To 2021 and Beyond .... current politics

[SunnySide]

Abortion .. pro choice .. pro life ... thats always a hard one for me. I think most reasonable heads agree there should be a time line where you can only have an abortion if it is medically necessary and recommended.

But I understand if people thinks its murder, theres no concession from them. My problem with that segment is that they are usually very religious so they say at conception vs doctors who define life as when the fetus would be viable outside womb. I strongly disagree with religion steering politics.

Besides .. doesnt the bible say a baby gets its soul at its quickening when it takes its first breath after birth and God enters and gives the baby its soul?

91% of abortions are within the first 13 weeks

1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks

24 weeks - around the time the fetus would be viable outside womb

Did you know that the "clock" starts the day after their last period ends. So a woman could go almost 5-6 weeks before starting to wonder whey her period is late and then reasonably take steps to take a test.

----

I think:

- there should be a 24 hour waiting period. Woman gets consult, then they set appointment at earliest 24 hours from then

- Given literature on adoption options and counseling on that area if they want it

- any abortion after 22 weeks would need a doctor approval

- any abortion after 26 weeks would need doctor approval and medical necessity

[mooby]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Problem is the extremists on both sides drive the legislation and lawsuits on this issue. It is the whole loaf or nothing position which is what Arkansas is trying here.
The US allows for the most extreme abortion permissions on the planet. Most Americans want abortion to be legal but with some actual restrictions - right now states are permitted to have abortions with no restrictions if they so choose (ie Vermont, NY etc.). Arkansas should have pushed for legal abortions in the 1st trimester with strong restrictions after that. But no they pass a law that will get thrown out because they want to ban all abortions.

Really?

I feel like your perspective is lacking because any woman who carries a baby into the second and third trimester is someone who wants the baby. Most women who get second/third trimester abortions do so because the pregnancy is unviable and the mother or baby's life is at risk.

Imagine carrying a baby for 3-6 months and then deciding nahhh, flush that shit out of me. How many women do you know of have done that?

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by mooby

Really?

I feel like your perspective is lacking because any woman who carries a baby into the second and third trimester is someone who wants the baby. Most women who get second/third trimester abortions do so because the pregnancy is unviable and the mother or baby's life is at risk.

Imagine carrying a baby for 3-6 months and then deciding nahhh, flush that shit out of me. How many women do you know of have done that?

Yes really, and yes it is likely most women who get a late term abortion have to for medical reasons. You said it yourself - most.

[Giantone]

No man should have any say on whether Abortion should be legal.

[MTK]

^^ I second that, as a guy I think we should say the F out of reproductive rights issues.

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Yes really, and yes it is likely most women who get a late term abortion have to for medical reasons. You said it yourself - most.

Vermont had 1204 abortions in 2018. 20 were performed at 21 weeks or later.

I would assume that those 20 involved women who wanted to carry to birth but had to abort for medical reasons. But idk.

Abortions after 21 weeks or so is so small a percent, I dont think that abortion laws should be based on that 1% and ignoring the other 99%. .. unless you think all abortions should be illegal, then you tunnel vision on that 1% as guiding your argument

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Vermont had 1204 abortions in 2018. 20 were performed at 21 weeks or later.

I would assume that those 20 involved women who wanted to carry to birth but had to abort for medical reasons. But idk.

Abortions after 21 weeks or so is so small a percent, I dont think that abortion laws should be based on that 1% and ignoring the other 99%. .. unless you think all abortions should be illegal, then you tunnel vision on that 1% as guiding your argument

So what your are saying is that you think it should be legal to abort a healthy fetus up to the minute before it would be born? That is what it is legal to do in Vermont and some other states (note it is not legal in any European country). All 20 may have needed to get a late term abortion (Like you I don't know) I wouldn't want to stop that. I just want restrictions in place that would make it illegal to abort a late term healthy fetus that is no threat to the physical life of the mother. IMO, the argument that so few of those occur that it isn't important doesn't really hold water.

[SunnySide]

[QUOTE=nonniey;1278984I just want restrictions in place that would make it illegal to abort a late term healthy fetus that is no threat to the physical life of the mother. IMO, the argument that so few of those occur that it isn't important doesn't really hold water.[/QUOTE]

Yes, id want those same restrictions. After 22-24 weeks, it would need to be medically necessary.

1/3 of clinics cant do abortions after 20 weeks and only 16% clinics do abortions at 24 weeks.

---

What I was saying is that the 1% of late term abortions, (seemingly done bc birth abnormalities) shouldnt drive the discussion that effects the other vast majority 99%.

edit - this is just my opinion, I do respect pro-lifers opinion and view point

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Yes, id want those same restrictions. After 22-24 weeks, it would need to be medically necessary.

1/3 of clinics cant do abortions after 20 weeks and only 16% clinics do abortions at 24 weeks.

---

What I was saying is that the 1% of late term abortions, (seemingly done bc birth abnormalities) shouldnt drive the discussion that effects the other vast majority 99%.

edit - this is just my opinion, I do respect pro-lifers opinion and view point

Well that was the point of my original post that the extreme elements on both sides drive the argument. So the fight is always no restrictions at all versus total ban and the vast majority of most Americans are opposed to both those positions.

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Well that was the point of my original post that the extreme elements on both sides drive the argument. So the fight is always no restrictions at all versus total ban and the vast majority of most Americans are opposed to both those positions.

Pro Choice does not want no restrictions free for all. Thats just not true.

Pro choice wants Roe v Wade to be followed. No restrictions on 1st T, State can put restrictions on 2nd T in name of womans health only, States can ban 3rd T abortions unless an abortion is only way to save woman from dying.

Thats why the vast majority of Americans are pro choice.

There are not 2 polar extremes here, only one.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by MTK

^^ I second that, as a guy I think we should say the F out of reproductive rights issues.

+2

Imagine the outcry if women tried to pass a law restricting men's reproductive rights, they would immediately be ridiculed and ostracized (deservedly so).

[sdskinsfan2001]

Chico?? Buehler? Buehler???

I actually finally drove up to check in on a buddy this week that just completely disappeared off the grid. Like had to sneak in thru the gate when someone left. Haven't heard from him since before Christmas. Turns out he was perfectly fine and chose to just disappear and not let any of us know he wasn't talking to us anymore.

COVID has me thinking worst case scenario when someone's actions change. Chico, hope all is well.

JamF has spurts of posting regularly, then not very often. Haven't heard from him in a while either. Hopefully my fellow so-cal brother is also doing well.

Hope everyone else is doing well too. Hopefully we're all finally on the path towards normalcy, or at least the new normalcy. I'd go watch Britney Spears in concert at this point.

[sdskinsfan2001]

How is allowing abortions about re-productive rights? Women and men in this country have all the re-productive rights in the world to: be celebate; if you have sex, be smart, etc, etc.

The term 'Re" in general would imply you're trying to replicate something. Reproduction would imply you're trying to re-create life. Not kill life.

Abortion is the exact opposite of reproducing or reproductive.

I'd also say that allowing women to have 100% control over aborting her and the father's baby, is a law against men's "reproductive" rights. Believe it or not, only the woman mother can still actually physically birth children, but the male dad is still the dad. Why does his opinion not matter? Or what if the dad wants the abortion, but the mom doesn't, if she (rightfully) chooses life, does he have absolutely zero responsibility for raising the child, at least financially? Of-fucking-course not.

All this talk about the extremes is just that. Most abortions are done early and due to one or both people not wanting to be accountable for his/her/their decisions. I'd guess that men are more responsible for this. And that's sad, but the other alternative isn't better either.

#life

[mooby]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

How is allowing abortions about re-productive rights? Women and men in this country have all the re-productive rights in the world to: be celebate; if you have sex, be smart, etc, etc.

The term 'Re" in general would imply you're trying to replicate something. Reproduction would imply you're trying to re-create life. Not kill life.

Abortion is the exact opposite of reproducing or reproductive.

I'd also say that allowing women to have 100% control over aborting her and the father's baby, is a law against men's "reproductive" rights. Believe it or not, only the woman mother can still actually physically birth children, but the male dad is still the dad. Why does his opinion not matter? Or what if the dad wants the abortion, but the mom doesn't, if she (rightfully) chooses life, does he have absolutely zero responsibility for raising the child, at least financially? Of-fucking-course not.

All this talk about the extremes is just that. Most abortions are done early and due to one or both people not wanting to be accountable for his/her/their decisions. I'd guess that men are more responsible for this. And that's sad, but the other alternative isn't better either.

#life

We're not here to argue semantics, reproductive rights is just a term used to talk about abortion.

The hilarious thing about this argument is I doubt you'd find anyone on this board who thinks a woman should be allowed to get a third trimester abortion for no reason at all. Of course at that stage it should only be if the woman or baby's life is at risk. But the reality is you have some people on your team that want all abortion outlawed. They have no interest in conceding anything. They intentionally left out exceptions for rape or incest in Arkansas, how the fuck is that having this debate in good faith? It's not. So they can go fuck themselves, and if any conservative wants to fight the good fight with them they know where they stand too.

Yes the dad's opinion should matter but that's a more nuanced argument. If the woman doesn't want an abortion but the guy makes it clear from the start he's not going to support her or the kid she should know what she's getting into. But I put blame on the dad too for not wanting to wrap it up while he's getting some ass. We know the risks when we choose not to wear a condom. #pulloutgamestrong

+1 hope Chico is okay too.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

+2

Imagine the outcry if women tried to pass a law restricting men's reproductive rights, they would immediately be ridiculed and ostracized (deservedly so).

Bingo! Johnny tell the Man what he has won!