Leslie

I'm sure it does look crazy from a distance. It's a pretty US centric conversation even though similar things are happening in Poland and some (3rd world) places have always been this way. Access to abortion is going away for millions of women, it's already pretty much gone in many places. Those of us that came to age in a world where we had control over whether we had children, when we would have children and with whom we would have children, know that our lives and our own destiny were much more in our own control. Financial power, physical freedom, employability ... etc. All of those things were enhanced and empowered by our own ability to choose the how/when/what of our child bearing years. That lived freedom, of which we have intimate personal experience, is slipping away in front of our eyes. It's not a theoretical debate to us ... it is an imminent threat. So, when we hear people, who are claiming to be on our side, using the same talking points as the wolves, it's very confusing and alarming. We feel that we've made ourselves clear and so, anything other than full support, feels very dangerous. That's how we got here, it all sounds perfectly reasonable when packaged a certain way. But it's not reasonable, it's gaslighting at its best/worst. Especially when it gets turned around on us as our own fault for not being more political savvy.

Leslie

You are not a victim. I haven't denied you the right to have and express your opinions. But, let's not forget, you said a lot more and it was quite problematic. You were challenged by others (not just me --- but whatever) who you have largely ignored. You don't get to parrot the religious fanatics, that I've listened to all of my life, and then claim to be some kind of ally. Maybe the talking points are new to you? Maybe they seem fresh and persuasive? But it's exactly the same old tired garbage that they've shouted from the pulpits and screamed outside the abortion clinics for 50 years.

Ridiculing the victims for not being more politically powerful. RED FLAG.
Hiding behind the red herring of late term abortions to justify your own support for limits on abortions. RED FLAG.
Saying that people can move to a different state if they don't like abortion bans. RED FLAG.
Stating that what the courts are about to do, corrects something (Roe) that was wrong. RED FLAG.
Using the "Founding Fathers" bullshit to prop up your argument. RED FLAG.


More red flags where those came from. But as far as the "Founding Fathers" go, abortion was not mentioned in the original document and it was legal until over 100 years later. So, let's honor those founders and their document and leave the decision to the woman. Completely and without "limitations". Exactly as the Founding Fathers did.

EDIT TO ADD: Stating I am "emotive" and not factual. Really? Seriously? Do you hear yourself? Earlier in the thread I think you tried to sneaky that one in on LIW too (she was having "feelings" instead of logic or such BS) so it's more than a little cringy. I would suggest to you, that your desire to limit abortion rights is entirely based on your emotions and feelings. Or is it just the women who are emotional in your script?

civilservant

*sigh*

RED FLAG for what exactly? Not holding the extreme opinion that you do? In that case I will hold up that RED FLAG and wave it around for all it's worth... because you're right, I don't.

What I will not do, is allow an extremist to shout me into silence. I don't especially care if you agree with my opinion., but let me tell you this - you shout down the moderates because they don't agree with your own extreme, no limits on abortion at all, opinion, and all you do is force them towards the radical voices in the other direction. The loss of the middle is exactly what has got the US into this mess - and people like you are just as responsible as those on the other side.

But it's ok... because that RED FLAG is fluttering in the wind for all to see.

Well duh... Award for the most obvious post does too.... that's what an opinion is almost always based on.

Leslie

Which part of my opinion is extreme?

Leslie

Calling people "extreme" because they support a woman's right to choose. TWENTY THOUSAND RED FLAGS.

Leslie

To be completely honest, most pro-life people don't go around trying to gaslight pro-choice folks up close and presonal, so you're kinda like a unicorn tbh. And, again, you're trying to vilify me and turn me into some blood thirsty baby murderer. Jesus Christ. You don't have to do this --- you could just believe what you want. It's been you ALL ALONG trying to make us look bad, not the other way around.

kimilseung

I am seeing two sides, one who sees a basic human right to control an individual's own fertility, with many economic and social ramifications.
Another side who seems to see a point of politics to be debated over as if it is a vote to put a five cent tax on the sale of pencils. Just get out the "no pencil tax" vote and it will go away. Simples.

civilservant

Abortion without any restrictions is extreme.

Yay! I can fly them from my house! It'll look so festive!

Uh huh. Say it again. Say it another. That time it might be true.

Hmmm... so now my own stated opinion is somehow untrue, because I choose to question and disagree with you? How does that work? I kinda like the idea being a unicorn though, that horn could be used for so may useful things...

Despite the droll framing, that's pretty much my point right there. This has to be approached in the same way that civil rights ended up being codified, with a long term, sustained political pressure campaign. The real problem is that the supporters of Roe took the win and went home. It never was safe, was subject to being overturned whenever the court shifted right, and now the chickens have come home to roost.

macliam

Although this situation may seem US-centric, it is actually not because the USA has an influence and a responsibility outside its borders, which it does much to claim, but not so much to justify. When I criticise US policy here and elsewhere, it's because I expect more, perhaps too much, and so am hyper-critical of the shortfall. But I was raised in a state which was under the authoritarian weight of religion and a populace who were new to the whole "making your own decisions" process and sh*t-scared of taking a wrong step..... and it took decades for the "rights" around sexuality and secual behaviour to be recognized. So now, to see the same old arguments raised and the same people certain that they are doing the world a favour by enforcing their ideals, or hiding behind legality and politics to dampen down the calls for freedom, it makes me fear for the impacts elsewhere and a bit impatient with the in-fighting......

Leslie

Where did I say that? I don't recall giving any specifics. Maybe it's the word "restrictions"? Sounds punitive. Like your having to control/punish a prisoner or a stupid animal or something.

Lion in Winter

Aside from the fact that this is not what happens (a very alarmist thing to throw into the discussion that pulls it off track - pls review my cdc numbers regarding when during pregnancy practically all abortions actually happen), why does any of this mean that the decision is the state's and not the woman's and her health care providers and whoever else she chooses to involve, such as a partner? Why do you think women who do have lat(er) abortions, a tiny number, get them? Do you think it's easy for them, that it's something they just enter into lightheartedly because they didn't get around to it earlier? If you don't think that, why is it a matter of law - other than to protect women from religious and right wing agitators who think they should have a right to control women's health care decisions when it comes to reproduction?

Unless you really think that women are rushing around aborting infants who are a week away from birth, or even just viable outside the mother, just for the hell of it, why is this anything other than a private health care decision?

Steerpike

In your post here, you are making a reasonable case that any decisions about an abortion (late term or otherwise) should be left to the woman and her healthcare providers. But if the current situation with regards to "Roe" had not occurred, aren't there existing legal limits in place today, in the US and in most other countries where abortion is legal?

Similarly, upthread, Leslie said:
So again, if the current situation with the Supreme Court had not occurred ('no change'), that would mean legal limits do exist today.

So while you may have a perfectly sound case that abortion should NOT involve the state at all, why is there so much argument about limits, when limits exist already?

old.sparkles

Limits exist in some states, but not all:
https://www.businessinsider.com/late...-states-2019-5

Lion in Winter

I'm not sure I understand your point. The existence of whatever legal limits there may be does not mean that those limits are ethically sound, nor that others are bound to think that they should be there, nor that there isn't a better way to manage these medical situations - through private healthcare decisions.

Leslie

The history that answers this question is so long and filled with details, it's difficult to catch people up who are just casually interested. This is why I get so angry trying to discuss this with folks who parachute in and claim to be fully informed. I know, after I post this, somebody will be along to nit-pick and argue semantics, while refusing to understand the whole last 50 years of abuse, murder, dirty tricks, domestic terrorism, public shaming and slandering, the pro-choice movement has endured. I'll give you a couple examples but, honestly, it's the tip of the iceberg.

An abortion is a minor medical procedure. Abortion is not illegal based on Roe. Abortion is performed in outpatient facilities. In states controlled by religious fanatics, hospitals won't perform abortions because they're afraid of said fanatics. Also, it is not necessary to go to the hospital and the cost would be prohibitive. Abortion is no more or less dangerous than many dental procedures.

State governments have the responsibility of regulating medical facilities for safety and from criminality. In the states controlled by religious fanatics they imposed regulations on abortion clinics as if they were performing major surgeries. Things like, requiring the clinics to meet the regulations of an ambulatory surgical center, even though they do not perform major surgeries. Now suddenly the halls and corridors have to be 8' wide, the facility must contain men and women's locker rooms and a bunch of other physical changes to the building. Abortion clinics don't have this kind of money. They work on the margins, largely depending on volunteers and donations. They didn't have the money to rebuild or move so they were shut down.

That's one example of a very successful "restriction" that has closed most of the clinics in the states that used that method.

Other "restrictions" are things like imposing a waiting period for the woman to think about it. So, you have to make an initial appointment for the pregnancy test, exam and consultation. The clinic is required to provide the patient with pro-life literature, force them to listen to anti-abortion audio and educate them as to other alternatives. Basically, the clinic is forced to try to talk the woman out of the procedure, send her home for two days to "think about it" and then, if she comes back, she can have the procedure. For people that drive in from out of town (which is most of them) this requires two trips or a hotel stay. Many sleep in their cars. But you know, women are stupid so they have to be controlled every step of the way.

Further "restrictions" are the ones to do with weeks, months, trimesters, etc. It's more of the same. Making a new regulation, to address a problem that doesn't exist. The bans after X weeks are not for any medical reasons but just to appease the emotions and religiosity of fanatics that are obsessed with the reproductive organs of complete strangers. Later term abortion on-demand does not exist. We've been accused of supporting these procedures, in a very disingenuous way, in this very thread.

This is exactly what I see as fair and reasonable to all involved ....

Any abortion that can be performed safely either with pharmaceuticals, or on an outpatient basis, must be available on demand. No questions asked by ANYBODY. I'm not going to give numbers (weeks and trimesters) because medical technologies can change over time which can provide physicians with different options. However, there are medical protocols in place to guide cut-off points for safety and I personally respect those protocols in many/most medical situations so why not this one?

Once the woman is to a point in the pregnancy that the procedure is no longer safe (according to medical best practices not emotional weirdo voyeurism) with a simple straight-forward out-patient procedure, then the decision should be between the woman and her doctor.

What civilservant doesn't know (or won't admit) is that women are turned down for later term abortions all of the time, even in states where it is not technically illegal. The answer is simple, "We're sorry, you are too far along." This can happen if a woman didn't know she was as far along as she was or for personal reasons is considering termination at a later date than usual. It can also happen that when the physician takes into account all of the factors, it may be decided that a later termination is appropriate. This is the part that is none of our business. This is the part that is between the doctor and the patient. These things happen all of the time.

Things that happen rarely but weigh profoundly into the decision is that it is revealed that there is something discovered about the pregnancy that is catastrophic to the health of the mother or that shows the fetus is not compatible with life. There are deep ethical and moral considerations to be made, of course, but they are that of the woman and the physician. It is nobody else's business.

As LIW said, this delusion that women are going into the doctor's office a week before their due date and getting abortions is a sick and cruel lie. Being constantly accused of doing this is exhausting, even if a woman was that bonkers, the doctor would laugh her out of the office. Any doctors doing that type of thing generally end up in prison.

So, when I say without "restrictions" what I mean is that civilservant doesn't get to choose the medical protocols. What I'm NOT saying is that all requests for abortion must be granted every time. Of course not. Which is exactly how it already is anyway --- but we're being gaslighted into thinking something different is going on.