SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Nymrohd]

What's wrong with a nationwide 15-week national abortion ban? Most countries ban it after 12 to 15 weeks.

This would seem very acceptable.

And come with a vast number of exception, with anything that could be deemed threat to life or health allowing abortions at any point or until very late in the pregnancy and even then extending the period the abortion is allowed for social or economic reasons. And we also have to take into account the lack of an extremely litigious and activist minority that would call those exceptions into question; sure many women have later abortions under the threat to health exception but the doctors in those countries also operate under the assumption that the chance their decision that a threat to health exist would be challenged in court is infinitesimal. This is just not a safe assumption to make in the US.

[enigma77]

And come with a vast number of exception, with anything that could be deemed threat to life or health allowing abortions at any point or until very late in the pregnancy and even then extending the period the abortion is allowed for social or economic reasons. And we also have to take into account the lack of an extremely litigious and activist minority that would call those exceptions into question; sure many women have later abortions under the threat to health exception but the doctors in those countries also operate under the assumption that the chance their decision that a threat to health exist would be challenged in court is infinitesimal. This is just not a safe assumption to make in the US.

Abortion in Germany is illegal, but not punishable during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy under the condition of mandatory counseling, and it is permitted later in pregnancy in cases that the pregnancy poses an important danger to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. In the case that the abortion is because of rape it is legal in the first 12 weeks without mandatory counseling. Otherwise in the illegal, but not punishable case, the woman needs to receive counseling, called Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung ("pregnancy-conflict counseling"), at least three days prior to the abortion and must take place at a state-approved centre, which afterwards gives the applicant a Beratungsschein ("certificate of counseling"). Abortions that do not meet these conditions are punishable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

sounds a lot more strict to me than a general 15 weeks ban, German law literally considers it illegal and only chooses not to punish it


@Winter Blossom

Abortion becomes morally wrong when the child has a functioning brain, no? Isn't that basically a homicide then? So the only question is WHEN should it be illegal, not if it should be illegal at all. At what point should it be illegal in your opinion, assuming no health risks to the mother etc?

Also no offense, but comparing men and women when it comes to pregnancy and abortion is like comparing apples and oranges. Of course there are no such restrictions on men, because men can't be pregnant.

[Nymrohd]

Abortion in Germany is illegal, but not punishable during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy under the condition of mandatory counseling, and it is permitted later in pregnancy in cases that the pregnancy poses an important danger to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. In the case that the abortion is because of rape it is legal in the first 12 weeks without mandatory counseling. Otherwise in the illegal, but not punishable case, the woman needs to receive counseling, called Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung ("pregnancy-conflict counseling"), at least three days prior to the abortion and must take place at a state-approved centre, which afterwards gives the applicant a Beratungsschein ("certificate of counseling"). Abortions that do not meet these conditions are punishable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Germany

sounds a lot more strict to me than a general 15 weeks ban

Here is my question. How often has the state moved legally against a woman for having an abortion? How often has a doctor's judgment that a woman's health is in danger been challenged in court? How often do abortion providers received threats against their livelyhood or their life? When was the last time an abortion provider was assaulted (or killed)?

[enigma77]

Here is my question. How often has the state moved legally against a woman for having an abortion? How often has a doctor's judgment that a woman's health is in danger been challenged in court? How often do abortion providers received threats against their livelyhood or their life? When was the last time an abortion provider was assaulted (or killed)?

I have no idea, I simply think that generally speaking a 15 weeks limit/ban is acceptable. Wouldn't federal law protecting a right to an abortion until 15 weeks actually protect against the things you mentioned though?

Would you accept it if it were 20 weeks instead?

[enigma77]

Refer here…

Well if you're saying what I think you're saying you're okay with killing a child inside the mother minutes before birth, because you don't believe in restrictions. That's called a homicide. Passing through the vagina is not what makes the baby a baby, it's not some magic portal that bestows humanity on the infant, you know. You can argue in good faith, that you feel 15 weeks is too restrictive, but to argue that there should be no limit is insanity.

Where are men’s restriction on birth control… like I received as a woman? Anyone ever try to deny you birth control because your SO needed to approve first?

Are those restrictions based on any law or was that your doctor being reluctant to perform a certain elective procedure?

But sure let's play. Where is a man's ability to terminate a pregnancy if he doesn't want be a father? Shouldn't men have an equal say in whether they wish to be a parent? No? No, because they're not the ones being pregnant. Apples and oranges.

[Mekh]

Well if you're saying what I think you're saying you're okay with killing a child inside the mother minutes before birth, because you don't believe in restrictions.

You know what? Fine. No abortions 15 minutes before birth. Total ban on that. Now shut up.

[Nymrohd]

I have no idea, I simply think that generally speaking a 15 weeks limit/ban is acceptable. Wouldn't federal law protecting a right to an abortion until 15 weeks actually protect against the things you mentioned though?

Would you accept it if it were 20 weeks instead?

Personally I believe the reason abortion should be available is because the right of the pregnant person to control their body has primacy over the right of the unborn to be delivered. This should be evident in that no one has a right to demand from you that you donate even blood, no one can even demand organs from you after you are no longer alive. Thus the right of the pregnant person to seek an abortion should be absolute and not limited.
It is a simple argument and if we were to argue otherwise that means we should at the very least be enforcing mandatory organ donation once the patient has passed without the consent of either them or others. Mind you the logical conclusion would be to also allow organ donation if the patient can survive the donation; the threat to life apparently doesn't matter after all since EVERY pregnancy is a threat to life and health. And if we are to allow religious exceptions for organ donation, we should extend the same right to pregnant people when their religion suggests abortion as the right choice.

If for some reason we were to make an argument that pregnant people should have their right to control their body restricted over the life of others, at the very least I would expect the restriction to abortion to require the fetus is viable (and thus has a reasonable chance to claim personhood after delivery). At the current level of medical knowledge fetal viability is at the 24th week; even then survival is simply equally likely to death and still requires a high standard of care both in human resources and in facilities that cannot be guaranteed for every delivery. So if there had to be a ban, it would have to be at the 24th week and exceptions for threat to life or health should STILL remain because threat to life and health absolutely can occur even just before birth although almost every doctor alive would try to find a way to save both (and I don't think trying an abortion at that point would in any case be optimal; I think you are just forcing delivery and hoping that both survive).

[Ivanstone]

I have no idea, I simply think that generally speaking a 15 weeks limit/ban is acceptable. Wouldn't federal law protecting a right to an abortion until 15 weeks actually protect against the things you mentioned though?

Would you accept it if it were 20 weeks instead?

How about no limits at all? Canada has almost none.

Canada also has a lower abortion rate than the US despite being a less religious country.

The best way to have less abortions is to not be a shithole country.

[Teriz]

Well if you're saying what I think you're saying you're okay with killing a child inside the mother minutes before birth, because you don't believe in restrictions. That's called a homicide. Passing through the vagina is not what makes the baby a baby, it's not some magic portal that bestows humanity on the infant, you know. You can argue in good faith, that you feel 15 weeks is too restrictive, but to argue that there should be no limit is insanity.

There should be no limit because there’s tons of complications that can arise. That doesn’t mean that people advocate murdering babies, it means that pregnancy is a complicated process, and women and medical professionals need to be able to make hard decisions without the state hanging over their head.

[Endus]

What's wrong with a nationwide 15-week national abortion ban? Most countries ban it after 12 to 15 weeks.

This would seem very acceptable.

What justification do you want to make for any kind of ban whatsoever?

Pre-emptive reminder that appealing to fundamentally religious arguments is not an argument at all; those inform your choices, and cannot be justified in forcing anyone else's, as that's a violation of that other person's religious freedoms. This applies even if the views are pseudo-religious rather than direct doctrine.

And that's the thing; once you kick off silly-ass religious bullshit, there ceases to be any argument for any legal limits. Just ethical medical practice. Which is more about method, not whether.

- - - Updated - - -

Also no offense, but comparing men and women when it comes to pregnancy and abortion is like comparing apples and oranges. Of course there are no such restrictions on men, because men can't be pregnant.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...eddy-mcconnell

Oops, there goes that false claim. And he's not the only example.

Well if you're saying what I think you're saying you're okay with killing a child inside the mother minutes before birth, because you don't believe in restrictions. That's called a homicide. Passing through the vagina is not what makes the baby a baby, it's not some magic portal that bestows humanity on the infant, you know. You can argue in good faith, that you feel 15 weeks is too restrictive, but to argue that there should be no limit is insanity.

If you're going to use legal terms like "homicide", you should use legal standards for everything. And most countries define a baby as being born alive, and it can't be homicide if it's not yet a human being. So again, failing on the facts.

Also, talking about late-term abortions is an attempt to shift goalposts. If that pregnancy had to be ended that quickly, inducing birth or doing a caesarean section are options that would be considered. Which you want to ignore, because you're not here to discuss medical practice, you're here to try and make up alarmist shit to attack women's basic human rights.

But sure let's play. Where is a man's ability to terminate a pregnancy if he doesn't want be a father?

Ends where the woman's body begins. If he's the one pregnant (see above), he has all those rights. If he isn't, it's not his body, he gets no say. Why should anyone have control over anyone else's body?

Shouldn't men have an equal say in whether they wish to be a parent? No? No, because they're not the ones being pregnant. Apples and oranges.

They do. They don't have to share custody; sharing custody is "being a parent".
If you mean financial obligations to their offspring, they don't get a say in that, but neither do women. If any one parent has sole custody, the other parent, regardless of gender, owes child support.

The rights are completely equal, you're misrepresenting the facts. Again.

[Myradin]

If you want to adopt bans "because other countries do it and we want to save lives"..maybe you should look at guns first.

[Captain N]

If you want to adopt bans "because other countries do it and we want to save lives"..maybe you should look at guns first.

But but but.....MuH SeCoNd 'MeNdMeNt!

[Edge-]

What's wrong with a nationwide 15-week national abortion ban? Most countries ban it after 12 to 15 weeks.

This would seem very acceptable.

Because it contradicts the consistent rhetoric from Republicans on a larger scale about how this should be a "state choice" because the "state" is the goldilocks size for this kind of thing despite the "state" being radically different in just about every measure if we're talking about Texas and say Hawaii.

Will keep it to that, but it's just highlighting the continued dishonesty and hypocrisy of the party.

[Twdft]

Here is my question. How often has the state moved legally against a woman for having an abortion? How often has a doctor's judgment that a woman's health is in danger been challenged in court? How often do abortion providers received threats against their livelyhood or their life? When was the last time an abortion provider was assaulted (or killed)?

Should be pretty much zero. You jump through the hoops, you can get an abortion. Which then begs the question why the fuck is it still illegal? Why tell women that they are criminals but no worries lass, we're not going to jail you. You're still a criminal with the duty to carry a pregnancy to term. It's your DUTY, Frollein.

§218 should be deleted.

[Nymrohd]

Should be pretty much zero. You jump through the hoops, you can get an abortion. Which then begs the question why the fuck is it still illegal? Why tell women that they are criminals but no worries lass, we're not going to jail you. You're still a criminal with the duty to carry a pregnancy to term. It's your DUTY, Frollein.

§218 should be deleted.

I think the reason is the same in most Western countries; no government wants to risk losing any voters by bringing the issue forward. Which is scary given that some of the far right parties that are gaining traction may oppose abortion and it's probably not even discussed.

[Twdft]

I think the reason is the same in most Western countries; no government wants to risk losing any voters by bringing the issue forward. Which is scary given that some of the far right parties that are gaining traction may oppose abortion and it's probably not even discussed.

It's actually our highest constitutional court that ruled life of the unborn wins over bodily autonomy of women the last time they had on the agenda. I wasn't kidding about duty, literally opinion of the court.

The good thing is that ruling was over the former law (which had it not being a crime until 12 weeks or something don't know exactly too long ago). Ruling doesn't prevent politicians to repeal or change §218. But they know it will land before the court again. Could be ruled differently, all arguments for bodily autonomy of an actual human weigh IMO heavier than the right to life of a potential human. Last time it was 1 woman rest men on the court, today it's like 7/8 fe/male.

[Strange One]

Sorry if this has been mentioned, I skimmed the last few pages and didn't see it. Or maybe it's in another thread, it's difficult to know with how many threads have to deal with republican evil.

US senator blocks hundreds of military promotions over reproductive rights

A Republican Senator is blocking the promotions of hundreds of US military officers – including some of the nation’s top brass – due to his objection to the Pentagon allowing women to take leave or travel if they need an abortion.

In an extraordinary standoff, retired Alabama football coach-turned-politician Tommy Tuberville is refusing to allow the promotions of defence personnel to be ushered through the Senate, leaving about 250 officers and their families in limbo and the US Marine Corps without a commander for the first time in 164 years.

You'd think the lie of republicans supporting the troops was over with trump, but this proves they really don't give a fuck.

[Edge-]

Sorry if this has been mentioned, I skimmed the last few pages and didn't see it. Or maybe it's in another thread, it's difficult to know with how many threads have to deal with republican evil.

US senator blocks hundreds of military promotions over reproductive rights

Oh we've been shitting on Tuberville, who notably has never served in the military, in other threads. Not necessarily here, but he's been getting dunked on for this bullshit - and his repeated defense of white supremacists which he counts amongst his constituents and voters and needs to make sure are taken care of.

'Bama just continuing to send their best and brightest to Washington DC, when I think we'd all rather they just not.

[Strange One]

Oh we've been shitting on Tuberville, who notably has never served in the military, in other threads. Not necessarily here, but he's been getting dunked on for this bullshit - and his repeated defense of white supremacists which he counts amongst his constituents and voters and needs to make sure are taken care of.

'Bama just continuing to send their best and brightest to Washington DC, when I think we'd all rather they just not.

Then I apologise for repeating known information. I must've missed it.

Still tho, putting ideology ahead of the hard working servicemen/women. That's some abhorrent behaviour.

[Edge-]

Then I apologise for repeating known information. I must've missed it.

Still tho, putting ideology ahead of the hard working servicemen/women. That's some abhorrent behaviour.

Oh no, any opportunity to highlight how terrible Tommy Tuberville and the Alabamans who voted for him are is a good opportunity.