SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Rasulis]

In addition to the above, that poll was taken prior to the Roe v. Wade ruling and the subsequent policy changes enacted by Republicans. Support for pro-choice policies have been rising over the decades and there is no evidence to support the idea that the Roe v. Wade decision would reverse that trend. Given that Kansas voted against their anti-abortion law last voting cycle and that Republicans are on record as acknowledging that if they give their own voters a choice, they will continue to vote against anti-abortion policies, it is more likely that support for pro-choice policies rises at an increased rate. Especially when more Republicans understand just how much that can impact their lives when they can no longer access abortion. See the recent State Supreme Court special election in Wisconsin for further proof.

Should be noted that Kansas anti-choice amendment lost by 59.16% to 40.84%. It wasn't even a close race.

[Adamas102]

As before, this is your opinion on what's extreme or not. I have a different one: elective abortion up to the moment of birth is just as extreme if not more so than mostly banning them after 6 weeks.

It's not an opinion that you're ignorant if "abortion up to the moment of birth" is actually part of your argument. No, it's a fact you're ignorant. Framing it like this tells us quite clearly that you don't really understand anything about this topic. There is no such thing as "abortion at the moment of birth" unless that baby is going to die at that moment anyway AND take the mother with it. Your stance is based purely on crazy fantasies that you've concocted for yourself to argue against, not any sort of reasonable or well thought out position.

No, there don't need to be limitations because anyone getting an abortion at even the earliest stages of viability (between 20-24 weeks) is doing so because something is terribly wrong and there should be NO legal hurdles for them to jump through while going through such a catastrophic time in their lives. I'm going to assume you're a single male who has never really spent any time around a pregnant person during your adult life since you're very clearly completely oblivious to how pregnancy actually works. If you think a woman that is halfway through the second trimester just wakes up one day and thinks "you know what? I've changed my mind. We already picked a name, started work on the nursery, and have the baby shower planned, but fuckit I like to travel. Time to abort!" then you are an idiot. There's no other way to say it.

Since you used the idiotic term "now dead unborn baby" I'm assuming you're referring to the 1% of abortions that happen at that late a stage. You think I'M the one ignoring the harm done to babies that suffer from things like anencephaly or severe chondrodysplasia? This is the exact reason why you, and politicians in general, should leave this shit to the families and medical professionals that actually have to deal with these sorts of things. The only thing you're doing is making sure there are more mothers and newborns going through horrible trauma and dying painfully. "Pro-life" my ass.

And while on the one hand it's important to know how the issue polls so that you can see which politicians are putting laws on the books that are generally against the wishes of their constituents, but on the other hand this (like "should black people be enslaved") isn't really an issue that should rest on compromise. It doesn't matter whether it's 38% or 71% in favor because the side that argues for limitations on abortion are doing so from a position of religious zealotry, pure emotion, and/or just plain ignorance. That's just a fact, and none of those reasons are good enough to deprive people of medical procedures.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I would point California as an example, when they wrote a law targeting crisis pregnancy centers. They couldn't point to anything "suggesting that pregnant women do not already know that the covered facilities are staffed by unlicensed medical professionals." They "already [made] it a crime for individuals without a medical license to practice medicine. They exempted other "family planning" and "contraception or contraceptive methods" facilities from their government-scripted mandatory speech, quite a strange thing if they have concerns about women being uninformed about what the state offers. That's a real rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me example. I'd say the evidence lies on the side of the centers promoting keeping the baby and providing for it after, and California really wishing they would only issue government-approved messages by force of law. Your stated cause of concern is they get speech rights, and your unspoken solution is you have to shut them up and bring the government in to burden their speech or else injustice happens. I'm not buying it. Look to NIFLA vs Becerra if you're actually interested in the evidence, and I can link it if you need that assistance. All these claims you're making were surprisingly absent from California ... so maybe they should've hired you and people you quoted instead of their own lawyers.

"Tricking and manipulating people is part of their first amendment right." OK buddy.

I'm a little more optimistic about Gen Z looking at the politicians at a party's national level never supporting restrictions up to the moment of birth, and deciding that's just plain crazy. Whatever setbacks the 6-week abortion bans generate, the next pendulum swing will land back away from the extreme pro-abort position. If not immediately, then when Gen Z has their first baby and considers it was up to them to abort it at any moment up to the seconds after delivery, according to one political ideology. The Republicans, provided they get their act together, can make their arguments against denying gun ownership in rising crime, and promoting economic growth and job creation instead of job and wage-killing regulation and taxation alongside all the culture war issues.

The hilariously dishonest right wing argument that paints abortion as people wanting to abort in the third trimester or right before birth, something that never happens unless it's deemed fatally necessary. Third trimester abortions even when RvW was in effect were exceedingly rare, and once again, only for medical reasons. All states, including ultra blue states, only had allowances for voluntary abortions up to 16 weeks at the latest.

Not really sure why I engage with your dishonest drivveling tripe. But it's on par for you to use some kind of lie to make your opposition look like the unreasonable one when it's not the reality. I guess you learned that from how your politicians debate. When you can't in good faith argue against 16 week abortions, you start screaming and flailing about people who want to abort their babies right before birth. Something that, you know, didn't happen except in your own imagination.

It's right on par with the people whose anti vax stance is that Steve Jobs is putting big government trackers in their bodies. Nothing but lies and delusions to justify unreasonable stances.

[Rasulis]

"We've got 14 counties in South Carolina that don't have a single OB/GYN doctor — so if we're gonna ban abortion, what are we doing to make sure women have access to birth control? "

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC)

[Poopymonster]

"We've got 14 counties in South Carolina that don't have a single OB/GYN doctor — so if we're gonna ban abortion, what are we doing to make sure women have access to birth control? "

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC)

Let em die or whatever, we don't care. We'll fly our wives and daughters out of state for birth control, abortions, and shit. We'll even do it on the taxpayers dime.

Basically: Fuck em.
They know it'll never be a problem for them, so fuck the rest.

[jonnysensible]

On a personal note, my wife and I are boomers. We definitely have become fiscally more conservative throughout the years. As business owners, more pro-business. Maybe even less sympathetic to those less fortunate and a bit more NIMBY. However, on some issues, we have not changed. We were pro-choice when we met, and we are still pro-choice now. If electing pro-choice politicians meant we have to vote for less-than-ideal candidates, so be it.

so you have become more conservative as you got wealthier not older.

[unfilteredJW]

so you have become more conservative as you got wealthier not older.

Nailed it.

[Adamas102]

Sorry but that's ridiculous. In Europe 12 or 15 weeks is the limit, which is reasonable. The American left's stance is extreme.

Reasonable how? Who are you really trying to legislate against with these limits? Outside of medical anomalies (which much of Europe still allows abortion for), women who seek an abortion will almost always get one early on, especially in places that don't stigmatize abortion AS badly or make them as inconvenient as possible to get as many parts of the US do.

So again, who are you looking to legislate against? Traumatized victims of rape or teenagers who are too scared to come forward about a pregnancy early enough? Women in abusive relationships who are coerced or emotionally/physically prevented from seeking an abortion? If there's a cost associated with the procedure then it's underprivileged families that have trouble coming up with the means to afford it? Basically such limits only serve to further torture women who are going through one of the hardest times in their lives. Women who almost certainly would have wished to have gotten an abortion as early into the pregnancy as possible, and many of whom will end up seeking unsafe methods to get one anyway. Yeah, SUPER reasonable.

[PosPosPos]

I don't give 50.1% of Doctors the moral authority to decide what's murder and what isn't. If you think they're your moral betters, a kind of enlightened class of humans, then I'll gladly wait for them to come here instead of their less equipped inferiors, in your view.

Sure. If only the majority was 50.1% and not a supermajority of doctors in the ballpark of like 78% of doctors making the educated and intellectual stance, and not the moral stance, that abortion should be legal.

It's so totally you to make utterly intellectually dishonest claims though, when that's literally all you do.

Same response as before. I'll add that history shows tragedies and reprehensible acts occurred with the majority approval of the "experts" guiding them, from the sterilization of the mentally ill, to their lobotomy, to geocentrism and the "solved" physics of the 19th century. It's asking about the reasons why it's morally permissible to kill the baby, and morally righteous to put the decision only in the hands of mother and doctor, and saying, "Well, I took a poll of the class of people that perform them, and they say we're good!"

It's funny you should start being all bleeding heart here, because it has literally never stopped you for supporting and voting for the party of fascists who have tranparently and publicly told everyone with their own words and actions they would stop at nothing to reenact Nazi Germany.

Anyone else and I would have just assumed they are speaking in misguided good faith, for you it's just impossible to take you in any capacity except abject bad faith.

[Pannonian]

Sorry but that's ridiculous. In Europe 12 or 15 weeks is the limit, which is reasonable. The American left's stance is extreme.

Do you have any sources for that claim, because for the german speaking countries that doesn't seem right. For my country there is the general rule of 16 weeks without the need for any "reason", but that is only half of the story. If it is medically necessary (or the baby would be born with a severe mental or physical disability or the woman is younger than 14) an abortion can be induced much later, even shortly before birth. And i'm very glad. When my sister was pregnant and the fetus became unable to live in week 25 - she got an abortion without having to wait for a sepsis.

Maybe this isn't such a black/white issue as your ilk tries to paint it?

[Nymrohd]

Do you have any sources for that claim, because for the german speaking countries that doesn't seem right. For my country there is the general rule of 16 weeks without the need for any "reason", but that is only half of the story. If it is medically necessary (or the baby would be born with a severe mental or physical disability or the woman is younger than 14) an abortion can be induced much later, even shortly before birth. And i'm very glad. When my sister was pregnant and the fetus became unable to live in week 25 - she got an abortion without having to wait for a sepsis.

Maybe this isn't such a black/white issue as your ilk tries to paint it?

You can just check wikipedia tbh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
Almost every country in Europe will permit abortion if there is risk to life/health of the mother with no restrictions and for fetal impairment restricted usually past 20th week on average. Most will also allow it on request, because of rape/incest or even because of a social or economic reason but in most cases those are restricted to the first trimester (varies with the minimum being 10th week) with very few countries extending to fetal viability (I think just Netherlands that restricts it past the 24th week). Fully unrestricted abortion is extremely rare the only developed country to allow it is Canada.

There are crucial differences beyond the limits though. Access to abortion services in Europe are broad and my understanding is that a doctor's call that there is risk to life/health or that there is significant fetal impairment is extremely unlikely to be challenged in court. Can the same be said about the US.

[Mekh]

You can just check wikipedia tbh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
Almost every country in Europe will permit abortion if there is risk to life/health of the mother with no restrictions and for fetal impairment restricted usually past 20th week on average. Most will also allow it on request, because of rape/incest or even because of a social or economic reason but in most cases those are restricted to the first trimester (varies with the minimum being 10th week) with very few countries extending to fetal viability (I think just Netherlands that restricts it past the 24th week). Fully unrestricted abortion is extremely rare the only developed country to allow it is Canada.

There are crucial differences beyond the limits though. Access to abortion services in Europe are broad and my understanding is that a doctor's call that there is risk to life/health or that there is significant fetal impairment is extremely unlikely to be challenged in court. Can the same be said about the US.

Factors are as trivial as finances and travel time. 12 weeks is a lot more if you don't have to save up or borrow thousands of dollars for the trip and procedure.

[Pannonian]

You can just check wikipedia tbh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
Almost every country in Europe will permit abortion if there is risk to life/health of the mother with no restrictions and for fetal impairment restricted usually past 20th week on average. Most will also allow it on request, because of rape/incest or even because of a social or economic reason but in most cases those are restricted to the first trimester (varies with the minimum being 10th week) with very few countries extending to fetal viability (I think just Netherlands that restricts it past the 24th week). Fully unrestricted abortion is extremely rare the only developed country to allow it is Canada.

There are crucial differences beyond the limits though. Access to abortion services in Europe are broad and my understanding is that a doctor's call that there is risk to life/health or that there is significant fetal impairment is extremely unlikely to be challenged in court. Can the same be said about the US.

That's my point. The whole issue is much more complicated than X weeks. Most people in real life understand that. Even if you think that it is morally wrong, you probably have experienced someone in your close vicinity that had problems with a pregnancy, because that's fucking common. Our ruling for example is a compromise. Anti-abortion folks aren't happy about it, i'm not happy to restrict a fundamental right, but in the end we mostly agree that the compromise works in practice.

What's happening in the US is that laws are being introduced without any nuance and without any regard to actual everyday life. If you have to travel to another state to save your life because someone whos experience goes as far as "if the women is raped she cannot get pregnant" thinks that X weeks is the limit.

Maybe this should explain why i think @enigma77 original posting missed the point by miles. There is no X weeks regulation. Or at least there is much more, and this is a way more sensible way than rigid X weeks limits.

[Nymrohd]

Factors are as trivial as finances and travel time. 12 weeks is a lot more if you don't have to save up or borrow thousands of dollars for the trip and procedure.

Yup, said it earlier. When it is not uncommon for there to be no abortion services close to you, when you may be working a job that offers no medical leave or leave of any kind and while living paycheck to paycheck, how on earth are you even supposed to get an abortion even if it is legally permitted? They don't need overtly restrictive laws if they can harass providers enough that they cannot practice anywhere close. Simply finding a way to access the service can take a long time for many women.

- - - Updated - - -

That's my point. The whole issue is much more complicated than X weeks. Most people in real life understand that. Even if you think that it is morally wrong, you probably have experienced someone in your close vicinity that had problems with a pregnancy, because that's fucking common. Our ruling for example is a compromise. Anti-abortion folks aren't happy about it, i'm not happy to restrict a fundamental right, but in the end we mostly agree that the compromise works in practice.

What's happening in the US is that laws are being introduced without any nuance and without any regard to actual everyday life. If you have to travel to another state to save your life because someone whos experience goes as far as "if the women is raped she cannot get pregnant" thinks that X weeks is the limit.

Maybe this should explain why i think @enigma77 original posting missed the point by miles. There is no X weeks regulation. Or at least there is much more, and this is a way more sensible way than rigid X weeks limits.

I'll just add this. 83% of OB/GYNs will be subject to a lawsuit in the US. That's 5 out of 6. They cannot afford nuance and ambiguity in the law.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It's funny you should start being all bleeding heart here, because it has literally never stopped you for supporting and voting for the party of fascists who have tranparently and publicly told everyone with their own words and actions they would stop at nothing to reenact Nazi Germany.

Anyone else and I would have just assumed they are speaking in misguided good faith, for you it's just impossible to take you in any capacity except abject bad faith.

Exactly, loving how tehdang clutches his pearls about medical procedures undergone willingly by patients, but is radio silent on every other brand of human suffering, and has often spoken in favor of it.

It's almost as if the morality of protecting the weak and innocent is just a prop that conservatives trot out for the religio-fascist belief system that boils down to controlling women's bodies, then cast aside said "concern" of caring for the innocent and weak in every other situation that it's politically inconvenient to their narrative.

But as someone pointed out before, helping people in nearly every other situation costs money, time, or effort to fix. It involves actively doing something, sinking resources or something else into improving the lives of others. Being pro-birth requires no money, no effort, and no time from the pro-birthers. It's a convenient and easy issue to make them feel like they're more sympathetic about... something, by pretending they care about fetuses (hint: they don't at all). But hey, we've seen nothing but dishonest positions from every pro-birther in this thread, so what should we expect?

[Flarelaine]

so you have become more conservative as you got wealthier not older.

Perhaps that is true for most of the older generations. Perhaps getting more conservative was always a result of getting more prosperous and no one spotted the difference because there was much less inequality and accordingly, more people could end up, if not rich, at least a homeowner with a stable livelyhood.

[Cthulhu 2020]

On the subject of Republicans are in trouble in upcoming elections:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...-why-rcna50883

"Covid death rates are higher among Republicans than Democrats, mounting evidence shows"

Unvaccinated people are dying at much higher rates than vaccinated people, who'da thunk? Natural selection works in politics too I guess. Anti-vaxx rhetoric will likely be one of the better things to happen to the Democrat party. I don't revel in death though, but I do smirk at the self-inflicted wound that the GQP has made upon itself.

[fwc577]

On the subject of Republicans are in trouble in upcoming elections:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...-why-rcna50883

"Covid death rates are higher among Republicans than Democrats, mounting evidence shows"

Unvaccinated people are dying at much higher rates than vaccinated people, who'da thunk? Natural selection works in politics too I guess. Anti-vaxx rhetoric will likely be one of the better things to happen to the Democrat party. I don't revel in death though, but I do smirk at the self-inflicted wound that the GQP has made upon itself.

*snipped image*

Crazy.

I keep getting booster shots whenever they're available as well so I don't die from Covid as I do suffer from a co-morbidity (diabetic).

If it damages my sperm or some shit so I can never have kids. GOOD. Because then I don't need to convince my girlfriend to get an abortion.

Seems like we're headed for a Utopia where we live in a more liberal society and I won't have any children.

[Rasulis]

How abortion has changed US political maps?



Note that these, including the Wisconsin's Supreme Court election, were conducted before the Texas Judge ruling on Mifepristone. Most think that the GOP overplayed their hands with the Mifepristone lawsuit. It revealed their true intentions of banning and criminalizing abortion nationwide.

[Jastall]

How abortion has changed US political maps?



Note that these, including the Wisconsin's Supreme Court election, were conducted before the Texas Judge ruling on Mifepristone. Most think that the GOP overplayed their hands with the Mifepristone lawsuit. It revealed their true intentions of banning and criminalizing abortion nationwide.

It definitely kneecaps the two arguments I've seen most often in favor of bans, those being state's rights and late-term abortions. Trying to ban a pill that is intended to provide an abortion within the first 10-12 weeks nationwide certainly cannot be reconciled with those ideas.