Roe v Wade is on deck

[laughing dog]

The fact is that sometimes men demand that their wives or girlfriends for sometimes daughters have an abortion. And sometimes they demand that they not have an abortion. In each case, sometimes going pretty far to ensure that their ( the man’s) wishes are carried out. I wrote upthread of my friend whose first husband demanded she get an abortion and she complied. The first time. The second time, she refused and he divorced her and refused to pay child support, which used to be easier than it is now. When she remarried he tried to convince her to get her new husband to adopt his child. She refused only because the bio father’s benefits would transfer to his child should he die. My sister’s marriage ended when she refused to terminate her unplanned pregnancy. He never paid the full amount of child support the divorce decree determined and threatened to take her to court fur custody if she pressed the matter. Both he and my sister are pharmacists and so my sister was able to support her child on her own but felt it was important that her child knew the father contributed something. He refused to take the child for visitation but his second wife encouraged it so for a while during his second marriage, she got some time with her father’s new family. They all live in the same small town and the father works less than half a mile from his daughter but only sees her once or twice a year, at most.

You seem to have missed your calling in life. You should be writing screenplays for As the World Turns and The Young and the Restless instead of wasting your time here.

There is a real subset of men who wish to control their partners' lives. I don't know about your access to news but there are frequent stories of some man killing his partner then committing suicide every year that I see. And there is a big overlap with the subset of men who wish to control women's choices in health care.

If you cannot handle adult discussion or situations, perhaps you shouldn't be wasting your time in adult discussion forums. Or did Toni's post hit too close to home?

I was making a joke about how Toni's typical response seems to be a 5 paragraph drama about her family and friends. Certainly, she's quite well aware of it herself.

I apologize for missing the nuanced humor in your remark.

I can handle adult discussions just fine. And no, it didn't hit close to home...not even sure what you're suggesting with that comment. That I'm some kind of wife beater or abuser or control their reproductive choices or something? You are really desperate to sling insults at me for some reason.

You’re not sure what a comment means, so you assume it is an insult? Pretty ironic.

 

[Toni]

The fact is that sometimes men demand that their wives or girlfriends for sometimes daughters have an abortion. And sometimes they demand that they not have an abortion. In each case, sometimes going pretty far to ensure that their ( the man’s) wishes are carried out. I wrote upthread of my friend whose first husband demanded she get an abortion and she complied. The first time. The second time, she refused and he divorced her and refused to pay child support, which used to be easier than it is now. When she remarried he tried to convince her to get her new husband to adopt his child. She refused only because the bio father’s benefits would transfer to his child should he die. My sister’s marriage ended when she refused to terminate her unplanned pregnancy. He never paid the full amount of child support the divorce decree determined and threatened to take her to court fur custody if she pressed the matter. Both he and my sister are pharmacists and so my sister was able to support her child on her own but felt it was important that her child knew the father contributed something. He refused to take the child for visitation but his second wife encouraged it so for a while during his second marriage, she got some time with her father’s new family. They all live in the same small town and the father works less than half a mile from his daughter but only sees her once or twice a year, at most.

You seem to have missed your calling in life. You should be writing screenplays for As the World Turns and The Young and the Restless instead of wasting your time here.

I’m so sorry if you did not understand that my response was for those who think men should be able to override the woman’s decision. My observation is that means the man demands an abortion.

I’ll try to keep your short attention span and lack of cultural awareness —soaps have been defunct for decades. Men making demands re: women’s bodies: not so much—in mind in the future.

Sorry for the poorly constructed overly complex sentence above. I’m sure someone can help you dissect it.

 

[thebeave]

The fact is that sometimes men demand that their wives or girlfriends for sometimes daughters have an abortion. And sometimes they demand that they not have an abortion. In each case, sometimes going pretty far to ensure that their ( the man’s) wishes are carried out. I wrote upthread of my friend whose first husband demanded she get an abortion and she complied. The first time. The second time, she refused and he divorced her and refused to pay child support, which used to be easier than it is now. When she remarried he tried to convince her to get her new husband to adopt his child. She refused only because the bio father’s benefits would transfer to his child should he die. My sister’s marriage ended when she refused to terminate her unplanned pregnancy. He never paid the full amount of child support the divorce decree determined and threatened to take her to court fur custody if she pressed the matter. Both he and my sister are pharmacists and so my sister was able to support her child on her own but felt it was important that her child knew the father contributed something. He refused to take the child for visitation but his second wife encouraged it so for a while during his second marriage, she got some time with her father’s new family. They all live in the same small town and the father works less than half a mile from his daughter but only sees her once or twice a year, at most.

You seem to have missed your calling in life. You should be writing screenplays for As the World Turns and The Young and the Restless instead of wasting your time here.

There is a real subset of men who wish to control their partners' lives. I don't know about your access to news but there are frequent stories of some man killing his partner then committing suicide every year that I see. And there is a big overlap with the subset of men who wish to control women's choices in health care.

If you cannot handle adult discussion or situations, perhaps you shouldn't be wasting your time in adult discussion forums. Or did Toni's post hit too close to home?

I was making a joke about how Toni's typical response seems to be a 5 paragraph drama about her family and friends. Certainly, she's quite well aware of it herself.

I apologize for missing the nuanced humor in your remark.

I can handle adult discussions just fine. And no, it didn't hit close to home...not even sure what you're suggesting with that comment. That I'm some kind of wife beater or abuser or control their reproductive choices or something? You are really desperate to sling insults at me for some reason.

You’re not sure what a comment means, so you assume it is an insult? Pretty ironic.

You were definitely throwing out an insult with the, " Or did Toni's post hit too close to home?" line, given the all bad behavior of the men in her post. But you were rather open ended and mysterious about exactly what bad behavior in her post would be applicable to me personally.

 

[laughing dog]

The fact is that sometimes men demand that their wives or girlfriends for sometimes daughters have an abortion. And sometimes they demand that they not have an abortion. In each case, sometimes going pretty far to ensure that their ( the man’s) wishes are carried out. I wrote upthread of my friend whose first husband demanded she get an abortion and she complied. The first time. The second time, she refused and he divorced her and refused to pay child support, which used to be easier than it is now. When she remarried he tried to convince her to get her new husband to adopt his child. She refused only because the bio father’s benefits would transfer to his child should he die. My sister’s marriage ended when she refused to terminate her unplanned pregnancy. He never paid the full amount of child support the divorce decree determined and threatened to take her to court fur custody if she pressed the matter. Both he and my sister are pharmacists and so my sister was able to support her child on her own but felt it was important that her child knew the father contributed something. He refused to take the child for visitation but his second wife encouraged it so for a while during his second marriage, she got some time with her father’s new family. They all live in the same small town and the father works less than half a mile from his daughter but only sees her once or twice a year, at most.

You seem to have missed your calling in life. You should be writing screenplays for As the World Turns and The Young and the Restless instead of wasting your time here.

There is a real subset of men who wish to control their partners' lives. I don't know about your access to news but there are frequent stories of some man killing his partner then committing suicide every year that I see. And there is a big overlap with the subset of men who wish to control women's choices in health care.

If you cannot handle adult discussion or situations, perhaps you shouldn't be wasting your time in adult discussion forums. Or did Toni's post hit too close to home?

I was making a joke about how Toni's typical response seems to be a 5 paragraph drama about her family and friends. Certainly, she's quite well aware of it herself.

I apologize for missing the nuanced humor in your remark.

I can handle adult discussions just fine. And no, it didn't hit close to home...not even sure what you're suggesting with that comment. That I'm some kind of wife beater or abuser or control their reproductive choices or something? You are really desperate to sling insults at me for some reason.

You’re not sure what a comment means, so you assume it is an insult? Pretty ironic.

You were definitely throwing out an insult with the, " Or did Toni's post hit too close to home?" line, given the all bad behavior of the men in her post. But you were rather open ended and mysterious about exactly what bad behavior in her post would be applicable to me personally.

I suggest you ruminate on all the possible meanings of “control women’s behavior” before you triple down on the irony.

I apologize for any discomfort my remark caused you.

 

[thebeave]

The fact is that sometimes men demand that their wives or girlfriends for sometimes daughters have an abortion. And sometimes they demand that they not have an abortion. In each case, sometimes going pretty far to ensure that their ( the man’s) wishes are carried out. I wrote upthread of my friend whose first husband demanded she get an abortion and she complied. The first time. The second time, she refused and he divorced her and refused to pay child support, which used to be easier than it is now. When she remarried he tried to convince her to get her new husband to adopt his child. She refused only because the bio father’s benefits would transfer to his child should he die. My sister’s marriage ended when she refused to terminate her unplanned pregnancy. He never paid the full amount of child support the divorce decree determined and threatened to take her to court fur custody if she pressed the matter. Both he and my sister are pharmacists and so my sister was able to support her child on her own but felt it was important that her child knew the father contributed something. He refused to take the child for visitation but his second wife encouraged it so for a while during his second marriage, she got some time with her father’s new family. They all live in the same small town and the father works less than half a mile from his daughter but only sees her once or twice a year, at most.

You seem to have missed your calling in life. You should be writing screenplays for As the World Turns and The Young and the Restless instead of wasting your time here.

I’m so sorry if you did not understand that my response was for those who think men should be able to override the woman’s decision. My observation is that means the man demands an abortion.

I’ll try to keep your short attention span and lack of cultural awareness —soaps have been defunct for decades. Men making demands re: women’s bodies: not so much—in mind in the future.

Sorry for the poorly constructed overly complex sentence above. I’m sure someone can help you dissect it.

When I read your response, it reminded me of the complex, intertwined soap opera plots I remember hearing as a kid (my mom was a big fan). It has all the elements: abortion, divorce, bad men, failed relationships, second wives, etc. Yes, I know soap operas are mostly a thing of the past, but memories linger on. It was just a humorous take on your posting style.

If you want a challenging abortion scenario about who has what rights to abortion, try this one on for size:

Baby with heart defect born to surrogate must receive treatment, Texas court rules, amid multistate legal battle

A baby with a rare heart defect was born to a surrogate in Texas on Wednesday, one day after state Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened in the case to ensure the child received lifesaving medical care after birth, an organization representing surrogate McKenna West and her lawyer said.

West, who is from Alaska, was about 20 weeks pregnant when the baby was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a rare and serious congenital condition where the left side of the heart is underdeveloped, Paxton's office said.

The intended parents, identified in court documents as Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed of California, requested West undergo an abortion after they learned about the diagnosis, Paxton's office said. But West refused and traveled to Dallas County, Texas, "for protection," the office said, and to ensure that the child, identified in the news release as Gabriel, "could be near doctors experienced in treating his condition."

 

[Toni]

You were definitely throwing out an insult with the, " Or did Toni's post hit too close to home?" line, given the all bad behavior of the men in her post. But you were rather open ended and mysterious about exactly what bad behavior in her post would be applicable to me personally.

Or maybe just asking for some self recognition of the general tendency of men —not you specifically—I don’t know you personally—to wish to control women’s bodies, particularly the parts that have to do with sex and reproduction. Or ‘unfeminine’ behavior like wanting to work in fields that have been traditionally male. Or earn more money or make financial decisions, and it appears, a subset of men want to repeal the 19th Amendment. AFAIK, there are no religious sects that wish to restrict men’s roles to husband and stud.

I could have been dramatic and talked about the fact that one of the biggest threats to pregnant women’s lives is their make intimate partners. Men sometimes punch or kick their partners in the abdomen in order to cause a miscarriage. Or push them down the stairs. Or slip an abortion drug into their drink.

Or doctors ask their husbands in the delivery room if they want an extra stretch in that episiotomy so she’ll be extra tight. Sometimes men ask for that themselves. Sadly that is not a joke.

Of course #not all men. But my stance that women get to make their own decisions about their bodies comes from years of observation and experience.

FWIW, I also think it is horribly wrong for women to trick their sex partner into parenthood by claiming to be on birth control when they are not. Or claiming to be pregnant when they are not. Yeah, I’ve known women who tried that.

 

[Toni]

The fact is that sometimes men demand that their wives or girlfriends for sometimes daughters have an abortion. And sometimes they demand that they not have an abortion. In each case, sometimes going pretty far to ensure that their ( the man’s) wishes are carried out. I wrote upthread of my friend whose first husband demanded she get an abortion and she complied. The first time. The second time, she refused and he divorced her and refused to pay child support, which used to be easier than it is now. When she remarried he tried to convince her to get her new husband to adopt his child. She refused only because the bio father’s benefits would transfer to his child should he die. My sister’s marriage ended when she refused to terminate her unplanned pregnancy. He never paid the full amount of child support the divorce decree determined and threatened to take her to court fur custody if she pressed the matter. Both he and my sister are pharmacists and so my sister was able to support her child on her own but felt it was important that her child knew the father contributed something. He refused to take the child for visitation but his second wife encouraged it so for a while during his second marriage, she got some time with her father’s new family. They all live in the same small town and the father works less than half a mile from his daughter but only sees her once or twice a year, at most.

You seem to have missed your calling in life. You should be writing screenplays for As the World Turns and The Young and the Restless instead of wasting your time here.

I’m so sorry if you did not understand that my response was for those who think men should be able to override the woman’s decision. My observation is that means the man demands an abortion.

I’ll try to keep your short attention span and lack of cultural awareness —soaps have been defunct for decades. Men making demands re: women’s bodies: not so much—in mind in the future.

Sorry for the poorly constructed overly complex sentence above. I’m sure someone can help you dissect it.

When I read your response, it reminded me of the complex, intertwined soap opera plots I remember hearing as a kid (my mom was a big fan). It has all the elements: abortion, divorce, bad men, failed relationships, second wives, etc. Yes, I know soap operas are mostly a thing of the past, but memories linger on. It was just a humorous take on your posting style.

If you want a challenging abortion scenario about who has what rights to abortion, try this one on for size:

Baby with heart defect born to surrogate must receive treatment, Texas court rules, amid multistate legal battle

A baby with a rare heart defect was born to a surrogate in Texas on Wednesday, one day after state Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened in the case to ensure the child received lifesaving medical care after birth, an organization representing surrogate McKenna West and her lawyer said.

West, who is from Alaska, was about 20 weeks pregnant when the baby was diagnosed with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a rare and serious congenital condition where the left side of the heart is underdeveloped, Paxton's office said.

The intended parents, identified in court documents as Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed of California, requested West undergo an abortion after they learned about the diagnosis, Paxton's office said. But West refused and traveled to Dallas County, Texas, "for protection," the office said, and to ensure that the child, identified in the news release as Gabriel, "could be near doctors experienced in treating his condition."

Yeah, I just read about that case. It’s rough. My opinion is that the prospective fathers have no right to insist that the surrogate get an abortion. They also possibly have no legal responsibility to assume custody and care of the child even if one of them deliberately engendered the child.

On a purely personal level, I have a lot of concerns about surrogacy for reasons such as this. If the baby is born with a defect, can the people who paid the surrogate be forced to assume custody and responsibility for the child? Who decides if a known birth defect is severe enough to abort? Or if the mother develops preeclampsia and the baby must be delivered on the edge of viability with months or years of very expensive medical intervention required abd a lifetime of disability? Or of the surrogate dies? Or if things go terribly wrong and she only loses her fertility? Or if there are multiples in the pregnancy and the prospective parents only want one? Or want all of them but it’s very dangerous for the surrogate? Or if the surrogate cannot bring herself to relinquish the child? Or if the couple who hired the surrogate break up or one of them dies or is in an accident and is themselves seriously disabled? Or they lose their jobs and home and can’t afford the baby anymore?

There are so many circumstances that can arise and it is difficult to see how all potential issues can be covered in a contract or a law.

My position re: pregnancy is that the final say has to be the woman’s because ultimately it is her life and her health at stake.

 

[Emily Lake]

What’s the problem with location basis?
I mean, Ems will be the first to tell you that “viability” happens in the purple zone between red and blue. Since there’s no sure way to know, you gotta pick a point and stick to it, if you want to be fair. How about … when the cord is cut and the baby is breathing? At least that’s verifiable. Plus, it’s easy to enforce because there are already laws against murdering babies.

Here's the issue.

Two developing humans. Both conceived on the same date. Both at the same stage of development. Both with the same degree of neural development - able to respond to stimuli, hear music and voices, etc. Both with the same degree of physical development - capable of lung function triggering when exposed to air, capable of surviving outside the womb to the exact same degree.

For all intents, these are two identically developed small human beings.

But your approach allows one of those to be killed without compunction, but the other is one you would see protected from harm. Your policy treats one of those as a person with value who cannot be intentionally killed... but the other can be literally murdered and nobody is supposed to bat an eye about it.

There is no meaningful difference between them.

Your approach allows for a mother to decide to kill that baby literally hours before delivery - and you seem to think that's okay. You think that's a morally permissible approach.

To me, it's as absurd as saying that it's perfectly fine for a post-partum mother to smother her newborn if she decides to do so... as long as she does it inside her own home and not out in public.

"How about when the cord is cut and the baby is breathing?" Yeah. Here's where Arctish's approach should give you pause. Induce delivery. If that baby were to be delivered early - either through a natural process or through induction - it WOULD be breathing. You end up PREVENTING it from breathing, and killing it inside the womb.

 

[Emily Lake]

There is no problem with it for me. I am pointing out the Emily Lake has the same issue with her position as she does with mine, just at a different "location".

No. My position is based on degree of development, not location. I place a limit on when abortions are acceptable based on how developed the fetus is, not where it is located.

If a baby is delivered very prematurely, with very low likelihood of survival and very high likelihood of complications, I don't think the parents should be obligated to engage in extraordinary measures to keep it alive. If a baby is prematurely delivered at 20 weeks, I think it should be entirely acceptable to allow that baby to die naturally - in very much the same way I think we should be able to allow someone with a terminal illness to die naturally and decline extraordinary intervention.

If you want to discuss when to draw that line, I'm open to that. I favor around 27 to 28 weeks. If you want to talk about placing that at 24 weeks, I'm open to it; if you want to talk 30 weeks, I'm open to that too.

But across the board, my view is pretty much the same: Whatever developmental stage is selected, should apply regardless of where the baby is located. If it can be aborted up to 30 weeks, then I also hold that mothers should be allowed to decline extraordinary efforts to keep a prematurely delivered baby of the same stage alive. If it's 24 weeks, the same is true - if it's delivered early, there should be no obligation to intervene to keep it alive.

I think 27 to 28 weeks is the balance point between those two. Either there's an obligation to keep developing humans of that stage alive regardless of where they're located... or there isn't.

 

[Elixir]

There is no problem with it for me. I am pointing out the Emily Lake has the same issue with her position as she does with mine, just at a different "location"

The problem Ems’ “location” is simple.
It’s the SAME location for a blastocyst (which Ems seems to have little objection to aborting) and a 34 week fetus. So it falls into a gray purple area, and is therefore subject to abuse.

The “problem” with my “location” choice is that it gives license to killing off perfectly viable fetuses.

The judgment I make is:
* killing off adults is vastly worse than killing fetuses, and that results quite often from laws restricting abortion access.
and-
* women opting to capriciously abort a fetus to which they have literally committed their body and entire existence for 8-9 months, is a vanishingly rare occurrence.

Best if all the warring parties just STFU, go home, snd MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.

 

[Elixir]

<derail>

soaps have been defunct for decades

Someone forgot to inform the cast and producers of
* General Hospital
* Days of Our Lives
* The Young and the Restless
* The Bold and the Beautiful
… and probably many more.
Whatever the top programs are today, none of them are likely to show that kind of staying power!
Thank you for yor attention to this matter.

</derail>

 

[thebeave]

<derail>

soaps have been defunct for decades

Someone forgot to inform the cast and producers of
* General Hospital
* Days of Our Lives
* The Young and the Restless
* The Bold and the Beautiful
… and probably many more.
Whatever the top programs are today, none of them are likely to show that kind of staying power!
Thank you for yor attention to this matter.

</derail>

And you know this...how?

 

[Toni]

For those of you who do not know or understand how third trimester abortions are performed, it is a several day process. The fetal heartbeat is stopped via injection through the woman’s abdomen. The next day, medication to soften and open the cervix is inserted vaginally. For those of you who are not aware, this causes increasing contractions which are increasingly painful. On the third day, the medication is removed, membranes are ruptured and medication to reduce pain is administered to the woman. Or child. The link I am providing specifically mentions experience with pediatric patients

Third Trimester Abortion | Boulder Abortion Clinic Warren Hern, MD

Third trimester abortion patients seeking to terminate a desired pregnancy that has developed serious complications. Fetal anomaly or genetic disorder.

www.drhern.com

For those of you who are concerned that women just decide one day they don’t want the baby and walk in demanding an abortion —At any one of the very small number of places where a third trimester can be obtained. .

 

[Emily Lake]

If you cannot handle adult discussion or situations, perhaps you shouldn't be wasting your time in adult discussion forums. Or did Toni's post hit too close to home?

I can handle adult discussions just fine. And no, it didn't hit close to home...not even sure what you're suggesting with that comment. That I'm some kind of wife beater or abuser or control their reproductive choices or something? You are really desperate to sling insults at me for some reason.

You’re not sure what a comment means, so you assume it is an insult? Pretty ironic.

It wasn't subtle, LD. Exactly what insult you were implying is uncertain... but it's abundantly clear that you intended to offend. Just because @thebeave isn't clear what you're trying to imply specifically doesn't mean we can't ALL see that it was supposed to be a cutting insult.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yeah, I just read about that case. It’s rough. My opinion is that the prospective fathers have no right to insist that the surrogate get an abortion. They also possibly have no legal responsibility to assume custody and care of the child even if one of them deliberately engendered the child.

On a purely personal level, I have a lot of concerns about surrogacy for reasons such as this. If the baby is born with a defect, can the people who paid the surrogate be forced to assume custody and responsibility for the child? Who decides if a known birth defect is severe enough to abort? Or if the mother develops preeclampsia and the baby must be delivered on the edge of viability with months or years of very expensive medical intervention required abd a lifetime of disability? Or of the surrogate dies? Or if things go terribly wrong and she only loses her fertility? Or if there are multiples in the pregnancy and the prospective parents only want one? Or want all of them but it’s very dangerous for the surrogate? Or if the surrogate cannot bring herself to relinquish the child? Or if the couple who hired the surrogate break up or one of them dies or is in an accident and is themselves seriously disabled? Or they lose their jobs and home and can’t afford the baby anymore?

There are so many circumstances that can arise and it is difficult to see how all potential issues can be covered in a contract or a law.

My position re: pregnancy is that the final say has to be the woman’s because ultimately it is her life and her health at stake.

All of these are good points.

I oppose paid surrogacy. I'm okay with voluntary surrogacy. It's almost identical to my view on sex, and for the same reasons - I oppose the purchase of women's bodies for sexual use, but I'm perfectly fine if women want to have sex for free.

In both cases, it's paying to rent an intimate part of a woman's body, with the inherent assumption that payment then gives the purchaser a right to that body. And in both cases, there's a huge amount of exploitation involved. With the exception of a very, very few women out there, almost all paid surrogates and prostitutes are doing it out of financial desperation and need, not because they really want to be pregnant or have sex with a bunch of strangers. They end up taking all of the risks on themselves, and it's nearly always poor women in dire straits. Surrogacy is only marginally better than prostitution, in that it would be rare for surrogates to be drug addicts, but it's quite common for prostitutes.

And in neither case do I think any legal ramifications should befall the woman - I think the prohibition should be against the purchase of the use of another person's body.

 

[Emily Lake]

women opting to capriciously abort a fetus to which they have literally committed their body and entire existence for 8-9 months, is a vanishingly rare occurrence.

Best if all the warring parties just STFU, go home, snd MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS

Similarly...

men opting to capriciously rape a woman to whom they've literally committed years of their lives and a legally binding marriage contract is vanishingly rare. Best if everyone just STFU, ho home, and MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS when it comes to marital rape.

The logic that you employ is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Toni]

women opting to capriciously abort a fetus to which they have literally committed their body and entire existence for 8-9 months, is a vanishingly rare occurrence.

Best if all the warring parties just STFU, go home, snd MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS

Similarly...

men opting to capriciously rape a woman to whom they've literally committed years of their lives and a legally binding marriage contract is vanishingly rare. Best if everyone just STFU, ho home, and MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS when it comes to marital rape.

The logic that you employ is fundamentally flawed.

Men who rape the women they are married to have been abusive throughout the relationship. They don’t just decide one day that it’s a good day to rape their significant other. They like power and control and violence. They feel entitled to do whatever they like to a woman—or child.

Women and children who have third trimester abortions do so because of desperation, generally to alleviate pain and suffering for the fetus they very much wanted to live and grow and to be born and raised by them. Or, particularly in the case of young girls, they did not know they were pregnant, sometimes because they had not yet had an actual period yet. And again, in the case of young girls, were under the age of consent and were raped. Btw, some women experience vaginal bleeding during pregnancy which can seem like a normal period. Or have such an irregular cycle that missing a few periods is just how their bodies are. As abortions become more difficult and more expensive to obtain, pregnant people are sometimes forced to spend weeks worth of time acquiring the necessary funds, transportation and hotel accommodations, delaying the termination. As has been mentioned before, sometimes devastating fetal abnormalities are not discovered until the third trimester. Abortion is the compassionate choice for the fetus as well as being less risky to the mother.

 

[Emily Lake]

Men who rape the women they are married to have been abusive throughout the relationship.

I don't doubt it would be very common, but I would hesitate to make such a definitive statement.

 

[laughing dog]

If you cannot handle adult discussion or situations, perhaps you shouldn't be wasting your time in adult discussion forums. Or did Toni's post hit too close to home?

I can handle adult discussions just fine. And no, it didn't hit close to home...not even sure what you're suggesting with that comment. That I'm some kind of wife beater or abuser or control their reproductive choices or something? You are really desperate to sling insults at me for some reason.

You’re not sure what a comment means, so you assume it is an insult? Pretty ironic.

It wasn't subtle, LD. Exactly what insult you were implying is uncertain... but it's abundantly clear that you intended to offend. Just because @thebeave isn't clear what you're trying to imply specifically doesn't mean we can't ALL see that it was supposed to be a cutting insult.

Apparently it was pretty subtle. We have posters who feel threatened whenever someone bring up anything that is even remotely negative about men. There is no snowflake scale, let alone one by category. I had no intention of insulting anyone. If I wish to insult someone, I do it.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no problem with it for me. I am pointing out the Emily Lake has the same issue with her position as she does with mine, just at a different "location".

No. My position is based on degree of development, not location. I place a limit on when abortions are acceptable based on how developed the fetus is, not where it is located.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, your position allows for the "location anomaly" just as much as mine does. The difference lies in where the location lies. Wherever your "development/survival" nexus determines the cutoff for legal abortions for any reason, a premie with identical developmental characteristics as a fetus will be alive while the fetus is aborted.

My point is that despite your efforts to frame your position as reasonable and scientifically based, its foundation is not scientific at all: it's when a fetus becomes a baby.