Roe v Wade is on deck

[thebeave]

And for this and because of many lessons I've learned over many many years: I really don't think it is my place or yours or the legislature's to tell a pregnant girl or woman whether or not her reasons are 'good enough' to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot bear to continue. I don't want to see hard and fast legislation about pregnancy enacted. Just no. These are not easy decisions. There is no need to complicate matters more by a bunch of ignorant old men trying to decide what is a good enough reason to choose yourself over something growing inside of you that you do not want there and what time frame you have to make that decision.

Very pejorative of you, the comments about ignorant old men.
What if some of the opponents are young women?

Some? A vast majority of women are not in favor of 3rd trimester abortions. The actual numbers are very similar between men and women, and in fact the table below shows men are slightly more tolerant than women for 3rd trimester abortions by a couple of points. So, getting kind of tired of the misandry when it comes to abortion issues. And age is a minor factor in this (a couple of percentage points), so let's stop with the ageism too:

Trimesters Still Key to U.S. Abortion Views

Americans Who Say Abortion Should Generally Be Legal in Each Trimester, by Key Demographic Group

	First trimester	Second trimester	Third trimester
	%	%	%
U.S. adults	60	28	13
Gender
Men	60	31	14
Women	60	26	12
Age
18 to 34	66	33	14
35 to 54	63	26	12
55+	54	27	12
Education
College graduates	72	40	19
Some college	63	22	10
No college	49	24	9
Party ID
Republicans	42	12	6
Independents	60	27	13
Democrats	77	46	18

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And for this and because of many lessons I've learned over many many years: I really don't think it is my place or yours or the legislature's to tell a pregnant girl or woman whether or not her reasons are 'good enough' to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot bear to continue. I don't want to see hard and fast legislation about pregnancy enacted. Just no. These are not easy decisions. There is no need to complicate matters more by a bunch of ignorant old men trying to decide what is a good enough reason to choose yourself over something growing inside of you that you do not want there and what time frame you have to make that decision.

Very pejorative of you, the comments about ignorant old men.
What if some of the opponents are young women?

Some? A vast majority of women are not in favor of 3rd trimester abortions.

Firstly, Toni's context was clearly about those in Congress writing the laws... that would involve (particularly in the US Senate) a lot of old men.

Second, there is an asterisk here, as the article you site indicates 3 in 4 Americans feel a third trimester should be legal when safety of the mother is involved. As we've seen in Texas, "safety of the mother" isn't a particular concern for those governing Texas which makes Toni's concerns hardly hypothetical.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

And for this and because of many lessons I've learned over many many years: I really don't think it is my place or yours or the legislature's to tell a pregnant girl or woman whether or not her reasons are 'good enough' to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot bear to continue. I don't want to see hard and fast legislation about pregnancy enacted. Just no. These are not easy decisions. There is no need to complicate matters more by a bunch of ignorant old men trying to decide what is a good enough reason to choose yourself over something growing inside of you that you do not want there and what time frame you have to make that decision.

Very pejorative of you, the comments about ignorant old men.
What if some of the opponents are young women?

Some? A vast majority of women are not in favor of 3rd trimester abortions.

Firstly, Toni's context was clearly about those in Congress writing the laws... that would involve (particularly in the US Senate) a lot of old men.

It's weird how often the comments of certain users here completely ignore context.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And for this and because of many lessons I've learned over many many years: I really don't think it is my place or yours or the legislature's to tell a pregnant girl or woman whether or not her reasons are 'good enough' to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot bear to continue. I don't want to see hard and fast legislation about pregnancy enacted. Just no. These are not easy decisions. There is no need to complicate matters more by a bunch of ignorant old men trying to decide what is a good enough reason to choose yourself over something growing inside of you that you do not want there and what time frame you have to make that decision.

Very pejorative of you, the comments about ignorant old men.
What if some of the opponents are young women?

Some? A vast majority of women are not in favor of 3rd trimester abortions.

Firstly, Toni's context was clearly about those in Congress writing the laws... that would involve (particularly in the US Senate) a lot of old men.

It's weird how often the comments of certain users here completely ignore context.

Or the sources they cite. Toni also hasn't said people should be allowed to abort till the cows come home. Her position is it is between the doctor and patient, a position that is unquestioned about any treatment a dude might get.

 

[laughing dog]

And for this and because of many lessons I've learned over many many years: I really don't think it is my place or yours or the legislature's to tell a pregnant girl or woman whether or not her reasons are 'good enough' to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot bear to continue. I don't want to see hard and fast legislation about pregnancy enacted. Just no. These are not easy decisions. There is no need to complicate matters more by a bunch of ignorant old men trying to decide what is a good enough reason to choose yourself over something growing inside of you that you do not want there and what time frame you have to make that decision.

Very pejorative of you, the comments about ignorant old men.

As an old man, I acknowledge that
1) I am ignorant about many things,
2) In the USA, there are plenty of ignorant men of all ages, and
3)The population of our law makers (the group Toni was obviously referring to, as JH pointed out)who are old men is heavily weighted with the ignorant.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

And for this and because of many lessons I've learned over many many years: I really don't think it is my place or yours or the legislature's to tell a pregnant girl or woman whether or not her reasons are 'good enough' to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot bear to continue. I don't want to see hard and fast legislation about pregnancy enacted. Just no. These are not easy decisions. There is no need to complicate matters more by a bunch of ignorant old men trying to decide what is a good enough reason to choose yourself over something growing inside of you that you do not want there and what time frame you have to make that decision.

Very pejorative of you, the comments about ignorant old men.
What if some of the opponents are young women?

Some? A vast majority of women are not in favor of 3rd trimester abortions.

Firstly, Toni's context was clearly about those in Congress writing the laws... that would involve (particularly in the US Senate) a lot of old men.

It's weird how often the comments of certain users here completely ignore context.

Or the sources they cite. Toni also hasn't said people should be allowed to abort till the cows come home. Her position is it is between the doctor and patient, a position that is unquestioned about any treatment a dude might get.

I get whiplash every time.

 

[thebeave]

And for this and because of many lessons I've learned over many many years: I really don't think it is my place or yours or the legislature's to tell a pregnant girl or woman whether or not her reasons are 'good enough' to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot bear to continue. I don't want to see hard and fast legislation about pregnancy enacted. Just no. These are not easy decisions. There is no need to complicate matters more by a bunch of ignorant old men trying to decide what is a good enough reason to choose yourself over something growing inside of you that you do not want there and what time frame you have to make that decision.

Very pejorative of you, the comments about ignorant old men.
What if some of the opponents are young women?

Some? A vast majority of women are not in favor of 3rd trimester abortions.

Firstly, Toni's context was clearly about those in Congress writing the laws... that would involve (particularly in the US Senate) a lot of old men.

Second, there is an asterisk here, as the article you site indicates 3 in 4 Americans feel a third trimester should be legal when safety of the mother is involved. As we've seen in Texas, "safety of the mother" isn't a particular concern for those governing Texas which makes Toni's concerns hardly hypothetical.

My comment was in response to Tigers! question, in bold. I interpreted his "young women opponents" comment to be referring to the general population of young women, not specifically "young women opponents" in Congress. But perhaps that assumption was in error. We can let Tigers! chime in with a clarification. Regardless, the point stands that, statistically anyway, young women postions on 3T abortions are largely in line with the "ignorant old men" writing laws. But perhaps they are true outliers from the survey. Do you know if that is in fact true?

I certainly don't agree with what I've heard about what is going on in Texas. The people of Texas need to excercise their voting rights and get rid of the ones supporting their abortion laws, IMHO.

 

[Toni]

What I think: Anyone who opposes abortions should not have one. Anyone who opposes abortions for X reason should not have an abortion for X reason.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Regardless, the point stands that, statistically anyway, young women postions on 3T abortions are largely in line with the "ignorant old men" writing laws. But perhaps they are true outliers from the survey. Do you know if that is in fact true?

Yes... because 75% of people polled said third trimester abortions should be legal if the woman's life is in danger. Toni's point is defining 'woman's life is in danger' in a legal context, is hard and the people who would be in charge of doing so, most likely not the best to choose for collaborating that definition. And finally, as seen in Texas (ie the "pro-life" plan), the courts showed incompetence in understanding a doctor's medical judgment.

This is Toni's entire point!

I certainly don't agree with what I've heard about what is going on in Texas. The people of Texas need to excercise their voting rights and get rid of the ones supporting their abortion laws, IMHO.

*spit take* It is very very possible (likely?) that they'll elect the guy that intervened himself into the emergency medical care of a woman as US Senator.

 

[laughing dog]

. Regardless, the point stands that, statistically anyway, young women postions on 3T abortions are largely in line with the "ignorant old men" writing laws. But perhaps they are true outliers from the survey. Do you know if that is in fact true?

The fact that some group agrees with "ignorant old men" writing laws does not rebut their alleged ignorance nor the age. So why do you feel your point is relevant?

 

[Jarhyn]

When else in considered perrmissible to kill another just because you wish too?

I dunno about “else”, but any time another organism is living on my blood oxygen, I feel quite at liberty to get rid of it.
YMMV, and it would be the height of hubris for me to dictate or restrict others’ options in that regard.

If you’re piloting a plane, your passengers are living on your blood oxygen.

If you’re piloting a plane, your passengers are NOT living on your blood oxygen in any meaningful sense. To be more precise (as you seem to demand, and I appreciate that) they are not using your blood or other tissues as a transport medium for oxygen, nutrients, hormones, and wastes or to otherwise fuel their biological functions. I think you know the qualitative difference, and that makes your response feel somewhat disingenuous.

Not to mention that whole "you clearly agreed with a person to contract your skills for the duration of a short period that you have no ongoing responsibilities for being a member to at a later date".

 

[Emily Lake]

Outside the womb, yes. Inside the womb, no.
See how simple that is?

It's simple, sure. I just don't find it rational or convincing. I get that you do, and I actually do respect that you have a clear line and you're consistent about it. But I don't agree that your line makes sense.

Now, suppose a victim of rape learns she is pregnant in the 29th week of development. She has an abortion, is she murdering a baby?

Yes. I know this is an unpopular view, and I recognize that it's an argument I will probably never win. But to me... that baby didn't do anything to her. The baby didn't rape her. Why should the baby be forced to pay for its father's crime?

But actual victim is forced to pay for the crime.

The timing is unfortunate, but there's certainly no expectation that the mother keep the baby. Give it up for adoption, absolutely. But kill it? Not so much.

Suppose a victim of rape learns she is pregnant when she starts to go into labor? Is it okay to kill the baby then, simply because it's the product of a brutal crime? Or a young mother learns that the baby she thought was conceived in love was actually conceived when her boyfriend drugged her and had his way with her, along the lines of Giselle Pelicot?

in the 1st case, good luck finding a medical professional to do it.
2nd case, yes.

At a very fundamental level, I believe we are each accountable for our own actions and our own decisions. None of us are responsible for someone else's actions, and none of us should be expected to make recompense or be punished for what someone else did.

Except pregnant women in the 28th week or later who were raped.

Only if you think not being allowed to kill an innocent bystander is punishment…

 

[Emily Lake]

And for this and because of many lessons I've learned over many many years: I really don't think it is my place or yours or the legislature's to tell a pregnant girl or woman whether or not her reasons are 'good enough' to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot bear to continue. I don't want to see hard and fast legislation about pregnancy enacted. Just no. These are not easy decisions. There is no need to complicate matters more by a bunch of ignorant old men trying to decide what is a good enough reason to choose yourself over something growing inside of you that you do not want there and what time frame you have to make that decision.

Very pejorative of you, the comments about ignorant old men.
What if some of the opponents are young women?

Some? A vast majority of women are not in favor of 3rd trimester abortions.

Firstly, Toni's context was clearly about those in Congress writing the laws... that would involve (particularly in the US Senate) a lot of old men.

Second, there is an asterisk here, as the article you site indicates 3 in 4 Americans feel a third trimester should be legal when safety of the mother is involved. As we've seen in Texas, "safety of the mother" isn't a particular concern for those governing Texas which makes Toni's concerns hardly hypothetical.

Once again, just because Texas is stupid doesn’t mean we have to be stupid in the opposite direction.

 

[laughing dog]

Outside the womb, yes. Inside the womb, no.
See how simple that is?

It's simple, sure. I just don't find it rational or convincing. I get that you do, and I actually do respect that you have a clear line and you're consistent about it. But I don't agree that your line makes sense.

Now, suppose a victim of rape learns she is pregnant in the 29th week of development. She has an abortion, is she murdering a baby?

Yes. I know this is an unpopular view, and I recognize that it's an argument I will probably never win. But to me... that baby didn't do anything to her. The baby didn't rape her. Why should the baby be forced to pay for its father's crime?

But actual victim is forced to pay for the crime.

The timing is unfortunate, but there's certainly no expectation that the mother keep the baby. Give it up for adoption, absolutely. But kill it? Not so much.

Suppose a victim of rape learns she is pregnant when she starts to go into labor? Is it okay to kill the baby then, simply because it's the product of a brutal crime? Or a young mother learns that the baby she thought was conceived in love was actually conceived when her boyfriend drugged her and had his way with her, along the lines of Giselle Pelicot?

in the 1st case, good luck finding a medical professional to do it.
2nd case, yes.

At a very fundamental level, I believe we are each accountable for our own actions and our own decisions. None of us are responsible for someone else's actions, and none of us should be expected to make recompense or be punished for what someone else did.

Except pregnant women in the 28th week or later who were raped.

Only if you think not being allowed to kill an innocent bystander is punishment…

Yes, because the pain, inconvenience, possible postpartum depression and risks of injury and death to an actual sentient woman don’t matter at all. It’s as if the woman doesn’t count at after the magic date on the calendar.

 

[Emily Lake]

Or the sources they cite. Toni also hasn't said people should be allowed to abort till the cows come home. Her position is it is between the doctor and patient, a position that is unquestioned about any treatment a dude might get.

Nah, this is a dodge, and I think Toni is playing a bit of motte and Bailey.

When asked directly about her personal opinion for late abortions, she provides non-answers. She says it should be between the doctor and mother… which avoids her view completely and allows for abortions up to the last minute. When that’s pointed out, she hedges and implies late abortions don’t happen without a medical need, which again is a dodge that avoids having to give her own opinion. Or she points to women in Texas dying under completely different rules than I’ve advocated.

It’s perfect fine to say “I don’t know” or “I’m undecided”. It’s also fine to say “I would prefer x but I’m hesitant to advocate for that because y”.

But that’s not what most of the posters in this thread do. Instead of actually providing their personal views, they hedge and give non-answers, or they turn it into an attack.

LD doesn’t. And even though his view is far away from mine, I respect that he actually states and stands by it without going on the attack.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, because the pain, inconvenience, possible postpartum depression and risks of injury and death to an actual sentient woman don’t matter at all. It’s as if the woman doesn’t count at after the magic date on the calendar.

Pain shouldn’t be an acceptable excuse for murder. Nor should inconvenience, nor depression.

Risk of injury and death has already been conceded as a reason to act on self defense.

A baby a month prior to delivery is no less sentient than one prematurely delivered a month early, and neither is materially less sentient than a newborn the day of.

Your stated reasons are just as valid for a depressed mother of a premie who is in great pain, and who finds her premie to be inconvenient.

 

[Toni]

Outside the womb, yes. Inside the womb, no.
See how simple that is?

It's simple, sure. I just don't find it rational or convincing. I get that you do, and I actually do respect that you have a clear line and you're consistent about it. But I don't agree that your line makes sense.

Now, suppose a victim of rape learns she is pregnant in the 29th week of development. She has an abortion, is she murdering a baby?

Yes. I know this is an unpopular view, and I recognize that it's an argument I will probably never win. But to me... that baby didn't do anything to her. The baby didn't rape her. Why should the baby be forced to pay for its father's crime?

But actual victim is forced to pay for the crime.

The timing is unfortunate, but there's certainly no expectation that the mother keep the baby. Give it up for adoption, absolutely. But kill it? Not so much.

Suppose a victim of rape learns she is pregnant when she starts to go into labor? Is it okay to kill the baby then, simply because it's the product of a brutal crime? Or a young mother learns that the baby she thought was conceived in love was actually conceived when her boyfriend drugged her and had his way with her, along the lines of Giselle Pelicot?

in the 1st case, good luck finding a medical professional to do it.
2nd case, yes.

At a very fundamental level, I believe we are each accountable for our own actions and our own decisions. None of us are responsible for someone else's actions, and none of us should be expected to make recompense or be punished for what someone else did.

Except pregnant women in the 28th week or later who were raped.

Only if you think not being allowed to kill an innocent bystander is punishment…

It’s really sad that you cannot see a pregnant girl or woman as innocent and are happy to relegate her to bystander status with regards to her own body.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, because the pain, inconvenience, possible postpartum depression and risks of injury and death to an actual sentient woman don’t matter at all. It’s as if the woman doesn’t count at after the magic date on the calendar.

Pain shouldn’t be an acceptable excuse for murder. Nor should inconvenience, nor depression.

Risk of injury and death has already been conceded as a reason to act on self defense.

A baby a month prior to delivery is no less sentient than one prematurely delivered a month early, and neither is materially less sentient than a newborn the day of.

A fetus at any stage of development is less sentient than the mother. Forcing a pregnant woman to deliver a child against her will is morally depraved in my opinion.

Your stated reasons are just as valid for a depressed mother of a premie who is in great pain, and who finds her premie to be inconvenient.

If you ignore the part about being born, you’d have a point. But you don’t.

 

[Elixir]

C’mon people, would it kill y’all to only post the part to which you are responding?
This is useless;

 

[Tigers!]

And for this and because of many lessons I've learned over many many years: I really don't think it is my place or yours or the legislature's to tell a pregnant girl or woman whether or not her reasons are 'good enough' to terminate a pregnancy that she cannot bear to continue. I don't want to see hard and fast legislation about pregnancy enacted. Just no. These are not easy decisions. There is no need to complicate matters more by a bunch of ignorant old men trying to decide what is a good enough reason to choose yourself over something growing inside of you that you do not want there and what time frame you have to make that decision.

Very pejorative of you, the comments about ignorant old men.
What if some of the opponents are young women?

Some? A vast majority of women are not in favor of 3rd trimester abortions.

Firstly, Toni's context was clearly about those in Congress writing the laws... that would involve (particularly in the US Senate) a lot of old men.

Second, there is an asterisk here, as the article you site indicates 3 in 4 Americans feel a third trimester should be legal when safety of the mother is involved. As we've seen in Texas, "safety of the mother" isn't a particular concern for those governing Texas which makes Toni's concerns hardly hypothetical.

My comment was in response to Tigers! question, in bold. I interpreted his "young women opponents" comment to be referring to the general population of young women, not specifically "young women opponents" in Congress. But perhaps that assumption was in error. We can let Tigers! chime in with a clarification.

You are correct. My reference to young women was to those within and without your governing houses.

Regardless, the point stands that, statistically anyway, young women postions on 3T abortions are largely in line with the "ignorant old men" writing laws. But perhaps they are true outliers from the survey. Do you know if that is in fact true?

I certainly don't agree with what I've heard about what is going on in Texas. The people of Texas need to excercise their voting rights and get rid of the ones supporting their abortion laws, IMHO.

If mothers are being denied care that will kill them if not given then yes, vote the bounders out.