Roe vs. Wade overturned

[summers]

Figured it's just easier to ignore trolls and prolifers. I miss two way ignore so much...

 

[Someone123]

I get that you're a troll,

So you say that anyone who has a different opinion than you is a troll? That makes no sense at all.

 

[summers]

So you say that anyone who has a different opinion than you is a troll? That makes no sense at all.

No, you're a troll because you're pushing pro-life views on a pro-choice site.

 

[Someone123]

No, you're a troll because you're pushing pro-life views on a pro-choice site.

This is not a pro-choice site for abortion, this is a pro-choice site for suicide- those are two completely different issues.

 

[whatevs]

22 weeks is fine.

Nah, 36 weeks is the bare minimum. Anything else is a step back.

 

[summers]

Nah, 36 weeks is the bare minimum. Anything else is a step back.

Pretty sure at 22 weeks most fetuses are still not viable, which is why this is the most common number for the latest women could terminate a pregnancy under normal circumstances.

 

[whatevs]

Pretty sure at 22 weeks most fetuses are still not viable, which is why this is the most common number for the latest women could terminate a pregnancy under normal circumstances.

Makes perfect sense. I personally think the focus should be put on contraception, but once a woman has made a mistake is insane to force her to gestate for almost a year and bear a child she doesn't want.

Now, when it is and it isn't "killing a person" is a grey area which should be defined by... Nobody knows, but the more weeks you wait the darker the grey.

 

[JinZhin]

People are entitled to their own opinions, and it is my opinion that defending the defenseless is important- that defending living but unborn children is important, I have done all kinds of volunteer work to help those already struggling- I have done a lot of volunteer work with children with disabilities, for the homeless, and for the elderly- why would you assume that I haven't- I've done more to help others than 99% of people. It is extremely weak and stupid of you to resort to swearing and to saying get off the thread because I disagree with you. It is not nonsense to defend unborn children who are living and to try to stop people from killing them.

I apologize if you felt offended by what I said, it was not respectful. it's very commendable that you try to help those who are in worse situation than you, but most people who push pro-life propaganda don't, and world certainly is not going to be any better place to grow up in, especially for those in the most difficult circumstances.

What I'm trying to get at is, and as someone who has likely withnessed to a lot of suffering in this world, you should be able understand that not being born (or being aborted early on) in the first place is much more merciful than letting a person be born into this world and some terrible circumstances, statistically speaking, because babies whose parents are not ready or willing to have them are better off not going through terrible things that happen when you're an unwanted child.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

Makes perfect sense. I personally think the focus should be put on contraception, but once a woman has made a mistake is insane to force her to gestate for almost a year and bear a child she doesn't want.

I wonder, how many times is too many to be considered "just" a "mistake"? The ultimate mistake to me would be to have unprotective sex when we all know the aftermath of it. Every action you take comes with a consequence, and sometimes the only viable course of action is to face it.

Now, when it is and it isn't "killing a person" is a grey area which should be defined by... Nobody knows, but the more weeks you wait the darker the grey.

I don't believe there's such a thing as "grey areas" in this situation. People just prefer to pretend that is, so they don't have to face the reality of what they are doing; stipulating clear or ambiguous definitions helps with avoidance. I always thought to be perfectly clear that life starts at conception (fertilization) when the sperm cell of the man and the egg cell of the woman are bound to each other to form a new cell, the zygote. The difference between you and me to that is just development.

 

[whatevs]

I wonder, how many times is too many to be considered "just" a "mistake"? The ultimate mistake to me would be to have unprotective sex when we all know the aftermath of it. Every action you take comes with a consequence, and sometimes the only viable course of action is to face it.

I don't believe there's such a thing as "grey areas" in this situation. People just prefer to pretend that is, so they don't have to face the reality of what they are doing; stipulating clear or ambiguous definitions helps with avoidance. I always thought to be perfectly clear that life starts at conception (fertilization) when the sperm cell of the man and the egg cell of the woman are bound to each other to form a new cell, the zygote. The difference between you and me to that is just development.

Hmm, so the next day you had reckless sex and became impregnated you have to gestate for 9 months, give birth and take responsibility for the child? How is this better than popping a pill the next day, or aborting as quickly as possible?

Of course, serial aborters should be punished in some way/never be supported financially by the State (this addresses your valid concern regarding 'so how many mistakes are to be tolerated'), and I'm also intrigued regarding how does someone wait say 2 months to discover that she's pregnant or that she doesn't want a child. There's definitely something off there, but as I said earlier the solution isn't to force the irresponsible person to have a child that will grow up without parents or without love.

 

[summers]

I wonder, how many times is too many to be considered "just" a "mistake"? The ultimate mistake to me would be to have unprotective sex when we all know the aftermath of it. Every action you take comes with a consequence, and sometimes the only viable course of action is to face it.

I don't think mistake is the right word. I think if you're fucking no contraception, and the guy not sterilezed/pulling out/cumming in your ass/mouth, your gambling. At the same time, contraceptives are not 100%. Still not a mistake, just bad luck.

Doesn't make sense to gamble when there are methods that are 95%+ effective. But that's still a woman's choice, as is terminating as many pregnancies as she wants.

I don't believe there's such a thing as "grey areas" in this situation. People just prefer to pretend that is, so they don't have to face the reality of what they are doing; stipulating clear or ambiguous definitions helps with avoidance. I always thought to be perfectly clear that life starts at conception (fertilization) when the sperm cell of the man and the egg cell of the woman are bound to each other to form a new cell, the zygote. The difference between you and me to that is just development.

The difference is that the zygote, like a virus or bacterium, will not survive outside the womb.

 

[Someone123]

I apologize if you felt offended by what I said, it was not respectful. it's very commendable that you try to help those who are in worse situation than you, but most people who push pro-life propaganda don't, and world certainly is not going to be any better place to grow up in, especially for those in the most difficult circumstances.

What I'm trying to get at is, and as someone who has likely withnessed to a lot of suffering in this world, you should be able understand that not being born (or being aborted early on) in the first place is much more merciful than letting a person be born into this world and some terrible circumstances, statistically speaking, because babies whose parents are not ready or willing to have them are better off not going through terrible things that happen when you're an unwanted child.

There is another option though, which is adoption- there is a long waiting list to adopt babies, and many mothers who are not ready to raise a child put them up for adoption. Ironically, the mother Roe from Roe vs Wade did not end up getting an abortion and she put two of her children up for adoption and they went to very loving homes. They are in their fifties right now and they both say the families they grew up in gave them excellent upbringings.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

Hmm, so the next day you had reckless sex and became impregnated you have to gestate for 9 months, give birth and take responsibility for the child? How is this better than popping a pill the next day, or aborting as quickly as possible?

That is precisely the problem for me. Why are we having reckless sex when we know the consequences of it? Wouldn't it be the best approach to select our partners more wisely and utilize the contraceptive methods? Instead of focusing all the attention on the aftermath of a preventable event?

Of course, serial aborters should be punished in some way/never be supported financially by the State (this addresses your valid concern regarding 'so how many mistakes are to be tolerated'), and I'm also intrigued regarding how does someone wait say 2 months to discover that she's pregnant or that she doesn't want a child. There's definitely something off there, but as I said earlier the solution isn't to force the irresponsible person to have a child that will grow up without parents or without love.

I don't believe in remediating a bad decision with a different but equally bad one. When I talk about facing the consequences of your actions, I don't necessarily mean keeping it (if you're not apt to do it). I believe the very least you could do is to wait for the baby to be born and then find a good family that will give it the love and affection it deserves.

 

[ayb]

When they consent to sex, they consent to risking pregnancy. The baby did not in any way consent to being conceived.

Humans have been having sex for pleasure since the dawn of time. We are not the only mammalian species to have sex for pleasure. Bonobos have sex for pleasure too, so do chimpanzees, and dolphins too. Acting like the only purpose of sex is for procreational purposes is retarded Christian cope.

Condoms and contraceptives are not foolproof.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

I think if you're fucking no contraception, and the guy not sterilezed/pulling out/cumming in your ass/mouth, your gambling. At the same time, contraceptives are not 100%. Still not a mistake, just bad luck.

Doesn't make sense to gamble when there are methods that are 95%+ effective.

I have a hard time believing in that. Why are not both of you utilizing contraceptive methods if you are so adamant about not getting pregnant? If you double the protection, the chance of getting pregnant goes from an already low percentage to 0.

 

[ConstantPain]

Thank you, Lullaby
I'm sorry that you weren't protected and provided for during your childhood and youth Hugs!
It's phenomenal that you're now a peer support and that is such a necessary role! I've been a case manager for all types of homelessness; school-based, shelter and community outreach. The number of mandated abuse/neglect reports I had to make was horrendous.

*Please note that I'm not saying homelessness alone warrants mandated abuse/neglect reporting*

Our child protective system totally sucks and fails so many kids and adult protective is practically non-existent. Most of the time there's long waiting lists for youth mental health programs and we do not have anywhere near adequate resources. And, I could be wrong but I think some of the states that want to ban all abortions are the same ones that refuse to expand Medicaid.
It's so incredibly frustrating that we already lack basic support systems for existing children.
Thanks again for sharing and for being a peer support!

 

[summers]

I have a hard time believing in that. Why are not both of you utilizing contraceptive methods if you are so adamant about not getting pregnant? If you double the protection, the chance of getting pregnant goes from an already low percentage to 0.

Mathematically, the probability may approach zero, but it would never be zero. You have less of a chance of winning the lottery than if you combined every contraceptive and sterilization method into one single terrible round of intercourse, and yet there are jackpot winners quite often.

Sex is supposed to be fun. WGAF whether some woman has 1 abortion or 10, it's no one's business but her own.

To all the prolifers - stop trying to dictate how people should live their lives and worry about your own.

 

[ConstantPain]

Below is a picture of a fetus at eight weeks- there are clearly many human features:

View attachment 94615

But there are no brain waves. Do you realize that's the definition for death? Please do us all a favor and read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/the-ethical-brain.html

 

[ayb]

This is not a pro-choice site for abortion, this is a pro-choice site for suicide- those are two completely different issues.

Virtually every anti-abortion group (right to life organizations) worldwide is also anti-assisted suicide/euthanasia. You can Google it yourself to see. Better yet, send them an e-mail asking them what their stance on this issue is and post it on the thread.

 

[NSA]

Most of the anti arguments are assuming either the woman fucked up or the pregnancy is viable in the first place.
Many of the anti abortion laws in the US don't allow exceptions for rape or incest, and all of them make it extremely difficult for doctors to do their jobs even in the "morally justified" cases.

I guess it boils down to who you believe deserves to live more: the potential baby**, or the mother.

Abortion ruling prompts variety of reactions from states

After the Supreme Court overturned a Roe v. Wade, an overview of abortion legislation in every state, including which states have banned, limited and protected abortions.

apnews.com

We need to talk about ‘life of the mother’ exceptions in abortion law.

Have we considered how to handle the ethical dilemmas that overturning Roe v. Wade will cause when states pass abortion laws so restrictive they will endanger the lives of mothers?

www.americamagazine.org

**I say potential, because seriously, no one is actually aborting this.

 

[Someone123]

Humans have been having sex for pleasure since the dawn of time. We are not the only mammalian species to have sex for pleasure. Bonobos have sex for pleasure too, so do chimpanzees, and dolphins too. Acting like the only purpose of sex is for procreational purposes is retarded Christian cope.

Condoms and contraceptives are not foolproof.

For one thing, I'm not religious. For another, the word retarded is known to be insulting to people with disabilities, and does not reflect well on you. For another, yes, sex of course is for pleasure, but if you take the risk you risk the consequences- there are sexual activities that do not risk pregnancy, obviously. But the baby did not knowingly take any risks and did nothing to deserve the death penalty.

To all the prolifers - stop trying to dictate how people should live their lives and worry about your own.

The baby cannot defend it's own life from attempts to kill it, so other people should - in my opinion this statement reflects the belief that the baby's life does not have value. The fact is that some people have one opinion on this issue and some people have another- you should get used to the fact that people are entitled to their own opinions. This is a free country in which people are free to have their own thoughts, not a dictatorship in which you are the dictator and in which you get to tell other people what thoughts to think and what thoughts to share. You are not the almighty dictator, other people are entitled to have opinions that are different than yours.

Virtually every anti-abortion group (right to life organizations) worldwide is also anti-assisted suicide/euthanasia.

It doesn't matter what the groups say- I'm not into groupthink in which groups dictate my thoughts- I think for myself. My opinion is that being pro-life in relation to abortion and pro-choice in relation to suicide is the most ethical stance. Guess what I'M ALLOWED TO HAVE MY OWN OPINION- YOU WILL NEVER DICTATE MY THOUGHTS- EVER!!!

 

[ayb]

For one thing, I'm not religious. For another, the word retarded is known to be insulting to people with disabilities, and does not reflect well on you. For another, yes, sex of course is for pleasure, but if you take the risk you risk the consequences- there are sexual activities that do not risk pregnancy, obviously. But the baby did not knowingly take any risks and did nothing to deserve the death penalty.

The baby cannot defend it's own life from attempts to kill it, so other people should - in my opinion this statement reflects the belief that the baby's life does not have value. The fact is that some people have one opinion on this issue and some people have another- you should get used to the fact that people are entitled to their own opinions. This is a free country in which people are free to have their own thoughts, not a dictatorship in which you are the dictator and in which you get to tell other people what thoughts to think and what thoughts to share. You are not the almighty dictator, other people are entitled to have opinions that are different than yours.

It doesn't matter what the groups say- I'm not into groupthink in which groups dictate my thoughts- I think for myself. My opinion is that being pro-life in relation to abortion and pro-choice in relation to suicide is the most ethical stance. Guess what I'M ALLOWED TO HAVE MY OWN OPINION- YOU WILL NEVER DICTATE MY THOUGHTS- EVER!!!

And consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Just like going outside is not consent to being shot and killed or run over by a car for walking on the sidewalk.

Condoms and contraceptives are not foolproof. What if they fail? Are the forced to still carry to term?

 

[Sibyl Vane]

Mathematically, the probability may approach zero, but it would never be zero. You have less of a chance of winning the lottery than if you combined every contraceptive and sterilization method into one single terrible round of intercourse, and yet there are jackpot winners quite often.

Sure, maybe not 0. Let's say 0.3 or .5 then, lol. There are, of course, a lot of variables involved; age, for example. But the chance is so minimal that it gets to a point where it becomes more a paranoia than a valid concern.

WGAF whether some woman has 1 abortion or 10, it's no one's business but her own.

To all the prolifers - stop trying to dictate how people should live their lives and worry about your own.

Allow me to ask you this: if you had the knowledge that a woman is trying to murder her 1-year-old son and also have the intention of sanctioning laws that legalize all others to do the same. Would you stay quiet about it? Her allegations that it's her child; therefore, you have no right to say anything about how she handles him would stop you from saying something or trying to prevent it? In case your answer is no, you don't agree with her claims of autonomy to inflict any abuse on her children. You must then understand how what you're suggesting there's not the possibility to happening. And maybe have a glimpse of how anti-abortion people feel since they believe that inside the womb there's a life, an innocent soon to fully developed baby, that had no choice in being created and now also has no choice in how or if it dies.

I know it is a complicated mental concatenation to achieve, especially when you completely disagree with someone; to put yourself in their position seems unthinkable. But it's necessary if we plan to have any sort of propositive discussion to solve or at least try to come to a middle ground in this dilemma. Curse and hate at each other will not conquer anything for any side.

 

[Someone123]

And consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Just like going outside is not consent to being shot and killed or run over by a car for walking on the sidewalk.

Condoms and contraceptives are not foolproof. What if they fail? Are the forced to still carry to term?

When a person has ex they take a risk of pregnancy- if they use contraception it depends on which kind as far as the failure rates go, but there is always some rate of failure. If this happens and the result is pregnancy now you have a living baby, in my opinion, and it is unethical to kill it. The baby did not do anything to cause itself to be alive, but the parents did take the risk. Fewer than 1% of women will get pregnant in a year when using the pill correctly. Because some women forget to take the pill sometimes the actual rate is about 7 to 9 in 100, or 7% to 9%. With condoms it is 13% over the course of a year. Obviously if you combine these the number would be a lot lower, but most people don't. Life has a lot of choices in life that are not perfect. If a person uses birth control consistently and a pregnancy results, the most ethical choice, in my opinion, is to carry the baby to term an d pout the baby up fo adoption. I believe it is highly unethical to kill the baby, who came into existence through no fault of its own. Other people have different opinions on this subject. I wiull keep my opinion and you will keep yours no matter how much we go around and around about it. People have different opinions on a variety of subjects that are important to them- that's life. This is a free country in which people are allowed to have their own opinions and to express their own opinions.

 

[Weebster]

Good. Overpopulation will continue exponentially. Maybe the elites will then grant euthanasia.

 

[summers]

Allow me to ask you this: if you had the knowledge that a woman is trying to murder her 1-year-old son and also have the intention of sanctioning laws that legalize all others to do the same. Would you stay quiet about it?

Yes, not my problem and 8 billion people. You want to kill someone, even a kid, quickly and painlessly, then whatever.

Her allegations that it's her child; therefore, you have no right to say anything about how she handles him would stop you from saying something or trying to prevent it? In case your answer is no, you don't agree with her claims of autonomy to inflict any abuse on her children.

Abuse and euthanasia are two different things. Is she killing quickly and painlessly, or torturing the kid. If it's the former, it's a lot more humane than many members have had to deal with.

You must then understand how what you're suggesting there's not the possibility to happening. And maybe have a glimpse of how anti-abortion people feel since they believe that inside the womb there's a life, an innocent soon to fully developed baby, that had no choice in being created and now also has no choice in how or if it dies.

Russia blew up a shopping center in Ukraine with a missile recently. Those people didn't get to decide how or when they died either. This is a fucked up world and shit happens.

I know it is a complicated mental concatenation to achieve, especially when you completely disagree with someone; to put yourself in their position seems unthinkable. But it's necessary if we plan to have any sort of propositive discussion to solve or at least try to come to a middle ground in this dilemma.

I don't do middle grounds - there is no middle ground. You're either pro-life or pro-choice. I'm the latter, and you can see how this side is rising up against oppression. It will only get worse and more violent. Pro lifers aren't losing anything, but they expect pro-choice people to just take this shit lying down. There will be no middle ground, no compromise.

 

[ayb]

When a person has ex they take a risk of pregnancy- if they use contraception it depends on which kind as far as the failure rates go, but there is always some rate of failure. If this happens and the result is pregnancy now you have a living baby, in my opinion, and it is unethical to kill it. The baby did not do anything to cause itself to be alive, but the parents did take the risk. Fewer than 1% of women will get pregnant in a year when using the pill correctly. Because some women forget to take the pill sometimes the actual rate is about 7 to 9 in 100, or 7% to 9%. With condoms it is 13% over the course of a year. Obviously if you combine these the number would be a lot lower, but most people don't. Life has a lot of choices in life that are not perfect. If a person uses birth control consistently and a pregnancy results, the most ethical choice, in my opinion, is to carry the baby to term an d pout the baby up fo adoption. I believe it is highly unethical to kill the baby, who came into existence through no fault of its own. Other people have different opinions on this subject. I wiull keep my opinion and you will keep yours no matter how much we go around and around about it. People have different opinions on a variety of subjects that are important to them- that's life. This is a free country in which people are allowed to have their own opinions and to express their own opinions.

The autonomy of the woman should remain supreme. Just like you aren't obligated to remain hooked up to a violinist to keep him alive. A woman is not obligated to carry a baby to term no matter what you say.

 

[Someone123]

The autonomy of the woman should remain supreme. Just like you aren't obligated to remain hooked up to a violinist to keep him alive. A woman is not obligated to carry a baby to term no matter what you say.

Life is more complex than this, in my opinion. When two people share a body I believe that one should not have the right to kill the other one. Protecting the life of the living baby, who does not deserve the death penalty, is more important than the inconvenience/burden of carrying a child to term, though for cases of medical threats to the health of a woman, rape, etc. I do think there should be exceptions. It's just a matter of priorities, what people think is more important and- surprise!- some people disagree about what to prioritize. I think that protecting the life of the living baby is more important, One way to look at it is- which causes more harm- ending a life of a person who could have a healthy, producitive, caring life into their eighties or nineties, or the inconvenience/trouble of carrying a child to term. In my opinion ending the life causes vastly more harm, it's not even close. We will always disagree about this, that's life- people disagree about things.

 

[Angi]

If anyone is still reading here, please be aware that plainly invented stuff is presented as "facts" in this thread.

Definition for fetus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus
Noone calls the baby in this thread a fetus, unless they have no idea what a baby or a fetus even are. Also, you cannot abort babies once they are no longer a fetus. Anywhere in the world, under any legislations. That is just failing to understand the words used.

There was a map of abortion rights in the world, a couple of pages ago. It is old. I do not know how old, but still, most of the world progresses forward, not backwards, when it comes to bodily autonomy. A newer map can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

The pictures of gestating little humans have the wrong gestational age on them. If anyone wants to check whether they are lied to with such pictures, check the size. If the fetus is supposed to be about 3 mm across the longest side, but the fetus in the picture covers half the hand of the person showing it, you are certainly being lied to.

Being pregnant does not mean no contraceptive was used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Effectiveness shows how many pregnancies occur if 100 women use a certain contraceptive for one year. 7 will get pregnant on the pill, 13 using condoms, 0.5 while she is sterilized.

I probably missed some. Everyone is entitled to believe all the lies they want to, probably, I just want to make sure everyone is aware they need to check carefully if they want actual facts on this emotionally loaded topic.

 

[whatevs]

Life is more complex than this, in my opinion. When two people share a body I believe that one should not have the right to kill the other one. Protecting the life of the living baby, who does not deserve the death penalty, is more important than the inconvenience/burden of carrying a child to term, though for cases of medical threats to the health of a woman, rape, etc. I do think there should be exceptions. It's just a matter of priorities, what people think is more important and- surprise!- some people disagree about what to prioritize. I think that protecting the life of the living baby is more important, One way to look at it is- which causes more harm- ending a life of a person who could have a healthy, producitive, caring life into their eighties or nineties, or the inconvenience/trouble of carrying a child to term. In my opinion ending the life causes vastly more harm, it's not even close. We will always disagree about this, that's life- people disagree about things.

Considering that the word is overpopulated and life has the potential to create untold agony I would personally err on the side of preventing excess breeding, not on the side of protecting lives.