Abortion news and discussion

[GreenGoo]

That's...not how I give a fuck.

Ok. Fantastic. Solid effort.

I'll let you and jaymann get back to resolving this controversial topic. Seems like you two are making good headway.

[Default]

Thanks for admitting that all those abortions are people being killed.

That's...not how logic works.

That's...not how I give a fuck.

If you did, you would be figuring out a plan to raise living conditions and eliminate poverty. Maybe you could come up with, say, a national plan to pay for healthcare for everyone, maybe maternal leave so they could take care of children?

But that would take giving a fuck, I suppose.

[Zarathud]

Nah, he doesn't give a fuck at all.

[Isgrimnur]

North Carolina

A law making it harder for women in North Carolina to get an abortion after 20 weeks is unconstitutional, a federal judge has declared.

The law, which had been on the books since 1973, banned abortion after 20 weeks with only certain exceptions to protect the life of the mother. A 2015 amendment tightened those exceptions, criminalizing abortion unless the woman's life or a "major bodily function" were at immediate risk. Pro-abortion rights groups challenged the law, and on Monday U.S. District Judge William Osteen sided with them.

The Supreme Court has rejected laws that tie abortion rights to a specific week in a woman's pregnancy, but this is the first time a judge has struck down the 1973 law. "The Supreme Court has clearly advised that a state legislature may never fix viability at a specific week but must instead leave this determination to doctors," Osteen wrote.

The ruling simply reaffirms the current law banning abortion restrictions tied to certain weeks, ACLU attorney Andrew Beck, one of the lawyers challenging the dated law, told The Washington Post.
...
Although North Carolina's 20-week ban had been on the books for more than four decades, it had never been enforced, the judge said. But when the legislature decided in 2015 to tighten the law, that implied that it was more likely the legislature intended to enforce the ban, the judge wrote.

The state told the court it had no plans to actually enforce the law. But in light of the 2015 amendment and the state's "vigorous defense of the ban on constitutional grounds," the state's disavowals "provide little assurance," the judge said.

And the very fact that the law is on the books acts as a chilling effect, he said. It's likely that the state hopes "to ensure the ban remains on the statute books to deter doctors from providing any post-twenty week abortions," the judge wrote.

According to Reuters, the ruling "appeared to thwart a bill brought by Republican lawmakers in North Carolina earlier this year that would have banned abortions after 13 weeks."

[Vorret]

Religious freaks trying to rule over women's body will is a timeless classic

[stessier]

Religious freaks trying to rule over women's body will is a timeless classic

I don't think that's a very good way to frame the discussion.

[Paingod]

Religious freaks trying to rule over women's body will is a timeless classic

I don't think that's a very good way to frame the discussion.

If you were to boil it down to fewer than 20 words, how would you describe it?

Anti-abortion is predominantly about religion attempting to dictate morality for women in what they do with their bodies. I'd love to hear an atheist's opposing viewpoint, but I don't think I ever have. The ones I've heard from either let science handle the discussion or don't care.

[noxiousdog]

Religious freaks trying to rule over women's body will is a timeless classic

I don't think that's a very good way to frame the discussion.

If you were to boil it down to fewer than 20 words, how would you describe it?

Anti-abortion is predominantly about religion attempting to dictate morality for women in what they do with their bodies. I'd love to hear an atheist's opposing viewpoint, but I don't think I ever have. The ones I've heard from either let science handle the discussion or don't care.

Then you haven't been listening.

It's really pretty simple. In the United States is it mostly legal to kill a fetus right up to the moment it would be naturally born. Many of us, agnostics and atheists included, think that there's a point somewhere between conception and delivery where it should no longer be legal.

I find it very disturbing that in most states, minors are allowed to do it at will. This does not logically reconcile with the voting age, military service, or the ability to buy alcohol.

It is troubling (though I cannot think of a reasonable solution) that the father has no rights in the matter.

[GreenGoo]

Voting results in drumpf.

no abortion results in a life time of responsibility (the shirking of which lands you in jail) and hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenses for a few moments of biologically imperative andorphin producing actions (hell, for a woman, it can be a lack of action).

Parents shouldn't be able to make that decision for someone old enough to reproduce.

I agree that taking the man out of the equation is unfortunate, but in the end, too bad. It's not like babies are unique or hard to come by, particularly when this one isn't actually a baby yet and being emotionally attached is almost completely in your mind based on the *idea* of a baby, not the baby itself.

[Paingod]

in most states, minors are allowed to do it at will. This does not logically reconcile with the voting age, military service, or the ability to buy alcohol.

Voting, serving in the military, and buying alcohol are by and large very optional activities. Getting pregnant because you did something stupid isn't really optional. It happens. Kids are going to have sex, like it or not. The consequence is life-long. I don't mind them being able to opt out.

I also don't mind late-term abortions when it's not any kind of crisis and is mostly done as a medically necessary thing. 98.7% of abortions are performed at or before the 21st week. Many of the remaining 9000 are for medical reasons. I'm not sure how the non-medically ones are performed as every article I went looking for kept talking about doctors refusing to touch that, and I don't have all day to try and prove a point I'm not advocating.

Many of us, agnostics and atheists included...

You're not entirely clear here, so it leaves me curious if you're an atheist or someone coming in from a religious bent and scooping up assumptions for atheists to suit your needs. If it's the latter, I'd ask you not to speak for atheists and will wait for one who opposes abortion to show up. If its the former, I stand corrected. It's not that I value the views of atheists more strongly, but I have trouble setting aside suspicions of motive when dealing with religious folks on very sensitive matters that are typically so closely intertwined with their belief structure.

[Jaymann]

I think the taking of a life through abortion is always tragic, but a woman should have the absolute right to choose. Unfortunately it seems it is more often the case for the poor, the uninformed, or the not-give-a-fuck contingent (though at some point at least somebody literally gave a fuck). If you look at it globally we are not in danger of running out of humans any time soon.

[Paingod]

I think the taking of a life through abortion is always tragic...

I certainly agree with that. For me the only remaining debate is when to call it "a life" and not "a clump of cells" or "a parasitic attachment" - yes, they all have the potential to become a person, but when is that tipping point? I don't even have a clear definition in my mind, except to say that mt belief is one that sides in favor of pregnant women having the choice to make for themselves. Even then, I'm not cavalier about it. I understand it's a hard, personal choice with no great answer. I say this also as a father of two boys who was involved in the decision to have an abortion with my then-girlfriend who has since become my wife. I do sometimes wonder "what if" but I can feel the same way about "what if" I left the house 5 minutes earlier and ended up in a horrible car accident I was driving past.

[stessier]

I think the taking of a life through abortion is always tragic, but a woman should have the absolute right to choose.

If there was ever agreement that it was actually taking a life, I think the discussion would be very different.

I don't know if it is. I think life is precious and the loss it tragic. I am undecided about whether it should be legal or not. I don't think anyone who knows me would describe me as a religious freak.

[noxiousdog]

in most states, minors are allowed to do it at will. This does not logically reconcile with the voting age, military service, or the ability to buy alcohol.

Voting, serving in the military, and buying alcohol are by and large very optional activities. Getting pregnant because you did something stupid isn't really optional. It happens. Kids are going to have sex, like it or not. The consequence is life-long. I don't mind them being able to opt out.

I also don't mind late-term abortions when it's not any kind of crisis and is mostly done as a medically necessary thing. 98.7% of abortions are performed at or before the 21st week. Many of the remaining 9000 are for medical reasons. I'm not sure how the non-medically ones are performed as every article I went looking for kept talking about doctors refusing to touch that, and I don't have all day to try and prove a point I'm not advocating.

99.8% of the people don't die of homicide. That doesn't mean we shouldn't protect them, and we sure seem to care about the even tinier fraction of those that die as a result of a mass shooting.

You're the one that asked the question. It certainly didn't sound rhetorical.

Many of us, agnostics and atheists included...

You're not entirely clear here, so it leaves me curious if you're an atheist or someone coming in from a religious bent and scooping up assumptions for atheists to suit your needs. If it's the latter, I'd ask you not to speak for atheists and will wait for one who opposes abortion to show up. If its the former, I stand corrected. It's not that I value the views of atheists more strongly, but I have trouble setting aside suspicions of motive when dealing with religious folks on very sensitive matters that are typically so closely intertwined with their belief structure.

That's kind of a jerky attitude. For the record, I'm agnostic, but if forced a binary answer would be atheist.

[Paingod]

Many of us, agnostics and atheists included...

You're not entirely clear here, so it leaves me curious if you're an atheist or someone coming in from a religious bent and scooping up assumptions for atheists to suit your needs. If it's the latter, I'd ask you not to speak for atheists and will wait for one who opposes abortion to show up. If its the former, I stand corrected. It's not that I value the views of atheists more strongly, but I have trouble setting aside suspicions of motive when dealing with religious folks on very sensitive matters that are typically so closely intertwined with their belief structure.

That's kind of a jerky attitude. For the record, I'm agnostic, but if forced a binary answer would be atheist.

I apologize for coming across that way. I don't necessarily believe atheists are superior, but I doubt their motives in arguments like this less.

[Combustible Lemur]

in most states, minors are allowed to do it at will. This does not logically reconcile with the voting age, military service, or the ability to buy alcohol.

Voting, serving in the military, and buying alcohol are by and large very optional activities. Getting pregnant because you did something stupid isn't really optional. It happens. Kids are going to have sex, like it or not. The consequence is life-long. I don't mind them being able to opt out.

I also don't mind late-term abortions when it's not any kind of crisis and is mostly done as a medically necessary thing. 98.7% of abortions are performed at or before the 21st week. Many of the remaining 9000 are for medical reasons. I'm not sure how the non-medically ones are performed as every article I went looking for kept talking about doctors refusing to touch that, and I don't have all day to try and prove a point I'm not advocating.

99.8% of the people don't die of homicide. That doesn't mean we shouldn't protect them, and we sure seem to care about the even tinier fraction of those that die as a result of a mass shooting.

You're the one that asked the question. It certainly didn't sound rhetorical.

Many of us, agnostics and atheists included...

You're not entirely clear here, so it leaves me curious if you're an atheist or someone coming in from a religious bent and scooping up assumptions for atheists to suit your needs. If it's the latter, I'd ask you not to speak for atheists and will wait for one who opposes abortion to show up. If its the former, I stand corrected. It's not that I value the views of atheists more strongly, but I have trouble setting aside suspicions of motive when dealing with religious folks on very sensitive matters that are typically so closely intertwined with their belief structure.

That's kind of a jerky attitude. For the record, I'm agnostic, but if forced a binary answer would be atheist.

I don't think it's jerky. Particularly in this debate. Someone who is culturally Christian is likely to answer the question differently than someone who is not. Theoretically people who are declared atheist more distinct from judeo Christian moral frameworks. Thats not really practically the case. Our dad being the example. Strictly moralistically conservative avowed atheist.

I have no big qualms with declaring the fetus a life, and abortion homicide. Our and every other society has a variety of justifiable homicides. We give police authority to kill our children if they are scary enough. We give military the authority to bomb children of terrorists or children adjacent. We give politicians the authority to watch millions of kids starve to death if it keeps our gas prices low and our arms manufacturers exporting their wares. We give ourselves the authority to neglect and endanger all those unwanted unaborted children in our own back yard. We can easily give women the authority to kill life forms that's are physically attached and dependent on them. Yes there should be restrictions but the whole it's a life is not very convincing to me.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Vorret]

Sorry , religious freaks was a bit harsh wording, still, I believe religion is holding back women's right to decide what to do with their bodies, I accept the fact that pregnancy can be easily avoided now for a very low cost but accident do happen and sometimes abortion is the best outcome vs an unwanted child stuck in the foster system.

[noxiousdog]

I have no big qualms with declaring the fetus a life, and abortion homicide. Our and every other society has a variety of justifiable homicides. We give police authority to kill our children if they are scary enough. We give military the authority to bomb children of terrorists or children adjacent. We give politicians the authority to watch millions of kids starve to death if it keeps our gas prices low and our arms manufacturers exporting their wares. We give ourselves the authority to neglect and endanger all those unwanted unaborted children in our own back yard. We can easily give women the authority to kill life forms that's are physically attached and dependent on them. Yes there should be restrictions but the whole it's a life is not very convincing to me.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

It's the slippery slope problem. Due to the politics, it's hard to give an inch in this debate.

[Combustible Lemur]

I have no big qualms with declaring the fetus a life, and abortion homicide. Our and every other society has a variety of justifiable homicides. We give police authority to kill our children if they are scary enough. We give military the authority to bomb children of terrorists or children adjacent. We give politicians the authority to watch millions of kids starve to death if it keeps our gas prices low and our arms manufacturers exporting their wares. We give ourselves the authority to neglect and endanger all those unwanted unaborted children in our own back yard. We can easily give women the authority to kill life forms that's are physically attached and dependent on them. Yes there should be restrictions but the whole it's a life is not very convincing to me.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

It's the slippery slope problem. Due to the politics, it's hard to give an inch in this debate.

That's true.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Kraken]

Due to the politics, it's hard to give an inch in this debate.

You're just not staking out the right starting position. For example, I believe that abortion should be legal through the 72nd trimester or until the fetus starts paying Social Security taxes, whichever comes first.

[Zarathud]

It's really pretty simple. In the United States is it mostly legal to kill a fetus right up to the moment it would be naturally born. Many of us, agnostics and atheists included, think that there's a point somewhere between conception and delivery where it should no longer be legal.

Disagree. This is untrue legally, factually and practically. See Roe v Wade for starters. 43 states ban some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy. In a number of states it is very difficult to find a clinic.

I find it very disturbing that in most states, minors are allowed to do it at will. This does not logically reconcile with the voting age, military service, or the ability to buy alcohol.

Again wrong. The majority do have limits.

It is troubling (though I cannot think of a reasonable solution) that the father has no rights in the matter.

Once medical technology can permit fathers to gestate, we can revisit the issue. I believe a mother who has strong relationship with the father is unlikely to have an abortion -- except for medical reasons.

Those who claim people make a decision to have an abortion lightly are delusional. I have gone through this decision with my wife due to an unborn child with severe fatal birth defects of trisomy 13 not able to be diagnosed early. Anyone who has to make a late term abortion decision goes through a heart-wrenching ordeal. We did not make the decision lightly, and her father accepted the decision despite being a former Catholic priest.

The anti-abortion propaganda is demeaning, uncharitable and frankly unchristian. This is real to people, and not hypothetical.

[stessier]

Are any of those limits constitutional? I ask because a law was just stuck down in North Carolina and the judge pointed out that the supreme Court said it had to be left up to the doctor and there could be no hard and fast "x weeks" rule. The rule was 40 years old and has never been enforced but could have had a coming effect on what doctors were willing to consider.

Edit:. Heh, and I see that is what started this discussion. Doh!!

[Isgrimnur]

[Isgrimnur]

Alabama

In what would likely become the most restrictive abortion ban in the country, the Alabama House Tuesday passed a bill that would make it a crime for doctors to perform abortions at any stage of a pregnancy, unless a woman's life is threatened. The legislation is part of a broader anti-abortion strategy to prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the right to abortion.
...
Democratic lawmakers walked out in protest before the final 74 to 3 vote. During debate, they questioned the motive for an abortion ban in a state that's refused to expand Medicaid.
...
The bill criminalizes abortion, meaning doctors would face felony jail time up to 99 years if convicted. The only exceptions are for a serious health risk to the pregnant woman, or a lethal anomaly of the fetus. There are no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. A woman would not be held criminally liable for having an abortion.
...
The bill is expected to win final passage in the Republican majority Alabama Senate. The ACLU of Alabama says it will sue if the abortion ban becomes law.

[Isgrimnur]

Georgia

Republican Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia signed a controversial “heartbeat” bill into law on Tuesday, outlawing most abortions once a doctor detects what some call “a fetal heartbeat in the womb,” usually about six weeks into a pregnancy.
...
Kemp said he is upholding his promise to enact the “toughest abortion bill in the country.”
...
Georgia is the fourth state to enact such legislation in 2019. Similar “heartbeat” bills are in the works in 10 other states — Missouri, Tennessee, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, South Carolina and West Virginia — according to the Guttmacher Institute. A federal judge has already blocked Kentucky’s law. Other courts struck down similar laws that were recently enacted in Iowa and North Dakota.
...
The bill made national headlines after actress and women’s rights activist Alyssa Milano hand-delivered a letter to Kemp’s office last month to protest it. The letter was signed by 50 celebrities who vowed to boycott the state, which has a growing television industry, if the bill was signed into law.

The $9 billion Georgia film and entertainment industry has published letters threatening to boycott work in Atlanta if the ban was enacted, and more than 6,000 Georgians signed a petition opposing it.

State Sen. Renee Unterman (R), who pushed the bill through Georgia’s Senate, called it the “culmination of my political career.”

[Holman]

Right now the boogeyman scenario used to defend earlier and earlier abortion restrictions is "in some states a woman can abort a baby right up until the moment of delivery!!" The logic seems to be that because this is legal somewhere, it just makes sense to make it illegal closer and closer to conception.

But does this ever actually happen? Even in a place where it is legal to abort just prior to delivery (and I don't know if any exist), do healthy women with healthy babies actually carry almost to term and then decide to abort? I'm guessing no.

According to Planned Parenthood and the CDC, only 1.2% of abortions occur at or after 21 weeks (the halfway point of gestation). It's likely that most of these are due to discovery of serious health problems with the fetus or the mother.

I'd be very interested to learn the rates at which healthy mothers with a healthy fetus facing no serious trauma decide to abort very late. Such cases are probably so rare as to be statistically invisible, but apparently they're driving national policy.

[noxiousdog]

Right now the boogeyman scenario used to defend earlier and earlier abortion restrictions is "in some states a woman can abort a baby right up until the moment of delivery!!" The logic seems to be that because this is legal somewhere, it just makes sense to make it illegal closer and closer to conception.

But does this ever actually happen? Even in a place where it is legal to abort just prior to delivery (and I don't know if any exist), do healthy women with healthy babies actually carry almost to term and then decide to abort? I'm guessing no.

According to Planned Parenthood and the CDC, only 1.2% of abortions occur at or after 21 weeks (the halfway point of gestation). It's likely that most of these are due to discovery of serious health problems with the fetus or the mother.

I'd be very interested to learn the rates at which healthy mothers with a healthy fetus facing no serious trauma decide to abort very late. Such cases are probably so rare as to be statistically invisible, but apparently they're driving national policy.

Compare/Contrast the percentage of guns that are used in murders.

When dealing with things that should be illegal, you're likely going to find a small percentage of the population that would engage in that kind of behavior.

We aren't talking about what 999/1000 people would do. We're talking about 1 in 1000 or less.

[Isgrimnur]

Statistical outliers should not be used to justify policy.

[Default]

They come up with the most outrageous, improbable nonsense to try and cloak the fact that they believe that men should tell women what to do. It''s about control, not care. It''s fear of change. It's belief that if someone is happy, someone has to be miserable. It''s s being a pussy.
That''s all it is.

[noxiousdog]

Statistical outliers should not be used to justify policy.

That depends on the impact. Murder is a statistical outlier. So is drunk driving mortality.

[Isgrimnur]

Statistical outliers should not be used to justify policy.

That depends on the impact. Murder is a statistical outlier. So is drunk driving mortality.

Statistical outliers should not be used to justify black and white boundaries on areas that are prone to gray edges.

[noxiousdog]

Statistical outliers should not be used to justify policy.

That depends on the impact. Murder is a statistical outlier. So is drunk driving mortality.

Statistical outliers should not be used to justify black and white boundaries on areas that are prone to gray edges.

I agree with that statement, but would argue that full access to abortion late in gestation is a black and white boundary.

[GreenGoo]

Statistical outliers should not be used to justify policy.

That depends on the impact. Murder is a statistical outlier. So is drunk driving mortality.

Sure, but here we'd need to outlaw alcohol because sometimes people drive too. Wouldn't hurt to outlaw cars, just to be safe. Using outliers to govern the middle of the curve is clearly unnecessary and unwarranted.

[GreenGoo]

I agree with that statement, but would argue that full access to abortion late in gestation is a black and white boundary.

This is arguable, but sure, even if I agreed with you, they are using that boundary to outlaw the grey areas. Because x happens, y is against the law is what we're talking about here. That's ridiculous logically and statistically.

[noxiousdog]

Statistical outliers should not be used to justify policy.

That depends on the impact. Murder is a statistical outlier. So is drunk driving mortality.

Sure, but here we'd need to outlaw alcohol because sometimes people drive too. Wouldn't hurt to outlaw cars, just to be safe. Using outliers to govern the middle of the curve is clearly unnecessary and unwarranted.

Or we could have some rules around it like BAC or speed limits.

[Isgrimnur]

Statistical outliers should not be used to justify policy.

That depends on the impact. Murder is a statistical outlier. So is drunk driving mortality.

Statistical outliers should not be used to justify black and white boundaries on areas that are prone to gray edges.

I agree with that statement, but would argue that full access to abortion late in gestation is a black and white boundary.

You can argue it. So can the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

But I read in a tweet that there are no medical reasons affecting a pregnant woman that would require a later abortion rather than delivery …
...
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) refuted that idea in a statement released this week, stating that pregnant women may experience conditions such as “premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives.

“Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion,” the ACOG said.
...
Jen Villavicencio, an obstetrician-gynecologist in the Midwest, explained that, in the vast majority of cases in which a woman becomes seriously ill late in pregnancy, doctors are working to save both the woman and the fetus. But in rare situations, it’s clear the fetus will not survive, and then the patients and their loved ones must make a decision about whether to put a sick woman at further risk with a delivery.

“This is incredibly complex. This is not something that can be litigated on Twitter,” she said, adding that “one of the things I’m concerned in all the rhetoric is that we’re missing compassion and empathy for that patient and what she’s going through.”

[noxiousdog]

I don't understand what you're saying.

"In the case of a health risk" is a gray area. Full access to abortion is a black and white boundary.

[Zarathud]

There is no evidence that late pregnancy abortions happen when the health of the mother/fetus isn't an issue.

Setting the date before a mother is likely to even notice being pregnant is unconscionable. Doing so based on falsehood is damning.

[Isgrimnur]

In a paper published in 2013 by Foster and Katrina Kimport on women who got abortions for reasons other than a danger to life or health or a fetal anomaly, they cited logistical delays such as difficulty finding a provider, raising funds for the procedure and travel costs.

Foster and Kimport described five “profiles” of women in the study: “They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and [experiencing their first pregnancy].”

Kimport, a medical sociologist at UCSF whose research focuses on gender, sexuality and social movements, followed up on the research in 2018 with 28 new interviews of women who got later abortions. She said about half were lacking critical health information about their fetus earlier in their pregnancy. Kimport described in an interview how one woman was told by her doctors that something in her 20-week scan looked suspicious but it wasn’t until weeks later that it was clear the fetus had significant abnormalities.

The other half of the women had challenges finding a provider, getting necessary approvals from doctors in states that require them, or had financial constraints. All the women in the study traveled to other states to get the procedure done.

“These are people who wanted an early abortion and tried to get one but were unable to do so because of the substantial obstacles that were placed in their path,” Kimport said.

[noxiousdog]

There is no evidence that late pregnancy abortions happen when the health of the mother/fetus isn't an issue.

Then it should be easy to make a law preventing it as it won't affect anyone.

Setting the date before a mother is likely to even notice being pregnant is unconscionable. Doing so based on falsehood is damning.

I concur. You'll never hear me arguing for laws preventing 1st or 2nd trimester abortions.