[rooster]

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?

I truly don't understand how you'd think this comment is not pointlessly stupid.

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

Cultural context aside, did you want me to say that I had no idea it was possible to have sex without getting pregnant? I don't know what kind of reaction you expect when you come out swinging with condescension.

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.

Something that will eventually develop into a life is splitting hairs and irrelevant. Until it is a life then it does not supersede the life of the person carrying it. Your opinions on what you're comfortable with are also irrelevant. You shouldn't force people you don't know to go through with life altering situations because you're not comfortable with the idea.

[Rushy]

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.

Why does it have to be a husband or boyfriend? "Some guy in the bushes raped me, I never saw his face and it was dead at night, there's no possible way to identify him in any meaningful way." Boom, it's a rape abortion and you'll never prove a false police report in court with such a vague statement to go on. All a rape exception would do is result in a court system with thousands of equally vague reports backlogged and wasting precious justice system resources.

[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.

Why does it have to be a husband or boyfriend? "Some guy in the bushes raped me, I never saw his face and it was dead at night, there's no possible way to identify him in any meaningful way." Boom, it's a rape abortion and you'll never prove a false police report in court with such a vague statement to go on. All a rape exception would do is result in a court system with thousands of equally vague reports backlogged and wasting precious justice system resources.

Alright.  That could work.  But if we're treating an abortion as seriously as we treat a murder then the next step would be collecting DNA evidence of the "victim".  And the justice system would naturally be curious if the SO matches this DNA.  In which case then "Hey good news, we've found your rapist and look out!  He's in the house with your now!"

[stack]

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.

I guess the same would go for incest? It seems odd that we would have to put the onus on the woman to somehow prove rape or incest. Personally, if a woman claims she was raped or a victim of incest, I'm going to take her word for it. It's only because laws are created that are incentivising woman to lie and gum up the courts. If there was a rape/incest exception allowed, the courts shouldn't be involved in the first place.
Additionally, what do we do about miscarraiges? You can order drugs that induce a misscarriage. If that happens, will woman be demanded to prove her miscarriage was natural? She just said she had one, though it could have been illegal.

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.

Well we get into the whole slippery slope is when is a foetus viable to be a ahuman living outside the womb. It depends on where you draw that line, if it's even a line someone considers. I think there are lot of folks who pay no attention to it and just say at conception even though viability is 24 or so weeks away. If you do entertain the line, Texas is down to 16 weeks and lots of pro-life groups want to get it down to 6 weeks. (and then zero weeks, of course).

[Rushy]

Alright.  That could work.  But if we're treating an abortion as seriously as we treat a murder then the next step would be collecting DNA evidence of the "victim".  And the justice system would naturally be curious if the SO matches this DNA.  In which case then "Hey good news, we've found your rapist and look out!  He's in the house with your now!"

Our justice system already has tens of thousands of queued rapekits that have yet to be properly tested. You'd just be piling "DNA evidence" into an already broken system.

I guess the same would go for incest? It seems odd that we would have to put the onus on the woman to somehow prove rape or incest. Personally, if a woman claims she was raped or a victim of incest, I'm going to take her word for it. It's only because laws are created that are incentivising woman to lie and gum up the courts. If there was a rape/incest exception allowed, the courts shouldn't be involved in the first place.
Additionally, what do we do about miscarraiges? You can order drugs that induce a misscarriage. If that happens, will woman be demanded to prove her miscarriage was natural? She just said she had one, though it could have been illegal.

Yes, you now understand why the rape and incest exceptions can't happen in an anti-abortion law.

Well we get into the whole slippery slope is when is a foetus viable to be a ahuman living outside the womb. It depends on where you draw that line, if it's even a line someone considers. I think there are lot of folks who pay no attention to it and just say at conception even though viability is 24 or so weeks away. If you do entertain the line, Texas is down to 16 weeks and lots of pro-life groups want to get it down to 6 weeks. (and then zero weeks, of course).

Adding "well that's just, like, your opinion, man" is not fantastic for the discussion. Obviously, this all boils down to a given person's opinion. If your opinion is that an abortion is murder, then it is. Convincing other people that your opinion is correct is how laws get changed.

[crutonius]

Alright.  That could work.  But if we're treating an abortion as seriously as we treat a murder then the next step would be collecting DNA evidence of the "victim".  And the justice system would naturally be curious if the SO matches this DNA.  In which case then "Hey good news, we've found your rapist and look out!  He's in the house with your now!"

Our justice system already has tens of thousands of queued rapekits that have yet to be properly tested. You'd just be piling "DNA evidence" into an already broken system.

So we have the resources to enforce a ban on abortion but not a ban on rapes.

I'm beginning to see why feminists call our society sexist.

[stack]

Alright.  That could work.  But if we're treating an abortion as seriously as we treat a murder then the next step would be collecting DNA evidence of the "victim".  And the justice system would naturally be curious if the SO matches this DNA.  In which case then "Hey good news, we've found your rapist and look out!  He's in the house with your now!"

Our justice system already has tens of thousands of queued rapekits that have yet to be properly tested. You'd just be piling "DNA evidence" into an already broken system.

I guess the same would go for incest? It seems odd that we would have to put the onus on the woman to somehow prove rape or incest. Personally, if a woman claims she was raped or a victim of incest, I'm going to take her word for it. It's only because laws are created that are incentivising woman to lie and gum up the courts. If there was a rape/incest exception allowed, the courts shouldn't be involved in the first place.
Additionally, what do we do about miscarraiges? You can order drugs that induce a misscarriage. If that happens, will woman be demanded to prove her miscarriage was natural? She just said she had one, though it could have been illegal.

Yes, you now understand why the rape and incest exceptions can't happen in an anti-abortion law.

I guess if you presuppose that women would use rape/incest as an excuse that is untrue. I'm assuming there are current laws on the books that have the rape/incest exemption. Are the courts backed up trying to prove the claims are true to allow an abortion to go through? Is that even the way it works? idk. Does a woman today have to prove she was a victim under those laws?

Well we get into the whole slippery slope is when is a foetus viable to be a ahuman living outside the womb. It depends on where you draw that line, if it's even a line someone considers. I think there are lot of folks who pay no attention to it and just say at conception even though viability is 24 or so weeks away. If you do entertain the line, Texas is down to 16 weeks and lots of pro-life groups want to get it down to 6 weeks. (and then zero weeks, of course).

Adding "well that's just, like, your opinion, man" is not fantastic for the discussion. Obviously, this all boils down to a given person's opinion. If your opinion is that an abortion is murder, then it is. Convincing other people that your opinion is correct is how laws get changed.

I apologize if it came across like that. I didn't mean, "well that's just, like, your opinion, man". All I'm saying is, or perhaps asking, what is your line? Conception (i.e. never), 6 weeks, 16, 24?

[rooster]

Additionally, what do we do about miscarraiges? You can order drugs that induce a misscarriage. If that happens, will woman be demanded to prove her miscarriage was natural? She just said she had one, though it could have been illegal.

lol it's horrible
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/21/oklahoma-woman-convicted-of-manslaughter-miscarriage/6104281001/

[AATW]

Cultural context aside, did you want me to say that I had no idea it was possible to have sex without getting pregnant?

My comment was in response to:

This country doesn't care about kids. They only care about forcing people to be incubators. Punishing women for having sex or something

Note you said “this country”, not the GOP.
Your statement seemed ridiculous to me. As if an anti-abortion stance is necessarily some punishment for women who want to have sex and nothing to do with caring about kids. Yes I was writing in the context of a country where contraception is freely available, but even if you can cite misogynistic individuals that doesn’t mean every anti-abortion stance is based on that. It’s usually based on the idea that “life begins at conception” and therefore the decision to abort does not just affect the individual making that decision. The foetus gets no say so some law protecting them seems reasonable. Any law on abortion will obviously only directly affect women but that’s biology, not sexism or misogyny. As a man I feel I have a right to an opinion on this matter, but given I’ll never be in a position of being raped and then having to carry a baby to term as a result I don’t feel I have the right to compel a woman to do that. I think it’s fair to grumble that these laws always seem to be made by old white men. It’s not fair to say that they are “only” motivated by some hatred for women and just want to punish women for having sex.

And I don’t think acknowledging that a foetus is a developing life is splitting hairs. You’re making a distinction between “viable” and not but there is no clear line between those two things. From 16 weeks a foetus isn’t (currently) viable but will almost always become so given time unless you do something. And a foetus is viable far earlier than it used to be, that could become earlier still as medical techniques advance. What if we get to the point where artificial wombs mean that pretty much any foetus is viable. Then what? Unless you’re defining “viable” as “you don’t have to keep them alive with machines”, which I guess is reasonable but there’s no clear line there either.
You are making a distinction between when a foetus is a “life” and when it isn’t. That distinction doesn’t really exist or, at best, is a grey area which keeps changing as medicine does. I don’t think life begins at conception but I don’t think it’s clear when it becomes so.

[AATW]

Here’s a solution with everyone can get behind.

https://newsthump.com/2022/05/04/if-you-dont-want-a-baby-wait-until-its-born-and-let-it-play-with-a-perfectly-legal-firearm-american-women-told/

[xasop]

Something that will eventually develop into a life is splitting hairs and irrelevant. Until it is a life then it does not supersede the life of the person carrying it.

You are making a distinction between when a foetus is a “life” and when it isn’t. That distinction doesn’t really exist or, at best, is a grey area which keeps changing as medicine does. I don’t think life begins at conception but I don’t think it’s clear when it becomes so.

Well, "life" began 4 billion years ago and has been around continuously since then. The question isn't when an embryo or fœtus becomes "alive", but when it qualifies as a human life.

To me, the important issue here isn't the definition of a "life", but rather the question of the mother-to-be's commitment. If the opportunity is presented to abort at, say, 5 weeks pregnancy, and the mother chooses to keep the baby, then it is unreasonable to say "I changed my mind" at 15 or 20 or 25 weeks, regardless of the state of the fœtus. Conversely, if the opportunity is not available (due to legal or circumstantial restrictions) at an early stage, then an abortion at 15 weeks may make more sense. But the decision to commit (or not) to pregnancy should be made as early as possible to avoid undue suffering on the part of the fœtus, and then once the commitment is made, it should be permanent (with obvious exceptions for life-threatening cases).

On the point about artificial wombs, I don't think that it makes sense to say that just because a zygote would eventually become a human baby, it is best to let it develop. Is bringing a child into an abusive family or an orphanage better than preventing it from ever existing? I know there are some who would say yes, but at the very least it should be clear that there are a variety of reasonable views on that question.

So, once again, we come to the issue being more complex than it first appears.

[rooster]

As if an anti-abortion stance is necessarily some punishment for women who want to have sex and nothing to do with caring about kids.

It is. If I had an abortion 15 years ago are you going to bed crying every night about the potentially lost life? No. You had no idea it happened. Stop worrying about something that is not a human life yet and you're not even aware of.

Some complications that come with being pregnant/delivering a baby:
Morning sickness (sometimes incapacitating), itchy skin, gas and bloating, bleeding gums, yeast infections, swollen ankles, frequent urination, anemia, high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, fetal distress, perinatal asphyxia, shoulder dystocia, excessive bleeding, malposition, placenta previa, cephalopelvic disproportion, uterine/bladder prolapse, depression - in short, your body gets fucking wrecked. That sounds like punishment to me if the person does not want that child, particularly since healthcare is expensive as fuck and we basically leave people out to dry.

And I'll say it again, if people actually cared about the child then there would be better programs in place for mother and child. If healthcare, childcare, housing, and general support/education were readily available at low to no cost then there would be a lot less abortions that make you uncomfortable.

It is absolutely not complicated. Maybe adjusting the terms should be left to the states but only as long as it's a reasonable length of time for the woman to know, consider, and make the appointment. But it should not be up for debate what someone does with their body before there is a viable human life in question. Honestly, any wealthy white woman will still be able to get an abortion regardless of the legality so it's all horseshit anyway.

Solve the other problems and you greatly diminish abortion.

[stack]

Additionally, what do we do about miscarraiges? You can order drugs that induce a misscarriage. If that happens, will woman be demanded to prove her miscarriage was natural? She just said she had one, though it could have been illegal.

lol it's horrible
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/21/oklahoma-woman-convicted-of-manslaughter-miscarriage/6104281001/

Seems like kind of a fringe case. Meth use maybe caused a miscarriage according to the prosecution yet the Dr.s say it probably wasn't. Fringe also in that these cases don't seem to happen very often, from the article:

"They learned of about 57 cases in Oklahoma since 2006, including Poolaw's, and began reaching out to her to offer her assistance once they learned she was going to trial." That amounts to 3+ cases a year for being prosecuted for using a felony drug while pregnant and a miscarriage occurs. I wonder what the incidence of miscarriages is for all pregnant Meth users?

In short, I'm not seeing a gumming up of the court system if you exempt for rape and incest. Nor for miscarriages in general.

[xasop]

Solve the other problems and you greatly diminish abortion.

I do agree with this. I can't understand how the anti-abortion crowd aren't campaigning for free birth control.

[Lord Dave]

Solve the other problems and you greatly diminish abortion.

I do agree with this. I can't understand how the anti-abortion crowd aren't campaigning for free birth control.

Because they don't want to pay for it either. 
And some of them feel its the individual's responsibility to either have protection they purchased themselves or not have sex.  Because none of them were horny teenagers, apparently, who'd have unprotected sex if the opportunity arose.  All of them were chase, well mannered, men who never had an erection unless they fully intended to impregnate a woman.

Something that will eventually develop into a life is splitting hairs and irrelevant. Until it is a life then it does not supersede the life of the person carrying it.

You are making a distinction between when a foetus is a “life” and when it isn’t. That distinction doesn’t really exist or, at best, is a grey area which keeps changing as medicine does. I don’t think life begins at conception but I don’t think it’s clear when it becomes so.

Well, "life" began 4 billion years ago and has been around continuously since then. The question isn't when an embryo or fœtus becomes "alive", but when it qualifies as a human life.

To me, the important issue here isn't the definition of a "life", but rather the question of the mother-to-be's commitment. If the opportunity is presented to abort at, say, 5 weeks pregnancy, and the mother chooses to keep the baby, then it is unreasonable to say "I changed my mind" at 15 or 20 or 25 weeks, regardless of the state of the fœtus. Conversely, if the opportunity is not available (due to legal or circumstantial restrictions) at an early stage, then an abortion at 15 weeks may make more sense. But the decision to commit (or not) to pregnancy should be made as early as possible to avoid undue suffering on the part of the fœtus, and then once the commitment is made, it should be permanent (with obvious exceptions for life-threatening cases).

On the point about artificial wombs, I don't think that it makes sense to say that just because a zygote would eventually become a human baby, it is best to let it develop. Is bringing a child into an abusive family or an orphanage better than preventing it from ever existing? I know there are some who would say yes, but at the very least it should be clear that there are a variety of reasonable views on that question.

So, once again, we come to the issue being more complex than it first appears.

This is where I am too.  (except 5 weeks.  5 weeks is basically "I might be late...")

For the christian crowd: Does it have a soul?
For the biology crowd: Does it have consciousness?

I think we all agree that a heart, is not a human.  If I remove your heart and keep it alive, its not a human life there, beating on and on.  Its a heart, a collection of cells that, aside from genetics, has no qualities that make us human.
Animals have no rights, because they aren't human, despite being alive.
So what, then, makes us human and when does that develop?  What separates a collection of cells from a human?

[rooster]

Solve the other problems and you greatly diminish abortion.

I do agree with this. I can't understand how the anti-abortion crowd aren't campaigning for free birth control.

Because this country (the GOP and conservatives for clarity's sake) wants more white babies. We don't want to bring in immigrants to help our declining birth rate so the only fix is to force women to have babies. The boomers are getting older and there's not enough people to take care of them.

I promise you this about control and nothing else. If it were genuine concern for life then there are so many other fixes.

[xasop]

Because this country (the GOP and conservatives for clarity's sake) wants more white babies. We don't want to bring in immigrants to help our declining birth rate so the only fix is to force women to have babies. The boomers are getting older and there's not enough people to take care of them.

Sounds like they should fix the housing crisis so people can afford to buy a family home, then.

[rooster]

In short, I'm not seeing a gumming up of the court system if you exempt for rape and incest. Nor for miscarriages in general.

Not yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it went that way eventually. If people in TX can report anyone they believe had an abortion then you're going to at least have a lot of shitty investigations into people who may have had legitimate miscarriages, which I'm sure is a lot fun.

[WTF_Seriously]

What's great is when you ask those who are so worried about life if they're signed up to be foster parents or are adoptive parents.

An overwhelming majority of the time it's crickets.

[Lord Dave]

In short, I'm not seeing a gumming up of the court system if you exempt for rape and incest. Nor for miscarriages in general.

Not yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it went that way eventually. If people in TX can report anyone they believe had an abortion then you're going to at least have a lot of shitty investigations into people who may have had legitimate miscarriages, which I'm sure is a lot fun.

Its a mental nightmare.  A misscarriage or hell, even an abortion, is an emotioally damaging experience.  Add on top of that some random people calling you a murdere while OTHER random people question what you did and ask you to relive it in detail.