SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[s_bushido]

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

It's only ""reasonable"" in the sense that ~93% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks anyway. But the American right doesn't give a shit about reality, and want to either ban the practice entirely, or make the arbitrary cutoff point too early to even be practical. Combine that with a ridiculous healthcare system and it's nothing but a recipe for disaster. As the GOP is quickly finding out, after having fucked around and made it something that Democrats could campaign on for the past year.

[Nymrohd]

It's only ""reasonable"" in the sense that ~93% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks anyway. But the American right doesn't give a shit about reality, and want to either ban the practice entirely, or make the arbitrary cutoff point too early to even be practical. Combine that with a ridiculous healthcare system and it's nothing but a recipe for disaster. As the GOP is quickly finding out, after having fucked around and made it something that Democrats could campaign on for the past year.

They don't really need to take it below 12 weeks. They can chase away centers that provide abortion services with multiple forms of harassment. They intimidate doctors who perform abortions with death threats. They could copy the laws of a European country and the inherent ambiguity of certain terms would be enough to stop those exceptions from being used.

[tehdang]

By appeal to authority you mean you are too woefully unqualified and ignorant to decide the facts of the matter but your conservative hubris, ego and narratives prevent you from accepting the consensus decided upon by those who are, in fact, qualified to give their judgement on the matter.

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.

That's why I mentioned consensus, because the tiny minority of irresponsible and ignorant medical professionals do not a consensus make.

If you have problems understanding what an educated, informed consensus means, you should try looking up a dictionary.

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!"

Or, bear with me. We leave it up to the Woman, the Doctor, and in cases when relevant her family.
No 11 year old child should ever carry a pregnancy to term, it's likely to kill the child.

It's easier to not have to create clear and easy exceptions by just leaving it to people. If someone feels abortion is immoral they can choose to not practice it.

This has all the effective weight of saying if you're against murder, then just don't commit it yourself. You don't like slavery, just don't buy slaves! I'm not a slaveowner, it should just be left up to the farmer and the seller.

The entire justification for crafting and enforcing laws isn't that it's easier than not having them. It's for protections for the powerless, and effective deterrence of crimes against the person and property etc. If the unborn child can be so easily killed and forgotten from day 1 until the moment after birth, then you are entirely justified and self-consistent with crafting no protections with exceptions for that life. The magical rights-bestowing transition of the birth canal goes from 0% consideration to 100% consideration. Never mind that act sometimes happens at 22weeks. That sucker's already dead in the eyes of the law, if it can be made so for any reason or no reason from the mother.

Do I want the choice to be there for everyone? Yes! But not because I want everyone to abort. In my ideal case there would be no non-medical abortions. However the world isn't ideal! So there will be! Women cannot choose not to get pregnant at times when it's bad and they cannot take care of a child.

I consent to the early abortions because of the failure of contraception, living situation or sudden changes in it with severe poverty, support, illness, and the like. That's behind my support for elective abortions prior to the 12-15week area.

But if you choose to continue beyond there, the most humane option is to carry to close to term, as possible, and delivery the baby without killing it first. That's the way to reconcile that a woman's choice destroys another body that isn't hers. If that other body wasn't a human in an early stage of development, like a tumor, then no rights ought to be considered and it's just health care.

Bear with me here, if the unborn baby deserves a little more consideration than just 1-2 voting to kill it, you craft and enforce restrictions like life of the mother, viability outside womb, terminal fetal anomaly. There really is no comfort in saying you consent to death by volition, but most of the time you'd agree to the reasoning. You support it in all cases, so you're better off owning your revealed opinion.

You are the last person who wants to be talking about what's "rare" in the context of abortions.

I'd be a little more willing to focus on the non-rare issues if your side of the debate didn't keep bringing up rare issues that apparently thwart laws. If incest and rape don't count as being rare, why should things even more rare justify legal elective abortions up until birth? I'm seeing an awful lot of arbitrary choices being made here that only seem to benefit one side of the argument. You can be dismissive all you want, just state your justifications that don't rely on the identify of the person speaking.

Crisis pregnancy centers are inserting themselves into paid advertisement google searches related to women looking for abortions. When women ask about abortive procedures and how much it will cost or how to get them, the clinics claim that they can't discuss such things over the phone and that the person needs to come in and be seen in person, and avoid telling the women that they don't offer such services even when it's clear the woman is looking for such services. When they have the woman in their "clinic" they then conveniently avoid answering any questions they have about abortion, and are instructed to use guilt trip tactics.

When all else fails, since these clinics are not actual medical treatment centers, they take the information the woman used to make an appointment (her name, address, phone number, etc) to bombard mail, emails, phone calls, etc. upon her by giving her personal information to pro-birth organizations. Because you know, the privacy of medical records only applies if you're an actual medical facility.

You don't see any of this as an issue because you agree with it, but again, anyone with two firing brain cells can identify how manipulative it is. People don't make appointments at pregnancy crisis centers because they've already made up their mind to keep the kid, considering how little is actually offered to women who've already made up their minds. If you really need help, I can do a youtube search for you and find all of the videos that demonstrate all of this as well as testimonials of former employees who describe how manipulative it is.

But every time I provide actual evidence to anything I say you disappear and never respond, meanwhile you demand everyone else provide evidence for your claims without ever actually providing any yourself.

If the state really, really wants to educate women on their options with regards to abortion, they can do so on as many billboards they wish to buy, and as many state-run facilities as they wish to operate. They have their own internal biases as well, which the pro-life side will state quite clearly minimize the downsides of abortion, sell it as a victimless operation, and all the rest.

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.

But yes, the Republicans have a huge young voter problem on their hands. Gen Z is entering the economy with dire job prospects because the last 50 years of trickle down economics has led to extremely poor wages that means they can't afford basic life necessities. They recognize which party is supportive of worker rights and which is not. They go through active shooter drills anywhere from once a month to once per week, and are always hearing about school shootings on the news and are sick of Republicans doing nothing to protect them while sending useless thoughts and vapid prayers. Anti-abortion laws are wildly unpopular, and even a majority of Republicans are against outright banning abortion. That number becomes even higher among independents, the voters that Republicans desperately need to win over. They were expecting big gains in 2022 and barely got anything, and only because so many congressional seats ran unopposed. Many congressional Republicans only won their seats by triple digit votes And it's only going to get worse for them.

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.

Identity politics is a the biggest loser of the past 2 elections.

That's one big buoy for future Republican voting wins. Tell the next generation they're the wrong race, sex, sexual identity, or sexual relationship to speak on the most debated cultural issues in the country. That's always going to be grating, even if the opposition party is weakly able to capitalize on it.

It only seems extreme to you because your position is based on ignorance and malice.

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. You don't get to both choose your political side and what you allow to count as extreme.

It's a fantasy predicated on the false narrative that women get abortions frivolously and as such after some arbitrary point in time they should simply be forced to carry to term with no regard for any of the lives involved. Restrictions based on gestational age are a TERRIBLE idea because the people they really harm are those who actually wanted a child but due to unforeseen circumstances are in desperate need of the procedure.

Arguments that ignore the harm done to a previously alive, now dead unborn baby, will never carry the day.

If you think frivolous can never happen (how about "weakly justified," because like in other laws, the crime stays despite weak claims of justification), but are unwilling to put it into law, then maybe you're actually more in favor of it happening than you pretend to be. It's a revealed preference versus stated preference kind of problem.

Since the only people really getting late term abortions are those who discover that medical anomalies will put either the mother's or the baby's lives in jeopardy, what you're telling us with your hard-line "there must be SOME restrictions" position is that you WANT to torture people and devastate families, and you truly DON'T care about children's lives. All you care about is finding some way to punish people.

If you say the only people "really getting" late term abortions are those with medical anomalies with threaten the mother's or baby's lives, then you just confessed that you couldn't possibly have any issue with banning them if that is not the case. Should I suggest some non-life-threatening conditions that you'd also admit to and condone abortion, or do you see no cases that should be illegal at all?

I'm not coming into this expecting a lot of pro-life posters agreeing with me, this forum definitely rating lower than the US's distribution. Gallup pegs the US with
~38% favoring bans after heartbeat
~50% legal only under certain circumstances
~55% generally illegal after the first trimester
~71% generally illegal after the second trimester
What we get among the small poll of the 6-12 reply notification posters is 0% instead of 38%, 0% instead of 50%, 0% instead of 55%, and 0% or refuse to state instead of 71%.

I don't expect people to care if they poll as extreme on the issue compared to a representative sample of the United States. You don't actually have to care what US citizens think about the issue, if you think their reasoning is wrong! But don't for a moment try to define the center to be what you wish it was, or try to dismiss pro-life sentiment as already being in the minority. Pro-lifers are perfectly able to focus efforts on persuading the persuadable, spending resources to help expecting mothers, recruiting politicians to fight for their interests, and more or less ignoring the left to far-left forums that trend towards calling them "deranged psychopaths." I'm here speaking my opinion to the best of my ability. The most passionate voices here might also be completely fine with making abortions generally illegal after 20 weeks, but are displaying reactionary fervor at 6-week bans. I prefer compromises on making abortions generally illegal with exceptions in the 12-15 week range.

[Endus]

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.

If you're talking about "murders", you're not talking about abortions, you're pushing religious or pseudo-religious extremist propaganda and don't want to actually discuss the actual issues.

It really is that plain and simple.

I consent to the early abortions because of the failure of contraception, living situation or sudden changes in it with severe poverty, support, illness, and the like. That's behind my support for elective abortions prior to the 12-15week area.

Which, y'know, is a tacit admission that even you know abortions aren't "murder" and do not in any way involve the killing of an actual person.

Which is why we take such issue with you lying to our faces about that and pretending like you aren't.

But if you choose to continue beyond there, the most humane option is to carry to close to term, as possible, and delivery the baby without killing it first. That's the way to reconcile that a woman's choice destroys another body that isn't hers. If that other body wasn't a human in an early stage of development, like a tumor, then no rights ought to be considered and it's just health care.

Nope. This is misogyny; a denial that a woman has self-ownership rights.

And you already admitted, just up above, that even you know the fetus isn't a person. Which is why we know this argument here is intentionally dishonest manipulation.

And when all your arguments for limiting/banning abortion rest upon a base of this kind of dishonesty, you're never going to have a valid position.

[Nymrohd]

If you believe in fetal personhood then you cannot consent on ANY abortion.
If one abortion is murder, ALL abortions are murder.
You are only OK with some murders. The greatest hypocrisy of all is in case of rape. I am sorry but children of rape victims are utterly blameless and if you choose to extent the same rights to the fetus, then the fetus is blameless too. It is telling that at some point the vast majority of the people opposing the right of women to control their bodies get squeamish and are suddenly ok with terminating a fetus. Hypocrits the lot of them.



The only point when you could start formulating ethical arguments is when the fetus is past the point of viability which is past the 25th week. The percentage of abortions past the 25th week that are not for a health related reason, be it the mother or the child, are extremely small. And even then there is no deontological argument to be made since it is still a fetus and still doesn't have rights. You can make a utilitarian argument that if both are healthy and it is past the point of viability, it might be better for aggregate utility if it is born (to be given for adoption if the mother cannot or does not want to raise the baby) but even that is a complex call to make and affects such a tiny number of cases.

[Muzjhath]

This has all the effective weight of saying if you're against murder, then just don't commit it yourself. You don't like slavery, just don't buy slaves! I'm not a slaveowner, it should just be left up to the farmer and the seller.

The entire justification for crafting and enforcing laws isn't that it's easier than not having them. It's for protections for the powerless, and effective deterrence of crimes against the person and property etc. If the unborn child can be so easily killed and forgotten from day 1 until the moment after birth, then you are entirely justified and self-consistent with crafting no protections with exceptions for that life. The magical rights-bestowing transition of the birth canal goes from 0% consideration to 100% consideration. Never mind that act sometimes happens at 22weeks. That sucker's already dead in the eyes of the law, if it can be made so for any reason or no reason from the mother.

This is just an appeal to emotion. Do you think an 8th week misscariage is the womans body killing a child? This is an important question here. It isn't semantic, as your argument hangs on murder etc.
Thus appeal to emotion.

Do some people consider abortion murder? Yes. That's their problem. It shouldn't affect others.

I consent to the early abortions because of the failure of contraception, living situation or sudden changes in it with severe poverty, support, illness, and the like. That's behind my support for elective abortions prior to the 12-15week area.

But if you choose to continue beyond there, the most humane option is to carry to close to term, as possible, and delivery the baby without killing it first. That's the way to reconcile that a woman's choice destroys another body that isn't hers. If that other body wasn't a human in an early stage of development, like a tumor, then no rights ought to be considered and it's just health care.

Bear with me here, if the unborn baby deserves a little more consideration than just 1-2 voting to kill it, you craft and enforce restrictions like life of the mother, viability outside womb, terminal fetal anomaly. There really is no comfort in saying you consent to death by volition, but most of the time you'd agree to the reasoning. You support it in all cases, so you're better off owning your revealed opinion.

I'd be a little more willing to focus on the non-rare issues if your side of the debate didn't keep bringing up rare issues that apparently thwart laws. If incest and rape don't count as being rare, why should things even more rare justify legal elective abortions up until birth? I'm seeing an awful lot of arbitrary choices being made here that only seem to benefit one side of the argument. You can be dismissive all you want, just state your justifications that don't rely on the identify of the person speaking.

You seriously need to look at how fucking dangerous Child Bearing is for women. Just look at how common post-partum depression fucking is. Or how hormones go out of wack for a woman carrying a child.

That's an unwanted burden to someone who doesn't want a child. So it's more humane to abort. Especially with how adoption and fostercare systems often look and function.
It's more humane for both woman and potential child.

I could see it if anti-choice legislators and supporters came at the debate from the other way. "Elective Abortion Restrictions, all medical abortions greenlit". But no, every freaking time they set a week, and past that NOPE!

This discussion from the pro-choice side is always about the quality of life for all involved, including potential children. From the anti-choice side it's about supposed murder.

[Rasulis]

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

Regardless, of the actual gestation cut-off period, the bottom line is that Democratic legislators are doing what their voters demanded from them (see CA and VT abortion rights constitutional amendments). GOP legislators on the other hand are on the opposite end of the political spectrum with their voters (see MI, KS, MT & KY constitutional amendments, and WI supreme court election)

Right now, abortion trumps all other issues – economy, crime, open border, etc. With good reason.

Economy is a mixed bag. Although still high, inflation is slowing down. Unemployment is low. Job creation is still higher than pre-pandemic. Wages are still going up. Despite the SVB debacle, the Fed was able to stop contagion, and surprisingly people's trust in small and medium banks remains high. If the US is going to experience an economic catastrophe, more likely it will be due to the GOP controlled house refusing to pass the budget.

Crime is also limited in scope. In the suburbs where GOP is rapidly losing support, it is not a big issue.

Open border issue is limited to TX, AZ, CA & NM. Not to mention that most people are aware than US agriculture depends on illegal immigrants for its workforce.

Ultimately, all of GOP wedge issues do not generate the emotional outrage that brings people to the voting polls.

It is in Democrats best interest to keep the abortion issue foremost on voters' mind for the next two years. Ironically, they don't have to do anything. GOP politicians are doing a great job by trying to pass and passing ever stricter bills and legislations. The Texas judge decision on Mifepristone is not helping the GOP cause either.

- - - Updated - - -

Top Republican donor sours on Florida governor’s stance on social issues

Thomas Peterffy, a top Republican donor who has been supporting DeSantis during recent months, told the Financial Times that he was no longer aligned with any candidate – or potential candidate – for the presidential nomination.

“I have put myself on hold,” the billionaire told the Financial Times. “Because of (DeSantis') stance on abortion and book banning ... myself, and a bunch of friends, are holding our powder dry.”

He told the newspaper he still supports DeSantis’ business decisions as governor of Florida, but his position on social issues has meant “the Republicans have a very big problem.”

[Taifuu]

I'm not coming into this expecting a lot of pro-life posters agreeing with me, this forum definitely rating lower than the US's distribution. Gallup pegs the US with
~38% favoring bans after heartbeat
~50% legal only under certain circumstances
~55% generally illegal after the first trimester
~71% generally illegal after the second trimester
What we get among the small poll of the 6-12 reply notification posters is 0% instead of 38%, 0% instead of 50%, 0% instead of 55%, and 0% or refuse to state instead of 71%.

The very first graph of the Gallup poll that you did not link (how convenient), actually shows 85% favor as being legal under certain circumstances. Did you know that most OS have a built-in calculator? You can use it next time to figure out that 35%+50%=85%. The second graph is where I assume you received your numbers and almost appears to line up with what you said, until you remember the first graph. The second graph shows 4 categories, but the last two categories match each other exactly. Here are the actual questions asked:

Americans' Views on Legality of Abortion, 2022
Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances?

Americans' Views on Legality of Abortion With Middle Position Specified, 2022
Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?
(If say "legal only under certain circumstances Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only in a few circumstances?

At no point do they specify anything regarding trimesters, nor do they explain the difference between legal in most and legal in only a few. The percentage of people stated that abortion should be legal in all or most cases and the percentage of people who stated abortion should be available in all, most, or certain cases are also exactly the same, so unless you know exactly what that person considers "a few circumstances", that makes the data unreliable. Maybe a few circumstances are the exceptions for rape, incest or if the birth would be a danger to the mother or child. Maybe they mean only during the first or second trimester. It's not nearly as cut and dry as you try to make it seem. In addition, the sample size is only 1,007. There are 260+ million adults in the US. The poll makes no distinction regarding voting eligibility, but there were more than 150 million voters in 2020, so it's still far from an accurate sample size. Any poll taken on MMO Champion would have the same limitations, btw. Those are just to show the views of the forum, not the country or world at large.

Of course, as has been pointed out to you before, even if the anti-abortion sentiment was at 100%, it still wouldn't be the right choice as it undermines the bodily autonomy of women for something that is not a public health risk.

Here are some links for the Gallup poll:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/...-abortion.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244097/...ic-tables.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- More than eight in 10 Americans believe abortion should be legal to some degree, and a majority don't want Roe v. Wade overturned. At the same time, the country remains far from unified on the extent to which abortion should be legal.

The poll also suggests that as your education level rises, your support for anti-abortion policies decreases. Again, irrelevant since the sample size is so small, but amusing since it means that part of your defense is predicated upon the fact that a large number of the participants might not even actually understand the impact of the policies being discussed or are basing their decisions from misinformation.

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.

[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.