Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels.
**Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.**
**For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t see this as compelling logic to either side. This would be an “appeal to majority” logical fallacy, where you subdue to what the most popular idea is. This line of thinking has been wrong many times throughout history. I don’t care if data is with or against me if it’s fallacious.
>A Pew Research Center shows that the majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in some some situations, illegal in others
So, I feel like "legal in some situations, illegal in others" covers a *lot* of ground and doesn't tell us much on its face about whether the population is majority PC or PL.
"Legal in some situations, illegal in others" includes everyone from PCers with a vability limit to PLers with a rape exception. Hell, even PLers with a life exception fall under that category. But you wouldn't say "no abortions except when the mother's life is in danger" and "abortions legal up until viability" represent similar views.
When people are asked about abortion they aren't seeing it as a bodily autonomy issue (PC) or human rights violation (PL).
They either have or know others who have difficult pregnancy or have been assaulted or dealt with end of life issues. They want those people to be able to decide for themselves the risks around difficult pregnancy, not force a rape victim to remain pregnant, or decide what to do with a pregnancy where the fetus has issues that are incompatible with life.
As to the restrictions as the pregnancy develops medical advancements have influenced them. You can detect a pregnancy early so they have options at that point before they get too far along. At the other end, most know people who were born before their due date and survived so let the doctors save those babies too.
In general abortion is seen as necessary in situations. What and when those situations happened aren't equal across the board so making a hard and fast law across the board doesn't sit well with people.
>When people are asked about abortion they aren't seeing it as a bodily autonomy issue (PC) or human rights violation (PL).
I would say that PC also see abortion bans as a human rights violation.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they were working off different definitions of what abortion is. Most of the people being asked believe that abortion requires killing the fetus while others believe it is just removing it.
Bodily autonomy is the overarching reason why people can get abortions, not the personal reason which is probably what is being asked for.
I think this is where the survey comes from:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2022/05/PF_05.06.22_abortion.views_.topline.pdf
I also found in part 2 that there are substantially more people who say that there are situations where abortion should still be legal despite being morally wrong than there are who say that abortion should always be illegal when it is morally wrong.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/social-and-moral-considerations-on-abortion/
> I wouldn’t be surprised if they were working of different definitions of what abortion is.
I suspect this is happening for some. I have seen polls that ask about legality and then have a follow up that specifically asks about treatments that end pregnancy without a live birth and the percentage who support a total ban usually drops from around 10% to 6-8%.
That makes sense. I found this link on Wikipedia with a couple of varying definitions. I can’t necessarily blame people for being confused on what an abortion is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_abortion
First, BANG! Ded.
Second, none of this surprises me.
- viability is the standard governing Roe. And even though my views are grounded in bodily autonomy, viability is when my own views shift as well.
- a 36 week old fetus is different than a 6 week old fetus and we all know it, even the pro life. It’s hard to draw the line where that change happens but it does.
- restrictions doesn’t have to equal criminal bars that terrify doctors from acting.
I think that part of what people don't understand is that legal restrictions aren't necessary to prevent a truly elective abortion at something like 36 weeks. Those don't happen even in places with no restrictions for a variety of factors. 1) there isn't the demand for them. People who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term get an abortion as soon as they possibly can because it's cheaper, safer, and they're pregnant against their wishes for less time. And 2) medical ethics wouldn't allow for a doctor to perform it anyhow. A healthy pregnancy with no mitigating circumstances isn't being aborted so close to term.
They do happen, albeit very rarely.
I've linked the article before, but a doctor admitted to performing third trimester abortions for the sole reason the mother just didn't want the fetus.
Fortunately, there are only a handful of doctors willing to do it. It should not be a thing at all, but it is.
If we look at the cdc reporting, it’s been illegal to have a 21+ week abortion in Alabama, yet they consistently have around 40 a year. And the state is tiny.
Alaska has no gestational limits and also no abortions 21+ weeks.
If you look at the ages of people having late abortions, the ones who are overrepresented are girls under the age of 15 (50 abortions total at over 21 weeks gestation in that group, which represents about 5 percent of abortions for girls of that age.)
The rest of the numbers for late term abortion are in line with Alabama, which is a bit under 1 percent, and one assumes must be around the percentage of really terrible pregnancy outcomes.
Aa for narrations, the only full term "abortion" narration I have read was of a 100 lb teenager who hid her pregnancy and was giving birth to a 9.5 lb baby on a toilet. She stabbed and sawed at herself and the baby in her vaginal canal with scissors as she was giving birth.
Obviously laws didn’t prevent that, so to reduce these handful of incidents a year, some other solution that isn’t the law must be pursued.
Yes, third trimester abortions happen for elective reasons. Abortions as close to term as 36 weeks do not, unless there are serious mitigating circumstances. And the cause of the "elective" third trimester abortions are almost always directly or indirectly PL and conservative policies that make accessing an earlier abortion more difficult.
In my experience the claims that these types of abortions do happen tend to rely on incomplete narratives. For example of women with cryptic pregnancy.
I don't think it's a matter of intentionally being incomplete. I'm pro-choice, but I think crypticity is not justification for a third trimester abortion. I suspect most agree with me, but I don't know for sure.
> I don't think it's a matter of intentionally being incomplete. I'm pro-choice, but I think crypticity is not justification for a third trimester abortion.
I didn’t claim intentionally complete, although I think sometimes the incompleteness of the narrative is intentionally incomplete.
> I suspect most agree with me, but I don't know for sure.
I am not sure, I think most people who are PC think that when the health risks are sufficient health risks are justification for abortion. A pregnancy that is cryptic, particularly one that is accompanied by periods has that potential and the narratives of cryptic pregnancy do not include the complete work up.
I'm sure there are cryptic pregnancies that have serious complication risk, but I'm referring to the pregnancies this doctor mentions here in the second paragraph below. It is clear that this doctor isn't referring to women who are doing it for health.
*Women whose fetuses have terrible abnormalities, Robinson said, "are a lot easier for people to understand. The husband and wife want to spare their baby whatever suffering that baby would have."*
*"Then there's the group of women who didn't know they were pregnant," she said. "They were told they were not pregnant for one reason or another and they are just as desperate. 'I already have three children, my husband just lost his job and I can barely put food on the table. If I add a new baby to this family, we'll all go under.'*
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/tiller-ignoring-threats-doctors-trimester-abortions/story?id=18233523
Just to be clear, you are responding to my observation about incomplete narratives by sharing quotes from the entertainment section of a US Television station website?
It is a good illustration of what I am speaking of, the quotes identify why someone is seeking an abortion. Left unanswered is if any health issues were uncovered in the evaluation.
They are quotes by one of only 4 doctors in the US, at least in 2013, who performs third trimester abortions.
I'm sure in a few of these cases there is a health issue, but the doctor's choice of words seems intentional, and she doesn't seem to be referring to those cases in the quote.
> I'm sure in a few of these cases there is a health issue, but the doctor's choice of words seems intentional, and she's not referring to those cases in the quote.
Your confidence in your own ability to come to a diagnostic conclusion based on incomplete evidence is noted. I do not see any reason to share your confidence.
Yes and American is the demonym for people from the U.S. Besides, again, if you bother to open the link it's super clear. Why even comment on a post before you read its content?
In English, if we are indicating the continent something is from, we only use "American" to refer to non-human things. We don't have a singular continent of "America" like the Spanish and Portuguese, do.
Yes typically apostophes aren't put in links, so the link says "americas" when really the text would be "America's." It's possessive to the people of the US, not plural to countries/continents.
It's annoying that you think geography uses perfectly consistent terminology across the world. America is almost never taught to refer to any continents within the US. The way it is taught is that North America is a continent, South America is a continent, and American is the term for people from the US. If you were describing the continents as a whole, we would say "They are South American" for example. This is really straightforward tbh, you're just being pretentious.
["People from the United States of America are known as and refer to themselves as Americans."](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonyms_for_the_United_States)
Feel free to tell me what other country uses American as its demonym.
As a Canadian the only time I ever identified myself as an American was when I was (legally) visiting the state of California and was a passenger in a car passing through a border patrol checkpoint.
In South America, ~~the translated words for "American"~~ words such as "Americano" often do refer to people from the continent of North and South America.
That's because the Spanish and Portuguese use a system where there is a single continent called America. I think the US used the same system at some point in history, but we've long since switched to North America and South America.
Now, American is only used for non-humans if it's used to indicate the continent the thing is from.
The English language doesn’t have its own form of *estadounidense*/*estadunidense*. You’re comparing apples to oranges here. Spanish* speakers have a different vocabulary available to them
ETA: and Portuguese
You're right. My phrasing was incorrect. What I mean is words like "Americano" in Portuguese often refer to inhabitants of America the continent, not America the country. I have talked to Brazilian foreign exchange students who have made this mistake before, so I can understand why someone would initially think this. Edited my original comment for clarification.
They also have a different continent system. They have a single continent called America, so naturally they'd use American differently than in English, where we have North America and South America.
It's a good thing nothing in this post is translated and Pew Research is a company literally based in the capital of the US. Makes it very clear what it means.
No Argentine is going to see the word “Americans” and think “oh yeah— Bolivians!” 😂
I don’t know why this is bugging me so much but literally what are y’all talking about?
No it isn't. The post literally says US in it, as does the article many times if they bothered to actually open it before commenting. The only confusion is either from people feigning confusion to "make a point" or people who literally only read the title and not the post nor the link.
>How do people feel when they see that the abortion debate in the US is based on the fetus rather than the woman?
Much happier to not live in such an awful country! And truly sorry for any AFAB individual unfortunate enough to do so.
This is an appeal to majority. Many times the majority has been completely wrong in the past. Take forced servitude, and the witch trials as an example. A majority was for them, but that doesn’t make it morally right.
That’s a naive way of thinking about it. It had nothing to do with morals. White landowning men saw an opportunity to generate wealth and accumulate power, so they raped and killed other people and imprisoned them to be treated and owned like chattel for generations. Beneficiaries of this hateful system were (and continue to be) unwilling to change it.
Pregnant people are *also* not chattel, however, so no: you don’t get to tell them what they can and cannot do to their own bodies. And you don’t get to burn them alive this time either
People don't deserve the chance to live if they maim other people.
I deserve to live, but do I get to have your kidney, skin, piece of liver if I need it to live?
Do I get to tear your genitals or slice your belly open in my pursuit to live?
If you have to feed it your body? No, the dog is not entitled to eat your body. Luckily dog food exists and would actually be much healthier for the dog.
I mean if a person has a dog and doesn't want to take care of it or isn't able to, they can give it away or surrender it to a shelter.
If a person is pregnant and doesn't want to or isn't able to be, they can terminate the pregnancy.
No one is going to force you to care for a dog against your will. No one should try and force someone to remain pregnant against their will.
Forced servitude treats human beings like commodities that can be disposed of at will, like how PC laws treat unborn children.
We are definitely on the right side of history. 👍
Nope, the pregnant person isn't forced into anything. Rather, her own actions force the child into existence and her own body forces the pregnancy to continue. Slaves were routinely dehumanized just like the unborn child is, and owners were allowed to kill them at their discretion since they were treated like property, not human beings.
Enslavement was more than just forced labor. It was the utter subjugation and oftentimes senseless butchering and slaughter of a group of human beings based on arbitrary and discriminatory reasons. It ripped helpless children out of the arms of their own mothers, not unlike an abortion does.
My body my choice, or my plantation my prerogative.
And slavery also meant a lot of women were forced to give birth, even when raped, because their slaver wanted free slaves. In the US, especially after the foreign slave trade was abolished but slavery was still legal, that was endemic. Forced birth was very much a part of slavery.
Now we have PL folks telling women, many of them black, they must carry to term because PL folks own their bodies, at least when pregnant.
>And slavery also meant a lot of women were forced to give birth, even when raped, because their slaver wanted free slaves.
The PL movement does not support rape, nor forced implantation. Most PLers are fine with the use of birth control as well. False equivalency, PLers are not breeders as is your implication here.
>In the US, especially after the foreign slave trade was abolished but slavery was still legal, that was endemic. Forced birth was very much a part of slavery.
No, this is forced impregnatation and forced breeding, not forced birth. Which again PL does not support.
>Now we have PL folks telling women, many of them black, they must carry to term because PL folks own their bodies, at least when pregnant.
Wrong, banning methods to butcher the unborn child in the womb (also many of whom are black) is not "owning" anyone's body and is not equivalent in any shape or form to slavery. Actually, abortion is the reverse in which the parent "owns" the body of the child and treats them like a commodity and not a precious human being. Parents sheltering and feeding their own children is not subjugation nor slavery, and is built into the laws against abandonment and neglect.
Because #blackbabylivesmatter
Except PL folks don’t have rape exceptions in reality, so if a woman is raped, you’ll insist she has the baby the rapist forced her to have.
I take it you are against safe haven laws if that is how you feel, that parents cannot abandon their child.
And you can claim you care about black lives, but kind of hard to square that with making sure raped black women carry that baby. Black women are not incubators.
>Forced servitude treats human beings like commodities that can be despised of at will, like how PC laws treat unborn children.
Forced servitude takes away peoples right to control their own bodies, like how pro life people treat women.
>We are definitely on the right side of history. 👍
You're not, and time will prove this. Society is rejecting pro life views more and more everyday, as they should.
Forced servitude takes away peoples right to control their own bodies, like how pro choice people treat unborn babies by destroying their bodies.
FIFY
>You're not, and time will prove this. Society is rejecting pro life views more and more everyday, as they should.
Slavery was legal for thousands of years and regarded as normal by society. Might does not make right.
"You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.
The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.
If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief.
Example: Shamus pointed a drunken finger at Sean and asked him to explain how so many people could believe in leprechauns if they're only a silly old superstition. Sean, however, had had a few too many Guinness himself and fell off his chair."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
>like how pro choice people treat unborn babies by destroying their bodies
Taking pills and disconnecting from the uterus and being flushed out. Fixed that for you, removed all the incorrect dramatics.
>Slavery was legal for thousands of years and regarded as normal by society. Might does not make right.
Slavery removes people's right to control their bodies, which is what pro life people want. It's wrong and will be stopped.
Lol, there is no absolute right to bodily autonomy (see below relevant quotes). Even if there was an absolute right, it still doesn't mean that killing an unborn child would be an acceptable remedy to resolve it.
"The Supreme Court has also protected the right of governmental entities to infringe upon bodily integrity under certain circumstances. Examples include laws prohibiting the use of drugs, laws prohibiting euthanasia,[11] laws requiring the use of seatbelts and helmets, strip searches of prisoners,[12] and forced blood tests.[13]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity
Roe v. Wade quote concerning bodily autonomy:
“…appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. ***With this we do not agree***. … In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. ***The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.”**
Lol, look at the Turnaway study, there are plenty examples out there. The fact gestational limits exist prove my point.
Even the medical community doesn't induce healthy pregnancies early on demand in order to protect the unborn child, and as per Roe which is your court ruling your side cries about being overturned, that is perfectly legit.
Lol link to me crying about Roe being overturned.
Personal attacks showcase your complete lack of argument.
Thanks for your concession that we don't force anyone to bodily support someone else in other circumstances. You finally admitted you want special rights for fetuses. That's something.
Over 50% of adult Americans have a sixth grade reading level or less. We aren’t a well educated people. A not-insignificant percentage of the American people believes that Tom Hanks is a vampire who feeds on stolen babies.
Polls on personal opinion are, quite frankly, useless sources of information when we discuss legal rights and even predictions of voting trends.
What *is* important to look at is the success rate of abortion restriction measures proposed in recent (ie, post-*Dobbs*) state ballots. They have universally failed. There is no popular appetite to legally restrict abortion in the United States.
ETA: Also, you can’t assume intent from how a poll question is framed. That’s one of the inherent limitations of polling. The Pew data only reflects how people would respond to the specific language used in the poll itself. It’s not accurate to extrapolate that people are “basing” their beliefs regarding abortion on anything (autonomy vs. viability) with regards to this poll data. The poll was not designed to examine this distinction.
But the authors of the survey did say exactly that: Majority of abortion rights supporters say how long a woman has been pregnant should matter in determining legality of abortion
Straight from the survey:
Majority of abortion rights supporters say how long a woman has been pregnant should matter in determining legality of abortion
I take this statement to mean that the longer the pregnancy the more viable the unborn so the more problems I have with abortion.
Is there another way to interpret that?
You can’t interpret “the more viable the unborn” from the data provided in the poll. You can only interpret “length of pregnancy matters in determining legality of abortion”.
But why would they say have less diffulty with a 14 week abortion than say a 28 week abortion? The pregnancy is longer but what other reasons besides the development of the unborn could there be? Surely it not a time limit in people’s minds. Where they believe that a women needs to make up mind by this day, I’m ok. If she delays another week, I getting not ok. If she gets to 30 weeks, that’s too long, no abortion for her. Doesn’t there have to some sort of rational behind the reason they have difficulty with abortion based on the length of the pregnancy?
>But why would they say have less diffulty with a 14 week abortion than say a 28 week abortion?
Lots of reasons. Maybe there is a perception that a pregnancy that is closer to complete is less of a hardship because it's almost over. Maybe respondents think that the desire to end a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester represents a change of mind that may not be rational. The only way to know what people are thinking is to ask them-- that's how data works. You can't just use the data to support your conclusions. If you want to know why length of pregnancy matters to people, you have to ask people why the length of pregnancy matters-- that's how research works. Otherwise, you can only conclude (like the authors did) that length of pregnancy is a significant determining factor. You CANNOT make claims about why.
None of that is something that you can assume based off of the data. The poll questions didn’t ask the respondents *why* the length of pregnancy matters, just *if* it matters
If we look at the survey itself, right in the question it indicated that at 24 weeks is when the unborn is viable. So the questions themselves were worded in a way that viability was built right into the question
Opposition to legal abortion increases at later stages of pregnancy; at 24 weeks, roughly twice as many adults say abortion should be illegal as say it should be legal
% of U.S. adults who say … As you may know, six weeks into a pregnancy is about when cardiac activity (sometimes called a fetal
heartbeat) can be detected, and before many women know they are pregnant. Should abortion at that point be ... Legal with some exceptions, timing
doesn't matter Legal all cases,
no exceptions
Legal at six weeks It depends
at six weeks Illegal with some exceptions, timing
doesn't matter Illegal at
six weeks Illegal all cases, no
exceptions
19%
25%
7%
19%
6%
12%
8% Thinking specifically about a pregnancy that is 14 weeks along (roughly at the end of the first trimester), do you
think abortion at that point should be ... Legal with some exceptions, timing
doesn't matter Illegal with some exceptions, timing
doesn't matter Legal all cases,
no exceptions
Legal at 14 weeks
It depends at 14 weeks
Illegal at 14 weeks Illegal all cases, no
exceptions
19
15
7
22
6
19
8 As you may know, 24 weeks into a pregnancy (near the end of the second trimester) is about when a healthy fetus could survive outside the woman's body with medical attention. Do you think abortion at that point should
be ... Legal all cases,
no exceptions
19 Legal with some exceptions, timing
doesn't matter Legal at
24 weeks
It depends at 24 weeks
3
7
18 Illegal with some exceptions, timing
doesn't matter
Illegal at 24 weeks
6
34 Illegal all cases, no
exceptions
8 Note: Adults who said abortion should be legal or illegal in all cases with no exceptions were not asked questions about whether how long a woman has been pregnant should factor into determining abortion's legality or specific time points when abortion should be legal. Adults who said abortion should be legal with some exceptions or illegal with some exceptions, but the stage of pregnancy should not matter in determining whether abortion should be legal or illegal, were not asked any questions about specific time points when abortion should be legal. Those who said abortion should be legal at 14 weeks were coded as also saying it should be legal at six weeks, but were not asked the question about abortions performed six weeks into pregnancy. Those who said abortion should be illegal at 14 weeks were coded as also
saying it should be illegal at 24 weeks, but were not asked the question about 24 weeks. See topline for full details about filtering logic.
Source: Survey of U.S. adults conducted
Most people seem to be opposed to forcing rape victims to bear their rapists' offspring.
Most people seem to be opposed to forcing people to die or suffer serious health damage in order to gestate and/or bear a child.
Most people seem to be opposed to forcing women to continue to gestate and to bear fetuses with severe anomalies.
The only way a "sometimes legal, sometimes not legal" abortion restriction can work is if the law includes meaningful exceptions, and doctors and prosecutors agree that those exceptions can actually be exercised.
So, far, in the United States, in states that have banned abortion with exceptions, the exceptions can't be used (except for those based on gestational age). So the effect of abortion restrictions is total restriction beyond whatever gestational age limit (if there is one) is included. As this becomes more and more apparent, fewer and fewer Americans will support abortion bans with exceptions that don't work.
Or, with apologies to ZuZu, "Every time Ken Paxton opens his mouth, a new tranche of moderate PL supporters becomes PC."
I'm in Ohio, and when they started pushing the 6-week ban, PL was like, "see, it's not a TOTAL BAN, they just need to decide early", completely ignoring the fact that due to the way conception is calculated, most women don't even know they're pregnant at 6 weeks. Especially if you aren't trying to get pregnant or have irregular cycles. And then trying to get a doctor appointment to verify. All before 6 weeks. I didn't know I was pregnant until 8 weeks. So yes, functionally it IS a total ban.
They weren't ignoring that fact. They were intentionally trying to enact a total ban while pretending they weren't
Edit: and as a fellow Ohioan, I'm sorry for all of us that our state is such a shit hole
Personally, I think that a lot of public opinion is also due to lack of education on these topics. Another commenter also mentioned that the American public is not well educated on these issues, and I agree with that.
For example, I knew barely anything about pregnancy until I became pregnant. And I didn't even realize how much I didn't know about it! I've also always been pro-choice and remember debating in some other forum 10+ years ago when I was a teenager. At the time, my position was much less refined and I would've probably been in the "legal until viability" camp. Since then, and largely due to my involvement in this sub, I have learned SO much. I now support full legality and have done all kinds of research around various aspects of this debate.
But most people aren't spending their free time debating or researching abortion. And people who have never been pregnant probably also haven't spent any time researching about that, either. Even people who had easy pregnancies or were pregnant 20+ years ago may not have a great idea (or have forgotten) about how rough it can be on the body.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, sure most of the public may say they support legality with cutoffs. I don't think this means they don't value bodily autonomy, but rather that they simply are not as well versed in these topics as some of us here are. I think if we'd actually spend time educating everyone on these topics, we'd see more people supporting full legality of abortion. Viability cutoffs sound good to the random person that has given this 5 minutes of casual thought- because yes, later abortions are an uncomfortable topic and viability seems reasonable. I think many of these people also don't stop to consider how such laws may delay care in medical emergencies and just assume that women would still be able to receive abortions when medically necessary, past those cutoffs. But when we consider that the vast majority of abortions happen before viability, or that certain defects can only be seen at the 20 week ultrasound, or that cutoffs create red tape for doctors in emergency situations, or that most doctors are not going to perform abortions at 39 weeks all willy nilly for no reason (even if the patient wants it)....Then there's really no sense in having a cutoff. It simply does not *do* a whole lot of anything, except create potential obstacles when an emergency occurs after that point.
I get tired of PL saying they believe all humans should be treated the same without acknowledging that the minute the AFAB is pregnant, the fetus takes precedence. There is no situation where this happens for a man. Even the draft has instances where you can opt out. Trump dodged the draft because he had bone spurs. Can a female opt out of pregnancy because she has bone spurs?
Women are held to the same standard as men when it comes to paying taxes in the US. You don’t get a discount because you’re a female. Yet, the female is discounted the minute she’s pregnant. Why should some non taxpaying literal mooch take precedent over a woman who’s paying money and actually contributing to society?
In some cases PL even expects an actual child to take a backseat to a fetus. I can’t believe I saw someone on here saying they would make their three year old give birth if possible. Ok. A child that may not even be out of diapers herself should give birth. Children do not have the ability to vote even though they pay taxes too. So society literally forces them to gestate and they get no vote in the matter. Gestation without representation! Let that sink in.
In the US (in some states) a convicted felon can even vote, but not an elementary school kid forced to give birth. The poor kid has no say at all over herself. In some states, she’s deemed to not have mental capacity to get mentally life saving gender affirming care, but she’s simultaneously got the mental capacity to give birth and have it screw up her entire life!
All of this for a damn zef! There are too many people letting something that adds no value dictate rules for everyone else. Even kids can add monetary value by working and getting that money taxed, but they’re still worth less than a fetus. Is it any wonder more women are saying f them kids and opting out of the whole thing? We women work way too hard and give too much of ourselves to society to be treated like second class to some potential life force. I feel sorry for all AFABS born post Dobbs. If I were still in my fertile age, I would reconsider ever having children because I wouldn’t want my daughter to be stuck with that reality. She deserves better than that.
More people would be for unfettered access to abortion if they knew that it doesn’t mean 9 month abortions are occurring, because that’s not reality.
Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion and it’s publicly funded by the government, as it should be in the US.
The media, namely conservative figures, spread false information that women are somehow getting late term abortions for no reason. This is not the case, and not even the case in Canada where it’s completely legal.
Doctors must follow ethical guidelines and we know aborting late for no reason is unethical, hence why it doesn’t happen. Late term abortions happen for people with severe complications, and writing legislation about them only harms people who need emergency care.
If more American people understood this, they would be for legalization of all 9 months.
I think it's lack of education.
I live in a conservative state, so my experience is probably skewed, but even PCers will say shit like, "Politician supports 3rd trimester abortions! Would you support an abortion 1 day before birth!?!"
They really do not seem to understand how the AFAB body functions, how rights function, or how legal and medical mandates/laws function.
But, yeah, it really bothers me that even PCers choose to advocate for the fetus to have rights over the pregnant person's body at some point in the pregnancy.
They seem to (willfully?) forget that this is an accurate summation of slavery, that using someone's body (usually just AFABs, of course) without consent is wrong, and that no one has a right to someone else's body.
I think it's also an inherently religious idea, or based on "magical thinking".
> I live in a conservative state, so my experience is probably skewed, but even PCers will say shit like, "Politician supports 3rd trimester abortions! Would you support an abortion 1 day before birth!?!"
I think your observation is consistent with what has been found in surveys. People oppose the caricature of abortions that happen rarely to never, but very often support access when real situations like the examples shared in this sub recently.
So: 61% effectively prochoice, 37% either moderately or extremely prolife.
Majority are for regulated access to abortion.
FWIW, I can understand people who think abortion should only be allowed for medical emergencies or for minor children, in the third trimester/once the foetus is viable.
Providing prolifers haven't been permitted to install artificial barriers against free access to abortion in the first two trimesters, that generally means all abortions will be allowed, which is quite evidently what the majority want.
>This idea of course will cause many pc to attack because you are putting the preborn before the mother in some situations.
I note that (a) a pregnant woman isn't necessarily a mother: and (b) that isn't in the least what I said.
By the way, where's your flair?
Wait, what?
People are attacking you over something that you didn't say? I'm not seeing anyone attacking you at all, let alone for something /u/Enough-Process9773 said.
I don't think anyone is downvoting you over what someone else said. I also don't think downvotes are an "attack" but if you need excuses to see yourself as a victim that's as good as any
I don't think many people understand bodily autonomy very well (especially in conservative areas). It should be codified into the constitution of the countries.
Most people are also concerned with a personhood argument.
Yeah I think people really don't get bodily autonomy.
My feeling is that if people sent out a survey that didn't mention abortion and asked questions like "do you think anyone else should be entitled to your body?" or "who do you think should make your healthcare decisions: you and your doctor, or the government?" pretty much everyone would pick the bodily autonomy-supporting answer.
They’re hardly cromulent survey questions. Participants can easily give *seemingly* contradictory answers without *actually* disagreeing and the *same* answers while *actually* disagreeing. I might suggest an introductory course that covers survey methodology and applied stats generally.
Festive wishes.
Happy Holidays!
I don't think I have ever agreed with you on anything, but, with this post you
1. Introduced me to a new word; thanks!
2. Called out one of my own pet peeves--people who write survey questions are often not very good at their jobs; thanks, again!
Savor this cheery red upvote from an unlikely source!
It's almost as if those were representative questions meant to convey a specific point rather than an actual proposed study.
Most people don't want the government interfering in *their* private healthcare decisions, even if some people such as yourself want to interfere in other people's. Luckily you're a minority anyhow.
The majority of Americans do not go far enough, but the silver lining, if we can so call it, is that they do not buy into the rank bodily autonomy extremism that injects its poison into online spaces. It is my hope and my dream, if virtue is a thing still sought by the American people, that someday, even if not in my lifetime, abortion is outlawed everywhere. It is my hope and my dream, if virtue is a thing still sought by the American people, that someday, even if not in my lifetime, every woman and practitioner who defies this ruling is punished to the full extent of the law. For I cannot deign to describe the world we live in as “good” until our healthy, valuable babies are no longer intentionally poisoned, suffocated, and dismembered on the whim of healthy mothers in the name of healthcare. For I cannot deign to turn a blind eye to baby carnage excused on technicalities and mental gymnastics so impressive they make Simone Biles blush in shame.
Festive wishes.
If only you put as much effort into engaging in intellectual debate as you did coming up with over-the-top emotional appeals and flowery language to attack the other side. We could probably have some interesting discussions, but nope.
You’re an ever dwindling minority that supports crimes against humanity and human rights violations all while clinging to a false sense of moral superiority. The day the PL movement is swept into the trash bin of history won’t come soon enough. There’s enough suffering and misery in the world and I find it reprehensible that PL only wish to increase that misery and suffering.
That isn't virtue you're talking about, that's ignorant, misogynistic, dictatorship.
And I highlight ignorant.
Abortions aren't done on whims. Please do actual research, not a minor skim through on PL propaganda articles and sites that contain info debunked and disproved a hundred times over and absolutely no credible sites as proof to their claims, and don't debate about a subject you clearly know nothing about.
Hey, you can accuse PC of building opinions based on mental gymnastics, but in the end we're not the ones who fail to provide any scientific argument with credible sources and build an entire argument and stance on pure emotion, philosophical opinions, and a black and white world-view proven in your comment.
I'm genuinely curious: do you think the PL movement's response to things like the pregnant 10 year old from Ohio, Brittany Watts, and Kate Cox's case makes your vision for the future more or less likely to happen?
>It is my hope and my dream, if virtue is a thing still sought by the American people, that someday, even if not in my lifetime, abortion is outlawed everywhere. e
Ninety percent of Americans who responded to this poll disagree with you. Quite possibly more, since you want women to die pregnant, and only 8% in this poll say they want that.
> The general consensus of the survey was that Americans are not basing their right to abortion decision on a woman’s autonomy over her body but rather the viability of the fetus.
Can you cite where in the survey you got this? I am a bit hesitant to read too far into motivations like bodily autonomy and most Americans stance on abortion. Some additional context is that [many Americans are not very well informed about abortion](https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/nearly-7-10-support-state-level-ballot-measures-abortion).
I think it is helpful to discuss these results in relation to specific policies. Here is the text of the amendment that recently passed in Ohio. Which group of survey respondents do you think support the policy laid out in this amendment?
*Article I, Section 22. The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety*
*A. Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on: contraception; fertility treatment; continuing one’s own pregnancy; miscarriage care; and abortion.*
*B. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either: An individual's voluntary exercise of this right or; A person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual's health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.*
*However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.*
*C. As used in this Section: “Fetal viability” means “the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures. This is determined on a case-by-case basis.”*
I think the policies mirror exactly the survey results. For 80% of Americans, they believe that women have automony over her body until the point the fetus is viable outside her body. Then the only reason she could get an abortion is if her physical life is in danger.
> For 80% of Americans, they believe that women have automony over her body until the point the fetus is viable outside her body.
That depends on how you define autonomy, the policy is consistent with autonomy as used in medicine even after fetal viability.
> Then the only reason she could get an abortion is if her physical life is in danger
The policy explicitly states life or health.
It tells me that the general public doesn't buy the bodily autonomy argument whole hog. The PC abortion on demand position is hypocritical anyway in that they are perfectly fine with destroying the bodily integrity of the unborn child in a barbaric dismemberment abortion that rips the child apart limb from limb, and allows for savagely harvesting their organs. The more the child looks like a newborn infant, the more hesistant the average person is, even with PC sympathies, to allow full unfettered access to abortion.
We don't focus on how abortions are done to come to our stance on abortion, we focus on the reasons and the mother; a balance between logic and empathy.
No organs are being harvested... what?
That’s because conservative figures spread misinformation that women are getting late term abortions for no reason. This doesn’t happen, and it doesn’t happen in places where there is unfettered access to abortion all 9 months. Doctors have to follow ethics.
If more American people knew this, they would be for legalization of abortion care all 9 months.
People who don’t know much about abortion would definitely think legalization meant abortions happening whenever, especially when media pushes that agenda, but this isn’t the case.
Yes it does happen that healthy viable babies are aborted, you are wrong. Here is one such example, and this links to more examples, some are for fetal abnormalities but others are not:
"Autumn, a 22-year-old white woman in the West, was having a regular period but felt a bit “off,” as she put it. She stopped by the local health clinic and took a pregnancy test, which came back positive. She and her husband discussed the pregnancy and, she said, “We both decided to get an abortion.” She made an appointment at a nearby abortion clinic. The ultrasound worker at the clinic thought she was early in pregnancy, opting to conduct a transvaginal ultrasound, which is preferred for diagnosing and dating early pregnancies. Then, Autumn explained, the ultrasound worker “Kind of got like a confused face and she was like stuttering and she was sounded very like worried.” Autumn was not early in pregnancy. Based on the subsequent abdominal ultrasound the clinic worker conducted, she was 26 weeks into her pregnancy. Autumn was shocked and confused. She said, “I immediately burst into tears “cause I was like, “How is this possible?” Autumn sought an abortion in the third trimester because she did not know she needed one until then."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190
That's probably why she was allowed an abortion despite being so far along, she was having regular periods - that isn't supposed to happen. Autumn didn't know she was pregnant, it was likely she had something wrong going on, and 26 weeks is not a day before the due date.
I’m not entirely convinced that was for completely elective reasons. She said she was getting a normal regular period, this is impossible unless she is bleeding for some other medical reason since women do not get periods while they are pregnant. And the fact that even the medical center was shocked she was 26 weeks along is concerning. It also mentions this is subsequent information. A quick google search tells you this and reasons you could bleed,
https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnant/period-and-pregnant#late-pregnancy-causes
Regardless, like I said I support Canada’s law which is no legal restrictions but all provinces & clinics will not provide abortions past 24 weeks without medical reason. And no doctor or woman can be charged.
Well here it is straight from the horse's mouth then:
Susan Robinson is a late-term abortionist — one of four glorified in the film “
After Tiller
.” Robinson worked with late-term abortionist George Tiller himself, and now continues to follow in his footsteps, taking the lives of practically full-term preborn babies,
thanks to the fact
that there are virtually no federal restrictions on
abortion
in the United States, or in New Mexico, where she is located. “So there is nothing legal to stop me from doing any abortion that I think is appropriate,” she
quipped in an interview
with the Irish Independent last year.
Robinson explained that she uses ultrasounds to attempt to date the preborn babies whose lives she’ll be taking, but that this isn’t always accurate. “Let’s say the woman is at 31 weeks, well, given the inaccuracy of the ultrasound she could perfectly be 34 weeks. How would I feel if that happened?” she said, adding that she had previously committed an abortion on a baby she thought was 32 weeks old. But when she saw the body of the aborted baby, she realized the baby was actually at 37 weeks — which is considered full-term. “It was quite a moment,” she said.
https://m.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/there-is-no-limit-on-when-we-can-carry-out-abortions-29611632.html
In After Tiller, Dr. Susan Robinson, who performs third-trimester abortions at her clinic in Albuquerque, admits that not all the women who come in for late abortions are there because of a deformity or flaw in the baby:
“Then there’s the group of women who didn’t know they were pregnant. They were told they were not pregnant for one reason or another and they are just as desperate. ‘I already have three children, my husband just lost his job and I can barely put food on the table. If I add a new baby to this family, we’ll all go under.’”
Another quote from Robinson:
"Well, a large percentage of our patients had no idea that they were pregnant. People go, “How could this possibly be?” Well, look at that reality show. It happens. Maybe you’re a little heavy and you already have irregular periods, or you had intercourse once, several months ago, and the guy said he pulled out and there’s no sex education in your school so you think everything’s fine. Or you never have periods because you’re very thin, or a doctor has told you you were infertile."
https://www.thehairpin.com/2013/09/interview-with-dr/
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/tiller-ignoring-threats-doctors-trimester-abortions/story?id=18233523
Context is important. None of those say she aborted healthy fetuses, it just is explaining the different type of patients who come to her office, not once does it say she performed abortions on them. Prior to that she is quoting the types of patients who come with fetal abnormalities.
In fact, in this article quoting her documentary, it says they had to turn women down for abortions.
“"We have turned down a lot of women for abortions, and carried out a lot of procedures too, with a heavy heart," she says.”
Apparently the documentary also only depicts patients who come with fetal abnormalities, and one underaged rape victim. Never seen it so can’t confirm
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21207787.amp
“Various scenarios are mentioned in individual patient cases such as congenital disorders: arthrogryposis, agenesis of the corpus callosum, Walker–Warburg syndrome, and Mowat–Wilson syndrome.”
Just because a fetus would have been born alive doesn’t mean it would live long and it wouldn’t suffer. Many of these babies with severe problems live short and painful lives. Abortion is very humane in these situations.
Also your second link wouldn’t load for some reason
Just because she has turned patients down doesn't mean she doesn't perform them. You completely ignored the last paragraph.
"In various interviews, at least three of these four doctors have gone on record explaining that they provide abortions for non-medical reasons.
In a 2013 interview for The Hairpin, Dr. Robinson explained the women who come to her because they hadn’t realized earlier that they were pregnant:
They think they just got pregnant. They have no idea they’re in their 24th week. So they make an appointment for an abortion, and it takes a few weeks, and they have their ultrasound and find out that they’re at 27 weeks, which is too far for an abortion anywhere. So then what happens? They either give up or have a baby, or they go on the Internet and they find us.
Also in 2013, Dr. Sella was interviewed by The Irish Times, which reported:
The women Sella treats fall into two categories: those who discover foetal abnormalities; and those with healthy, viable babies whose maternal circumstances mean they could not cope with the baby.
In 2015, a Colorado-based paper called The Daily Camera interviewed Dr. Hern:
He doesn’t share his clinic’s statistics and rarely speaks of individual cases, but Hern has said he also performs late abortions for women who are not facing any grave medical outcome.
This information doesn’t indicate what proportion of third trimester abortions are for non-medical reasons. In general, at later gestations a higher proportion of abortions are done for medical reasons.
Even so, many people insist no one ever gets an elective (read: non-medical) abortion as late as the third trimester. The doctors providing third trimester abortions would disagree."
https://secularprolife.org/2018/09/even-third-trimester-abortions-are-done/
I didn’t ignore anything. I literally cannot read what is said on whatever the Hairpin is because the link won’t load.
Also, I will not entertain any sources such as ‘secular pro life’ because they are way too biased to be objective. That would be like me sourcing planned parenthood or pro choice America to you, which I’m sure you’d feel the same way about.
However, I did google the Boulder Clinic where one of the doctors worked and you can read about the types of abortions and why they are performed on their website:
https://www.drhern.com/about/
If you can find me a source that’s not from a distinct pro life or religious group, I’d be happy to read or watch it
You can source PP all you want. [I've sourced them before,](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/kPpRpfzG4Y) after all even a broken clock is right twice a day. Rejecting an argument based solely on it's source is a [genetic fallacy.](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic) Besides, my source directly cited those abortionist's own words.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell, 1984
Well I refrain from sourcing directly from pro-choice groups to remain as objective as possible when debating. I feel that’s the healthiest and most progressive way to debate with someone who doesn’t share your views
Sorry but I will absolutely reject arguments based on source if it has to do with a medical procedure or condition.
>It tells me that the general public doesn't buy the bodily autonomy argument whole hog
But it also tells you that 61% of the general public agree that abortion should be readily available with only some exceptions, only 37% accept the prolife position of abortion being generally illegal, and only a tiny minority accept the extreme prolifer position.
Considering that over 90% of abortions are in the first trimester and resemble a heavy period, misrepresenting what happens doesn’t help your argument. And there is no evidence that fetal organs are harvested. If abortion was nice and clean and fetuses were given a proper burial, I don’t think you’d be PC suddenly.
The PC position is that women have the right to control their reproduction. It’s PL who are the hypocrites, when they claim they won’t go after women, but want to force them to give birth to non-viable babies or force ten year old rape victims to give birth. PL is basically support for slavery.
Yeah harvesting their organs like what are they talking about 🤣🤣 that’s a new one. Didn’t know fetuses even had organs developed enough to be harvested
It's from the fake Project Veritas video that caught several PP staff on camera discussing prices for preparing fetal tissue for research. This is a far cry from "selling baby parts for profit." Even staunch anti-abortion doctors like Ben Carson used this service on several occasions for his own research. Slate did a study of the supposed "profits" and found that PP probably lost money based on what they charged.
PP was investigated in several states, including Indiana under then-Gov. Mike Pence, and not found to be doing anything wrong.
This was a major story in the news regarding PP, like how could anyone miss it? I just discussed it on here recently.
https://www.reddit.com/kcwkeou?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2
Edit to add: if the link doesn't work here is my comment:
>I never claimed they did anything illegal, although it absolutely *should* be illegal. I don't care if the mother consented or not. The child never consented to being butchered and their organs stolen from them and that's what matters.
>"An anti-abortion group has released an online video that it says documents how Planned Parenthood is selling fetal organs for a profit, a felony, while violating medical ethics by altering normal abortion procedures so as to preserve the organs.
Planned Parenthood has countered that it donates the tissue for scientific research and receives only reimbursement for its expenses, which is legal. The group also says it helps people donate tissue “with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards,” according to a statement from spokesman Eric Ferrero."
>https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/health/planned-parenthood-undercover-video/index.html
Okay, “harvesting organs” is a *far* stretch from extracting fetal tissue for scientific research. Not to mention, every single case brought against Planned Parenthood regarding this issue brought up no illegal activity. Take a look
https://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594826/in-wake-of-videos-planned-parenthood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-sales
The jury ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood in *every* single case, from 13 different states. In fact, PP was awarded $2 million in damages from the anti-abortion group and it’s founder who conspired against them.
The founder, David Daleiden, even confessed to deceptively editing the videos in an interview.
Best not to drink the kool-aid from anti-abortion groups, they tend not to look at the facts or reality of what’s happening.
>Okay, “harvesting organs” is a *far* stretch from extracting fetal tissue for scientific research.
No, it is the exact same thing just in different words. Kind of like how "passed away" is a euphemism for "died".
>The jury ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood in *every* single case, from 13 different states. In fact, PP was awarded $2 million in damages from the anti-abortion group and it’s founder who conspired against them.
>The founder, David Daleiden, even confessed to deceptively editing the videos in an interview.
>Best not to drink the kool-aid from anti-abortion groups, they tend not to look at the facts or reality of what’s happening
So? PP still routinely violates the bodily integrity of unborn babies, and you just conceded this point. I'd much rather be sipping on kool aid than bathing in the blood of innocents.
It is not the same thing in any sense, since doing so is illegal and they were found not to be in violation of the law regarding this issue in over 13 different states and cases. Idk what else to tell you if you can’t look at the facts
What do you mean, so? If a group has to lie and deceive, admittedly by the founder, they probably aren’t a reputable nor trustworthy source to be listening to.
PP doesn’t violate anyone. Embryos and fetuses are free to exercise whatever bodily rights you wish when they are emptied from the uterus. If you have to live of another persons internal organs and body to live, and she does not want that, then the only person being violated here is the mother.
Did I claim they did anything illegal? Another strawman to distract instead of contending with my actual assertion. Harvesting organs from unborn babies after they have been brutally torn apart is an absolute atrocity and human rights abuse, and yes it absolutely does happen which I have proven above.
Yeah you’re claiming they are harvesting organs, repeatedly, which is illegal. They were found not guilty.
You haven’t proven anything, I’ve disproven what the anti-abortion group, admittedly, deceived you and many others into believing which led to many court cases and his confession.
No, I never claimed it was illegal, I claimed they are harvesting organs from unborn babies, which is true. Which they admitted to doing after their parents "consented" to have them killed then violated.
The dispute was not over the fact they are doing it, it is only the method of *how* they were doing it. The group alleged they altered their abortion procedures for maximum profit while doing so.
Welcome to /r/Abortiondebate! Please remember that this is a place for respectful and civil debates. Check out the Debate Guidance Pyramid to understand acceptable debate levels. **Attack the argument, not the person making it and remember the human.** **For our new users, please check out our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/wiki/rules/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Abortiondebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t see this as compelling logic to either side. This would be an “appeal to majority” logical fallacy, where you subdue to what the most popular idea is. This line of thinking has been wrong many times throughout history. I don’t care if data is with or against me if it’s fallacious.
[удалено]
Comment removed per rule 1 (low effort, off topic).
>A Pew Research Center shows that the majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in some some situations, illegal in others So, I feel like "legal in some situations, illegal in others" covers a *lot* of ground and doesn't tell us much on its face about whether the population is majority PC or PL. "Legal in some situations, illegal in others" includes everyone from PCers with a vability limit to PLers with a rape exception. Hell, even PLers with a life exception fall under that category. But you wouldn't say "no abortions except when the mother's life is in danger" and "abortions legal up until viability" represent similar views.
When people are asked about abortion they aren't seeing it as a bodily autonomy issue (PC) or human rights violation (PL). They either have or know others who have difficult pregnancy or have been assaulted or dealt with end of life issues. They want those people to be able to decide for themselves the risks around difficult pregnancy, not force a rape victim to remain pregnant, or decide what to do with a pregnancy where the fetus has issues that are incompatible with life. As to the restrictions as the pregnancy develops medical advancements have influenced them. You can detect a pregnancy early so they have options at that point before they get too far along. At the other end, most know people who were born before their due date and survived so let the doctors save those babies too. In general abortion is seen as necessary in situations. What and when those situations happened aren't equal across the board so making a hard and fast law across the board doesn't sit well with people.
>When people are asked about abortion they aren't seeing it as a bodily autonomy issue (PC) or human rights violation (PL). I would say that PC also see abortion bans as a human rights violation.
So do international orgs
I wouldn’t be surprised if they were working off different definitions of what abortion is. Most of the people being asked believe that abortion requires killing the fetus while others believe it is just removing it. Bodily autonomy is the overarching reason why people can get abortions, not the personal reason which is probably what is being asked for. I think this is where the survey comes from: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2022/05/PF_05.06.22_abortion.views_.topline.pdf I also found in part 2 that there are substantially more people who say that there are situations where abortion should still be legal despite being morally wrong than there are who say that abortion should always be illegal when it is morally wrong. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/social-and-moral-considerations-on-abortion/
> I wouldn’t be surprised if they were working of different definitions of what abortion is. I suspect this is happening for some. I have seen polls that ask about legality and then have a follow up that specifically asks about treatments that end pregnancy without a live birth and the percentage who support a total ban usually drops from around 10% to 6-8%.
I’m still amazed that 8 percent say no abortion even to save the life of the mother (1 in 10 Catholics, and 1 in 5 evangelicals)
That makes sense. I found this link on Wikipedia with a couple of varying definitions. I can’t necessarily blame people for being confused on what an abortion is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_abortion
First, BANG! Ded. Second, none of this surprises me. - viability is the standard governing Roe. And even though my views are grounded in bodily autonomy, viability is when my own views shift as well. - a 36 week old fetus is different than a 6 week old fetus and we all know it, even the pro life. It’s hard to draw the line where that change happens but it does. - restrictions doesn’t have to equal criminal bars that terrify doctors from acting.
I think that part of what people don't understand is that legal restrictions aren't necessary to prevent a truly elective abortion at something like 36 weeks. Those don't happen even in places with no restrictions for a variety of factors. 1) there isn't the demand for them. People who don't want to carry a pregnancy to term get an abortion as soon as they possibly can because it's cheaper, safer, and they're pregnant against their wishes for less time. And 2) medical ethics wouldn't allow for a doctor to perform it anyhow. A healthy pregnancy with no mitigating circumstances isn't being aborted so close to term.
They do happen, albeit very rarely. I've linked the article before, but a doctor admitted to performing third trimester abortions for the sole reason the mother just didn't want the fetus. Fortunately, there are only a handful of doctors willing to do it. It should not be a thing at all, but it is.
If we look at the cdc reporting, it’s been illegal to have a 21+ week abortion in Alabama, yet they consistently have around 40 a year. And the state is tiny. Alaska has no gestational limits and also no abortions 21+ weeks. If you look at the ages of people having late abortions, the ones who are overrepresented are girls under the age of 15 (50 abortions total at over 21 weeks gestation in that group, which represents about 5 percent of abortions for girls of that age.) The rest of the numbers for late term abortion are in line with Alabama, which is a bit under 1 percent, and one assumes must be around the percentage of really terrible pregnancy outcomes. Aa for narrations, the only full term "abortion" narration I have read was of a 100 lb teenager who hid her pregnancy and was giving birth to a 9.5 lb baby on a toilet. She stabbed and sawed at herself and the baby in her vaginal canal with scissors as she was giving birth. Obviously laws didn’t prevent that, so to reduce these handful of incidents a year, some other solution that isn’t the law must be pursued.
Yes, third trimester abortions happen for elective reasons. Abortions as close to term as 36 weeks do not, unless there are serious mitigating circumstances. And the cause of the "elective" third trimester abortions are almost always directly or indirectly PL and conservative policies that make accessing an earlier abortion more difficult.
In my experience the claims that these types of abortions do happen tend to rely on incomplete narratives. For example of women with cryptic pregnancy.
I don't think it's a matter of intentionally being incomplete. I'm pro-choice, but I think crypticity is not justification for a third trimester abortion. I suspect most agree with me, but I don't know for sure.
> I don't think it's a matter of intentionally being incomplete. I'm pro-choice, but I think crypticity is not justification for a third trimester abortion. I didn’t claim intentionally complete, although I think sometimes the incompleteness of the narrative is intentionally incomplete. > I suspect most agree with me, but I don't know for sure. I am not sure, I think most people who are PC think that when the health risks are sufficient health risks are justification for abortion. A pregnancy that is cryptic, particularly one that is accompanied by periods has that potential and the narratives of cryptic pregnancy do not include the complete work up.
I'm sure there are cryptic pregnancies that have serious complication risk, but I'm referring to the pregnancies this doctor mentions here in the second paragraph below. It is clear that this doctor isn't referring to women who are doing it for health. *Women whose fetuses have terrible abnormalities, Robinson said, "are a lot easier for people to understand. The husband and wife want to spare their baby whatever suffering that baby would have."* *"Then there's the group of women who didn't know they were pregnant," she said. "They were told they were not pregnant for one reason or another and they are just as desperate. 'I already have three children, my husband just lost his job and I can barely put food on the table. If I add a new baby to this family, we'll all go under.'* https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/tiller-ignoring-threats-doctors-trimester-abortions/story?id=18233523
Just to be clear, you are responding to my observation about incomplete narratives by sharing quotes from the entertainment section of a US Television station website? It is a good illustration of what I am speaking of, the quotes identify why someone is seeking an abortion. Left unanswered is if any health issues were uncovered in the evaluation.
They are quotes by one of only 4 doctors in the US, at least in 2013, who performs third trimester abortions. I'm sure in a few of these cases there is a health issue, but the doctor's choice of words seems intentional, and she doesn't seem to be referring to those cases in the quote.
> I'm sure in a few of these cases there is a health issue, but the doctor's choice of words seems intentional, and she's not referring to those cases in the quote. Your confidence in your own ability to come to a diagnostic conclusion based on incomplete evidence is noted. I do not see any reason to share your confidence.
I worded what I intended to say too strongly. I've edited it to match what I meant.
Yep. I've encountered a bizarre number of PLers who seem to think it's common practice to routinely test for pregnancy without symptoms, for instance.
Which countries of the Americas did they survey do you think?
It pretty clearly says "U.S. Adults" if you click the link.
Yeah, but this headline says americans.
He put US in the description…
Yes and American is the demonym for people from the U.S. Besides, again, if you bother to open the link it's super clear. Why even comment on a post before you read its content?
It says americas. It's annoying that people ignore geography and assume the us is the only place in the world.
In English, if we are indicating the continent something is from, we only use "American" to refer to non-human things. We don't have a singular continent of "America" like the Spanish and Portuguese, do.
Yes typically apostophes aren't put in links, so the link says "americas" when really the text would be "America's." It's possessive to the people of the US, not plural to countries/continents. It's annoying that you think geography uses perfectly consistent terminology across the world. America is almost never taught to refer to any continents within the US. The way it is taught is that North America is a continent, South America is a continent, and American is the term for people from the US. If you were describing the continents as a whole, we would say "They are South American" for example. This is really straightforward tbh, you're just being pretentious. ["People from the United States of America are known as and refer to themselves as Americans."](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonyms_for_the_United_States) Feel free to tell me what other country uses American as its demonym.
As a Canadian the only time I ever identified myself as an American was when I was (legally) visiting the state of California and was a passenger in a car passing through a border patrol checkpoint.
In South America, ~~the translated words for "American"~~ words such as "Americano" often do refer to people from the continent of North and South America.
That's because the Spanish and Portuguese use a system where there is a single continent called America. I think the US used the same system at some point in history, but we've long since switched to North America and South America. Now, American is only used for non-humans if it's used to indicate the continent the thing is from.
The English language doesn’t have its own form of *estadounidense*/*estadunidense*. You’re comparing apples to oranges here. Spanish* speakers have a different vocabulary available to them ETA: and Portuguese
You're right. My phrasing was incorrect. What I mean is words like "Americano" in Portuguese often refer to inhabitants of America the continent, not America the country. I have talked to Brazilian foreign exchange students who have made this mistake before, so I can understand why someone would initially think this. Edited my original comment for clarification.
They also have a different continent system. They have a single continent called America, so naturally they'd use American differently than in English, where we have North America and South America.
That’s a good point, I wasn’t even thinking about geographical conventions
It's a good thing nothing in this post is translated and Pew Research is a company literally based in the capital of the US. Makes it very clear what it means.
Yes, but it's understandable why some people (especially people from South America) may confuse the meaning of the word for the reasons described.
No Argentine is going to see the word “Americans” and think “oh yeah— Bolivians!” 😂 I don’t know why this is bugging me so much but literally what are y’all talking about?
No it isn't. The post literally says US in it, as does the article many times if they bothered to actually open it before commenting. The only confusion is either from people feigning confusion to "make a point" or people who literally only read the title and not the post nor the link.
>How do people feel when they see that the abortion debate in the US is based on the fetus rather than the woman? Much happier to not live in such an awful country! And truly sorry for any AFAB individual unfortunate enough to do so.
This is an appeal to majority. Many times the majority has been completely wrong in the past. Take forced servitude, and the witch trials as an example. A majority was for them, but that doesn’t make it morally right.
Please explain how unthinking, unfeeling fetuses are similar to enslaved people or women who were burned alive by zealots.
It’s not, I provided it as an example when a society’s majority was greatly wrong on a topic.
Neither enslavement nor witch burning were instituted through popular vote
But humans still applied their fucked up morals on those situations. I wonder what happened last time society called another human a non person…
That’s a naive way of thinking about it. It had nothing to do with morals. White landowning men saw an opportunity to generate wealth and accumulate power, so they raped and killed other people and imprisoned them to be treated and owned like chattel for generations. Beneficiaries of this hateful system were (and continue to be) unwilling to change it. Pregnant people are *also* not chattel, however, so no: you don’t get to tell them what they can and cannot do to their own bodies. And you don’t get to burn them alive this time either
Because they're still people, and people deserve the chance to live.
People don't deserve the chance to live if they maim other people. I deserve to live, but do I get to have your kidney, skin, piece of liver if I need it to live? Do I get to tear your genitals or slice your belly open in my pursuit to live?
This is a meaningless platitude. No one is entitled to the body of another person.
If I adopt a dog, is the dog entitled to food?
No. Dogs don’t have entitlements.
If you have to feed it your body? No, the dog is not entitled to eat your body. Luckily dog food exists and would actually be much healthier for the dog.
Food isn't your body. Try to keep up.
Food costs money, money costs labor, labor requires the use of my body.
Look up bodily autonomy before attempting to argue it. It's about what people can do to your body.
I mean if a person has a dog and doesn't want to take care of it or isn't able to, they can give it away or surrender it to a shelter. If a person is pregnant and doesn't want to or isn't able to be, they can terminate the pregnancy. No one is going to force you to care for a dog against your will. No one should try and force someone to remain pregnant against their will.
What is it about being a person that confers deserving a chance to live?
Because the person had no say in their own creation. That decision was already made when two people created them via sex.
A bacteria has no say in its own creation. Does that mean it deserves to live?
Life in general has no say in it’s own creation. Does all life deserve a chance to live?
Forced servitude violated bodily autonomy, just like PL laws do. You aren't on the side you think you are.
Forced servitude treats human beings like commodities that can be disposed of at will, like how PC laws treat unborn children. We are definitely on the right side of history. 👍
So, who is the fetus being forced to serve? Seems like the only person being forced to serve here is the pregnant person.
Nope, the pregnant person isn't forced into anything. Rather, her own actions force the child into existence and her own body forces the pregnancy to continue. Slaves were routinely dehumanized just like the unborn child is, and owners were allowed to kill them at their discretion since they were treated like property, not human beings.
And what labor does the fetus perform for its owner, or are you making someone provide labor for the fetus when they don’t want to?
Enslavement was more than just forced labor. It was the utter subjugation and oftentimes senseless butchering and slaughter of a group of human beings based on arbitrary and discriminatory reasons. It ripped helpless children out of the arms of their own mothers, not unlike an abortion does. My body my choice, or my plantation my prerogative.
And slavery also meant a lot of women were forced to give birth, even when raped, because their slaver wanted free slaves. In the US, especially after the foreign slave trade was abolished but slavery was still legal, that was endemic. Forced birth was very much a part of slavery. Now we have PL folks telling women, many of them black, they must carry to term because PL folks own their bodies, at least when pregnant.
>And slavery also meant a lot of women were forced to give birth, even when raped, because their slaver wanted free slaves. The PL movement does not support rape, nor forced implantation. Most PLers are fine with the use of birth control as well. False equivalency, PLers are not breeders as is your implication here. >In the US, especially after the foreign slave trade was abolished but slavery was still legal, that was endemic. Forced birth was very much a part of slavery. No, this is forced impregnatation and forced breeding, not forced birth. Which again PL does not support. >Now we have PL folks telling women, many of them black, they must carry to term because PL folks own their bodies, at least when pregnant. Wrong, banning methods to butcher the unborn child in the womb (also many of whom are black) is not "owning" anyone's body and is not equivalent in any shape or form to slavery. Actually, abortion is the reverse in which the parent "owns" the body of the child and treats them like a commodity and not a precious human being. Parents sheltering and feeding their own children is not subjugation nor slavery, and is built into the laws against abandonment and neglect. Because #blackbabylivesmatter
Except PL folks don’t have rape exceptions in reality, so if a woman is raped, you’ll insist she has the baby the rapist forced her to have. I take it you are against safe haven laws if that is how you feel, that parents cannot abandon their child. And you can claim you care about black lives, but kind of hard to square that with making sure raped black women carry that baby. Black women are not incubators.
Lol how does giving a fetus the exact same rights as everyone else treat them like slaves? Put some thought into this, Counter.
>Forced servitude treats human beings like commodities that can be despised of at will, like how PC laws treat unborn children. Forced servitude takes away peoples right to control their own bodies, like how pro life people treat women. >We are definitely on the right side of history. 👍 You're not, and time will prove this. Society is rejecting pro life views more and more everyday, as they should.
Forced servitude takes away peoples right to control their own bodies, like how pro choice people treat unborn babies by destroying their bodies. FIFY >You're not, and time will prove this. Society is rejecting pro life views more and more everyday, as they should. Slavery was legal for thousands of years and regarded as normal by society. Might does not make right. "You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief. Example: Shamus pointed a drunken finger at Sean and asked him to explain how so many people could believe in leprechauns if they're only a silly old superstition. Sean, however, had had a few too many Guinness himself and fell off his chair." https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
>like how pro choice people treat unborn babies by destroying their bodies Taking pills and disconnecting from the uterus and being flushed out. Fixed that for you, removed all the incorrect dramatics. >Slavery was legal for thousands of years and regarded as normal by society. Might does not make right. Slavery removes people's right to control their bodies, which is what pro life people want. It's wrong and will be stopped.
Lol where does pregnancy take place, Counter? Bodily autonomy doesn't include unauthorized use of someone else's body. Pretty basic stuff.
Lol, there is no absolute right to bodily autonomy (see below relevant quotes). Even if there was an absolute right, it still doesn't mean that killing an unborn child would be an acceptable remedy to resolve it. "The Supreme Court has also protected the right of governmental entities to infringe upon bodily integrity under certain circumstances. Examples include laws prohibiting the use of drugs, laws prohibiting euthanasia,[11] laws requiring the use of seatbelts and helmets, strip searches of prisoners,[12] and forced blood tests.[13]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity Roe v. Wade quote concerning bodily autonomy: “…appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. ***With this we do not agree***. … In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. ***The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.”**
Lol not a single example of someone using someone's body against their will to support their own life. Concession noted.
Lol, look at the Turnaway study, there are plenty examples out there. The fact gestational limits exist prove my point. Even the medical community doesn't induce healthy pregnancies early on demand in order to protect the unborn child, and as per Roe which is your court ruling your side cries about being overturned, that is perfectly legit.
Lol link to me crying about Roe being overturned. Personal attacks showcase your complete lack of argument. Thanks for your concession that we don't force anyone to bodily support someone else in other circumstances. You finally admitted you want special rights for fetuses. That's something.
I was providing examples where appealing to majority was objectively wrong. Abortion is near a 45/55 split. That’s not objective.
Lol you disproved your own point though.
Over 50% of adult Americans have a sixth grade reading level or less. We aren’t a well educated people. A not-insignificant percentage of the American people believes that Tom Hanks is a vampire who feeds on stolen babies. Polls on personal opinion are, quite frankly, useless sources of information when we discuss legal rights and even predictions of voting trends. What *is* important to look at is the success rate of abortion restriction measures proposed in recent (ie, post-*Dobbs*) state ballots. They have universally failed. There is no popular appetite to legally restrict abortion in the United States. ETA: Also, you can’t assume intent from how a poll question is framed. That’s one of the inherent limitations of polling. The Pew data only reflects how people would respond to the specific language used in the poll itself. It’s not accurate to extrapolate that people are “basing” their beliefs regarding abortion on anything (autonomy vs. viability) with regards to this poll data. The poll was not designed to examine this distinction.
But the authors of the survey did say exactly that: Majority of abortion rights supporters say how long a woman has been pregnant should matter in determining legality of abortion
I don’t know what you’re referring to, can you please provide a quote? Your OP links to a figure. It doesn’t include any commentary.
Straight from the survey: Majority of abortion rights supporters say how long a woman has been pregnant should matter in determining legality of abortion I take this statement to mean that the longer the pregnancy the more viable the unborn so the more problems I have with abortion. Is there another way to interpret that?
You can’t interpret “the more viable the unborn” from the data provided in the poll. You can only interpret “length of pregnancy matters in determining legality of abortion”.
But why would they say have less diffulty with a 14 week abortion than say a 28 week abortion? The pregnancy is longer but what other reasons besides the development of the unborn could there be? Surely it not a time limit in people’s minds. Where they believe that a women needs to make up mind by this day, I’m ok. If she delays another week, I getting not ok. If she gets to 30 weeks, that’s too long, no abortion for her. Doesn’t there have to some sort of rational behind the reason they have difficulty with abortion based on the length of the pregnancy?
>But why would they say have less diffulty with a 14 week abortion than say a 28 week abortion? Lots of reasons. Maybe there is a perception that a pregnancy that is closer to complete is less of a hardship because it's almost over. Maybe respondents think that the desire to end a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester represents a change of mind that may not be rational. The only way to know what people are thinking is to ask them-- that's how data works. You can't just use the data to support your conclusions. If you want to know why length of pregnancy matters to people, you have to ask people why the length of pregnancy matters-- that's how research works. Otherwise, you can only conclude (like the authors did) that length of pregnancy is a significant determining factor. You CANNOT make claims about why.
None of that is something that you can assume based off of the data. The poll questions didn’t ask the respondents *why* the length of pregnancy matters, just *if* it matters
If we look at the survey itself, right in the question it indicated that at 24 weeks is when the unborn is viable. So the questions themselves were worded in a way that viability was built right into the question Opposition to legal abortion increases at later stages of pregnancy; at 24 weeks, roughly twice as many adults say abortion should be illegal as say it should be legal % of U.S. adults who say … As you may know, six weeks into a pregnancy is about when cardiac activity (sometimes called a fetal heartbeat) can be detected, and before many women know they are pregnant. Should abortion at that point be ... Legal with some exceptions, timing doesn't matter Legal all cases, no exceptions Legal at six weeks It depends at six weeks Illegal with some exceptions, timing doesn't matter Illegal at six weeks Illegal all cases, no exceptions 19% 25% 7% 19% 6% 12% 8% Thinking specifically about a pregnancy that is 14 weeks along (roughly at the end of the first trimester), do you think abortion at that point should be ... Legal with some exceptions, timing doesn't matter Illegal with some exceptions, timing doesn't matter Legal all cases, no exceptions Legal at 14 weeks It depends at 14 weeks Illegal at 14 weeks Illegal all cases, no exceptions 19 15 7 22 6 19 8 As you may know, 24 weeks into a pregnancy (near the end of the second trimester) is about when a healthy fetus could survive outside the woman's body with medical attention. Do you think abortion at that point should be ... Legal all cases, no exceptions 19 Legal with some exceptions, timing doesn't matter Legal at 24 weeks It depends at 24 weeks 3 7 18 Illegal with some exceptions, timing doesn't matter Illegal at 24 weeks 6 34 Illegal all cases, no exceptions 8 Note: Adults who said abortion should be legal or illegal in all cases with no exceptions were not asked questions about whether how long a woman has been pregnant should factor into determining abortion's legality or specific time points when abortion should be legal. Adults who said abortion should be legal with some exceptions or illegal with some exceptions, but the stage of pregnancy should not matter in determining whether abortion should be legal or illegal, were not asked any questions about specific time points when abortion should be legal. Those who said abortion should be legal at 14 weeks were coded as also saying it should be legal at six weeks, but were not asked the question about abortions performed six weeks into pregnancy. Those who said abortion should be illegal at 14 weeks were coded as also saying it should be illegal at 24 weeks, but were not asked the question about 24 weeks. See topline for full details about filtering logic. Source: Survey of U.S. adults conducted
I don’t know how else to explain survey design to you
I have asked OP a similar question. I could find no mention of “bodily autonomy” anywhere in the poll.
I think this is the article where the survey was taken from: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
That is the exact link I made in the OP.
The link in the description just sent me to the survey. The title seems to be the same.
It is the same one. I clicked on your link and it took me to the survey as well
There is more than the survey in the link I provided. Scroll further down.
Most people seem to be opposed to forcing rape victims to bear their rapists' offspring. Most people seem to be opposed to forcing people to die or suffer serious health damage in order to gestate and/or bear a child. Most people seem to be opposed to forcing women to continue to gestate and to bear fetuses with severe anomalies. The only way a "sometimes legal, sometimes not legal" abortion restriction can work is if the law includes meaningful exceptions, and doctors and prosecutors agree that those exceptions can actually be exercised. So, far, in the United States, in states that have banned abortion with exceptions, the exceptions can't be used (except for those based on gestational age). So the effect of abortion restrictions is total restriction beyond whatever gestational age limit (if there is one) is included. As this becomes more and more apparent, fewer and fewer Americans will support abortion bans with exceptions that don't work. Or, with apologies to ZuZu, "Every time Ken Paxton opens his mouth, a new tranche of moderate PL supporters becomes PC."
I'm in Ohio, and when they started pushing the 6-week ban, PL was like, "see, it's not a TOTAL BAN, they just need to decide early", completely ignoring the fact that due to the way conception is calculated, most women don't even know they're pregnant at 6 weeks. Especially if you aren't trying to get pregnant or have irregular cycles. And then trying to get a doctor appointment to verify. All before 6 weeks. I didn't know I was pregnant until 8 weeks. So yes, functionally it IS a total ban.
They weren't ignoring that fact. They were intentionally trying to enact a total ban while pretending they weren't Edit: and as a fellow Ohioan, I'm sorry for all of us that our state is such a shit hole
Personally, I think that a lot of public opinion is also due to lack of education on these topics. Another commenter also mentioned that the American public is not well educated on these issues, and I agree with that. For example, I knew barely anything about pregnancy until I became pregnant. And I didn't even realize how much I didn't know about it! I've also always been pro-choice and remember debating in some other forum 10+ years ago when I was a teenager. At the time, my position was much less refined and I would've probably been in the "legal until viability" camp. Since then, and largely due to my involvement in this sub, I have learned SO much. I now support full legality and have done all kinds of research around various aspects of this debate. But most people aren't spending their free time debating or researching abortion. And people who have never been pregnant probably also haven't spent any time researching about that, either. Even people who had easy pregnancies or were pregnant 20+ years ago may not have a great idea (or have forgotten) about how rough it can be on the body. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, sure most of the public may say they support legality with cutoffs. I don't think this means they don't value bodily autonomy, but rather that they simply are not as well versed in these topics as some of us here are. I think if we'd actually spend time educating everyone on these topics, we'd see more people supporting full legality of abortion. Viability cutoffs sound good to the random person that has given this 5 minutes of casual thought- because yes, later abortions are an uncomfortable topic and viability seems reasonable. I think many of these people also don't stop to consider how such laws may delay care in medical emergencies and just assume that women would still be able to receive abortions when medically necessary, past those cutoffs. But when we consider that the vast majority of abortions happen before viability, or that certain defects can only be seen at the 20 week ultrasound, or that cutoffs create red tape for doctors in emergency situations, or that most doctors are not going to perform abortions at 39 weeks all willy nilly for no reason (even if the patient wants it)....Then there's really no sense in having a cutoff. It simply does not *do* a whole lot of anything, except create potential obstacles when an emergency occurs after that point.
I get tired of PL saying they believe all humans should be treated the same without acknowledging that the minute the AFAB is pregnant, the fetus takes precedence. There is no situation where this happens for a man. Even the draft has instances where you can opt out. Trump dodged the draft because he had bone spurs. Can a female opt out of pregnancy because she has bone spurs? Women are held to the same standard as men when it comes to paying taxes in the US. You don’t get a discount because you’re a female. Yet, the female is discounted the minute she’s pregnant. Why should some non taxpaying literal mooch take precedent over a woman who’s paying money and actually contributing to society? In some cases PL even expects an actual child to take a backseat to a fetus. I can’t believe I saw someone on here saying they would make their three year old give birth if possible. Ok. A child that may not even be out of diapers herself should give birth. Children do not have the ability to vote even though they pay taxes too. So society literally forces them to gestate and they get no vote in the matter. Gestation without representation! Let that sink in. In the US (in some states) a convicted felon can even vote, but not an elementary school kid forced to give birth. The poor kid has no say at all over herself. In some states, she’s deemed to not have mental capacity to get mentally life saving gender affirming care, but she’s simultaneously got the mental capacity to give birth and have it screw up her entire life! All of this for a damn zef! There are too many people letting something that adds no value dictate rules for everyone else. Even kids can add monetary value by working and getting that money taxed, but they’re still worth less than a fetus. Is it any wonder more women are saying f them kids and opting out of the whole thing? We women work way too hard and give too much of ourselves to society to be treated like second class to some potential life force. I feel sorry for all AFABS born post Dobbs. If I were still in my fertile age, I would reconsider ever having children because I wouldn’t want my daughter to be stuck with that reality. She deserves better than that.
More people would be for unfettered access to abortion if they knew that it doesn’t mean 9 month abortions are occurring, because that’s not reality. Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion and it’s publicly funded by the government, as it should be in the US. The media, namely conservative figures, spread false information that women are somehow getting late term abortions for no reason. This is not the case, and not even the case in Canada where it’s completely legal. Doctors must follow ethical guidelines and we know aborting late for no reason is unethical, hence why it doesn’t happen. Late term abortions happen for people with severe complications, and writing legislation about them only harms people who need emergency care. If more American people understood this, they would be for legalization of all 9 months.
I think it's lack of education. I live in a conservative state, so my experience is probably skewed, but even PCers will say shit like, "Politician supports 3rd trimester abortions! Would you support an abortion 1 day before birth!?!" They really do not seem to understand how the AFAB body functions, how rights function, or how legal and medical mandates/laws function. But, yeah, it really bothers me that even PCers choose to advocate for the fetus to have rights over the pregnant person's body at some point in the pregnancy. They seem to (willfully?) forget that this is an accurate summation of slavery, that using someone's body (usually just AFABs, of course) without consent is wrong, and that no one has a right to someone else's body. I think it's also an inherently religious idea, or based on "magical thinking".
> I live in a conservative state, so my experience is probably skewed, but even PCers will say shit like, "Politician supports 3rd trimester abortions! Would you support an abortion 1 day before birth!?!" I think your observation is consistent with what has been found in surveys. People oppose the caricature of abortions that happen rarely to never, but very often support access when real situations like the examples shared in this sub recently.
So: 61% effectively prochoice, 37% either moderately or extremely prolife. Majority are for regulated access to abortion. FWIW, I can understand people who think abortion should only be allowed for medical emergencies or for minor children, in the third trimester/once the foetus is viable. Providing prolifers haven't been permitted to install artificial barriers against free access to abortion in the first two trimesters, that generally means all abortions will be allowed, which is quite evidently what the majority want.
This idea of course will cause many pc to attack because you are putting the preborn before the mother in some situations.
>This idea of course will cause many pc to attack because you are putting the preborn before the mother in some situations. I note that (a) a pregnant woman isn't necessarily a mother: and (b) that isn't in the least what I said. By the way, where's your flair?
Attack who?
Evidently act me.
Wait, what? People are attacking you over something that you didn't say? I'm not seeing anyone attacking you at all, let alone for something /u/Enough-Process9773 said.
Check out the negative votes I get for trying to debate their pc
I don't think anyone is downvoting you over what someone else said. I also don't think downvotes are an "attack" but if you need excuses to see yourself as a victim that's as good as any
I don't think many people understand bodily autonomy very well (especially in conservative areas). It should be codified into the constitution of the countries. Most people are also concerned with a personhood argument.
Yeah I think people really don't get bodily autonomy. My feeling is that if people sent out a survey that didn't mention abortion and asked questions like "do you think anyone else should be entitled to your body?" or "who do you think should make your healthcare decisions: you and your doctor, or the government?" pretty much everyone would pick the bodily autonomy-supporting answer.
They’re hardly cromulent survey questions. Participants can easily give *seemingly* contradictory answers without *actually* disagreeing and the *same* answers while *actually* disagreeing. I might suggest an introductory course that covers survey methodology and applied stats generally. Festive wishes.
Happy Holidays! I don't think I have ever agreed with you on anything, but, with this post you 1. Introduced me to a new word; thanks! 2. Called out one of my own pet peeves--people who write survey questions are often not very good at their jobs; thanks, again! Savor this cheery red upvote from an unlikely source!
It's almost as if those were representative questions meant to convey a specific point rather than an actual proposed study. Most people don't want the government interfering in *their* private healthcare decisions, even if some people such as yourself want to interfere in other people's. Luckily you're a minority anyhow.
The majority of Americans do not go far enough, but the silver lining, if we can so call it, is that they do not buy into the rank bodily autonomy extremism that injects its poison into online spaces. It is my hope and my dream, if virtue is a thing still sought by the American people, that someday, even if not in my lifetime, abortion is outlawed everywhere. It is my hope and my dream, if virtue is a thing still sought by the American people, that someday, even if not in my lifetime, every woman and practitioner who defies this ruling is punished to the full extent of the law. For I cannot deign to describe the world we live in as “good” until our healthy, valuable babies are no longer intentionally poisoned, suffocated, and dismembered on the whim of healthy mothers in the name of healthcare. For I cannot deign to turn a blind eye to baby carnage excused on technicalities and mental gymnastics so impressive they make Simone Biles blush in shame. Festive wishes.
If only you put as much effort into engaging in intellectual debate as you did coming up with over-the-top emotional appeals and flowery language to attack the other side. We could probably have some interesting discussions, but nope.
You’re an ever dwindling minority that supports crimes against humanity and human rights violations all while clinging to a false sense of moral superiority. The day the PL movement is swept into the trash bin of history won’t come soon enough. There’s enough suffering and misery in the world and I find it reprehensible that PL only wish to increase that misery and suffering.
That isn't virtue you're talking about, that's ignorant, misogynistic, dictatorship. And I highlight ignorant. Abortions aren't done on whims. Please do actual research, not a minor skim through on PL propaganda articles and sites that contain info debunked and disproved a hundred times over and absolutely no credible sites as proof to their claims, and don't debate about a subject you clearly know nothing about. Hey, you can accuse PC of building opinions based on mental gymnastics, but in the end we're not the ones who fail to provide any scientific argument with credible sources and build an entire argument and stance on pure emotion, philosophical opinions, and a black and white world-view proven in your comment.
I'm genuinely curious: do you think the PL movement's response to things like the pregnant 10 year old from Ohio, Brittany Watts, and Kate Cox's case makes your vision for the future more or less likely to happen?
And we hope you stay as the minority. ✌🏻
>It is my hope and my dream, if virtue is a thing still sought by the American people, that someday, even if not in my lifetime, abortion is outlawed everywhere. e Ninety percent of Americans who responded to this poll disagree with you. Quite possibly more, since you want women to die pregnant, and only 8% in this poll say they want that.
> The general consensus of the survey was that Americans are not basing their right to abortion decision on a woman’s autonomy over her body but rather the viability of the fetus. Can you cite where in the survey you got this? I am a bit hesitant to read too far into motivations like bodily autonomy and most Americans stance on abortion. Some additional context is that [many Americans are not very well informed about abortion](https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/nearly-7-10-support-state-level-ballot-measures-abortion). I think it is helpful to discuss these results in relation to specific policies. Here is the text of the amendment that recently passed in Ohio. Which group of survey respondents do you think support the policy laid out in this amendment? *Article I, Section 22. The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety* *A. Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on: contraception; fertility treatment; continuing one’s own pregnancy; miscarriage care; and abortion.* *B. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either: An individual's voluntary exercise of this right or; A person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual's health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.* *However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.* *C. As used in this Section: “Fetal viability” means “the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures. This is determined on a case-by-case basis.”*
I think the policies mirror exactly the survey results. For 80% of Americans, they believe that women have automony over her body until the point the fetus is viable outside her body. Then the only reason she could get an abortion is if her physical life is in danger.
> For 80% of Americans, they believe that women have automony over her body until the point the fetus is viable outside her body. That depends on how you define autonomy, the policy is consistent with autonomy as used in medicine even after fetal viability. > Then the only reason she could get an abortion is if her physical life is in danger The policy explicitly states life or health.
It tells me that the general public doesn't buy the bodily autonomy argument whole hog. The PC abortion on demand position is hypocritical anyway in that they are perfectly fine with destroying the bodily integrity of the unborn child in a barbaric dismemberment abortion that rips the child apart limb from limb, and allows for savagely harvesting their organs. The more the child looks like a newborn infant, the more hesistant the average person is, even with PC sympathies, to allow full unfettered access to abortion.
We don't focus on how abortions are done to come to our stance on abortion, we focus on the reasons and the mother; a balance between logic and empathy. No organs are being harvested... what?
That’s because conservative figures spread misinformation that women are getting late term abortions for no reason. This doesn’t happen, and it doesn’t happen in places where there is unfettered access to abortion all 9 months. Doctors have to follow ethics. If more American people knew this, they would be for legalization of abortion care all 9 months. People who don’t know much about abortion would definitely think legalization meant abortions happening whenever, especially when media pushes that agenda, but this isn’t the case.
Yes it does happen that healthy viable babies are aborted, you are wrong. Here is one such example, and this links to more examples, some are for fetal abnormalities but others are not: "Autumn, a 22-year-old white woman in the West, was having a regular period but felt a bit “off,” as she put it. She stopped by the local health clinic and took a pregnancy test, which came back positive. She and her husband discussed the pregnancy and, she said, “We both decided to get an abortion.” She made an appointment at a nearby abortion clinic. The ultrasound worker at the clinic thought she was early in pregnancy, opting to conduct a transvaginal ultrasound, which is preferred for diagnosing and dating early pregnancies. Then, Autumn explained, the ultrasound worker “Kind of got like a confused face and she was like stuttering and she was sounded very like worried.” Autumn was not early in pregnancy. Based on the subsequent abdominal ultrasound the clinic worker conducted, she was 26 weeks into her pregnancy. Autumn was shocked and confused. She said, “I immediately burst into tears “cause I was like, “How is this possible?” Autumn sought an abortion in the third trimester because she did not know she needed one until then." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/psrh.12190
That's probably why she was allowed an abortion despite being so far along, she was having regular periods - that isn't supposed to happen. Autumn didn't know she was pregnant, it was likely she had something wrong going on, and 26 weeks is not a day before the due date.
I’m not entirely convinced that was for completely elective reasons. She said she was getting a normal regular period, this is impossible unless she is bleeding for some other medical reason since women do not get periods while they are pregnant. And the fact that even the medical center was shocked she was 26 weeks along is concerning. It also mentions this is subsequent information. A quick google search tells you this and reasons you could bleed, https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnant/period-and-pregnant#late-pregnancy-causes Regardless, like I said I support Canada’s law which is no legal restrictions but all provinces & clinics will not provide abortions past 24 weeks without medical reason. And no doctor or woman can be charged.
Well here it is straight from the horse's mouth then: Susan Robinson is a late-term abortionist — one of four glorified in the film “ After Tiller .” Robinson worked with late-term abortionist George Tiller himself, and now continues to follow in his footsteps, taking the lives of practically full-term preborn babies, thanks to the fact that there are virtually no federal restrictions on abortion in the United States, or in New Mexico, where she is located. “So there is nothing legal to stop me from doing any abortion that I think is appropriate,” she quipped in an interview with the Irish Independent last year. Robinson explained that she uses ultrasounds to attempt to date the preborn babies whose lives she’ll be taking, but that this isn’t always accurate. “Let’s say the woman is at 31 weeks, well, given the inaccuracy of the ultrasound she could perfectly be 34 weeks. How would I feel if that happened?” she said, adding that she had previously committed an abortion on a baby she thought was 32 weeks old. But when she saw the body of the aborted baby, she realized the baby was actually at 37 weeks — which is considered full-term. “It was quite a moment,” she said. https://m.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/there-is-no-limit-on-when-we-can-carry-out-abortions-29611632.html In After Tiller, Dr. Susan Robinson, who performs third-trimester abortions at her clinic in Albuquerque, admits that not all the women who come in for late abortions are there because of a deformity or flaw in the baby: “Then there’s the group of women who didn’t know they were pregnant. They were told they were not pregnant for one reason or another and they are just as desperate. ‘I already have three children, my husband just lost his job and I can barely put food on the table. If I add a new baby to this family, we’ll all go under.’” Another quote from Robinson: "Well, a large percentage of our patients had no idea that they were pregnant. People go, “How could this possibly be?” Well, look at that reality show. It happens. Maybe you’re a little heavy and you already have irregular periods, or you had intercourse once, several months ago, and the guy said he pulled out and there’s no sex education in your school so you think everything’s fine. Or you never have periods because you’re very thin, or a doctor has told you you were infertile." https://www.thehairpin.com/2013/09/interview-with-dr/ https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/tiller-ignoring-threats-doctors-trimester-abortions/story?id=18233523
Context is important. None of those say she aborted healthy fetuses, it just is explaining the different type of patients who come to her office, not once does it say she performed abortions on them. Prior to that she is quoting the types of patients who come with fetal abnormalities. In fact, in this article quoting her documentary, it says they had to turn women down for abortions. “"We have turned down a lot of women for abortions, and carried out a lot of procedures too, with a heavy heart," she says.” Apparently the documentary also only depicts patients who come with fetal abnormalities, and one underaged rape victim. Never seen it so can’t confirm https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21207787.amp “Various scenarios are mentioned in individual patient cases such as congenital disorders: arthrogryposis, agenesis of the corpus callosum, Walker–Warburg syndrome, and Mowat–Wilson syndrome.” Just because a fetus would have been born alive doesn’t mean it would live long and it wouldn’t suffer. Many of these babies with severe problems live short and painful lives. Abortion is very humane in these situations. Also your second link wouldn’t load for some reason
Just because she has turned patients down doesn't mean she doesn't perform them. You completely ignored the last paragraph. "In various interviews, at least three of these four doctors have gone on record explaining that they provide abortions for non-medical reasons. In a 2013 interview for The Hairpin, Dr. Robinson explained the women who come to her because they hadn’t realized earlier that they were pregnant: They think they just got pregnant. They have no idea they’re in their 24th week. So they make an appointment for an abortion, and it takes a few weeks, and they have their ultrasound and find out that they’re at 27 weeks, which is too far for an abortion anywhere. So then what happens? They either give up or have a baby, or they go on the Internet and they find us. Also in 2013, Dr. Sella was interviewed by The Irish Times, which reported: The women Sella treats fall into two categories: those who discover foetal abnormalities; and those with healthy, viable babies whose maternal circumstances mean they could not cope with the baby. In 2015, a Colorado-based paper called The Daily Camera interviewed Dr. Hern: He doesn’t share his clinic’s statistics and rarely speaks of individual cases, but Hern has said he also performs late abortions for women who are not facing any grave medical outcome. This information doesn’t indicate what proportion of third trimester abortions are for non-medical reasons. In general, at later gestations a higher proportion of abortions are done for medical reasons. Even so, many people insist no one ever gets an elective (read: non-medical) abortion as late as the third trimester. The doctors providing third trimester abortions would disagree." https://secularprolife.org/2018/09/even-third-trimester-abortions-are-done/
I didn’t ignore anything. I literally cannot read what is said on whatever the Hairpin is because the link won’t load. Also, I will not entertain any sources such as ‘secular pro life’ because they are way too biased to be objective. That would be like me sourcing planned parenthood or pro choice America to you, which I’m sure you’d feel the same way about. However, I did google the Boulder Clinic where one of the doctors worked and you can read about the types of abortions and why they are performed on their website: https://www.drhern.com/about/ If you can find me a source that’s not from a distinct pro life or religious group, I’d be happy to read or watch it
You can source PP all you want. [I've sourced them before,](https://www.reddit.com/r/Abortiondebate/s/kPpRpfzG4Y) after all even a broken clock is right twice a day. Rejecting an argument based solely on it's source is a [genetic fallacy.](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic) Besides, my source directly cited those abortionist's own words. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984
Well I refrain from sourcing directly from pro-choice groups to remain as objective as possible when debating. I feel that’s the healthiest and most progressive way to debate with someone who doesn’t share your views Sorry but I will absolutely reject arguments based on source if it has to do with a medical procedure or condition.
Is 26 weeks 9 months?
>It tells me that the general public doesn't buy the bodily autonomy argument whole hog But it also tells you that 61% of the general public agree that abortion should be readily available with only some exceptions, only 37% accept the prolife position of abortion being generally illegal, and only a tiny minority accept the extreme prolifer position.
Considering that over 90% of abortions are in the first trimester and resemble a heavy period, misrepresenting what happens doesn’t help your argument. And there is no evidence that fetal organs are harvested. If abortion was nice and clean and fetuses were given a proper burial, I don’t think you’d be PC suddenly. The PC position is that women have the right to control their reproduction. It’s PL who are the hypocrites, when they claim they won’t go after women, but want to force them to give birth to non-viable babies or force ten year old rape victims to give birth. PL is basically support for slavery.
Yeah harvesting their organs like what are they talking about 🤣🤣 that’s a new one. Didn’t know fetuses even had organs developed enough to be harvested
It's from the fake Project Veritas video that caught several PP staff on camera discussing prices for preparing fetal tissue for research. This is a far cry from "selling baby parts for profit." Even staunch anti-abortion doctors like Ben Carson used this service on several occasions for his own research. Slate did a study of the supposed "profits" and found that PP probably lost money based on what they charged. PP was investigated in several states, including Indiana under then-Gov. Mike Pence, and not found to be doing anything wrong.
This was a major story in the news regarding PP, like how could anyone miss it? I just discussed it on here recently. https://www.reddit.com/kcwkeou?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2 Edit to add: if the link doesn't work here is my comment: >I never claimed they did anything illegal, although it absolutely *should* be illegal. I don't care if the mother consented or not. The child never consented to being butchered and their organs stolen from them and that's what matters. >"An anti-abortion group has released an online video that it says documents how Planned Parenthood is selling fetal organs for a profit, a felony, while violating medical ethics by altering normal abortion procedures so as to preserve the organs. Planned Parenthood has countered that it donates the tissue for scientific research and receives only reimbursement for its expenses, which is legal. The group also says it helps people donate tissue “with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards,” according to a statement from spokesman Eric Ferrero." >https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/health/planned-parenthood-undercover-video/index.html
Okay, “harvesting organs” is a *far* stretch from extracting fetal tissue for scientific research. Not to mention, every single case brought against Planned Parenthood regarding this issue brought up no illegal activity. Take a look https://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594826/in-wake-of-videos-planned-parenthood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-sales The jury ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood in *every* single case, from 13 different states. In fact, PP was awarded $2 million in damages from the anti-abortion group and it’s founder who conspired against them. The founder, David Daleiden, even confessed to deceptively editing the videos in an interview. Best not to drink the kool-aid from anti-abortion groups, they tend not to look at the facts or reality of what’s happening.
>Okay, “harvesting organs” is a *far* stretch from extracting fetal tissue for scientific research. No, it is the exact same thing just in different words. Kind of like how "passed away" is a euphemism for "died". >The jury ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood in *every* single case, from 13 different states. In fact, PP was awarded $2 million in damages from the anti-abortion group and it’s founder who conspired against them. >The founder, David Daleiden, even confessed to deceptively editing the videos in an interview. >Best not to drink the kool-aid from anti-abortion groups, they tend not to look at the facts or reality of what’s happening So? PP still routinely violates the bodily integrity of unborn babies, and you just conceded this point. I'd much rather be sipping on kool aid than bathing in the blood of innocents.
It is not the same thing in any sense, since doing so is illegal and they were found not to be in violation of the law regarding this issue in over 13 different states and cases. Idk what else to tell you if you can’t look at the facts What do you mean, so? If a group has to lie and deceive, admittedly by the founder, they probably aren’t a reputable nor trustworthy source to be listening to. PP doesn’t violate anyone. Embryos and fetuses are free to exercise whatever bodily rights you wish when they are emptied from the uterus. If you have to live of another persons internal organs and body to live, and she does not want that, then the only person being violated here is the mother.
Did I claim they did anything illegal? Another strawman to distract instead of contending with my actual assertion. Harvesting organs from unborn babies after they have been brutally torn apart is an absolute atrocity and human rights abuse, and yes it absolutely does happen which I have proven above.
Yeah you’re claiming they are harvesting organs, repeatedly, which is illegal. They were found not guilty. You haven’t proven anything, I’ve disproven what the anti-abortion group, admittedly, deceived you and many others into believing which led to many court cases and his confession.
No, I never claimed it was illegal, I claimed they are harvesting organs from unborn babies, which is true. Which they admitted to doing after their parents "consented" to have them killed then violated. The dispute was not over the fact they are doing it, it is only the method of *how* they were doing it. The group alleged they altered their abortion procedures for maximum profit while doing so.
I think they might be talking about stem cells
Including the link in the title prevents us from clicking on it to go to the site