“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I call my dog a baby. Does that make it a person? 🤔

No, but we don’t allow you to kill your dog because you made a mistake and can’t take care of it — we let you put it up for adoption or you give it to a family member or something. So that’s a shitty point that you made, sorry.

Needless to say I’m anti abortion, but I’m still pro choice because I’m generally pretty libertarian. I would never get an abortion because I think it’s wrong on many levels and I believe in accountability in life but whether other people do it is not my business.

Libertarian is another word for Republican but trying to not call yourself a Republican. Even my SO who for many years called themselves a Libertarian said this.

Yup. A Republican without a backbone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile in Texas, a woman having a miscarriage was denied the medication to help it pass by a CVS pharmacy that said it couldn't be sure she wasn't using it to have an abortion.

A big middle finger to all of you who think banning abortion is a-okay. It's just going to get worse.

Dang. And it’s just going to get worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I am pro-choice and my BIL was pro-life. We both call our pregnancies “the baby”. One day, in SIL’s third trimester, BIL & SIL found out that the baby was developing without any brain. There was no hope that the baby would ever do more than live in a vegetative state for an undetermined amount of time - days, weeks, months, maybe a couple of years at best. The baby would require around the clock care-giving. BIL and SIL chose to have an abortion.

People who have abortions sometimes are aborting babies - they are often wanted pregnancies until something goes catastrophically wrong. BIL and SIL made the best possible choice for them and their future family, which includes 3 more babies that they had after their abortion. Babies that they never would have had but for abortion.

Abortion is pro-life, but it includes not only thinking about whether the baby lives or dies, but also what kind of quality of life the baby and family would have.

PP here. I'm very much in agreement that many abortions are needed and appropriate. I'm not opposed and think a woman and her doctor and the father of the baby (if involved) should decide. I'm opposed to abortions on demand

My SIL needed an “abortion on demand”. Thank god she didn’t have to justify her decision to abort. There was no one to get to sign off on the abortion, no one to judge whether the baby was anencephalic enough to have an abortion, etc. Had she had to jump through hoops to justify her abortion it would have taken even longer to arrange and thus been at an even later time in the third trimester and she would have been even more traumatized.

When you say you are opposed to “abortions on demand”, you are opposed to women making the choice for themselves because you think there are just some bad women out there who are irresponsible and decide on a whim for some unjustifiable reason (to you) to get an abortion at the last minute.
A third trimester abortion costs something like $25k, takes 3-4 days and you have to travel to like one of 4 states in the country that actually does it. Also less than 1% of all abortions are after 20 weeks, which in 2019 was something like 8-9000 abortions. Women aren’t having 3rd term abortions on a whim.

This. Unbelievable. These kinds of people are almost worse than the fervent believers who hold that every embryo is a full fledged person with rights. If you’re fine with abortion in some circumstances, then butt out and let women and families make those hard decisions for themselves. Who do you think you are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I call my dog a baby. Does that make it a person? 🤔

No, but we don’t allow you to kill your dog because you made a mistake and can’t take care of it — we let you put it up for adoption or you give it to a family member or something. So that’s a shitty point that you made, sorry.

Needless to say I’m anti abortion, but I’m still pro choice because I’m generally pretty libertarian. I would never get an abortion because I think it’s wrong on many levels and I believe in accountability in life but whether other people do it is not my business.

Libertarian is another word for Republican but trying to not call yourself a Republican. Even my SO who for many years called themselves a Libertarian said this.

Yup. A Republican without a backbone.

Try again skippy. A true Libertarian is against government control. Hence, they are against government restrictions on abortion. This is about as anti-Republican as you can get. Republicans are hypocrites. However, a Libertarian is also against government social welfare programs (such as government paying for abortions and birth control) which is anti-Democrat. This is why you bad mouth them. You not only want to not be restricted in your life choice, but also want government to pay you for them. Democrats are also hypocrites. You’re a taker, not a giver. I lean Libertarian, but am not naive enough to believe any society can go full bore this way. I am Independent. I don’t blindly follow a party.

As far as abortion goes, the proper law is that no restrictions on abortion shall be allowable while the fetus is prior to 20 weeks in gestation. Why? Because there is no viable human entity until that point. After that point there is a viable physically dependent entity and no licensed health care provider shall terminate that pregnancy without viable cause. Viable cause to terminate: life threatening health risk to the mother or unborn child. Note, that even in this law, the restriction is placed on the licensed physician and not the mother. However, birth control and non-physician recommended abortions are life-style choices and not health care choices and therefore shall not be funded under govt. healthcare or social welfare programs. Physician recommended abortions (due to life threatening issues or serious health issues to mother and/or fetus) shall be covered by govt. programs, if such programs exist. No requirement for these programs to exist, but for states that have them, they cannot exclude doctor recommended procedures.

Anyhow, you all better start lobbying your congressperson at the state and federal level to pass a law as such, else you’re looking at more Oklahomas ….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I call my dog a baby. Does that make it a person? 🤔

No, but we don’t allow you to kill your dog because you made a mistake and can’t take care of it — we let you put it up for adoption or you give it to a family member or something. So that’s a shitty point that you made, sorry.

Needless to say I’m anti abortion, but I’m still pro choice because I’m generally pretty libertarian. I would never get an abortion because I think it’s wrong on many levels and I believe in accountability in life but whether other people do it is not my business.

Libertarian is another word for Republican but trying to not call yourself a Republican. Even my SO who for many years called themselves a Libertarian said this.

Yup. A Republican without a backbone.

Try again skippy. A true Libertarian is against government control. Hence, they are against government restrictions on abortion. This is about as anti-Republican as you can get. Republicans are hypocrites. However, a Libertarian is also against government social welfare programs (such as government paying for abortions and birth control) which is anti-Democrat. This is why you bad mouth them. You not only want to not be restricted in your life choice, but also want government to pay you for them. Democrats are also hypocrites. You’re a taker, not a giver. I lean Libertarian, but am not naive enough to believe any society can go full bore this way. I am Independent. I don’t blindly follow a party.

As far as abortion goes, the proper law is that no restrictions on abortion shall be allowable while the fetus is prior to 20 weeks in gestation. Why? Because there is no viable human entity until that point. After that point there is a viable physically dependent entity and no licensed health care provider shall terminate that pregnancy without viable cause. Viable cause to terminate: life threatening health risk to the mother or unborn child. Note, that even in this law, the restriction is placed on the licensed physician and not the mother. However, birth control and non-physician recommended abortions are life-style choices and not health care choices and therefore shall not be funded under govt. healthcare or social welfare programs. Physician recommended abortions (due to life threatening issues or serious health issues to mother and/or fetus) shall be covered by govt. programs, if such programs exist. No requirement for these programs to exist, but for states that have them, they cannot exclude doctor recommended procedures.

Anyhow, you all better start lobbying your congressperson at the state and federal level to pass a law as such, else you’re looking at more Oklahomas ….

Ok. Whatever you say.

20w <> viability

People shouldn’t form opinions about women’s healthcare if they don’t even understand the basics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I am pro-choice and my BIL was pro-life. We both call our pregnancies “the baby”. One day, in SIL’s third trimester, BIL & SIL found out that the baby was developing without any brain. There was no hope that the baby would ever do more than live in a vegetative state for an undetermined amount of time - days, weeks, months, maybe a couple of years at best. The baby would require around the clock care-giving. BIL and SIL chose to have an abortion.

People who have abortions sometimes are aborting babies - they are often wanted pregnancies until something goes catastrophically wrong. BIL and SIL made the best possible choice for them and their future family, which includes 3 more babies that they had after their abortion. Babies that they never would have had but for abortion.

Abortion is pro-life, but it includes not only thinking about whether the baby lives or dies, but also what kind of quality of life the baby and family would have.

PP here. I'm very much in agreement that many abortions are needed and appropriate. I'm not opposed and think a woman and her doctor and the father of the baby (if involved) should decide. I'm opposed to abortions on demand

My SIL needed an “abortion on demand”. Thank god she didn’t have to justify her decision to abort. There was no one to get to sign off on the abortion, no one to judge whether the baby was anencephalic enough to have an abortion, etc. Had she had to jump through hoops to justify her abortion it would have taken even longer to arrange and thus been at an even later time in the third trimester and she would have been even more traumatized.

When you say you are opposed to “abortions on demand”, you are opposed to women making the choice for themselves because you think there are just some bad women out there who are irresponsible and decide on a whim for some unjustifiable reason (to you) to get an abortion at the last minute.
A third trimester abortion costs something like $25k, takes 3-4 days and you have to travel to like one of 4 states in the country that actually does it. Also less than 1% of all abortions are after 20 weeks, which in 2019 was something like 8-9000 abortions. Women aren’t having 3rd term abortions on a whim.

This. Unbelievable. These kinds of people are almost worse than the fervent believers who hold that every embryo is a full fledged person with rights. If you’re fine with abortion in some circumstances, then butt out and let women and families make those hard decisions for themselves. Who do you think you are?

Judgmental a-holes who have a fetish for punishing “bad” women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I call my dog a baby. Does that make it a person? 🤔

No, but we don’t allow you to kill your dog because you made a mistake and can’t take care of it — we let you put it up for adoption or you give it to a family member or something. So that’s a shitty point that you made, sorry.

Needless to say I’m anti abortion, but I’m still pro choice because I’m generally pretty libertarian. I would never get an abortion because I think it’s wrong on many levels and I believe in accountability in life but whether other people do it is not my business.

Libertarian is another word for Republican but trying to not call yourself a Republican. Even my SO who for many years called themselves a Libertarian said this.

Yup. A Republican without a backbone.

Try again skippy. A true Libertarian is against government control. Hence, they are against government restrictions on abortion. This is about as anti-Republican as you can get. Republicans are hypocrites. However, a Libertarian is also against government social welfare programs (such as government paying for abortions and birth control) which is anti-Democrat. This is why you bad mouth them. You not only want to not be restricted in your life choice, but also want government to pay you for them. Democrats are also hypocrites. You’re a taker, not a giver. I lean Libertarian, but am not naive enough to believe any society can go full bore this way. I am Independent. I don’t blindly follow a party.

As far as abortion goes, the proper law is that no restrictions on abortion shall be allowable while the fetus is prior to 20 weeks in gestation. Why? Because there is no viable human entity until that point. After that point there is a viable physically dependent entity and no licensed health care provider shall terminate that pregnancy without viable cause. Viable cause to terminate: life threatening health risk to the mother or unborn child. Note, that even in this law, the restriction is placed on the licensed physician and not the mother. However, birth control and non-physician recommended abortions are life-style choices and not health care choices and therefore shall not be funded under govt. healthcare or social welfare programs. Physician recommended abortions (due to life threatening issues or serious health issues to mother and/or fetus) shall be covered by govt. programs, if such programs exist. No requirement for these programs to exist, but for states that have them, they cannot exclude doctor recommended procedures.

Anyhow, you all better start lobbying your congressperson at the state and federal level to pass a law as such, else you’re looking at more Oklahomas ….

Ever been pregnant?

Every pregnancy presents serious health risks to the mother. Look up maternal mortality rates, look up c-section rates, etc etc.

Just back off and let women and doctor’s decide, it isn’t hard.

Also, the scheme you propose won’t be legal in places like Oklahoma if Alito gets away with denying women their constitutional rights.

You’re worse than a hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I am pro-choice and my BIL was pro-life. We both call our pregnancies “the baby”. One day, in SIL’s third trimester, BIL & SIL found out that the baby was developing without any brain. There was no hope that the baby would ever do more than live in a vegetative state for an undetermined amount of time - days, weeks, months, maybe a couple of years at best. The baby would require around the clock care-giving. BIL and SIL chose to have an abortion.

People who have abortions sometimes are aborting babies - they are often wanted pregnancies until something goes catastrophically wrong. BIL and SIL made the best possible choice for them and their future family, which includes 3 more babies that they had after their abortion. Babies that they never would have had but for abortion.

Abortion is pro-life, but it includes not only thinking about whether the baby lives or dies, but also what kind of quality of life the baby and family would have.

It's such a familiar story. SO MANY anti-abortionists actually turn out to believe in choice when they are faced with a terrible situation. Funny how that works.

Did SIL have an ultrasound at any point during her pregnancy? This is usually diagnosed very early

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile in Texas, a woman having a miscarriage was denied the medication to help it pass by a CVS pharmacy that said it couldn't be sure she wasn't using it to have an abortion.

A big middle finger to all of you who think banning abortion is a-okay. It's just going to get worse.

Dang. And it’s just going to get worse.

Wow, TXnewsprincess has a FB group that says so. MUST be true!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I am pro-choice and my BIL was pro-life. We both call our pregnancies “the baby”. One day, in SIL’s third trimester, BIL & SIL found out that the baby was developing without any brain. There was no hope that the baby would ever do more than live in a vegetative state for an undetermined amount of time - days, weeks, months, maybe a couple of years at best. The baby would require around the clock care-giving. BIL and SIL chose to have an abortion.

People who have abortions sometimes are aborting babies - they are often wanted pregnancies until something goes catastrophically wrong. BIL and SIL made the best possible choice for them and their future family, which includes 3 more babies that they had after their abortion. Babies that they never would have had but for abortion.

Abortion is pro-life, but it includes not only thinking about whether the baby lives or dies, but also what kind of quality of life the baby and family would have.

It's such a familiar story. SO MANY anti-abortionists actually turn out to believe in choice when they are faced with a terrible situation. Funny how that works.

Did SIL have an ultrasound at any point during her pregnancy? This is usually diagnosed very early

How is this any of your business???

The busy-bodies in here are just revolting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I am pro-choice and my BIL was pro-life. We both call our pregnancies “the baby”. One day, in SIL’s third trimester, BIL & SIL found out that the baby was developing without any brain. There was no hope that the baby would ever do more than live in a vegetative state for an undetermined amount of time - days, weeks, months, maybe a couple of years at best. The baby would require around the clock care-giving. BIL and SIL chose to have an abortion.

People who have abortions sometimes are aborting babies - they are often wanted pregnancies until something goes catastrophically wrong. BIL and SIL made the best possible choice for them and their future family, which includes 3 more babies that they had after their abortion. Babies that they never would have had but for abortion.

Abortion is pro-life, but it includes not only thinking about whether the baby lives or dies, but also what kind of quality of life the baby and family would have.

It's such a familiar story. SO MANY anti-abortionists actually turn out to believe in choice when they are faced with a terrible situation. Funny how that works.

Did SIL have an ultrasound at any point during her pregnancy? This is usually diagnosed very early

I am often asked this Q. It rests on the premise that fetal abnormalities are known by the point of ultrasound and/or amniocentesis - which is absolutely medically wrong, but something we choose to believe as a culture because it would be terrifying to carry a wanted child through an entire pregnancy knowing that you really aren’t “safe” until the baby is actually born. Anencephaly due to failure of the neural tube to close properly is diagnosed early in pregnancy, but an- or micro-cephaly due to disruption of pregnancy by infectious agent (a virus) is usually not diagnosed until much later in pregnancy.

SIL had excellent medical care throughout pregnancy. The anencephaly was likely due to herpes virus interrupting the development of the baby’s brain in the third trimester. The vast majority of the cerebellum growth and differentiation happens in the 3rd trimester. The cerebellum produces all the higher order thinking. By contrast, the cerebrum (the brainstem) develops much earlier and controls all the automatic functions of the body. This baby would have been born with an intact cerebrum but little to no cerebellum, which meant the baby could have survived birth breathing and pooping/peeing and heart beating, but unable to ever move, feed independently or have any meaningful interaction or communication. The parents chose abortion.

There are a number of viruses in addition to herpes that can cause this kind of catastrophic disruption to fetal development - Zika, Toxoplasmosis (in cat poop), cytomegalovirus, rubella and syphilis.

I want to emphasize that cytomegalovirus, herpes and toxoplasmosis are very common - either in the world around us or already at significant prevalence in adult females who may or may not know they have these viruses laying dormant. The likelihood of one of these viruses activating and interfering with pregnancy development is extremely low but it’s basically a very low risk that applies to MANY pregnant women who have virtually NO WAY OF PREDICTING OR PREVENTING.

Why am I shouting that? Because when you take away 3rd trimester abortion for “health” reasons because you think pregnant women are somehow lying about their health issues which are not so serious or should have known earlier (which is what your post implies), you are forcing parents like my BIL and SIL to carry an anencephalic or micro encephalic baby to term and care for it for, perhaps years and years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I am pro-choice and my BIL was pro-life. We both call our pregnancies “the baby”. One day, in SIL’s third trimester, BIL & SIL found out that the baby was developing without any brain. There was no hope that the baby would ever do more than live in a vegetative state for an undetermined amount of time - days, weeks, months, maybe a couple of years at best. The baby would require around the clock care-giving. BIL and SIL chose to have an abortion.

People who have abortions sometimes are aborting babies - they are often wanted pregnancies until something goes catastrophically wrong. BIL and SIL made the best possible choice for them and their future family, which includes 3 more babies that they had after their abortion. Babies that they never would have had but for abortion.

Abortion is pro-life, but it includes not only thinking about whether the baby lives or dies, but also what kind of quality of life the baby and family would have.

It's such a familiar story. SO MANY anti-abortionists actually turn out to believe in choice when they are faced with a terrible situation. Funny how that works.

Did SIL have an ultrasound at any point during her pregnancy? This is usually diagnosed very early

I am often asked this Q. It rests on the premise that fetal abnormalities are known by the point of ultrasound and/or amniocentesis - which is absolutely medically wrong, but something we choose to believe as a culture because it would be terrifying to carry a wanted child through an entire pregnancy knowing that you really aren’t “safe” until the baby is actually born. Anencephaly due to failure of the neural tube to close properly is diagnosed early in pregnancy, but an- or micro-cephaly due to disruption of pregnancy by infectious agent (a virus) is usually not diagnosed until much later in pregnancy.

SIL had excellent medical care throughout pregnancy. The anencephaly was likely due to herpes virus interrupting the development of the baby’s brain in the third trimester. The vast majority of the cerebellum growth and differentiation happens in the 3rd trimester. The cerebellum produces all the higher order thinking. By contrast, the cerebrum (the brainstem) develops much earlier and controls all the automatic functions of the body. This baby would have been born with an intact cerebrum but little to no cerebellum, which meant the baby could have survived birth breathing and pooping/peeing and heart beating, but unable to ever move, feed independently or have any meaningful interaction or communication. The parents chose abortion.

There are a number of viruses in addition to herpes that can cause this kind of catastrophic disruption to fetal development - Zika, Toxoplasmosis (in cat poop), cytomegalovirus, rubella and syphilis.

I want to emphasize that cytomegalovirus, herpes and toxoplasmosis are very common - either in the world around us or already at significant prevalence in adult females who may or may not know they have these viruses laying dormant. The likelihood of one of these viruses activating and interfering with pregnancy development is extremely low but it’s basically a very low risk that applies to MANY pregnant women who have virtually NO WAY OF PREDICTING OR PREVENTING.

Why am I shouting that? Because when you take away 3rd trimester abortion for “health” reasons because you think pregnant women are somehow lying about their health issues which are not so serious or should have known earlier (which is what your post implies), you are forcing parents like my BIL and SIL to carry an anencephalic or micro encephalic baby to term and care for it for, perhaps years and years.

DP. It’s just so ridiculous you had to spell this out for people. Doctors are not performing abortions late in pregnancy for shits and giggles. Women are not having late term abortions because they were too stupid to get them sooner

I want to scream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Try again skippy. A true Libertarian is against government control. Hence, they are against government restrictions on abortion. This is about as anti-Republican as you can get. Republicans are hypocrites. However, a Libertarian is also against government social welfare programs (such as government paying for abortions and birth control) which is anti-Democrat. This is why you bad mouth them. You not only want to not be restricted in your life choice, but also want government to pay you for them. Democrats are also hypocrites. You’re a taker, not a giver. I lean Libertarian, but am not naive enough to believe any society can go full bore this way. I am Independent. I don’t blindly follow a party.

As far as abortion goes, the proper law is that no restrictions on abortion shall be allowable while the fetus is prior to 20 weeks in gestation. Why? Because there is no viable human entity until that point. After that point there is a viable physically dependent entity and no licensed health care provider shall terminate that pregnancy without viable cause. Viable cause to terminate: life threatening health risk to the mother or unborn child. Note, that even in this law, the restriction is placed on the licensed physician and not the mother. However, birth control and non-physician recommended abortions are life-style choices and not health care choices and therefore shall not be funded under govt. healthcare or social welfare programs. Physician recommended abortions (due to life threatening issues or serious health issues to mother and/or fetus) shall be covered by govt. programs, if such programs exist. No requirement for these programs to exist, but for states that have them, they cannot exclude doctor recommended procedures.

Anyhow, you all better start lobbying your congressperson at the state and federal level to pass a law as such, else you’re looking at more Oklahomas ….

Yes somehow, the economy grows when democrats are in charge, the GDP grows etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I am pro-choice and my BIL was pro-life. We both call our pregnancies “the baby”. One day, in SIL’s third trimester, BIL & SIL found out that the baby was developing without any brain. There was no hope that the baby would ever do more than live in a vegetative state for an undetermined amount of time - days, weeks, months, maybe a couple of years at best. The baby would require around the clock care-giving. BIL and SIL chose to have an abortion.

People who have abortions sometimes are aborting babies - they are often wanted pregnancies until something goes catastrophically wrong. BIL and SIL made the best possible choice for them and their future family, which includes 3 more babies that they had after their abortion. Babies that they never would have had but for abortion.

Abortion is pro-life, but it includes not only thinking about whether the baby lives or dies, but also what kind of quality of life the baby and family would have.

It's such a familiar story. SO MANY anti-abortionists actually turn out to believe in choice when they are faced with a terrible situation. Funny how that works.

Did SIL have an ultrasound at any point during her pregnancy? This is usually diagnosed very early

I am often asked this Q. It rests on the premise that fetal abnormalities are known by the point of ultrasound and/or amniocentesis - which is absolutely medically wrong, but something we choose to believe as a culture because it would be terrifying to carry a wanted child through an entire pregnancy knowing that you really aren’t “safe” until the baby is actually born. Anencephaly due to failure of the neural tube to close properly is diagnosed early in pregnancy, but an- or micro-cephaly due to disruption of pregnancy by infectious agent (a virus) is usually not diagnosed until much later in pregnancy.

SIL had excellent medical care throughout pregnancy. The anencephaly was likely due to herpes virus interrupting the development of the baby’s brain in the third trimester. The vast majority of the cerebellum growth and differentiation happens in the 3rd trimester. The cerebellum produces all the higher order thinking. By contrast, the cerebrum (the brainstem) develops much earlier and controls all the automatic functions of the body. This baby would have been born with an intact cerebrum but little to no cerebellum, which meant the baby could have survived birth breathing and pooping/peeing and heart beating, but unable to ever move, feed independently or have any meaningful interaction or communication. The parents chose abortion.

There are a number of viruses in addition to herpes that can cause this kind of catastrophic disruption to fetal development - Zika, Toxoplasmosis (in cat poop), cytomegalovirus, rubella and syphilis.

I want to emphasize that cytomegalovirus, herpes and toxoplasmosis are very common - either in the world around us or already at significant prevalence in adult females who may or may not know they have these viruses laying dormant. The likelihood of one of these viruses activating and interfering with pregnancy development is extremely low but it’s basically a very low risk that applies to MANY pregnant women who have virtually NO WAY OF PREDICTING OR PREVENTING.

Why am I shouting that? Because when you take away 3rd trimester abortion for “health” reasons because you think pregnant women are somehow lying about their health issues which are not so serious or should have known earlier (which is what your post implies), you are forcing parents like my BIL and SIL to carry an anencephalic or micro encephalic baby to term and care for it for, perhaps years and years.

DP. It’s just so ridiculous you had to spell this out for people. Doctors are not performing abortions late in pregnancy for shits and giggles. Women are not having late term abortions because they were too stupid to get them sooner

I want to scream.

It's ridiculous that people think that we need to explain any of this to anyone who isn't the patient or doctor.

We don't need to justify our medical decisions to random, ignorant politicians or crazy religious extremists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think this decision would force parents to allow invasive medical care for infants that are born with severe medical problems? I can see that happening. If you forced me to give birth to a child I knew had very little chance, could you force me to make that child suffer through surgeries and other interventions after birth?

This is all so messed up.

I doubt it. It's well-established that forced-birthers don't give a f** about babies after they are born.

No more a fact than if I claimed that abortionists like you don't care if babies live or die.

Actually completely different. An embryo is not a baby.

Fine. Abortionists like you can say you're pregnant with an embryo. Women i know say they're pregnant with a baby.

I am pro-choice and my BIL was pro-life. We both call our pregnancies “the baby”. One day, in SIL’s third trimester, BIL & SIL found out that the baby was developing without any brain. There was no hope that the baby would ever do more than live in a vegetative state for an undetermined amount of time - days, weeks, months, maybe a couple of years at best. The baby would require around the clock care-giving. BIL and SIL chose to have an abortion.

People who have abortions sometimes are aborting babies - they are often wanted pregnancies until something goes catastrophically wrong. BIL and SIL made the best possible choice for them and their future family, which includes 3 more babies that they had after their abortion. Babies that they never would have had but for abortion.

Abortion is pro-life, but it includes not only thinking about whether the baby lives or dies, but also what kind of quality of life the baby and family would have.

It's such a familiar story. SO MANY anti-abortionists actually turn out to believe in choice when they are faced with a terrible situation. Funny how that works.

Did SIL have an ultrasound at any point during her pregnancy? This is usually diagnosed very early

I am often asked this Q. It rests on the premise that fetal abnormalities are known by the point of ultrasound and/or amniocentesis - which is absolutely medically wrong, but something we choose to believe as a culture because it would be terrifying to carry a wanted child through an entire pregnancy knowing that you really aren’t “safe” until the baby is actually born. Anencephaly due to failure of the neural tube to close properly is diagnosed early in pregnancy, but an- or micro-cephaly due to disruption of pregnancy by infectious agent (a virus) is usually not diagnosed until much later in pregnancy.

SIL had excellent medical care throughout pregnancy. The anencephaly was likely due to herpes virus interrupting the development of the baby’s brain in the third trimester. The vast majority of the cerebellum growth and differentiation happens in the 3rd trimester. The cerebellum produces all the higher order thinking. By contrast, the cerebrum (the brainstem) develops much earlier and controls all the automatic functions of the body. This baby would have been born with an intact cerebrum but little to no cerebellum, which meant the baby could have survived birth breathing and pooping/peeing and heart beating, but unable to ever move, feed independently or have any meaningful interaction or communication. The parents chose abortion.

There are a number of viruses in addition to herpes that can cause this kind of catastrophic disruption to fetal development - Zika, Toxoplasmosis (in cat poop), cytomegalovirus, rubella and syphilis.

I want to emphasize that cytomegalovirus, herpes and toxoplasmosis are very common - either in the world around us or already at significant prevalence in adult females who may or may not know they have these viruses laying dormant. The likelihood of one of these viruses activating and interfering with pregnancy development is extremely low but it’s basically a very low risk that applies to MANY pregnant women who have virtually NO WAY OF PREDICTING OR PREVENTING.

Why am I shouting that? Because when you take away 3rd trimester abortion for “health” reasons because you think pregnant women are somehow lying about their health issues which are not so serious or should have known earlier (which is what your post implies), you are forcing parents like my BIL and SIL to carry an anencephalic or micro encephalic baby to term and care for it for, perhaps years and years.

DP. It’s just so ridiculous you had to spell this out for people. Doctors are not performing abortions late in pregnancy for shits and giggles. Women are not having late term abortions because they were too stupid to get them sooner

I want to scream.

It's ridiculous that people think that we need to explain any of this to anyone who isn't the patient or doctor.

We don't need to justify our medical decisions to random, ignorant politicians or crazy religious extremists.

NP here:
It has to be explained because so many who are casually "pro life" (usually as part of a "god & guns" conservative Christian social identity) are utterly ignorant about the medical science and real world ramifications of the policy they are advocating or what the radical extremists they are voting for intend to do. They are quite literally ignorant fools who have neither the personal experience or knowledge about why women need abortions after the 20th week. 99% of those cases are because of health risks to the mom or major issues with the child not compatible with life.