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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then personally you can make the personal choice to personally carry your personal pregnancy with a fetus with severe genetic abnormalities to term - no one is going to force you to abort it.

[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.

The result of the
Government of Alabama’s actions is that IVF
won’t be available in Alabama. But it’s not from the Ban region of France so it’s not a ban.

[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.

Who decides when a case qualifies for high-risk, severe health risks, or life-threatening issues? Should be a doctor, right?

Well in many states, those doctors are terrified of being thrown in jail by RWNJs running their state. So they don't make their best decisions, they make decisions out of fear and wait until the last minute when things are dire so there will be no question.

Women have and will die unnecessarily. Women have and will suffer infertility unnecessarily. Women have and will suffer unnecessarily. This is happening and will continue to happen. The RWNJ control over women's health care is dangerous. Your "exceptions" argument rings hollow because it doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then personally you can make the personal choice to personally carry your personal pregnancy with a fetus with severe genetic abnormalities to term - no one is going to force you to abort it.

That’s a cop-out. If you create a society where it is expected that genetically abnormal fetuses are terminated, it is very hard to choose not to do that. And the state can make your life much harder; look what happened in China to female fetuses under the one-child rules. No woman goes through pregnancy in a vacuum, and it is a cop-out to shrug and say that well, it’s a personal decision. It’s absolutely not only personal.

We are moving to a society where people with genetic disabilities do not even get a chance to exist. Do the people who are strongly pro-choice here (especially the ones who favor termination through the third trimester in event of genetic abnormalities) think that is actually morally and ethically right? What other genetic issues do you think women should be able to terminate through the ninth month for?

[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.

The court is stopping them through the threat of criminal prosecution. You can't do IVF without discarding human embryos. But you know that, but you're playing the part (quite well) of stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then personally you can make the personal choice to personally carry your personal pregnancy with a fetus with severe genetic abnormalities to term - no one is going to force you to abort it.

That’s a cop-out. If you create a society where it is expected that genetically abnormal fetuses are terminated, it is very hard to choose not to do that. And the state can make your life much harder; look what happened in China to female fetuses under the one-child rules. No woman goes through pregnancy in a vacuum, and it is a cop-out to shrug and say that well, it’s a personal decision. It’s absolutely not only personal.

We are moving to a society where people with genetic disabilities do not even get a chance to exist. Do the people who are strongly pro-choice here (especially the ones who favor termination through the third trimester in event of genetic abnormalities) think that is actually morally and ethically right? What other genetic issues do you think women should be able to terminate through the ninth month for?

LOL the state already makes life hard enough! Do you have any idea of the financial burden of severely disabled child? Of the scarcity of medical support needed throughout their life? Of therapies and additional childcare they need? Have you ever tried to make an appointment with a developmental pediatrician?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then personally you can make the personal choice to personally carry your personal pregnancy with a fetus with severe genetic abnormalities to term - no one is going to force you to abort it.

That’s a cop-out. If you create a society where it is expected that genetically abnormal fetuses are terminated, it is very hard to choose not to do that. And the state can make your life much harder; look what happened in China to female fetuses under the one-child rules. No woman goes through pregnancy in a vacuum, and it is a cop-out to shrug and say that well, it’s a personal decision. It’s absolutely not only personal.

We are moving to a society where people with genetic disabilities do not even get a chance to exist. Do the people who are strongly pro-choice here (especially the ones who favor termination through the third trimester in event of genetic abnormalities) think that is actually morally and ethically right? What other genetic issues do you think women should be able to terminate through the ninth month for?

No one said anyone could “terminate through the ninth month,” that doesn’t even make any sense. Stop putting words in people’s mouths. I am strongly pro-choice and want women to be able to make their own choices with the advice of their doctors and their families, up to viability, with exceptions after viability when the pregnancy threatens the woman’s health or life and/or the fetus has catastrophic abnormalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then personally you can make the personal choice to personally carry your personal pregnancy with a fetus with severe genetic abnormalities to term - no one is going to force you to abort it.

That’s a cop-out. If you create a society where it is expected that genetically abnormal fetuses are terminated, it is very hard to choose not to do that. And the state can make your life much harder; look what happened in China to female fetuses under the one-child rules. No woman goes through pregnancy in a vacuum, and it is a cop-out to shrug and say that well, it’s a personal decision. It’s absolutely not only personal.

We are moving to a society where people with genetic disabilities do not even get a chance to exist. Do the people who are strongly pro-choice here (especially the ones who favor termination through the third trimester in event of genetic abnormalities) think that is actually morally and ethically right? What other genetic issues do you think women should be able to terminate through the ninth month for?

Are you supportive of the government providing significant financial support for medical and developmental needs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then personally you can make the personal choice to personally carry your personal pregnancy with a fetus with severe genetic abnormalities to term - no one is going to force you to abort it.

That’s a cop-out. If you create a society where it is expected that genetically abnormal fetuses are terminated, it is very hard to choose not to do that. And the state can make your life much harder; look what happened in China to female fetuses under the one-child rules. No woman goes through pregnancy in a vacuum, and it is a cop-out to shrug and say that well, it’s a personal decision. It’s absolutely not only personal.

We are moving to a society where people with genetic disabilities do not even get a chance to exist. Do the people who are strongly pro-choice here (especially the ones who favor termination through the third trimester in event of genetic abnormalities) think that is actually morally and ethically right? What other genetic issues do you think women should be able to terminate through the ninth month for?

LOL the state already makes life hard enough! Do you have any idea of the financial burden of severely disabled child? Of the scarcity of medical support needed throughout their life? Of therapies and additional childcare they need? Have you ever tried to make an appointment with a developmental pediatrician?

Yes to all of that, which is exactly why I am pushing this point. It’s not abstract to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then personally you can make the personal choice to personally carry your personal pregnancy with a fetus with severe genetic abnormalities to term - no one is going to force you to abort it.

That’s a cop-out. If you create a society where it is expected that genetically abnormal fetuses are terminated, it is very hard to choose not to do that. And the state can make your life much harder; look what happened in China to female fetuses under the one-child rules. No woman goes through pregnancy in a vacuum, and it is a cop-out to shrug and say that well, it’s a personal decision. It’s absolutely not only personal.

We are moving to a society where people with genetic disabilities do not even get a chance to exist. Do the people who are strongly pro-choice here (especially the ones who favor termination through the third trimester in event of genetic abnormalities) think that is actually morally and ethically right? What other genetic issues do you think women should be able to terminate through the ninth month for?

Are you supportive of the government providing significant financial support for medical and developmental needs?

Yes, absolutely. I have also consistently voted for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

It is interesting here that you do not once mention or appear to care about whether the disabled child values her own life. Your perspective is only that of the adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then personally you can make the personal choice to personally carry your personal pregnancy with a fetus with severe genetic abnormalities to term - no one is going to force you to abort it.

That’s a cop-out. If you create a society where it is expected that genetically abnormal fetuses are terminated, it is very hard to choose not to do that. And the state can make your life much harder; look what happened in China to female fetuses under the one-child rules. No woman goes through pregnancy in a vacuum, and it is a cop-out to shrug and say that well, it’s a personal decision. It’s absolutely not only personal.

We are moving to a society where people with genetic disabilities do not even get a chance to exist. Do the people who are strongly pro-choice here (especially the ones who favor termination through the third trimester in event of genetic abnormalities) think that is actually morally and ethically right? What other genetic issues do you think women should be able to terminate through the ninth month for?

Are you supportive of the government providing significant financial support for medical and developmental needs?

Yes, absolutely. I have also consistently voted for that.

Well, see...hear's the thing. The Republicans pushing this down on us aren't supportive of that. Their position is "you're on your own".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's your choice. I'm not going to judge a woman for choosing to terminate a pregnancy if there are genetic abnormalities. What if the woman already has a child with special needs? What if a woman already has multiple children and doesn't have the resources to care for a child with special needs? What if a woman lives at poverty level and barely has the money to get by every month and can't afford the care needed for a child with significant medical issues? This issue much more complicated than you are making it out to be. If a woman isn't equipped to care for a child with significant needs, I'm certainly not going to judge her for terminating the pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm not concerned with other people's morals and ethics.

I have a dear friend with a severely disabled child whose disorder is rare enough to not be diagnosed in utero with routinely offered tests. The child will never develop cognitively, eat without a tube, talk, or walk unassisted. My friend, who is lucky enough to be UMC and highly educated, went to hell and back coping with this, and arranging the necessary medical and childcare support for the child. The family's financial position has been altered forever. The mother now also has significant depression due to this.

She is 100% clear that had she known ahead of time, she'd 100% terminate. And in fact when she had gathered enough courage to have another child, she had the pregnancy checked up and down, and was again 100% clear that in case of any issues, she'd terminate without a second thought.

So, the feelings of someone who is actually living through this situation is good enough for me. It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her, well, that's how your cookie crumbled, live with it! No termination for you!

It is interesting here that you do not once mention or appear to care about whether the disabled child values her own life. Your perspective is only that of the adult.

You're right, I don't. That particular child will never have the cognition to articulate that. And more importantly, if my friend had a choice, that life would never come to pass. My friend is doing her best for the child but she is clear this is not something she'd volunteer for or invite into her life. There is no upside.