Roe v Wade is on deck

[Elixir]

Abortion is a difficult topic,

I disagree. Abortion is a difficult choice.
As a topic, it's very straightforward and simple.
The difficulty arises from the fact that it is a truly difficult and heartbreaking choice. Lots of emotions are involved, and that makes it prime territory for political opportunism.
Take a bit Republican sexual repression, add their desire to control other people's behavior and a large dose of religious superstitions, implant the malignant seed of the idea that removing a single-celled blastocyte is an act worthy of putting a woman to death... (there are Texas State Republicans debating whether they should start putting women to death for having an abortion) and there ya go. Suddenly you have a totally artificial "topic" that is extreeeeeemely difficult (as topics go), exacerbating the difficulty of the actual choice (which is many many times more difficult than ANY topic).

Don't like abortion? DON'T HAVE ONE. Don't want someone else to have an abortion? Feel free to tell them so. If they are willing to listen, try to talk them out of it. At the end of the day, you can neither prevent them from having one, nor compel them to have one. End of story IMO. (as far as so-called morality is concerned).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Don't want someone else to have an abortion? Feel free to tell them so. If they are willing to listen, try to talk them out of it. ... End of story

There is one other ending. I can't find the tweet right now, but the Anti-abortion activist who bragged about talking a couple out of havving an abortion? A year later, when Child Services took the child away from woefully unprepared parents, she found out she was listed as an alternate for caring for the child.
She was quite discombobulated. She had no room in her life for another baby, her husband would not tolerate that, etc. Horrible, really, that she be held resposible for the consequences of a decision she coerced...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don't want someone else to have an abortion? Feel free to tell them so. If they are willing to listen, try to talk them out of it. ... End of story

There is one other ending. I can't find the tweet right now, but the Anti-abortion activist who bragged about talking a couple out of havving an abortion? A year later, when Child Services took the child away from woefully unprepared parents, she found out she was listed as an alternate for caring for the child.
She was quite discombobulated. She had no room in her life for another baby, her husband would not tolerate that, etc. Horrible, really, that she be held resposible for the consequences of a decision she coerced...

Pro-lifer who talked a woman out of abortion slammed for not taking in the child herself

In a post that was reportedly shared on a private Facebook group called Are You Even Pro-Life, a woman talks about how she cannot take in the child because it would be too much for her.

scoop.upworthy.com

That was a classic.

 

[Jarhyn]

I might note that I continue to believe my own mother ought have had an abortion. Three of them, even.

She didn't and now I'm here.

I'm sure there are various folks who might agree with me on one or more of these notes.

There is, sadly, a game theory around pregnancy. I'm not sure this is the thread for that, but it does seem to indicate everyone who can get someone pregnant has a responsibility to contribute to a common risk pool uniformly, in an insurance format.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There we go! Pregnancy insurance.

Guy: I think you're hot.
Gal: I think you're hot.
Guy: Lets have sex.
Gal: You insured?
Guy: *bashful* $2,000 policy.
Gal: Too bad. *walks off towards much lesser attractive man waving $50k policy*
Guy: Can't we at least cuddle...
Gal: So $50k?
Guy2: And my policy doesn't even require a condom.
*leaves together*

 

[Keith&Co.]

Guy: *bashful* $2,000 policy.

$2000?
having a flashback to patrol. Guy dared me to do something that could get me put on report. He offered $10. I could have lost half a month's pay for three months. So, HOPEFULLY, more like:
Guy: I think you're hot.
Gal: I think you're hot.
Guy: Lets have sex.
Gal: You insured?
Guy: *bashful* $50,000 policy.
Gal: According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average cost of raising a child to age 18 was $233,610 as of 2015.
Guy: Um....
Gal: Does your policy even cover COLA?
Guy:: It does cover well-baby visits for the first year!
Gal: On your bike, loser.

 

[laughing dog]

You said that anyone who didn’t want a baby should make the choice to not have sex.

No, I didn't.

To begin with, there are many ways of having sex that aren't potentially fertile sex. Homosex rules!

Also, a combination of readily accessible birth control methods reduces the chance of a pregnancy to "negligible". One is more likely to be killed by a terrorist than get pregnant, if both are using the best birth control.

Of course, even if she's on The Pill, he's wearing a condom, and they're using the "rhythm" method, pregnancy isn't impossible.

The bottom line, morally, to me, is this.
Sex and procreation are powerful forces in human lives. They must be treated as such. Nobody is entitled to sex. With freedom comes responsibility, especially when a new and utterly vulnerable human being comes into being by a process that is clearly understood by all competent adults.
Tom

No one is entitled to be born either. There are natural abortions as well. Not every fertilized egg even makes it to "fetushood".
Your position is literally incoherent.

 

[Trausti]

No one is entitled to be born either. There are natural abortions as well. Not every fertilized egg even makes it to "fetushood".
Your position is literally incoherent.

Some people die of cancer, old age, or natural causes. Some people are murdered. No one treats these as equivalent.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No one is entitled to be born either. There are natural abortions as well. Not every fertilized egg even makes it to "fetushood".
Your position is literally incoherent.

Some people die of cancer, old age, or natural causes. Some people are murdered. No one treats these as equivalent.

Technically each of those people were born.

 

[laughing dog]

No one is entitled to be born either. There are natural abortions as well. Not every fertilized egg even makes it to "fetushood".
Your position is literally incoherent.

Some people die of cancer, old age, or natural causes. Some people are murdered. No one treats these as equivalent.

Is there some subtle point that I am missing? If you are implicitly equating abortion with murder, that is nonsense. If not, your point is irrelevant.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No one is entitled to be born either. There are natural abortions as well. Not every fertilized egg even makes it to "fetushood".
Your position is literally incoherent.

Some people die of cancer, old age, or natural causes. Some people are murdered. No one treats these as equivalent.

Is there some subtle that I am missing? If you are implicitly equating abortion with murder, that is nonsense. If not, your point is irrelevant.

The point is just because brakes in a car can fail and cause an accident, that doesn't mean you can just go around cutting people's brake lines. The trouble with the analogy is that it involves people that were born and alive. And in the case of an abortion, the person alive is the woman.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, biblically, life begins at first breath, when the spirit enters the body for the first time.
Legally, that's when life begins, as well.
If we're going to move life to conception, then let's go All fucking In on the change.

Pregnant women can count the kid as a dependent for taxes. They can sue for child support from conception. They should get stimulus money, tax credits, child support for kids from the day after sex, since they might be pregnant. This will lapse at tge first period post-coitus, of course.
Pregnant people will count as two, at least, for the census, for taxes, representation, districting, allocations for city planning and spending, population, EPA requirements for water treatment capacity, budgeting for city services, occupancy limits on planes, elevators, rotating restaurants, opera balconies, taxi seating.
Miscarriages will be treated as possible murders and investigated by neo-natal branch of the homicide department. At the same time, a fetus cannot be incarcerated without trial, so any woman that becomes pregnant after arrest, or conviction will be placed on no worse than house arrest, unless that puts undue stress on the pair and they need state-issued lodging for the baby's benefit.

But to avoid any charges of gender discrimination, for any woman who commits a crime while pregnant, she gets an additional charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and the fetus is charged as an accessory. Possibly as a co-conspirator, as they were assuredly present during any planning before the crime.

In cases where two individuals merge within the womb, anyone born with an extra limb, or organs that are genetically ediscrete from the dominant individual shall be charged with cannibalism upon reaching their majority.

What else?

 

[Rhea]

Also, a combination of readily accessible birth control methods reduces the chance of a pregnancy to "negligible". One is more likely to be killed by a terrorist than get pregnant, if both are using the best birth control.

So you’re okay with abortions for people who are using a combination of readily accessible birth control methods, but who end up pregnant?

I take issue with 'readily accessible.' Not everyone has dependable access to birth control.

Indeed, that was exactly my point. He thinks there are “readily accessible” and the key word there is ACCESSIBLE not available, methods of birth control. So take what is available and accessible, and if he thinks anyone taking what is actually acessible thereby reduces the risk sufficiently that anyone who ends up needing an abortion under those circumstances now has his permission.

And that’s my question. So he’s okay with those abortions now, right?
(I mean assuming that we need his permission in the first place to have the same civil rights he has, but, for the sake of argument we’ll assume that.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Very much so. The response to whether a woman has the right to her body is "but what about the guys rights?"

If a woman wants to have a right to an abortion, men shouldn't have to pay for their babies. In other words, the Toms out there want to be able to financially blackmail a woman into getting an abortion. Nice.

Note that my position isn't one of blackmail. I specifically included allowing her to opt out of the rule--if she won't accept abortion she simply needs to be up front about it.

If he won’t accept paying child support, he needs to be upfront about it as well, use a condom throughout any sexual encounter and put down a deposit towards any medical care that might be required as a result of his orgasm. In addition, he needs to set up an escrow account to cover her share of any legal fees when she pursues him for child support if she becomes pregnant, as well as to cover any loss of wages, etc. as a result of his orgasm.

Believe it or not but women are living, thinking human beings with their own individual health needs and concerns, thoughts and feelings about pregnancy, abortion, parenthood, adoption, marriage, co-parenting, career and educational attainment and pathways and a host of other factors to consider.

The whole wham bam thank you ma’am ideology is a fraud which shortchanged all of society.

And you think condoms are 100% effective?

You aren't explaining how my position is a burden. If she doesn't like it she's free to tell him so. Yes, that will mean a lot of men won't be willing to sleep with her--so what? She's the one that wants to run up the costs. This would be a complete non-issue with any other sort of accident, the laws are outdated when the accident is contraceptive failure.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you're not ready to deal with an oops you're not ready for sex in the first place.

wait wait wait...
how is an abortion not dealing with an oops? that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You're mixing me up with TomC.

I'm saying "deal with" as in able to afford the abortion if there's an oops.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You said that anyone who didn’t want a baby should make the choice to not have sex.

No, I didn't.

To begin with, there are many ways of having sex that aren't potentially fertile sex. Homosex rules!

Also, a combination of readily accessible birth control methods reduces the chance of a pregnancy to "negligible". One is more likely to be killed by a terrorist than get pregnant, if both are using the best birth control.

I've never seen numbers for combined effectiveness. For any single non-permanent method the odds add up to a reasonable chance over her reproductive years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. What's going on is I'm expecting her to act like a responsible adult rather than favoring a system that always sides with the woman regardless of fairness.

pro tip: women get 100% of the bias because women get 100% of the pregnant.

I'm simply requiring the choice up front, not dictating her choice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was first prescribed birth control pills at the student health center on my college campus. There was no bill sent to my father's insurance. In fact, I believe that with regards to birth control, if she was 18, her father's insurance COULD NOT have informed him, assuming she was 18 for any medication and perhaps not for birth control, except in some states. In any case, Planned Parenthood would prescribe without informing any parent. Just throwing that out there for anyone who knows a kid who might need it.

Yes and no. Let's go back IIRC 13 years.

My employer had just gone under, leaving behind a bunch of unpaid insurance claims. (They were somewhat self-insured.) I was talking to the administrator to get the EOBs involved to use them for negotiation purposes with the various doctors. (Observation: The providers where you pick the provider all had no problem with accepting the EOB amount. The providers you don't pick tended not to be as willing to negotiate.)

I'm getting a bunch of details over the phone and then she sends me an e-mail with printouts of all the EOBs. Odd, things don't match up. After puzzling over it for a bit I realize what happened--medical visits I brought up I was presumed to know about and thus she could discuss them. What I didn't bring up she couldn't mention, either--but as the primary insured I got the EOBs anyway. Thus the one bill that she couldn't discuss (because I simply didn't think of it--the bill from the lab for reading her pap smear) I still found out about from the EOBs.

I strongly suspect it's still the same now--the primary insured gets the EOBs for all dependents. They can't omit them because of medical privacy. (I have no direct experience with it since then as since then we have never been on the same insurance.)

 

[TomC]

because in Texas, most of them already don't. And that is going to spread.

I'd like to see RvW revisited and tweaked.

But returning to the old patchwork of state laws is a huge disaster.
Tom

 

[Toni]

because in Texas, most of them already don't. And that is going to spread.

I'd like to see RvW revisited and tweaked.

But returning to the old patchwork of state laws is a huge disaster.
Tom

Why? And how? Please state your credentials as a medical professional and/or holder of a Ph.D. in human embryology or adjacent field.