[rooster]

So is child services taking away your right to be a parent.

So I disagree: the governemnt doesn't force you to care for your child so much as punishes you for harming it intentionally.

Eh. We once reported that some kids were staying inside a known drug house where someone had recently died and there was rotting food, dead rats, etc. CPS knocked on the door and when no one answered they just left and never came back. Not sure the government really cares unless a school or hospital reports it.

[Lord Dave]

So is child services taking away your right to be a parent.

So I disagree: the governemnt doesn't force you to care for your child so much as punishes you for harming it intentionally.

Eh. We once reported that some kids were staying inside a known drug house where someone had recently died and there was rotting food, dead rats, etc. CPS knocked on the door and when no one answered they just left and never came back. Not sure the government really cares unless a school or hospital reports it.

Or your CPS sucks?  I'm sure it varies by county.

[rooster]

Or your CPS sucks?  I'm sure it varies by county.

Yeah, I'm sure somewhere they're known for spending lots of time and effort thoroughly investigating every call that comes in.  This country doesn't care about kids. They only care about forcing people to be incubators. Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.

[AATW]

Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.

You understand there are ways of having sex without getting pregnant?

[rooster]

Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.

You understand there are ways of having sex without getting pregnant?

WHAT!? So you mean.. everyone who gets pregnant actually WANTS to get pregnant??

[AATW]

Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.

You understand there are ways of having sex without getting pregnant?

WHAT!? So you mean.. everyone who gets pregnant actually WANTS to get pregnant??

Is it national straw manning day or something?
Not as ridiculous as Tom’s, but still.
No, I mean exactly what I said.

[rooster]

Is it national straw manning day or something?
Not as ridiculous as Tom’s, but still.
No, I mean exactly what I said.

I forget you're not in the USA so maybe some of this isn't common knowledge for you. Birth control in the form of medication or an IUD is only prescribed/performed through an OBGYN during yearly exams. These things need to be covered by insurance or are quite costly and there's been a big push here to not force employers to provide birth control in their insurance policies. Because women should only have sex for breeding purposes. I don't know how many employers are legally allowed not to cover contraceptives but regardless, a lot of people don't even have health insurance.

And outside of that, you get people like Thork who think condoms ruin the experience so simply don't use them. Guys also like to sometimes lie about whether or not they're wearing a condom. Or you're from a shit schooling district with no proper sex education and think pulling out works.

Anyway, whether or not there are ways to have sex without getting pregnant a lot of the arguments are "if you don't want a baby then close your legs." Mistakes, accidents, and rape happen and for some reason people like to force those people to carry those consequences to term. If it were truly for the angel bb fetus's sake then there would actually be better programs for taking care of children (and mothers) once they're born.

Just for fun: "The average price of having a baby through vaginal delivery is between $5,000 to $11,000 in most states, according to data collected by FAIR Health." https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/cost-of-having-a-baby

[Rama Set]

I bet that price is for the bare minimum of service as well. In and out of the hospital in 24-48 hrs, no private room, etc…

[stack]

Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.

You understand there are ways of having sex without getting pregnant?

I'm pretty sure at least one woman has gotten pregnant while engaging in contraceptive sex.

Most of the hardcore anti-abortion laws I've seen make an exception for life-threatening scenarios. What's mind-blowing is a lot have zero provisions for rape and incest victims. As well, this probably opens the door to perhaps "verifying" miscarriages or something insane like that. E.g., check to see if abortion drugs were ordered online, etc.

A friend's Mom once told me a story that when she was pregnant pre-RvW, where she lived, abortion was illegal. She had some issues, potentially life-threatening. Could go either way. Her OB said, no prob, we can just perform a D&C, no questions asked. She, a well-heeled, affluent woman, essentially had access to abortion, whereas others, less well-off, did not have the option and would have to go 'back-alley'.

Lastly, this seems a tad bit contradictory when it comes to 50 years of settled law, Kavanaugh puts a fine point on it:

[crutonius]

I bet that price is for the bare minimum of service as well. In and out of the hospital in 24-48 hrs, no private room, etc…

Sort of.  That price is if everything goes according to plan.  I've never had this go according to plan.  Kid #3 involved a C section and 30 days in the nicu.  That racked up a bill that went into 6 figures.  I'm insured but still...

That was standard "not according to plan".  No one was going to die.  I'm sure the babies that were in serious trouble, like needing heart surgery or something, would rack up a truly staggering hospital bill.

[Lord Dave]

Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.

You understand there are ways of having sex without getting pregnant?

WHAT!? So you mean.. everyone who gets pregnant actually WANTS to get pregnant??

Also:
Anal sex
Oral sex
Gay sex.

[Allan S.]

Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.

You understand there are ways of having sex without getting pregnant?

WHAT!? So you mean.. everyone who gets pregnant actually WANTS to get pregnant??

Also:
Anal sex
Oral sex
Gay sex.

You heard it here folks... Just be gay!
(I personally actually follow that tip, and have indeed not had any trouble with pregnancy!)

[AATW]

I forget you're not in the USA so maybe some of this isn't common knowledge for you.

I was talking in the context of the UK where these things are easily available and free. Our government long ago realised that "Oi, keep your legs shut, you slags" wasn't working very well as a policy. And yeah, women don't pay to give birth here either - I cannot overemphasise how ridiculous that sounds to me. The US is great in many ways but holy shit stuff like that is crazy and needs sorting out.

Personally I think abortion should neither be too easy or too hard. But my main point is that this is a complex issue which too many people on both sides of the debate pretend is a simple black and white one. It's not just about "a woman's choice". There is a 3rd party involved. I'm not a "life begins at conception" kinda guy, but it is a potential life, the heart starts beating early and terminating a pregnancy shouldn't be done lightly. And on the other side, the "life begins at conception" people neglect to consider that there is a woman involved whose welfare should be considered.

I don't think the fact that Roe vs Wade exists is a good argument for keeping it by the way. Society's opinions have always changed over time. Some things once thought taboo are now accepted (gay marriage), other things once accepted are now taboo (slavery). The law has always changed to reflect that. I doubt there is a big shift back against abortion in the US though so I don't know what the basis for revoking it would be.

[AATW]

You heard it here folks... Just be gay!
(I personally actually follow that tip, and have indeed not had any trouble with pregnancy!)

[rooster]

I doubt there is a big shift back against abortion in the US though so I don't know what the basis for revoking it would be.

You would be correct, overall the majority of Americans are pro-choice. I think you need to learn about the GOP and the USA a little bit more before you say very ridiculous comments when I mention they're punishing women for having sex. I think you really don't understand just how much the GOP hates women and how corrupt they're growing. Simply saying there are ways to have sex without getting pregnant is pointlessly stupid. Our country's relationship with sex and healthcare is very different than the UK's.

A member of Congress:

https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1521797001175834625?s=20&t=f_7yNs2TfeUIyTafD_ZEpw

This same dude also got in trouble for trafficking a minor https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/sex-trafficking-allegations-matt-gaetz/

You should watch stack's Stephen Colbert video at least.

[Rushy]

What's mind-blowing is a lot have zero provisions for rape and incest victims.

This isn't mind blowing once you follow the logical conclusion of rape exceptions: that there's nothing stopping every woman who wants an abortion from saying it was rape. We can't rely on the justice system to sort out a rape case while abortion is viable; saying they need to file a police report and wait on a rape conviction would be comical. The only good way to have a rape exception is to take the woman's word at face value which would make the law pointless.

Additionally, people aren't "less human" because they were the product of rape. We aren't allowed to murder toddlers because they were a product of rape. It makes perfect sense that we aren't allowed to murder a baby in the womb, either.

Punishing women for having sex or something, idk.

Well there has to be a man involved for the woman to get pregnant. It's quite simple: anti-abortion activism is a lesbian conspiracy to punish women who have sex with men.

[crutonius]

I don't think accusing your husband or boyfriend of raping you is as solid a plan to get away with abortion as you think it is.

[rooster]

What's mind-blowing is a lot have zero provisions for rape and incest victims.

This isn't mind blowing

I agree with Rushy. If you make exceptions outside of medical emergencies then at that point we're just qualifying what we're comfortable with which is slippery. You're either okay with abortion or you're not. People fall back on the "what about rape" argument a lot with abortions and it seems a little weird. We shouldn't only allow them if the woman has first gone through some kind of trauma. Forcing anyone to carry to term when they don't want the baby is a pretty awful punishment imo. Being pregnant or giving birth is not easy or cheap.

For the record, I don't think abortion is complicated at all. Late term abortions are incredibly rare so I don't think we need to take those into heavy consideration when thinking about this. I think saying if it can survive outside the womb then it can't be aborted is reasonable, aside from medical emergencies considering those can happen at any time within the pregnancy. Or could even be a shorter time than that really, anything that would give someone enough time to make the consideration and appointment.

[AATW]

Simply saying there are ways to have sex without getting pregnant is pointlessly stupid. Our country's relationship with sex and healthcare is very different than the UK's.

Your second sentence negates the first. My comment isn't "pointlessly stupid", I just have a different cultural context. In mine contraception is easy to access and free. Why do you have to be so rude and aggressive?

You should watch stack's Stephen Colbert video at least.

I did.

[AATW]

I think saying if it can survive outside the womb then it can't be aborted is reasonable

OK, so according to Google a foetus is viable at about 24 weeks
But also according to Google the miscarriage rate is 1.7% at 12 weeks; and 0.5% at 16 weeks. So you're making a bit of an artificial distinction between a foetus that's viable and one which isn't. From a certain point the latter will turn into the former given time in almost all cases, unless you do something.
The reason I think it's complicated is that there are two lives involved.
Both side pretends it's simple by saying "the woman has a right to choose, the foetus is not a life and therefore irrelevant" or "The foetus is a life, the wellbeing of the woman carrying it is irrelevant". It's complicated because neither side is right. The foetus is a developing life. At some point it becomes viable - and that point has changed over time as medical advances have meant that a premature baby will survive now when they wouldn't have done 50 years ago. It's not as simple as "you're either okay with abortion or you're not". I'm not "ok" with it, but there are circumstances where I believe it's probably justifiable. It's what those circumstances are which is the debate, for me.