 13 states with trigger laws only Wyoming would go after the abortion recipient. Tho it's abortion law is also one of the most severe as it counts any type of termination after "conception" to be illegal.

Their law seems intentionally written to include Plan B. So I expect that will be the next legal battle there.

Tho all the other abortion bans are worded as such that they would punish whoever performs the abortion. If Plan B gets classified not as a contraceptive but as an "abortion drug" they could go after any woman who self administers.

And they can already likely do the same to any woman who orders abortion drugs online and self administers. Most abortions are literally medicated terminations. You take some pills and that's it, there's no "medical intervention".

And that is likely to influence many of the upcoming abortion bans.

Not sure about the other states. Texas laws exclude women who perform self-induced abortion from both civil and criminal penalties. Michigan also.

Here is one way not to worry about abortion.

SCOTUS abortion decision prompts increase in requests for vasectomies, getting tubes tied in Central Texas

[beanman12345]

The same politicians that claimed to be pro-life are the same ones that refused to extend free school meal program.

Congress made school meals free for 2 years. Now, Republicans don't want to extend the program.

Truly caring individuals.

Hypocrisy the name of the game, like every "pro lifer" in this thread murdering our brain cells every time they post.

[uuuhname]

There are no "common-sense limits". Abortion rights are an issue like slavery. If you compromise and allow some slavery (or some restrictions on women's bodily autonomy), then what you're actually saying is that you're still a slave state (still restrict women's bodily autonomy).

There is no "compromise", because rights like bodily autonomy are absolutes; you either have it, or you don't. Saying there's "common-sense limits" is like arguing there's "common-sense limits" to how "human" a black person can be legally considered to be.

Even asking the question is an affront and demonstrates a significant level of malice on the asker's part.

and of course that is just another talking point he got from Steven Crowder or who ever going on about "re-establish common-sense limits". cool, so you too are running with a fake story about "post abortions" being a thing that exist which, spoilers: they don't.

[Endus]

and of course that is just another talking point he got from Steven Crowder or who ever going on about "re-establish common-sense limits". cool, so you too are running with a fake story about "post abortions" being a thing that exist which, spoilers: they don't.

It's such a gross way to frame it. "So there has to be SOME common-sense limitations to women's freedom, right? They can't just actually have bodily autonomy, we can't have that. So let's come to some compromise about how we can subjugate and dehumanize women, together! That's just common sense."

A> No, that's misogyny.

B> I'd rather have medical doctors make medical decisions based on standards of ethical practice and care for the patient, not whatever nonsense some uninformed rando wants to make up and pretend is "common sense".

C> If you can justify your position rationally, you wouldn't have to use such a term. It's an admission they can't justify their stance rationally, but want you to compromise anyway.

It's like asking what the "common sense" limit on wife-beating is. Can we compromise on allowing it on Tuesdays and Thursdays? We've gotta be able to beat our wives sometime, that's just common sense.

Just absolutely gross and demonstrates so much just by virtue of asking.

[MCMLXXXII]

Yeah, good luck to all the women trying to get their tubes tied in the US. To have mine done I had to be 25, have at least 2 kids already, and needed my husbands’ approval. Women don’t even have medical freedom when it comes to that.

To be 25 I can understand. To have at least two kids; breed for 'Murica. And that last one sounds like a rule made up in the fucking dark ages.

[Nymrohd]

Waiting now to see the global fallout from this and how it may embolden forced birth proponents in other countries to reopen the issue. Just consider in how many developed countries abortion was legalized quite recently. In the same way that electing Trump and to an extent Brexit galvanized the conservative/nationalist right, this may well be a rallying cry for the religious right across the world. An issue they felt they had lost is now again open for discussion.
Quite a lot of developed countries do NOT allow full access to abortion with restriction on On Request abortion to 10-14 weeks (well before fetal viability). I will add that in most cases the law is not really upheld (no one is going to come for women or OBGYNs that abort later and good luck taking someone to court especially when there is a separate limit for socioeconomic reasons). But this certainly will allow the religious right to renew their efforts in those countries.

And ofc this will certainly make life harder for pro-choice activists where on request abortion is not legal who seek to expand reproductive rights in their countries.

[Mihalik]

Not sure about the other states. Texas laws exclude women who perform self-induced abortion from both civil and criminal penalties. Michigan also.

Here is one way not to worry about abortion.

SCOTUS abortion decision prompts increase in requests for vasectomies, getting tubes tied in Central Texas

Getting a vasectomy can be difficult, getting your tubes tubes tied can be very very difficult unless you already have like 2 kids or whatnot.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It really shouldn't.

Here's why it's a nonsense argument, from the secular perspective (since any religious arguments can be summarily dismissed and thrown out);

1> The fact that something is "alive" does not confer it rights. The dandelions in my lawn are "alive" but I can still dig them out or use weedkiller on 'em.

2> Life does not "begin". The "beginning" of life was the trigger point of abiogenesis, some billions of years ago. Since then, it's been a continuation of life. In the human context, our gametes (ova and sperm) are created by living individuals, and are, themselves, alive, and combine to form a new, still-living, fertilized zygote. There was never a point where anything in that cycle was "not alive", and no "life" was created.

3> If you mean "a life", rather than the processes of life itself, then you're making a personhood argument, or a religious argument. If the latter, toss it away. If the former, we'll come back to that. If you mean anything but those two, you're making something up and it's weird and not relevant.

4> Whether something is "human" has the same issue. If you mean "human", you are referring to anything produced by a human body. Human excrement. Human sweat. Human hair. Human tissue. Of course a zygote or fetus is "human". So's the snot I dug out of my nose. Does my snot have rights?

5> If you mean "a human", we're talking about personhood or a religious argument, again. See #3.

6> Now, personhood. This is a legal term. It's fundamentally arbitrary, though can be justified on objectively-determinable grounds. The current definition in the USA is "at birth, you become a person". Anyone pushing anything else is just wrong. It's also a completely irrelevant question, as we're about to get into; anyone talking about "personhood" (or "a life", or "a" human", see #s 3 and 5) is willfully trying to distract you with irrelevancies, attacking a straw man because they know they can't make their case on the relevant facts and principles.

7> Why is personhood irrelevant? Because bodily autonomy trumps right to life. There is no circumstance where one person can be forced to donate tissue or be forcibly hooked up to another human being as a mobile dialysis unit (say). Even the suggestion is gross as hell. But that's because it violates one person's right to bodily autonomy, to protect another person's right to life. There is no circumstance where right to life is deemed to overrule bodily autonomy; if you're the only possible match to someone who needs a new liver, even though livers regrow and you'll face very little long-term consequence or risk (less than carrying a pregnancy to term), you cannot be forced to donate part of your liver. So, even if we consider the fetus "a human", or "a life", it isn't relevant; the bodily autonomy of the one pregnant overrules any right to life a fetus even hypothetically might have. Which it doesn't, to be clear. But even if it did, still not an argument against freedom of choice.

It's all a distraction. Bullshit, from day 1, pushing a pseudo-religious misogyny. A lie, perpetrated to harm and marginalize women.

We all know that the whole "Life starts at conception" or whenever an egg is fertilized thing is rooted in the idea that a soul is suddenly "Created", which is itself rooted in religion. The only people whom I have seen on these forums that argue life begins at conception are also those I have seen admitting to ascribing to some kind of American branch of Protestant Evangelism. Including the poster you're responding to.

They will make a bunch of arguments as to why "life" "Starts at" conception, arguments that basically originate from conservative news media and are then regurgitated ad inifinitum because they know people don't care about their religious BS, and they need a better argument. What they don't know is we see past their uninspired opinions and bad arguments.

And of course, we all know for bonus irony, these are usually the people who call for the deaths of those they don't agree with, or otherwise just don't give a shit about taking care of children that are born. They will do things like suggest putting kids up for adoption, and themselves have never and will never consider adopting a kid themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not a very strong explanation though because it doesn't explain why so many spiritual women are still against abortion. I bet you that religion is a stronger predictor of a person's view on abortion compared to gender-based reasons.

The majority of women against abortion are affluent, religious, and had the luxury of being able to plan out when and how they wanted to have a family. The majority of them will make some flaccid comment like "Children are a blessing" because they got to grow up not having to worry about procuring the resources to raise a child.

If you want to take away women's rights to abortion, you better be willing to pay the taxes to raise every unwanted child in a loving home, or you're full of shit calling yourself "pro life".

[Nymrohd]

At the same time looking at the global standard among developed countries, a blanker permit on On request abortion is VERY rare. It's just Canada, China and South Korea? Heck even fetal viability is rare as a cutoff, it's mostly on the 10-14 weeks area. So while I don't agree on any limit because autonomy trumps right of life which to me is the clear cut argument, I expect the majority of US states that will limit abortion will only do so within the limits common in most of the developed world. Which was very scary to realize.

The difference ofc will not be in the law but rather in enforcement and the serious threat of life towards abortion providers. Forced birth proponents have repeatedly committed acts of domestic terrorism not just in the US but elsewhere and continuously harass abortion providers as well as vulnerable women. In the US they are protected to a large extent by the extremely generous interpretation of free speech and right to protest. Meanwhile while in my country on request abortion is only legal until the 12th week, I don't think I've ever heard of a case brought to court making its way to the media in the last several decades (and I think the medical standard after a point is induced birth rather than abortion).

I'm also less critical of Democrats. I really felt there was legislative cowardice and unwillingness to risk votes when they've repeatedly failed to codify rights affirmed by SCOTUS decisions but seems many countries have done the exact same, keeping a very poor standard on reproductive rights that is not really challenged simply because of lack of enforcement.

[s_bushido]

To have at least two kids; breed for 'Murica. And that last one sounds like a rule made up in the fucking dark ages.

So it's in line with American conservatives' views about most things, then.

[Darththeo]

Yeah, good luck to all the women trying to get their tubes tied in the US. To have mine done I had to be 25, have at least 2 kids already, and needed my husbands’ approval. Women don’t even have medical freedom when it comes to that.

A friend of mine had trouble after her first pregnancy nearly killed her. Her parents were asked (as she was not married) if they wanted the doctors to focus on saving her or her child. Even afterward, they were like "But, what if you want to have more kids?"

My sister with 4 kids was asked that too. It isn't as simple as people think it is.

- - - Updated - - -

So it's in line with American conservatives' views about most things, then.

I hate that they view having kids as "breeding" ... I only ever use that when talking about the farm animals I used to raise.
Saying that concept is basically confirming to me the speaker views woman as less than human.

[Mayhem]

Uhm, could women make a claim for self-defense considering pregnancy can lead to death?

[Specialka]

Uhm, could women make a claim for self-defense considering pregnancy can lead to death?

Are you serious or is this some kind of jest ?

[Huehuecoyotl]

I've been hunting for it, but I must have missed @tehdang responding to @Endus highlighting his ignorance regarding the mechanics of late-term abortion (last post on page 157 as of now). Thanks for that Endus, very informative. I think we should all remind tehdang to read, digest, and hopefully apologise for his lack of understanding on this aspect. I'm sure he'll be adjusting his beliefs any minute now based on this new information.

[Specialka]

Is that map correct about "time limit" for abortion ?

https://www.businessinsider.com/late...19-5?r=US&IR=T

- - - Updated - - -

Can pregnancy lead to the woman's death?

Obviously and so is walking.

[Lenonis]

It's such a gross way to frame it. "So there has to be SOME common-sense limitations to women's freedom, right? They can't just actually have bodily autonomy, we can't have that. So let's come to some compromise about how we can subjugate and dehumanize women, together! That's just common sense."

I think it needs a reframing. The issue of fetal viability is still a valid one - but it should be framed in a way along the lines of "yeah the woman still has a right to have this unwanted entity removed but we will use a different process (birth induction vs abortion) if the fetus is viable."

Assuming, of course, the procedure isn't being done due to medical issues that would dictate a certain approach.

[Endus]

I think it needs a reframing.

For whose benefit?

Because right now, we're fighting for the right to basic bodily autonomy for women, at all. Reframing it as you say is a concession, and one that should not be made, as those opposing such basic rights do not deserve to have their concerns or complaints heard or addressed in any way. They deserve derision and ostracization and condemnation, and nothing more.

Once the issue of "if" is settled properly, we can start discussing questions on "how?"

The issue of fetal viability is still a valid one - but it should be framed in a way along the lines of "yeah the woman still has a right to have this unwanted entity removed but we will use a different process (birth induction vs abortion) if the fetus is viable."

Putting the pregnant person at significantly more risk, in a multitude of ways. Also, "viability" isn't really concretely identifiable. Pre-term births, particularly at 22-24 weeks, have very low chances of survival. Single percentage points. It's up to about 30% by 25 weeks.

Why don't we just leave that as a medical decision between the doctor and their patient? Why even involve the government?

[Biglog]

Estimates are predicting the number of foster children in the US to increase by 5x in the relatively near-term as a result of this ruling. There are currently over 400k unplaced foster children in the US. If that does increase 5x, that may mean a sad return to the days of orphanages in the US that haven't existed since the 1950's. A step back of 70 years.