Official Abortion Thread

[Anonymous]

Does that mean they can drive earlier? Teenagers are going to love this.

How about Social Security? Could I claim benefits earlier? And Medicare too? Wooeeee . . . sounds good to me.

[Anonymous]

All the people saying you should just get sterilized if you don’t want kids clearly have never been an under-30 woman trying to get her tubes tied. A lot of gyns refuse to do it, even if the woman already had a bunch of kids, because they say she might change her mind, she might meet someone who wants kids, etc. Even when a young women knows she doesn’t want the get pregnant and tries to be responsible about preventing it, doctors deny her agency to make that decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with leaving the legality of abortion to individual states.

Yes, there is. States are not allowed to decide about constitutionally protected rights. That's why we have a federal government and are not a confederacy.

Roe v Wade was a seriously flawed decision which needs to be modified or reversed.

Roe v Wade was flawed. The right to privacy was a made up thing at the time. But it is part of a line of a hugely important cases to the American pUblic. Right to access birth control, right to marry outside your race, right to engage in homosexual behavior, right to educate your children as you prefer (religious schooling), right to end medical “heroic measures”, right to compose your family as you see fit (it the context of laws banning multiple generations from living together”— these were all right to privacy cases.

If you get rid of the right to privacy, all these cases fall. Some, like being allowed to send kids to private or religious schools, conservative like.

The difference is that in the case of abortion, the rights of an unborn child is subjugated to the wishes of the woman carrying the child. Even Roe when it was decided was predicated on the viability of the fetus outside of the mother's womb which is why the abortions in the third semester was constrained. With medical advances that viability has become possible at an even earlier point in the pregnancy.

No, not the woman’s “wishes,” her *rights*. Her right to bodily autonomy, to not have her body conscripted for someone else’s purpose, enslaved for the benefit of another.

she doesn’t have the right to kill another life. Never has.

People kill other lives all the time - in order to eat meat. Do you find that immoral?

OMG! Who kills and eats other humans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing wrong with leaving the legality of abortion to individual states.

Yes, there is. States are not allowed to decide about constitutionally protected rights. That's why we have a federal government and are not a confederacy.

"

Roe v Wade was a seriously flawed decision which needs to be modified or reversed.

Roe v Wade was flawed. The right to privacy was a made up thing at the time. But it is part of a line of a hugely important cases to the American pUblic. Right to access birth control, right to marry outside your race, right to engage in homosexual behavior, right to educate your children as you prefer (religious schooling), right to end medical “heroic measures”, right to compose your family as you see fit (it the context of laws banning multiple generations from living together”— these were all right to privacy cases.

If you get rid of the right to privacy, all these cases fall. Some, like being allowed to send kids to private or religious schools, conservative like.

The difference is that in the case of abortion, the rights of an unborn child is subjugated to the wishes of the woman carrying the child. Even Roe when it was decided was predicated on the viability of the fetus outside of the mother's womb which is why the abortions in the third semester was constrained. With medical advances that viability has become possible at an even earlier point in the pregnancy.

No, not the woman’s “wishes,” her *rights*. Her right to bodily autonomy, to not have her body conscripted for someone else’s purpose, enslaved for the benefit of another.

she doesn’t have the right to kill another life. Never has.

People kill other lives all the time - in order to eat meat. Do you find that immoral?

OMG! Who kills and eats other humans?

DP, but seriously, learn to read. The poster above didn’t say she doesn’t have the right to kill another human life, he just said “life.” Animals are living creatures too, so when you kill them for food you are taking a life, even if you think it’s justified to do so.

[Anonymous]

“Anti-abortion” is such a cliche for enraged incels who want to punish women for sleeping with men other than themselves. How weak. No wonder no one will sleep with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So can women in Alabama claim unborn children as dependents on state tax returns?

I don’t know about Alabama, but that is explicitly included in the Georgia law.
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/anti-abortion-heartbeat-bill-would-also-have-tax-impact-for-georgians/zqFJ5osEEt3g3VlwRrLb9I/

Interesting. So if the threshold is heartbeat perhaps that will be what determines coitizenship too- like if the heartbeat is first heard on US soil, the embryo is a US cit.

Exactly!

So, if the "baby" has its first heartbeat outside of the U.S. but is born in the U.S., is it not a citizen?

Are 17 year olds who had their first heartbeats more than 18 years ago eligible to vote?

Yes, in Alabama you are actually about 40 weeks older than you are in the rest of the country. So they can drink as well.

To the PP: since “personhood” begins at heartbeat, birth is a meaningless milestone. Where you’re born no longer matters, only where your heart is first detected. (I mean technically it should be where you’re conceived but that will cause a lot of problems with twins, who would technically then only be half people.)

Does that mean all women need to have transvaginal ultrasounds every month just to be sure?

I think we should just lock all women of childbearing age up for good measure all the time. Don’t want them potentially harming the possible embryo-person inside them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So can women in Alabama claim unborn children as dependents on state tax returns?

I don’t know about Alabama, but that is explicitly included in the Georgia law.
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/anti-abortion-heartbeat-bill-would-also-have-tax-impact-for-georgians/zqFJ5osEEt3g3VlwRrLb9I/

Interesting. So if the threshold is heartbeat perhaps that will be what determines coitizenship too- like if the heartbeat is first heard on US soil, the embryo is a US cit.

Exactly!

So, if the "baby" has its first heartbeat outside of the U.S. but is born in the U.S., is it not a citizen?

Are 17 year olds who had their first heartbeats more than 18 years ago eligible to vote?

Yes, in Alabama you are actually about 40 weeks older than you are in the rest of the country. So they can drink as well.

To the PP: since “personhood” begins at heartbeat, birth is a meaningless milestone. Where you’re born no longer matters, only where your heart is first detected. (I mean technically it should be where you’re conceived but that will cause a lot of problems with twins, who would technically then only be half people.)

Does that mean all women need to have transvaginal ultrasounds every month just to be sure?

I think we should just lock all women of childbearing age up for good measure all the time. Don’t want them potentially harming the possible embryo-person inside them.

Or maybe we could assign each single fertile woman of child-bearing age to an infertile couple so that when the woman gets pregnant, her baby can be pre-adopted by the infertile couple. She could live in their house, and they’d take excellent care of her, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So can women in Alabama claim unborn children as dependents on state tax returns?

I don’t know about Alabama, but that is explicitly included in the Georgia law.
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/anti-abortion-heartbeat-bill-would-also-have-tax-impact-for-georgians/zqFJ5osEEt3g3VlwRrLb9I/

Interesting. So if the threshold is heartbeat perhaps that will be what determines coitizenship too- like if the heartbeat is first heard on US soil, the embryo is a US cit.

Exactly!

So, if the "baby" has its first heartbeat outside of the U.S. but is born in the U.S., is it not a citizen?

Are 17 year olds who had their first heartbeats more than 18 years ago eligible to vote?

Yes, in Alabama you are actually about 40 weeks older than you are in the rest of the country. So they can drink as well.

To the PP: since “personhood” begins at heartbeat, birth is a meaningless milestone. Where you’re born no longer matters, only where your heart is first detected. (I mean technically it should be where you’re conceived but that will cause a lot of problems with twins, who would technically then only be half people.)

Does that mean all women need to have transvaginal ultrasounds every month just to be sure?

I think we should just lock all women of childbearing age up for good measure all the time. Don’t want them potentially harming the possible embryo-person inside them.

Or maybe we could assign each single fertile woman of child-bearing age to an infertile couple so that when the woman gets pregnant, her baby can be pre-adopted by the infertile couple. She could live in their house, and they’d take excellent care of her, right?

Maybe the fertile women should wear a special color so we know how special they are.

[Anonymous]

DC liberals: “abortion is a matter of choice. Please butt out, world.”

Also DC liberals: “omg I’m so scared the Supreme Court will legalize laws that limit abortions and that states I don’t live in will choose to enact them”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would support abortion more if men could opt for it.

And If the woman said “no”, then child support was deemed not required.

Child support is for the child. Not for the mother or the father.

Correct. And?

Guys we've been over this a thousand times. You cannot force someone to get an abortion. Until a few days ago you couldn't Force someone to be pregnant. Men don't get a legal say in a woman's childrearing decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC liberals: “abortion is a matter of choice. Please butt out, world.”

Also DC liberals: “omg I’m so scared the Supreme Court will legalize laws that limit abortions and that states I don’t live in will choose to enact them”

Yes when you believe abortion is something a woman should be able to freely choose for herself you don’t want laws that restrict that liberty, not just for yourself but for others no matter what state, as a matter of justice. I guess that’s hard for you to fathom that some people care about ensuring rights for others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would support abortion more if men could opt for it.

And If the woman said “no”, then child support was deemed not required.

So basically this is a "I only support abortion because I'm a deadbeat father and I wish I could have forced my baby Mana to get an abortion"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC liberals: “abortion is a matter of choice. Please butt out, world.”

Also DC liberals: “omg I’m so scared the Supreme Court will legalize laws that limit abortions and that states I don’t live in will choose to enact them”

Yes, those two sentiments would be consistent..l

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC liberals: “abortion is a matter of choice. Please butt out, world.”

Also DC liberals: “omg I’m so scared the Supreme Court will legalize laws that limit abortions and that states I don’t live in will choose to enact them”

Two standard deviations below the mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC liberals: “abortion is a matter of choice. Please butt out, world.”

Also DC liberals: “omg I’m so scared the Supreme Court will legalize laws that limit abortions and that states I don’t live in will choose to enact them”

Yes when you believe abortion is something a woman should be able to freely choose for herself you don’t want laws that restrict that liberty, not just for yourself but for others no matter what state, as a matter of justice. I guess that’s hard for you to fathom that some people care about ensuring rights for others?

i can fathom it; it’s just dumb and a cribbed understanding of choice. Women can make societal choices too through their elected representatives. Sometimes their preferred choice will be “no abortions” backed up not just by individual resolve but legal accountability. That’s all totally fine.