New Abortion Law Wave

[zomborg]

Either way we're essentially divided across the same lines, as I find it morally repugnant to force a woman to birth a rape or incest baby. Same deal with forcing women to birth children that they don't have the means to care for.

Of course, these are personal morals, and I feel like the pro-life crowd too often hides behind religious morals. When in fact, neither version of the Christian bible states that abortion is a sin, and the old testament actually has a 'how-to' guide for performing abortions.

Really? That sounds like the ramblings of an insane person.
Proof? Where does God's word teach how to perform abortions?

 

[bandithedoge]

Can't you just go to an abortion clinic in another state/country and come back?

Also, holy shit, is this the first time Trump said something that makes sense?

 

[FAST6191]

Can't you just go to an abortion clinic in another state/country and come back?

Depends where you are and what you have to play with. Some states are pretty big, and they often clump together in ideology too* (see all the various terms with belt in them, most notably here probably being the bible belt), so it is less of a drop the kids off somewhere, go to a clinic and drop $100 as much as marathon trip to another state (US public transport also sucks at the interstate/intercity level), possibly do a return visit in some cases (some US states/counties/whatever have cooling off periods and mandatory counselling, usually 24 hours compared to some longer ones elsewhere in the world but that then means overnight somewhere, and more fun if you already have kids already). If you don't have insurance, or your insurance will not cover it, then it also costs there depending upon time (earlier ones being cheaper but can still land you $500, move into surgical procedures and $2000 is not unheard of).


If your Poland flag is accurate and you were thinking more the fun and games people were having there the other year where the hopped across the border for a chemical setup, or had the pills tied to balloons, then you are vastly underestimating the distances involved.

*maps (imagine being in Louisiana, the small one east of Texas and on the Mexican border if you are unfamiliar with state locations, like most of the south it is not a particularly rich place either -- the passport ownership levels probably doing best to attest there, slightly different now flights are harder to do without it and you can't get into and back from Mexico I don't think on just a driving license any more)

 

[cots]

Can't you just go to an abortion clinic in another state/country and come back?

Also, holy shit, is this the first time Trump said something that makes sense?

Yeah, you can go to another state and have one. I had a relative that slept around and had an abortion to hide the fact she slept around from her husband. She had to go to another state than the one she resided in to get the abortion. What she did troubled her for the rest of her life and rightfully so - murder is murder is murder no matter how you try to justify it.

Trump says a lot of things that make a lot of sense and has done a lot of things that have really helped the country, but he also says a lot of things that don't make much sense and luckily this is limited to mostly "talk" and doesn't represent itself with negative aspects of how much better things in the USA have gotten since we got rid of the last nut job we had in office. If you haven't noticed yet, most politicians will say whatever the hell they have to say to convince the people, who take them for their word, to get reelected. They are all full of shit.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

At the time, the idea that Jews weren't people was rooted in actual science. Really, really twisted science that sounds incredibly dumb knowing what we know now, but that's the point. I wonder if some genetic breakthrough way outside our imagination will further thin the lines between 'human' and 'embryo'.

It doesn't sound dumb to me. People only look at what is happening today and fail to realize what has happened before and what is likely to happen again. We are being overrun by people who don't know a thing about history or simply chose to ignore it. Bad people use science to justify murder all of the time. Doesn't change the fact that they are bad people nor changes the fact that's it's murder. Science isn't an overall "good" or "right" thing. More people have died in because of science than any other natural disaster in our modern age.

"In the name of science" - says a True Believer. Same lunacy we saw from Christians back in the day. Science, for some, replaces religion. No one knows what the future holds, but if the past is any indication science will be eventually be replaced with something "better". I just hope whatever replaces it involves less senseless baby killing.

 

[bandithedoge]

Depends where you are and what you have to play with. Some states are pretty big, and they often clump together in ideology too* (see all the various terms with belt in them, most notably here probably being the bible belt), so it is less of a drop the kids off somewhere, go to a clinic and drop $100 as much as marathon trip to another state (US public transport also sucks at the interstate/intercity level), possibly do a return visit in some cases (some US states/counties/whatever have cooling off periods and mandatory counselling, usually 24 hours compared to some longer ones elsewhere in the world but that then means overnight somewhere, and more fun if you already have kids already). If you don't have insurance, or your insurance will not cover it, then it also costs there depending upon time (earlier ones being cheaper but can still land you $500, move into surgical procedures and $2000 is not unheard of).


If your Poland flag is accurate and you were thinking more the fun and games people were having there the other year where the hopped across the border for a chemical setup, or had the pills tied to balloons, then you are vastly underestimating the distances involved.

*maps (imagine being in Louisiana, the small one east of Texas and on the Mexican border if you are unfamiliar with state locations, like most of the south it is not a particularly rich place either -- the passport ownership levels probably doing best to attest there, slightly different now flights are harder to do without it and you can't get into and back from Mexico I don't think on just a driving license any more)
View attachment 167993
View attachment 167994
View attachment 167995

I'm not underestimating the distances, I know the US is huge (Texas alone is about the size of Poland). The way I used the word "just" was not to say that it's super simple but that it might be the simplest option to get an abortion without messing with the law.

I'm pretty pro-abortion in specific instances. If they say abortion is murder, at least think of it as self-defense when the mother's life is on the line. Rape is also kinda a valid reason - the baby wasn't planned and it wasn't the mother's fault at all.

I'm open for debate, as long as we keep it civil and don't mindlessly insult each other.

 

[FAST6191]

Yeah, you can go to another state and have one. I had a relative that slept around and had an abortion to hide the fact she slept around from her husband. She had to go to another state than the one she resided in to get the abortion. What she did troubled her for the rest of her life and rightfully so - murder is murder is murder no matter how you try to justify it.

Trump says a lot of things that make a lot of sense and has done a lot of things that have really helped the country, but he also says a lot of things that don't make much sense and luckily this is limited to mostly "talk" and doesn't represent itself with negative aspects of how much better things in the USA have gotten since we got rid of the last nut job we had in office. If you haven't noticed yet, most politicians will say whatever the hell they have to say to convince the people, who take them for their word, to get reelected. They are all full of shit.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



It doesn't sound dumb to me. People only look at what is happening today and fail to realize what has happened before and what is likely to happen again. We are being overrun by people who don't know a thing about history or simply chose to ignore it. Bad people use science to justify murder all of the time. Doesn't change the fact that they are bad people nor changes the fact that's it's murder. Science isn't an overall "good" or "right" thing. More people have died in because of science than any other natural disaster in our modern age.

"In the name of science" - says a True Believer. Same lunacy we saw from Christians back in the day. Science, for some, replaces religion. No one knows what the future holds, but if the past is any indication science will be eventually be replaced with something "better". I just hope whatever replaces it involves less senseless baby killing.

You still seem really attached to this "it is murder" idea and I am still lacking a good basis for why I should consider it as such. I have gone looking, tried asking, and tried contemplating it for myself... still not even close from where I sit. Do you have something I might contemplate as part of this?

The way I used the word "just" was not to say that it's super simple but that it might be the simplest option to get an abortion without messing with the law.

The law of the nation already says it is all good though, and has seemingly been tested at the highest levels and stood for that. That there has to be... might as well use US phrasing and go with end run, around the new law then something has gone wrong somewhere.

 

[bandithedoge]

You still seem really attached to this "it is murder" idea and I am still lacking a good basis for why I should consider it as such. I have gone looking, tried asking, and tried contemplating it for myself... still not even close from where I sit. Do you have something I might contemplate as part of this?



The law of the nation already says it is all good though, and has seemingly been tested at the highest levels and stood for that. That there has to be... might as well use US phrasing and go with end run, around the new law then something has gone wrong somewhere.

I wouldn't say I'm attached to the idea. I don't think it's murder, I was kinda referencing cots's reply.

 

[notimp]

Here are two somewhat provocative concepts you could think about.

People have fought wars based on overpopulation the past. Now if you only factor in people killed - you still could argue "at least more children were saved" - but then its also the psychological effects of wars. Which kind of suck, and also harm everyone - for longer periods.

And in terms of people that loose their lives... Same?

Thats moreso the argument for birth control and abortions on the international stage.


Also - body counts have always been used as a tool for influence. So if you use collective religious motives as a form of 'control' you always tell your people to have as many children as possible. This even is a thing on the international political stage. (And actually in a strange reversal of concepts, something that the far right "fights" in some western countries.)

So "save the babies" is almost always more a "save our culture" argument to begin with. Its inherently political. But save the babies is easier to argue for, these days.

 

[Glyptofane]

Let's be frank about this: abortion is a necessity created by an over-zealous capitalist system. If every pregnant woman was guaranteed the resources she needed to raise her child, the abortion rate would be at/near zero, except in cases of rape or incest. Forcing people who are already below the poverty line to be burdened with a child they can't afford and can't care for properly is just going to make things a lot worse. Basically: if Republicans really cared about lowering the abortion rate, they'd be implementing more social safety nets for mothers who need them. Making it illegal will only result in even more desperation, and back-alley abortions.

Maybe Florida isn't the best example, but I would guess the statistics are similar elsewhere. 90% of abortions are simply for the hell of it (failure to take responsibility/refusal to stop whoring around).

 

[pustal]

Maybe Florida isn't the best example, but I would guess the statistics are similar elsewhere. 90% of abortions are simply for the hell of it (failure to take responsibility/refusal to stop whoring around).

This is what happens when you endotrinate people that contraception doesn't work or simply don't give the contraceptive means to people. You can't stop people from having sex, is part of life. We evolved to the point of being able to control the repercussions, yet schools in the US spread falsehoods while politicians defund it.

whoring around

This is the exact religious fundamentalism that drives this whole abortion debate. The negativism and judgementalism over something that is natural of the human condition. There is no brain activity and therefore no sentience in the periods where any doctor would preform an abortion. Before that a fetus is nothing more than an organ or appendix, yet these states equal the removal of it of a murderer, based on the religious belief that there is something supernatural of it, either that is blessed by a deity or part of a gods will. And you impose that religious dogma to everyone, being believe or not, while completely ignoring the science behind it.

 

[FAST6191]

What is the delineation between "social or economic reasons" and "elective abortion"? In previous times when dealing with quite poor people but not quite enough to tip over the line into accessing certain services/"safety nets" I have been quite shocked how high/low/oddly placed the bar actually is.
Also when learning about all this in school many years ago economic could also swing the other way -- high powered and high paid lawyer wants to continue her career without a baby getting in the way of it, a break would halt progress towards being a barrister (not the same as partner track in the US but a suitable substitute) and thus we have an economic reason despite the returning salary probably still being higher than 90% of the rest of the country, indeed such a thing was something of a "trick" question on the matter. I would not be surprised at all to find a different definition here but worth noting in passing at least.

That said "you fucked up, live with it" seems like an astonishingly vindictive thing to do, rather out of line with general notions of medical care. If I was to root around in my rusty scrap heap that passes for my back garden tomorrow and get sliced up I am not going to be told "should have worn gloves, we will be here if/when you get over it and to manage your infection symptoms" should I drag myself to a medic, indeed such a thing would be contrary to general medical ethics and said medics would likely not be medics for much longer if word got out about that one.

 

[kevin corms]

Im not going to take a side, but honestly people need to sit down calmly and figure this out. Enough is enough, learn how to talk to someone who doesnt agree with you.

 

[pustal]

Im not going to take a side, but honestly people need to sit down calmly and figure this out. Enough is enough, learn how to talk to someone who doesnt agree with you.

The problem is that people that don't agree with you for purely religious views and disregarding science are legislating and imposing their beliefs on you instead of limiting their beliefs to their own lives.

 

[cracker]

Really? That sounds like the ramblings of an insane person.
Proof? Where does God's word teach how to perform abortions?

Not a reply to me, but I'll pick it up.. Numbers 5. Not to mention all the instances of god performing abortions on people who pissed him off.

 

[cots]

The problem is that people that don't agree with you for purely religious views and disregarding science are legislating and imposing their beliefs on you instead of limiting their beliefs to their own lives.

What about the fact that science in itself it it's own flawed religion? I mean, it's what's taught now as the defacto standard and considered the only way to live by. The same can be said about other stuff in the past. Science is just the popular one these days. Imposing their beliefs? Who thought it was a smart idea to use my money to fund baby killing? I don't care if your science currently justifies it. It's my money and you use it to kill babies with. You forced me into taking a position. Back the fuck off, give me my money back, stop using my money in the future to fund abortions, get rid of any laws that allow you to take my money and use it for abortions and I'll consider not having such a strong opinion on murdering babies. The justification; science changes all of the time, but killing a living organism definition hasn't changed. You get enough people in power that agree things should be a certain way and watch the science change to suit their needs. Don't give me that "In the name of science crap".

 

[Xzi]

Proof? Where does God's word teach how to perform abortions?

Book of Numbers 5:11-31. Basically says: should a man have any suspicion that his pregnant wife has been disloyal, he is to take her to the priest and have him make her drink what is essentially poison.

Maybe Florida isn't the best example, but I would guess the statistics are similar elsewhere.

Florida is an outlier in more than one way compared to the other states, it wouldn't surprise me if that was also the case here. Who knows how many of those babies were revealed by an ultrasound to be half-alligator.

 

[cots]

You still seem really attached to this "it is murder" idea and I am still lacking a good basis for why I should consider it as such. I have gone looking, tried asking, and tried contemplating it for myself... still not even close from where I sit. Do you have something I might contemplate as part of this?

Terminating a life form for any reason (that includes with or without it's consent) is murder. I mean, if you're going to protect trees that have no heart beat and never develop a brain you'd think you'd want to protect someone as sacred as human life. What criteria do you use to judge that a tree is worth saving, because all of this "it hasn't developed X or Y yet" is irrelevant when it comes to a tree. People kill (aka murder) life all of the time, it's a natural process (well, so is rape and incest). I think if you're going to fight to save something that will never come close to experiencing the level of consciousness as a human does just because it's "alive" and then go around killing something else "just because it hasn't developed what we consider to be consciousness - yet" (and somehow this makes it less alive then the tree) you're sick in the head.

At least two bit scum whore crack heads that go around selling their aids ridden bodies for their next "fix" have no problem admitting they are murders and don't try to find behind modern day science when it comes to joking and laughing about it. They will straight up tell you that they don't care.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Florida is an outlier in more than one way compared to the other states, it wouldn't surprise me if that was also the case here.

It's about the same no matter where you go. Women get pregnant and kill their babies just because they don't want them. The entire rape, incest or "the mother is in danger" excuses rarely ever happen and are just used as tools for sympathy by the left to push their "we want to control every aspect of your life" agenda.

 

[Xzi]

Terminating a life form for any reason (that includes with or without it's consent) is murder.

That's a pretty extreme stance to take. People with incurable diseases who are in constant agony shouldn't be able to end things on their own terms?

I mean, if you're going to protect trees that have no heart beat and never develop a brain you'd think you'd want to protect someone as sacred as human life. What criteria do you use to judge that a tree is worth saving, because all of this "it hasn't developed X or Y yet" is irrelevant when it comes to a tree.

You do realize that too many humans with too few trees would mean the entire planet dies off, right?

It's about the same no matter where you go. Women get pregnant and kill their babies just because they don't want them. The entire rape, incest or "the mother is in danger" excuses rarely ever happen and are just used as tools for sympathy by the left to push their "we want to control every aspect of your life" agenda.

Except it's the opposite, the right is attempting to control women's lives and take away more of their freedoms. They're attempting to legislate morality, which is not the purpose of government. The left is protecting women's freedom of choice in this matter.

 

[Deleted member 129634]

Terminating a life form for any reason (that includes with or without it's consent) is murder. I mean, if you're going to protect trees that have no heart beat and never develop a brain you'd think you'd want to protect someone as sacred as human life. What criteria do you use to judge that a tree is worth saving, because all of this "it hasn't developed X or Y yet" is irrelevant when it comes to a tree. People kill (aka murder) life all of the time, it's a natural process (well, so is rape and incest). I think if you're going to fight to save something that will never come close to experiencing the level of consciousness as a human does just because it's "alive" and then go around killing something else "just because it hasn't developed what we consider to be consciousness - yet" (and somehow this makes it less alive then the tree) you're sick in the head.

At least two bit scum whore crack heads that go around selling their aids ridden bodies for their next "fix" have no problem admitting they are murders and don't try to find behind modern day science when it comes to joking and laughing about it. They will straight up tell you that they don't care.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



It's about the same no matter where you go. Women get pregnant and kill their babies just because they don't want them. The entire rape, incest or "the mother is in danger" excuses rarely ever happen and are just used as tools for sympathy by the left to push their "we want to control every aspect of your life" agenda.

You keep saying that murder is murder shit and ignore all other arguments, what's the point of this thread if you're just gonna repeat the same shit all over again, women lives are getting completely ruined because of people who think like you, you won't ever understand all the suffering a girl has to go through because of things like a scum piece of crap boyfriend who lied to her about orgasming inside of her or being impregnated while drugged, man you just can't force these women to carry another being for 9 months and then dedicate their whole lives to them, that's sick and fucked up, abortion being murder is the most insignificant thing to consider here.

EDIT: it's also funny how you mention the "we want to control every aspect of your life" thing when that's exactly what is happening when you deny women their right to decide.

 

[Foxi4]

Abortion is one of those subjects where a mutually satisfying consensus is impossible to achieve because neither side is willing to give an inch - on one end we have people who want to refuse abortions to rape and incest victims, on the other we have people perfectly comfortable with the concept of aborting a child 5 minutes before its due date - neither stance is reasonable and both sides will defend their point of view to the death.

Overall I'm leaning towards the Pro life side of the argument - I think abortion, in the gross majority of cases, is murder for convenience. That being said, there are several exceptions from the general rule, for instance the aforementioned incest, rape, as well as serious medical conditions that would either put the mother's health at risk or would otherwise lead to severe disability of the child, at which point the parents should be given the option.

We live in a world where contraception comes in more flavours than ice cream - there's pills, dams, sprays, patches, implants and even the old faithful $1 Rubber Johnny. But hey, let's say that you weren't particularly careful and fumbled at all of those - it still takes 72 hours for the fertilised egg to even nest where it's supposed to, which is where the morning after pill comes in. If you failed to act for three days, at that point I feel that it's on you, and a part of being a grown-up is facing the consequences of your actions, whatever they may be. This may sound harsh to some readers, but what's more harsh to me is requiring society to pay for your mistakes. I'm a big fan of personal responsibility and I value life, even unborn life, more so than a stranger's aforementioned convenience.

On the subject of a "woman's right to choose", I think that the term was completely perverted over time. I do not think it's "the woman's body, therefore her choice" - not only is that statement demonstrably false, it's also a gross oversimplification of the matter. I've personally heard a good number of stories from would-be dads whose significant others went behind their backs and aborted their pregnancy - I don't think that's fair at all. I can't even begin to imagine what it feels like to be deprived of being a parent with no prior notice. I fully understand that it's the woman who has to carry the pregnancy to term, but if the man has already declared willingness to care for the child for the next 18+ years, all I see is short-term inconvenience.

Sadly, we live in a world of quick fixes, and abortion is a quick fix to a "problem" that very well may have better solutions in each individual case, just ones that require a modicum of effort or sacrifice. There's a lot of posturing going on, but not a lot of stepping up to the plate and facing the challenge that, ultimately, everyone affected created themselves.

As I said in the beginning, I'm merely leaning one side - I'd be perfectly happy with a compromise. Many European countries have set reasonable timelines for when abortion is permissable and when it isn't, and I'm okay with that so long as it saves some lives without necessarily affecting women who need abortions for legitimate reasons.

Really? That sounds like the ramblings of an insane person.
Proof? Where does God's word teach how to perform abortions?

Funnily enough, there is a citation for that. As you know, Christian religious tradition is rooted in Jewish religious tradition, which in turn addresses abortion pretty directly. Not to ramble for too long about old holy books, but the Torah explicitly states that an unborn child has not achieved the state of personhood yet (it does not have a "soul", or "nefesh" yet), however it is both alive and the blood of man (Genesis 9:6), so there are penalties associated with abortion. To be more specific, if a pregnant woman is struck and loses her child, the perpetrator owes monetary damages to both the woman and the man who impregnated her, and if "further harm" was done to the woman (as in, she died as a result of the assault), the penalty is death (Exodus 21:22). The Talmud goes as far as to say that fetuses are in fact included under the Noahide prohibition of bloodshed law (Sanhedrin 57b), although it is not "fully alive". The Mishna further clarifies when killing an unborn child is in fact permissable in Oholot 7:8:

If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another.

Meaning that if the woman's life is in danger as a result of pregnancy, it is permissable to terminate it. Graphic, but gets the point across. You might think that this only accounts for medical issues, however it does in fact account for rape, and perhaps even incest, if it occurred without consent, as those do "put the women's life in peril" due to the risk of suicide, or at least that's how the text is interpreted nowadays.

Long story short, there is religious precedent for abortion laws, and the cases where it is permissable seem quite reasonable - whenever continuing the pregnancy endangers the life or health of the mother. In Jewish tradition, the life of those already bestowed with "nefesh" takes precedent over the lives of those who haven't yet, so abortion is allowed in those cases, but at the same time, it is frowned upon when there is no legitimate reason to terminate a pregnancy.

Not really an argument for or against, just an interesting peek at what was people's stance on abortion thousands of years ago. Unsurprisingly it isn't much different than how we feel about it nowadays.