1. #3141
    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    Comparing late-stage abortions to Mass shootings. Hoooooo boy there are takes and then there are fucking takes.
    Oh, now that is sad. Comparing most last stage abortions to a mass shooting would require that mass shooting being at an empty graveyard as the majority of those abortions to miscarriages whom are already dead or will not survive the birthing process anyways and will likely take the woman down with them.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  2. #3142
    Quote Originally Posted by Winter Blossom View Post
    They don’t care. They want a "domestic supply of infants".
    To then send them out to wars when they turn 18 as cannon fodder and treat them like crap if they return.
    Looking for <Good Quotes for Signature>.

  3. #3143
    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    I mean, the implication is that gun control for preventive measures with regards to mass shootings is a whole WORLD of difference to giving women the right to full bodily autonomy. "I was only comparing that they were rare-" No, there is no comparison. One isn't just involving a woman walking into a clinic and having a baby potentially able to be birthed just killed, it's an imperative decision that could involve potential loss of more than one life, and a decision that wholly affects the body involved ONLY. A mass shooting is. . . A fucking mass shooting for shit's sake. Jesus, it's an absolutely dogshit take.
    Oh, my bad. I was thinking they were comparing late stage abortions to actual mass shootings like saying that these people were just mowing down babies left and right.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  4. #3144
    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    Comparing late-stage abortions to Mass shootings. Hoooooo boy there are takes and then there are fucking takes.
    It really goes to show that despite their best efforts to gas light the rest of us about "re-establishing common sense abortion laws" conservatives cannot help but give away how unserious they really are about solving..... really any sort of societal issue.

  5. #3145
    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    Nah that both were rare; but it doesn't matter: Mass or spree shootings aren't good things, but giving women bodily autonomy is, If you wanted to compare something like for like then maybe the execution of innocents being exceedingly rare, since preventing late stage abortions can be a death sentence that isn't required, but then again, we loop back to: What is the comparison trying to emphasise? Mass shootings are bad and mean we need adequate gun control, just like late stage abortion is bad and requires adequate bodily control? It's, at best, an innocently ignorant train of thought; but I do not think -at all- that it is.
    Yeah, I was trying pointing out that they weren't really comparable at all with my analogy. A mass shooting of corpses isn't really a mass shooting. And the majority of late stage abortions are of fetus that are already dead or have no chance of surviving anyways.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  6. #3146
    https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-rape-1374638/

    In the audio, an unidentified source asks Vega if she’d heard that women who are sexually assaulted are less likely to become pregnant because their body “shuts down” in some way. Vega responded “maybe” because “there’s so much going on in the body.”

    “I don’t know,” she continued. “I haven’t, you know, seen any studies. But if I’m processing what you’re saying, it wouldn’t surprise me. Because it’s not something that’s happening organically. You’re forcing it. The individual, the male, is doing it as quickly … and so I can see why there is truth to that. It’s unfortunate.”

    Vega did not immediately respond to an email seeking clarification on whether she believes women’s bodies can “shut down” to stop a pregnancy in the event of a sexual assault.
    Reminder: Republicans wanting to control women's bodies - regardless of if they are a woman as well - don't understand biology or reproductive health. At all.

    These people just want to control women and force them to bear children.

  7. #3147
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,272
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    It's a good example of moral wrong whose correction does not depend on personal involvement. The topic itself is hard to defend as anything but a moral wrong.

    Eugenics, segregation, the draft prior to the ability to vote ... these can be substituted as examples if necessary.

    Where people go amiss is using it as a means to smear a different topic as related to racism and the desire to put someone back in chains. That's the problem with either making something the fruit of slavery, a legacy of slavery, and/or modern slavery itself.
    Anti-abortion movements argue that women do not truly have ownership over their own bodies, and must serve as brood mares for society, regardless of their personal choices or preferences.

    That's precisely as much of a "moral wrong" as any of the others you've mentioned. For the same reasons as slavery, in fact, since in both cases we're talking about the ownership and control over one's own body. That's why the comparison is drawn; because slavery is the single most comparable issue to anti-abortion movements, ideologically.

    To your point, I see the radical adherence to nothing but one-sided bodily autonomy (the other body has rights akin to a nondescript clump of cells) as being too extreme of a position to do anyone good.
    Explain why. Without making reference to any religious or pseudo-religious beliefs. Stick entirely to secular facts.

    That argument doesn't end at viability, and in the seconds up to actual birth. In fact, I see quite a few examples of pro-choice politicians directly contesting any limits whatsoever being necessary. But I've probably said enough on the subject to give any good-faith listener the chance to understand the position.
    Oh, we understand it. We simply reject it, because it isn't based in reality. There is no magical point where the principles in play change.

    Mass shootings are also very rare. That doesn't go to show nothing should be done on the issue. Suffice it to say that if you can't support any restrictions whatsoever, I'm going to continue to say the very hours before birth is an appropriate time to seek and obtain an abortion in your worldview. "Except for medical emergencies" is equal to "I support restrictions in the final days/hours/minutes."
    Again, you've literally never established why this should even be a concern. You seem to take it for granted, but you've never even made the effort.

    Same answer as before. I pointed out that pro-choice politicians can't get their act together to join in compromise on later stage abortions.
    Again; for the same reason abolitionist politicians couldn't accept a compromise of "some slavery". Because the existence of the institution is an ethical and moral affront, no matter how scaled-back it is.

    Trying to quibble about how much ownership women should have over themselves misses the point that their self-ownership must be absolute. In the sliding scale from "fully enslaved" to "fully self-owned", anything short of "fully self-owned" is a form of slavery.

    you're trying to escape what the pro-choice position actually entails in reality. Unrestricted abortion through all 40 weeks, easily seen when anybody prominent is asked about restrictions they favor. No changes for early delivery, nor allowances only entertained if the life of the mother is threatened.
    That position, save the bold, is exactly how it's been for decades here in Canada. It hasn't caused any problems whatsoever, and we've got lower abortion rates than the USA does.

    The bold is just a lie, since inducing birth is an option that's on the table when these things are being discussed, already. I have no idea why you think pro-choicers ever suggested it should be taken off the table, because they haven't; you're just making that shit up.


  8. #3148
    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    I would say it's another "mask off" moment but honestly at this point how many scooby-doo masks do we have to rip off?
    Tehdangus is just a text book narcissist who thinks everyone else on this forum is dumb enough to not remember the things he posts. forgetting we can pull them up at anytime.

  9. #3149
    Quote Originally Posted by Biglog View Post
    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.
    I already posted about Texas foster care system. We know that it is bad when the person in charge had to actually apologized in public. In continuance on the theme of “Texas pro-life hypocrisy.”

    Texas consistently ranked in the 10 worst states for maternal mortality. In fact, 9 out 10 worst states for maternal mortality are so-called pro-life states. It’s safer to get abortion in Texas than it is to have a baby in Texas. For women, the risk of death to give birth in Texas is almost 48 times that of abortion.

    Texas is one in 12 states that has not expanded Medicaid. Guess the other 11 states.

    Texas has one of the lowest medicaid eligibility standards in the nation. A single parent with 3 children would have to earn less than $400 per month to qualify for Medicaid.

    One in 5 Texans have no health insurance. For women of childbearing age it is 1 in 4. The highest rate in the US.

    Lowest rate of women accessing prenatal care in the first trimester.

    Texas Medicaid only covers 6 months postpartum. California Medical 12 months.

    One of two states that don’t cover contraception on its Children’s Health Insurance Program.

    Combined that with abstinence only sex education, and Texas has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the US, and #1 for teens having multiple babies before their 18th birthday.

    Texas does not require employers to offer paid family time off. Totally barbaric.

    If the State decides that the parents can't adequately care for the baby as a result of an unplanned pregnancy, the foster care system intervenes. The same foster care system that is currently in the midst of a lawsuit over its inability to adequately care for the children in their system. Statistically, the system has gotten worse. Twenty three children died under the state care in 2019. One hundred in 2020.

    I could go on, but it just gets more and more depressing.

  10. #3150
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Mass shootings are also very rare.
    Y-You're kidding, right? You can't look at the last 90 days and say that shit, or really the last five years. Shit practically happens every other day in the US. If something happens that often it's not fucking rare, and in fact is pretty common.

    Dontrike/Shadow Priest/Black Cell Faction Friend Code - 5172-0967-3866

  11. #3151
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Reminder: Republicans wanting to control women's bodies - regardless of if they are a woman as well - don't understand biology or reproductive health. At all.
    There's a video going around with Greg Abbott defending a 6-week ban on abortion because 6 weeks is plenty of time to get an abortion, clearly not understanding that 6 weeks is before most women even know they're pregnant.

  12. #3152
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    There's a video going around with Greg Abbott defending a 6-week ban on abortion because 6 weeks is plenty of time to get an abortion, clearly not understanding that 6 weeks is before most women even know they're pregnant.
    The number of men who don't understand the first thing about women's reproductive health making policy directly impacting women's reproductive health is truly impressive.

  13. #3153
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    The number of men who don't understand the first thing about women's reproductive health making policy directly impacting women's reproductive health is truly impressive.
    Why don't you get a 14 week time limit like in France. Enough time to know, take the decision, and get the abortion done.

  14. #3154

  15. #3155
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    To your point, I see the radical adherence to nothing but one-sided bodily autonomy (the other body has rights akin to a nondescript clump of cells) as being too extreme of a position to do anyone good. That argument doesn't end at viability, and in the seconds up to actual birth.
    If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy "seconds up to actual birth," that's called "induction." The baby survives that. Call me radical, but I support inducing labor.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    In fact, I see quite a few examples of pro-choice politicians directly contesting any limits whatsoever being necessary. But I've probably said enough on the subject to give any good-faith listener the chance to understand the position.
    Most of what you've said seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what pro-choice politicians are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    More of a reminder that the rails of the debate here don't resemble the state-level debate across most of America.
    Well most people don't read MMO-C? And this isn't a site just used by Americans? And I mean...congratulations on realizing that people don't usually bother to examine the philosophical groundings of their arguments or that of their opponents'.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Mass shootings are also very rare. That doesn't go to show nothing should be done on the issue.
    Well mass shootings have a much larger effect and on more people per event than abortions late in pregnancy.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Suffice it to say that if you can't support any restrictions whatsoever, I'm going to continue to say the very hours before birth is an appropriate time to seek and obtain an abortion in your worldview. "Except for medical emergencies" is equal to "I support restrictions in the final days/hours/minutes."
    Sorry, but "final minutes" such a mind-bogglingly ignorant thing to say. It is understood- except by pro-life extremists, apparently- that the baby survives an exit from the womb at that point, and that nobody actually supports terminating viable fetuses that can be safely delivered. Particularly the medical community. If a woman requires an abortion late in pregnancy, "save the fetus if possible" is automatically the preferred option. The fact that I should have to clarify that "I think viable fetuses should be saved whenever possible" instead of it being as obvious as "I support the existence of stop signs" is due entirely to pro-life propaganda and brain rot.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Same answer as before. I pointed out that pro-choice politicians can't get their act together to join in compromise on later stage abortions.
    If only the people they were meant to compromise with had any clue what they were legislating, maybe they would? I mean, I don't agree with compromising a human right, but this is America...

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I am unpersuaded by attempts to say that conservative pro-lifers have been so mean on the issue that the pro-choice side can't endorse meaningful restrictions like life of the mother. You don't favor them. You give unrestricted rights to abortion up to the moment of birth. That is enough.
    Like I already said about restrictions: they're not needed, and in fact would do more harm than good.
    1) The medical community is already going to default to "save a viable fetus, if it can be done safely."
    2) The exceptions like "life of the mother" are written by legislators and enforced by prosecutors that know shit about medicine and are usually politically motivated. The situations they are meant to legislate are complicated; there's no test to determine whether or not the life of the mother is endangered or not, or how in danger she is. If she had a 90% chance of dying, does it qualify as an exception? A 70% chance? A 50% chance? A 25% chance? Where is the line between "exceptional situation" and "prosecutable offense?"
    3) Because of the complexity of said situations, medical providers are better qualified than legislators to make these decisions.
    4) Because of- again- the complexity of the situations, knowing that they could be investigated/prosecuted if some government official decides the mother's life "wasn't in enough danger" is sufficient to scare medical providers into preferring inaction when they would otherwise prefer to act. The threat of potential legal action against providers due to vague and politically motivated restrictions will mean more women dying.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    (I do level the same back at you, if you were wondering: you're trying to escape what the pro-choice position actually entails in reality. Unrestricted abortion through all 40 weeks, easily seen when anybody prominent is asked about restrictions they favor.
    This is just you either misunderstanding the pro-choice position and/or ascribing malice where there is none. When pro-choice politicians say they support unrestricted abortions all the way through, they do so with the understanding that the medical community is more equipped than legislators to make these decisions, and that they are going to default to preserving life wherever possible.

    If you want to accuse Democrats of being terrible communicators, have at it. I'll join you. But at least make an attempt to understand what "unrestricted abortion through all 40 weeks" actually means instead of buying into the malicious assumptions pro-lifers have been projecting at us for decades.
    Last edited by Gestopft; 2022-06-27 at 05:10 PM.
    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
    -Louis Brandeis

  16. #3156
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Why don't you get a 14 week time limit like in France. Enough time to know, take the decision, and get the abortion done.
    There are a lot reasons women can't or don't. I don't know why people think they--and the government--are better equipped to make that decision than the woman and her doctor.

    Also, of course the forced birth people aren't going to settle for anything less than a full federal ban.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  17. #3157
    People can keep arguing moralities. I'll keep posting pro-life states hypocrisies. Hard facts that are impossible to deny.

    A Public Health Paradox: States with Strictest Abortion Laws Have Weakest Maternal and Child Health Outcomes

    If you are going to force women to go through unwanted pregnancies. Then you better take care of them. Simple fact, these states haven't become more generous at providing supports low-income mothers.
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2022-06-27 at 05:15 PM.

  18. #3158
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    This is just you either misunderstanding the pro-choice position and/or ascribing malice where there is none. When pro-choice politicians say they support unrestricted abortions all the way through, they do so with the understanding that the medical community is more equipped than legislators to make these decisions, and that they are going to default to preserving life wherever possible.
    To add to this, I'm gonna quote Pete Buttigieg when he was asked by Chris Wallace about the approximately 6000 third trimester abortions that happen each year:

    "That's right, representing one percent of cases. So let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, than almost by definition, you've been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."

  19. #3159
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    If you are going to force women to go through unwanted pregnancies. Then you better take care of them. Simple fact, these states haven't become more generous at providing supports low-income mothers.
    Nope. It's on the woman to pull herself up by her bootstraps, and once that little sucker is out of the womb and into the world then they need to pull themselves up by their adorable little baby boostraps as well.

    Seriously, looking at the comprehensive policy positions of Republicans makes it obvious that they have no coherent ideological position on this and simply want to control women's bodies without giving a shit about anything that happens during pregnancy, or after.

  20. #3160
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy "seconds up to actual birth," that's called "induction." The baby survives that. Call me radical, but I support inducing labor.



    Most of what you've said seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what pro-choice politicians are talking about.



    Well most people don't read MMO-C? And this isn't a site just used by Americans? And I mean...congratulations on realizing that people don't usually bother to examine the philosophical groundings of their arguments or that of their opponents'.



    Well mass shootings have a much larger effect and on more people per event than abortions late in pregnancy.



    Sorry, but "final minutes" such a mind-bogglingly ignorant thing to say. It is understood- except by pro-life extremists, apparently- that the baby survives an exit from the womb at that point, and that nobody actually supports terminating viable fetuses that can be safely delivered. Particularly the medical community. If a woman requires an abortion late in pregnancy, "save the fetus if possible" is automatically the preferred option. The fact that I should have to clarify that "I think viable fetuses should be saved whenever possible" instead of it being as obvious as "I support the existence of stop signs" is due entirely to pro-life propaganda and brain rot.



    If only the people they were meant to compromise with had any clue what they were legislating, maybe they would? I mean, I don't agree with compromising a human right, but this is America...



    Like I already said about restrictions: they're not needed, and in fact would do more harm than good.
    1) The medical community is already going to default to "save a viable fetus, if it can be done safely."
    2) The exceptions like "life of the mother" are written by legislators and enforced by prosecutors that know shit about medicine and are usually politically motivated. The situations they are meant to legislate are complicated; there's no test to determine whether or not the life of the mother is endangered or not, or how in danger she is. If she had a 90% chance of dying, does it qualify as an exception? A 70% chance? A 50% chance? A 25% chance? Where is the line between "exceptional situation" and "prosecutable offense?"
    3) Because of the complexity of said situations, medical providers are better qualified than legislators to make these decisions.
    4) Because of- again- the complexity of the situations, knowing that they could be investigated/prosecuted if some government official decides the mother's life "wasn't in enough danger" is sufficient to scare medical providers into preferring inaction when they would otherwise prefer to act. The threat of potential legal action against providers due to vague and politically motivated restrictions will mean more women dying.



    This is just you either misunderstanding the pro-choice position and/or ascribing malice where there is none. When pro-choice politicians say they support unrestricted abortions all the way through, they do so with the understanding that the medical community is more equipped than legislators to make these decisions, and that they are going to default to preserving life wherever possible.

    If you want to accuse Democrats of being terrible communicators, have at it. I'll join you. But at least make an attempt to understand what "unrestricted abortion through all 40 weeks" actually means instead of buying into the malicious assumptions pro-lifers have been projecting at us for decades.
    Well said. Here's an expert on the matter:

    "Here are my credentials:

    I am an OB/GYN board certified in two countries. I did a 5 year residency in which I trained to do abortion up to about 24-25 weeks. I developed other skills after residency out of necessity. I have been an OB/GYN for 28 years and, including my residency, I provided abortion services for 16 of those years. I have not provided abortion services for the past 13 years.

    For 3-4 of the 6 years that I practiced in Kansas there was no gestational age limit. I could let you put two and two together, but as there is so much abortion misinformation I’m going to spell it out. That means I could have done an abortion at any gestational age — even right up to the due date.

    No one ever called me to terminated a healthy pregnancy or even a pregnancy with minor abnormalities. First of all, with no indication insurance won’t pay so it is $20k cash.

    Also, WTF people? Do some of you really think women wander aimlessly through pregnancy wondering what they have forgotten and then at 37 weeks finally figure out why their pants are so tight and say, “Oh, THAT’S what I forgot to do 29 weeks ago. Pregnancy brain, Duh!” Then grab $20k from their mad money jar and head off the local abort-and-go?

    The only case I know of was a 12 year-old girl raped by her brother. She had to travel from another state and I believe she was about 32 weeks (I did not do her procedure). It was done that late because it took that long to get the court order. If the legal system were actually protecting her she could have had the procedure at 8 or 9 weeks. If her parents were actually protecting her should would not havebeen raped. If this is the case that is going to put you up in arms then you are a terrible person. No 12 year-old girl should be forced to give birth to her 17 year-old brother’s baby.

    Ever.

    Why are you harping on about 24 weeks?

    Viability is largely accepted at 24 weeks, but sometime at 23 weeks it looks like there might be a 10% chance of survival. Sometimes at 25 weeks there is no chance of survival. That is why you go to OB/GYN or pediatrics school, to learn when a fetus has a chance after birth (and what painful interventions that chance might take). And you also learn (or should learn) to discuss it in a way that your own personal beliefs STAY THE HELL AWAY.

    In general, we will offer a c-section at 24 weeks, but if look promising at 23 weeks and 2 days and based on the patient’s wishes we may offer one that early. There are times at 25 or even 26 weeks where we recommend against a c-section and an abortion is offered.

    How many women have abortions after 24 weeks?

    Very few.

    Only 1.3% of the 638,169 abortions that happen each year in the United States occur at or after 21 weeks — so approximately 8,000. As I am an expert I can tell you most of these procedures happen before 24 weeks. Most are for fetal anomalies (birth defects) and maternal health, but a few are maternal request.

    A couple of years ago I took a deep dive into how any abortions at or after 24 weeks occur. I looked at the states that had no gestational age limit and the best estimate I have (this data is not tracked by the CDC) is there are about 1,100-1,200 abortions at 24 weeks onwards in the United States. Maybe the New York law will add a few to this number? Although they will likely not be additional, my guess is it will be women who now do not have to travel to New Jersey.

    Women just don’t skip down to their doctor for 35 week pleasure abortions."

    More here: https://drjengunter.com/2019/01/29/a...wise-is-wrong/

    It's the favorite ground the radical right likes to keep the conversation on--pitting the bad selfish woman against the innocent fetus, but the conversation should always be steered back where it belongs, to the problem of the government imposing itself on our most personal decisions, and substituting its will for the woman's and its sorry excuse for expertise for the doctor's.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •