Women who say they aren't voting on the single issue of abortion rights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I see so many people unmoved by stories of women dying or almost dying, I’ve realizes that women and child-bearing is viewed by so many just as soldiers going to war. You might survive, you might not. Either way, it’s your duty. Good luck.

The idea that women are dying left and right because they can’t get abortions just doesn’t add up. With today’s healthcare, dying in childbirth is rare in the U.S., and serious complications are handled well in most cases. The CDC shows that only about 2-6% of abortions are due to life-threatening situations, so most abortions are for personal or other reasons, not because a mother’s life is at immediate risk.

The comparison to soldiers going to war—where survival is a gamble—misses the reality, too. Childbirth isn’t typically life-or-death here like in a war zone, thanks to modern medicine. And, to make things clearer, even Trump has voiced support for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the mother’s life. This shows that women facing these extreme situations aren’t left without options, which means the “forced to die” narrative just doesn’t reflect the situation. With maternal healthcare and these exceptions, the situation is nowhere near as bleak as it’s sometimes portrayed.

It doesn't matter what Trump says. He's a serial liar. What he's done is enabled people like you to deny women "modern medicine" (not sure why you'd be using this term) and throw away the lives of those "2-6%".

It’s fair to question politicians, but the data here speaks for itself and isn’t just about one person’s stance. “Modern medicine” refers to advancements in healthcare that have made pregnancy and childbirth much safer than they were even a few decades ago. We’re talking about better access to emergency care, skilled professionals, and treatments that mean fewer pregnancies result in serious harm or death.

The 2-6% you mention is actually evidence of the system working. Exceptions for life-threatening situations are already in place, even in states with restrictions, to ensure that those who really need emergency abortion care aren’t denied it. The goal is to support both maternal health and life overall, not to dismiss the needs of those in high-risk pregnancies. Making abortion only available for cases of severe health risks or life-threatening issues isn’t about “throwing away lives”—it’s about focusing on safe, preventative care and addressing critical cases as they come up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I see so many people unmoved by stories of women dying or almost dying, I’ve realizes that women and child-bearing is viewed by so many just as soldiers going to war. You might survive, you might not. Either way, it’s your duty. Good luck.

The idea that women are dying left and right because they can’t get abortions just doesn’t add up. With today’s healthcare, dying in childbirth is rare in the U.S., and serious complications are handled well in most cases. The CDC shows that only about 2-6% of abortions are due to life-threatening situations, so most abortions are for personal or other reasons, not because a mother’s life is at immediate risk.

The comparison to soldiers going to war—where survival is a gamble—misses the reality, too. Childbirth isn’t typically life-or-death here like in a war zone, thanks to modern medicine. And, to make things clearer, even Trump has voiced support for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the mother’s life. This shows that women facing these extreme situations aren’t left without options, which means the “forced to die” narrative just doesn’t reflect the situation. With maternal healthcare and these exceptions, the situation is nowhere near as bleak as it’s sometimes portrayed.

It doesn't matter what Trump says. He's a serial liar. What he's done is enabled people like you to deny women "modern medicine" (not sure why you'd be using this term) and throw away the lives of those "2-6%".

It’s fair to question politicians, but the data here speaks for itself and isn’t just about one person’s stance. “Modern medicine” refers to advancements in healthcare that have made pregnancy and childbirth much safer than they were even a few decades ago. We’re talking about better access to emergency care, skilled professionals, and treatments that mean fewer pregnancies result in serious harm or death.

The 2-6% you mention is actually evidence of the system working. Exceptions for life-threatening situations are already in place, even in states with restrictions, to ensure that those who really need emergency abortion care aren’t denied it. The goal is to support both maternal health and life overall, not to dismiss the needs of those in high-risk pregnancies. Making abortion only available for cases of severe health risks or life-threatening issues isn’t about “throwing away lives”—it’s about focusing on safe, preventative care and addressing critical cases as they come up.

Do you not appreciate that this "modern medicine" is choosing to leave and/or not perform their residencies in these states?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortion numbers have actually increased since Dobbs. Funny how that works!

As a mom of two daughters, reproductive freedom is my top voting issue. Same with my first time presidential election voting daughter. We showed up and voted last week.

Nice to you know you're raising your daughter in fear of false dilemmas without the critical stamina to understand that women are in far worse danger of subjugation under the regime that is allowing men to invade their spaces, their jobs, their sports. You are not being a good role model for your daughter when you teach her that the most important issue for electing a president is how far along in pregnancy a woman can abort her child. Question: has Harris said how she will overturn the Scotus decision?

What a load of bologna. I am definitely raising my daughters and sons to be able to see through that kind of b*******.

Explain to your sons and daughters the critical importance of reproductive rights and explain to them how to fight and vote to get them.

Why do you keep saying reproductive rights when what you mean is abortion? You can turn yourself inside out all you want, you are still advocating for ending the lives of fetuses. These are not 'clumps of cells.' These are fully-formed, human beings, who, after about 12 weeks, have to be pulled apart and killed in utero.

Ok scoldylocks, I wouldn't even have kids to teach if it wasn't for IVF like millions of other moms. And darling, some of the embryos don't make it when you do IVF.

I've got this issue covered with my kids. I don't need any help from the likes of you.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I also had my children through IVF--actual IVF, not the IUI, as the Walzes did then lied about. In any event, it is a red herring to talk about "reproductive rights" and you know it. You are not voting about IVF, you are voting about abortion and cannot be honest with yourself. I am fully aware of how IVF works by the way. And you know what else, two of my IVF babies were born at 20 weeks. I held them for the 2 hours they lived and breathed outside of my uterus. Kissed them and told them how much I loved them. Are you the kind of person who calls those "clumps of cells?"

Well then from one IVF mom to another.... I don't know why you don't understand this..... but the destruction of Roe threatens IVF as a fertility treatment. If you want to fully protect access to IVF and some other fertility treatments...And yes also abortion, which is the flip side of fertility treatments, Daniel then we then we need to fight to get back the protections of Roe. Voting for Harris it's the beginning of this process.

Actually, as an"IVF mom" (though, I don't know identify myself that way), I am hopeful that the technology is as close as it sounds to not have to produce and discard embryos. I am a massive hypocrite, because the discarding of embryos bothers me. I did not discard any. We had multiple rounds--as I mentioned, two of them were delivered and died at 20 weeks, and the rest were used in multiple attempts. It would pain me to discard of them. Nonetheless, not a single state has taken a step to ban IVF, so again, red herring.

Did you really miss that the Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling in February declaring that embryos created through in IVF should be considered children?

Do you really not understand that this is not banning IVF?

Do you really not understand that the risk is not an IVF ban? The clinics that halted the procedure made that decision all by themselves to avoid the risks of facing catastrophic liabilities.

What do they procedurally do with all of the unused embryos (which are inherently necessary via this procedure)? You can't discard them. You can't keep them frozen forever. If you transport them across state lines for disposal, would they be charged with mass murder? It's not just legal liability, it's legal jeopardy.

+1. Ivf does not need to be banned in order to have no clinics actually offer the procedure. If you truly decide that an embryo or a fetus is a person then IVF is over.

Overturning roe pollutes a wide ranging array of women's healthcare issues. For example, it doesn't prohibit obstetricians from coming to your state, it just ends up having that effect. The risks of practicing medicine in an abortion ban state make it an undesirable location to practice that specialty.

It is safer to carry pregnancies in pro choice states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sooo many forms of birth control.

I know women who managed to not get pregnant despite having sex. They probably used 2 forms at a time.

I’ve been having sex multiple times a week for decades and I’ve only gotten pregnant when I didn’t use birth control. I knew what I was doing. I’ve never had an abortion. It’s an archaic, irrelevant procedure. We might as well be arguing about the right to bleed out infections with leeches.

60 to 90% women with genetically abnormal pregnancies choose to abort. This procedure is very much in demand and will remain so for as long as women have a choice. Data shows women overwhelmingly choose to terminate genetically abnormal pregnancies.

Genetically abnormal or emergency abortions are not the ones Republicans are against limiting

Some of them are.

Not really.

You’re saying it’s easy to terminate a genetically abnormal pregnancy at 20 weeks in a republican controlled state? I don’t think that’s correct.

Nor should it be. This is part of the issue. Timing and reasons for termination. Sanger is so joyful, as she watches seeing people terminate any babies that aren't perfect.

As I never grow tired of repeating, 60 to 90% of women with abnormal pregnancies choose to terminate. This indicator holds globally, in fact it is close to 99% in places like Denmark and Iceland. Not all disorders are visible before 12 weeks. Some are only discovered during amnio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortion numbers have actually increased since Dobbs. Funny how that works!

As a mom of two daughters, reproductive freedom is my top voting issue. Same with my first time presidential election voting daughter. We showed up and voted last week.

Nice to you know you're raising your daughter in fear of false dilemmas without the critical stamina to understand that women are in far worse danger of subjugation under the regime that is allowing men to invade their spaces, their jobs, their sports. You are not being a good role model for your daughter when you teach her that the most important issue for electing a president is how far along in pregnancy a woman can abort her child. Question: has Harris said how she will overturn the Scotus decision?

What a load of bologna. I am definitely raising my daughters and sons to be able to see through that kind of b*******.

Explain to your sons and daughters the critical importance of reproductive rights and explain to them how to fight and vote to get them.

Why do you keep saying reproductive rights when what you mean is abortion? You can turn yourself inside out all you want, you are still advocating for ending the lives of fetuses. These are not 'clumps of cells.' These are fully-formed, human beings, who, after about 12 weeks, have to be pulled apart and killed in utero.

Ok scoldylocks, I wouldn't even have kids to teach if it wasn't for IVF like millions of other moms. And darling, some of the embryos don't make it when you do IVF.

I've got this issue covered with my kids. I don't need any help from the likes of you.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I also had my children through IVF--actual IVF, not the IUI, as the Walzes did then lied about. In any event, it is a red herring to talk about "reproductive rights" and you know it. You are not voting about IVF, you are voting about abortion and cannot be honest with yourself. I am fully aware of how IVF works by the way. And you know what else, two of my IVF babies were born at 20 weeks. I held them for the 2 hours they lived and breathed outside of my uterus. Kissed them and told them how much I loved them. Are you the kind of person who calls those "clumps of cells?"

Well then from one IVF mom to another.... I don't know why you don't understand this..... but the destruction of Roe threatens IVF as a fertility treatment. If you want to fully protect access to IVF and some other fertility treatments...And yes also abortion, which is the flip side of fertility treatments, Daniel then we then we need to fight to get back the protections of Roe. Voting for Harris it's the beginning of this process.

Actually, as an"IVF mom" (though, I don't know identify myself that way), I am hopeful that the technology is as close as it sounds to not have to produce and discard embryos. I am a massive hypocrite, because the discarding of embryos bothers me. I did not discard any. We had multiple rounds--as I mentioned, two of them were delivered and died at 20 weeks, and the rest were used in multiple attempts. It would pain me to discard of them. Nonetheless, not a single state has taken a step to ban IVF, so again, red herring.

Did you really miss that the Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling in February declaring that embryos created through in IVF should be considered children?

Do you really not understand that this is not banning IVF?

Do you really not understand that the risk is not an IVF ban? The clinics that halted the procedure made that decision all by themselves to avoid the risks of facing catastrophic liabilities.

What do they procedurally do with all of the unused embryos (which are inherently necessary via this procedure)? You can't discard them. You can't keep them frozen forever. If you transport them across state lines for disposal, would they be charged with mass murder? It's not just legal liability, it's legal jeopardy.

+1. Ivf does not need to be banned in order to have no clinics actually offer the procedure. If you truly decide that an embryo or a fetus is a person then IVF is over.

Overturning roe pollutes a wide ranging array of women's healthcare issues. For example, it doesn't prohibit obstetricians from coming to your state, it just ends up having that effect. The risks of practicing medicine in an abortion ban state make it an undesirable location to practice that specialty.

It is safer to carry pregnancies in pro choice states.

It is safer to be a woman in pro-choice states.

We are going backwards wrt maternal health. Rs get off on women suffering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I see so many people unmoved by stories of women dying or almost dying, I’ve realizes that women and child-bearing is viewed by so many just as soldiers going to war. You might survive, you might not. Either way, it’s your duty. Good luck.

The idea that women are dying left and right because they can’t get abortions just doesn’t add up. With today’s healthcare, dying in childbirth is rare in the U.S., and serious complications are handled well in most cases. The CDC shows that only about 2-6% of abortions are due to life-threatening situations, so most abortions are for personal or other reasons, not because a mother’s life is at immediate risk.

The comparison to soldiers going to war—where survival is a gamble—misses the reality, too. Childbirth isn’t typically life-or-death here like in a war zone, thanks to modern medicine. And, to make things clearer, even Trump has voiced support for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the mother’s life. This shows that women facing these extreme situations aren’t left without options, which means the “forced to die” narrative just doesn’t reflect the situation. With maternal healthcare and these exceptions, the situation is nowhere near as bleak as it’s sometimes portrayed.

I love how they always spell out that women really have to be JUST ABOUT to die. Dying in a week isn't severe enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's really sad is that under Trump only rich women will easily be able to get a safe and quick abortion. Trump hates poor women.

Trifecta of Republican hate:
Poor, brown woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As I see so many people unmoved by stories of women dying or almost dying, I’ve realizes that women and child-bearing is viewed by so many just as soldiers going to war. You might survive, you might not. Either way, it’s your duty. Good luck.

They get off on women suffering. It’s a feature, not a big.

[Anonymous]

Bug

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortion numbers have actually increased since Dobbs. Funny how that works!

As a mom of two daughters, reproductive freedom is my top voting issue. Same with my first time presidential election voting daughter. We showed up and voted last week.

Nice to you know you're raising your daughter in fear of false dilemmas without the critical stamina to understand that women are in far worse danger of subjugation under the regime that is allowing men to invade their spaces, their jobs, their sports. You are not being a good role model for your daughter when you teach her that the most important issue for electing a president is how far along in pregnancy a woman can abort her child. Question: has Harris said how she will overturn the Scotus decision?

What a load of bologna. I am definitely raising my daughters and sons to be able to see through that kind of b*******.

Explain to your sons and daughters the critical importance of reproductive rights and explain to them how to fight and vote to get them.

Why do you keep saying reproductive rights when what you mean is abortion? You can turn yourself inside out all you want, you are still advocating for ending the lives of fetuses. These are not 'clumps of cells.' These are fully-formed, human beings, who, after about 12 weeks, have to be pulled apart and killed in utero.

Ok scoldylocks, I wouldn't even have kids to teach if it wasn't for IVF like millions of other moms. And darling, some of the embryos don't make it when you do IVF.

I've got this issue covered with my kids. I don't need any help from the likes of you.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I also had my children through IVF--actual IVF, not the IUI, as the Walzes did then lied about. In any event, it is a red herring to talk about "reproductive rights" and you know it. You are not voting about IVF, you are voting about abortion and cannot be honest with yourself. I am fully aware of how IVF works by the way. And you know what else, two of my IVF babies were born at 20 weeks. I held them for the 2 hours they lived and breathed outside of my uterus. Kissed them and told them how much I loved them. Are you the kind of person who calls those "clumps of cells?"

Well then from one IVF mom to another.... I don't know why you don't understand this..... but the destruction of Roe threatens IVF as a fertility treatment. If you want to fully protect access to IVF and some other fertility treatments...And yes also abortion, which is the flip side of fertility treatments, Daniel then we then we need to fight to get back the protections of Roe. Voting for Harris it's the beginning of this process.

Actually, as an"IVF mom" (though, I don't know identify myself that way), I am hopeful that the technology is as close as it sounds to not have to produce and discard embryos. I am a massive hypocrite, because the discarding of embryos bothers me. I did not discard any. We had multiple rounds--as I mentioned, two of them were delivered and died at 20 weeks, and the rest were used in multiple attempts. It would pain me to discard of them. Nonetheless, not a single state has taken a step to ban IVF, so again, red herring.

Did you really miss that the Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling in February declaring that embryos created through in IVF should be considered children?

Do you really not understand that this is not banning IVF?

Do you really not understand that the risk is not an IVF ban? The clinics that halted the procedure made that decision all by themselves to avoid the risks of facing catastrophic liabilities.

Which is still not a ban. The government isn't stopping them; they are self-regulating.

[Anonymous]

“IVF is safe”

- people who said RvW was safe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortion numbers have actually increased since Dobbs. Funny how that works!

As a mom of two daughters, reproductive freedom is my top voting issue. Same with my first time presidential election voting daughter. We showed up and voted last week.

Nice to you know you're raising your daughter in fear of false dilemmas without the critical stamina to understand that women are in far worse danger of subjugation under the regime that is allowing men to invade their spaces, their jobs, their sports. You are not being a good role model for your daughter when you teach her that the most important issue for electing a president is how far along in pregnancy a woman can abort her child. Question: has Harris said how she will overturn the Scotus decision?

What a load of bologna. I am definitely raising my daughters and sons to be able to see through that kind of b*******.

Explain to your sons and daughters the critical importance of reproductive rights and explain to them how to fight and vote to get them.

Why do you keep saying reproductive rights when what you mean is abortion? You can turn yourself inside out all you want, you are still advocating for ending the lives of fetuses. These are not 'clumps of cells.' These are fully-formed, human beings, who, after about 12 weeks, have to be pulled apart and killed in utero.

Ok scoldylocks, I wouldn't even have kids to teach if it wasn't for IVF like millions of other moms. And darling, some of the embryos don't make it when you do IVF.

I've got this issue covered with my kids. I don't need any help from the likes of you.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I also had my children through IVF--actual IVF, not the IUI, as the Walzes did then lied about. In any event, it is a red herring to talk about "reproductive rights" and you know it. You are not voting about IVF, you are voting about abortion and cannot be honest with yourself. I am fully aware of how IVF works by the way. And you know what else, two of my IVF babies were born at 20 weeks. I held them for the 2 hours they lived and breathed outside of my uterus. Kissed them and told them how much I loved them. Are you the kind of person who calls those "clumps of cells?"

Well then from one IVF mom to another.... I don't know why you don't understand this..... but the destruction of Roe threatens IVF as a fertility treatment. If you want to fully protect access to IVF and some other fertility treatments...And yes also abortion, which is the flip side of fertility treatments, Daniel then we then we need to fight to get back the protections of Roe. Voting for Harris it's the beginning of this process.

Actually, as an"IVF mom" (though, I don't know identify myself that way), I am hopeful that the technology is as close as it sounds to not have to produce and discard embryos. I am a massive hypocrite, because the discarding of embryos bothers me. I did not discard any. We had multiple rounds--as I mentioned, two of them were delivered and died at 20 weeks, and the rest were used in multiple attempts. It would pain me to discard of them. Nonetheless, not a single state has taken a step to ban IVF, so again, red herring.

Did you really miss that the Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling in February declaring that embryos created through in IVF should be considered children?

Do you really not understand that this is not banning IVF?

Do you really not understand that the risk is not an IVF ban? The clinics that halted the procedure made that decision all by themselves to avoid the risks of facing catastrophic liabilities.

Which is still not a ban. The government isn't stopping them; they are self-regulating.

For people with fertility issues that require them to use IVF to get pregnant they need to have clinics to go to to get the procedure. IVF is very complex and very very expensive and it is not something you can do with a home kit.

And by the way, boys a large percentage of fertility issues that require IVF are male factor so don't think this doesn't involve you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Abortion numbers have actually increased since Dobbs. Funny how that works!

As a mom of two daughters, reproductive freedom is my top voting issue. Same with my first time presidential election voting daughter. We showed up and voted last week.

Nice to you know you're raising your daughter in fear of false dilemmas without the critical stamina to understand that women are in far worse danger of subjugation under the regime that is allowing men to invade their spaces, their jobs, their sports. You are not being a good role model for your daughter when you teach her that the most important issue for electing a president is how far along in pregnancy a woman can abort her child. Question: has Harris said how she will overturn the Scotus decision?

What a load of bologna. I am definitely raising my daughters and sons to be able to see through that kind of b*******.

Explain to your sons and daughters the critical importance of reproductive rights and explain to them how to fight and vote to get them.

Why do you keep saying reproductive rights when what you mean is abortion? You can turn yourself inside out all you want, you are still advocating for ending the lives of fetuses. These are not 'clumps of cells.' These are fully-formed, human beings, who, after about 12 weeks, have to be pulled apart and killed in utero.

Ok scoldylocks, I wouldn't even have kids to teach if it wasn't for IVF like millions of other moms. And darling, some of the embryos don't make it when you do IVF.

I've got this issue covered with my kids. I don't need any help from the likes of you.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I also had my children through IVF--actual IVF, not the IUI, as the Walzes did then lied about. In any event, it is a red herring to talk about "reproductive rights" and you know it. You are not voting about IVF, you are voting about abortion and cannot be honest with yourself. I am fully aware of how IVF works by the way. And you know what else, two of my IVF babies were born at 20 weeks. I held them for the 2 hours they lived and breathed outside of my uterus. Kissed them and told them how much I loved them. Are you the kind of person who calls those "clumps of cells?"

Well then from one IVF mom to another.... I don't know why you don't understand this..... but the destruction of Roe threatens IVF as a fertility treatment. If you want to fully protect access to IVF and some other fertility treatments...And yes also abortion, which is the flip side of fertility treatments, Daniel then we then we need to fight to get back the protections of Roe. Voting for Harris it's the beginning of this process.

Actually, as an"IVF mom" (though, I don't know identify myself that way), I am hopeful that the technology is as close as it sounds to not have to produce and discard embryos. I am a massive hypocrite, because the discarding of embryos bothers me. I did not discard any. We had multiple rounds--as I mentioned, two of them were delivered and died at 20 weeks, and the rest were used in multiple attempts. It would pain me to discard of them. Nonetheless, not a single state has taken a step to ban IVF, so again, red herring.

The technology will NEVER work like you describe. It's based on playing the odds, just like nature is.

Technology will NEVER? I assume you don't actually understand the technology. Just go back to bed.

Are you coming back to discuss? Or did you go back to bed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As I see so many people unmoved by stories of women dying or almost dying, I’ve realizes that women and child-bearing is viewed by so many just as soldiers going to war. You might survive, you might not. Either way, it’s your duty. Good luck.

The idea that women are dying left and right because they can’t get abortions just doesn’t add up. With today’s healthcare, dying in childbirth is rare in the U.S., and serious complications are handled well in most cases. The CDC shows that only about 2-6% of abortions are due to life-threatening situations, so most abortions are for personal or other reasons, not because a mother’s life is at immediate risk.

The comparison to soldiers going to war—where survival is a gamble—misses the reality, too. Childbirth isn’t typically life-or-death here like in a war zone, thanks to modern medicine. And, to make things clearer, even Trump has voiced support for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the mother’s life. This shows that women facing these extreme situations aren’t left without options, which means the “forced to die” narrative just doesn’t reflect the situation. With maternal healthcare and these exceptions, the situation is nowhere near as bleak as it’s sometimes portrayed.

It doesn't matter what Trump says. He's a serial liar. What he's done is enabled people like you to deny women "modern medicine" (not sure why you'd be using this term) and throw away the lives of those "2-6%".

It’s fair to question politicians, but the data here speaks for itself and isn’t just about one person’s stance. “Modern medicine” refers to advancements in healthcare that have made pregnancy and childbirth much safer than they were even a few decades ago. We’re talking about better access to emergency care, skilled professionals, and treatments that mean fewer pregnancies result in serious harm or death.

The 2-6% you mention is actually evidence of the system working. Exceptions for life-threatening situations are already in place, even in states with restrictions, to ensure that those who really need emergency abortion care aren’t denied it. The goal is to support both maternal health and life overall, not to dismiss the needs of those in high-risk pregnancies. Making abortion only available for cases of severe health risks or life-threatening issues isn’t about “throwing away lives”—it’s about focusing on safe, preventative care and addressing critical cases as they come up.

You all (and the state legislators you support) keep saying this is happening, but there’s a new patient about every week choosing to go public after having something horrendous happen to her. Just go read the giant Roe thread. This morning’s is a woman in Alabama who had a molar pregnancy with a fetus with triploidy. Her doctor brought her a post it with the phone number for Planned Parenthood and offered no other help.

[Anonymous]

It is absolutely true that the eugenics movement was a liberal progressive movement (using today’s political terms), but there were plenty of conservatives who also actively promoted the movement. Although its roots were in the liberal progressives, and the thought leadership was in that group, it was enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. In other words, while it is true Sanger was a racist who specifically targeted Black women, she was hardly alone and had plenty of conservatives along with her.

In short, yes, we have a very ugly history of eugenics and yes, the abortion rights movement is part of that, but not just that movement.

I’m curious about the person who keeps saying that close to 100% of parents choose to terminate for genetic abnormalities in places like Iceland. Do you think that makes that termination morally and ethically right? There has been a lot in human history that was done universally that we now recognize as abhorrent. Personally I do not think it is a good thing for us as a society to eliminate all children with genetic abnormalities routinely.