Should there be any restrictions at all on abortion?

[MustLoveBeagles]

Last edited Sun Dec 26, 2021, 01:38 PM - Edit history (1)

On another thread Polybius was curious about where DU'ers stood on abortion restrictions. As they couldn't post a poll I've taken the initiative and posted it with their poll options. I personally think this decision is between a women and her doctor so chose 5.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142844577#post27

91 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Leave it up to the states
	1 (1%)
	Water it down, give states the option of banning it after 14 weeks and parental notification for minors
	1 (1%)
	Keep the status quo (states can ban it after 24-26 weeks)
	12 (13%)
	Increase it to 30 weeks
	0 (0%)
	No restrictions at all, no state can impose any restrictions on abortion at all
	74 (81%)
	Other
	3 (3%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Jerry2144]

1. only restriction allowed

is that abortion should be limited to any person who has the right organs and could get pregnant.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

2. None. Zip. Zilch.

As far as I'm concerned, the overlying principle is: if you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. Otherwise, stay the fuck out of anyone else's life.

Personally, I can think of circumstances under which I'd have an abortion, and others under which I wouldn't. Someone else's choices would be different, so my choices should not be the rule.

[mwooldri]

3. In simple terms: it's complicated.

I have no uterus, so I'll leave it between the patient and their doctor. And their higher power should they choose to invoke it.

[MurrayDelph]

4. The main restriction I favor

is keeping the decision up to the woman it applies to.

[HariSeldon]

5. My best hope for this Supreme Court is...

...that they rule that the "viability standard" is arbitrary, but also that no person or potential person has the right to interfere with another's bodily autonomy without specific judicial involvement, and it is within the affected person's rights to take whatever measures they choose to end such bodily imposition. And, furthermore, due to the time-sensitive nature and ongoing harm, any attempt to interfere with these recognized rights must overcome a substantial prima facie burden and be expedited by the court.

[Arazi]

6. That's a private medical decision between a patient and her doctor

Iow, it's none of my business and it's certainly not the government's business

[iemanja]

7. I don't agree that there should be no restrictions

Last edited Sun Dec 26, 2021, 02:49 AM - Edit history (1)

but there is no option that represents what I think should be done. The status quo sucks. It means sanctioning the stripping away of women's rights. I think 30 weeks is too late. That's 7.5 months, probably viable. Leaving it to the states means back-alley abortions and women dead.

I think Roe was a good compromise. How is that not even discussed anymore?

[TexasBushwhacker]

16. Only 2% of all abortions in the US are performed after 20 weeks

After 30 weeks, the percentage is less than 1/2 %.

Who gets abortions at this late stage? Women whose lives are at risk if they continue the pregnancy. If the fetus seems healthy, they would probably just do an emergency C-section and hope for the best.

Who else? Discovery that the fetus has a severe birth defect or genetic anomaly that is either incompatible with life, or would cause the baby a life of suffering. Should the mother be able to CHOOSE to show her child mercy? Yes, I think she should. She would still have to find a doctor to perform the procedure, and there aren't that many who will.

[iemanja]

27. Roe accommodates that

Even in the third trimester, women can have an abortion for reasons of health.

[TexasBushwhacker]

29. The trimester system of Roe was basically abandoned after

Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. That ruling set "viability" as the standard, and with that left the door open for states to argue what "viable" is. Mississippi's law rolls back the limit to 15 weeks, at which point a fetus is a little over 4 ounces and definitely not viable. Even at 20 weeks, half way through the pregnancy, a fetus is less than 14 ounces. At 22 weeks, the baby has a 10% chance of survival.

PP v Casey did make an exception for the life or health of the mother, but no exceptions for rape or incest.

[iemanja]

40. Yes, I'm aware of that

but I think the trimester breakdown is better. This thread is about what we'd like to see.

[susanr516]

8. My body, my choice

End of story.

[meadowlander]

10. At 38 weeks, it's induced labor, not an abortion.

Any woman who wants a fetus out of her body should have the right to get it out, no matter what stage the pregnancy is at.

In practical terms, that should mean before the fetus is viable, she should be able to get an abortion.

After the fetus is viable she should be able to get a c-section and no fault/safe harbour give it up for adoption at the hospital.

Infanticide doesn't enter into it.

The alternative is tantamount to enslaving the mother and forcing her to be an incubator to a fetus she doesn't want putting her own health and even life at risk.

[Beakybird]

12. You're right. Thanks for your insight.

[Crunchy Frog]

13. I definitely don't think that I should have been able to abort my twins

the day before I went into labor with them, at 33 weeks and 3 days. And my life was in danger too, from preeclampsia.

If a pregnancy needs to be ended after the fetus is viable, they do a premature delivery, not an abortion. You won't even find any medical professionals who will abort at that stage of pregnancy, so it's kind of a moot question.

If this opinion makes me an anti-choice reactionary to some people here, then so be it.

[PTWB]

31. This is exactly correct.

Anti-abortion extremists lack even the most basic understanding of what procedures are offered, when they're offered, and what those procedures entail.

[Crunchy Frog]

34. That's true of some pro-choice posters on DU as well, unfortunately.

All it does is push a narrative that's used by the forced birthers. Not helpful IMO.

[moriah]

39. May I ask a question? It's a personal one, and slap me/don't answer if you don't want.

Regardless of the choice YOU made -- to hold on until labor started if you could, especially given the issues twins have sometimes with being small for GA....

Would you have felt it should have been your right to, once the doctors determined you had a potentially fatal condition that can only be cured by delivering the mother, choose to have had that Caesarean at 33 weeks 1 days (before labor started)? Of course, with the NICU already prepared and ready to be on standby for twins coming in, any other preparation your doctor suggested for possible preterm delivery that could have helped them, etc.

-----

My guess is, because I doubt you ARE an anti-choice reactionary, you'd say absolutely yes -- that you made your decision based on the guidance of your medical team and your heart, and you trust other women and doctors in viable pregnancies to attempt live birth if the mother doesn't want to risk a condition getting worse because, well, LAWS even in the most lax states (and federally) if nothing else.

So no, not anti-choice reactionary in my book.

[Crunchy Frog]

43. It wasn't formally diagnosed until after I was in labor,

though it had pretty clearly been developing for awhile. I would have held on to them longer if I could have. They're pretty good at managing the condition these days, and I wasn't at deaths door.

I would have done whatever was advised, and delivered earlier if it had been necessary. I live birth was going to happen regardless.

I did not have a very high opinion of my dr BTW. He actually ended up going to prison later on, for murdering his wife.

Let me know if I answered the question to your satisfaction.

The only way I would have aborted is if there had been a major fetal anomaly, or if it was a life threatening situation before viability.

[moriah]

48. First, thank you for so deeply personal of a share.

And woah about the doc.

My mother, who would have been 70 yesterday, didn't plan either of us, but tried to explain her feelings -- that while she was pro-choice, in that moment she knew what her choice was with each of us. i totally respect that (and wouldn't be here without her making that choice).

I saw a friend struggle w/ preeclampsia in two of her three pregnancies, and there's only so much Labetalol they can give someone. In the last she was trying so hard to hit 36 weeks with a gigantic (9 lbs 2 oz at birth, was measuring on ultrasound as a 10 lb baby) singleton, and really IMHO would have had less complications had she been induced 2 weeks before. They did it at 35 weeks 6 days. It was her choice, made out of love and a desire to do anything for her child, but her pressure stayed high for a VERY long time after birth and she really wasn't able to nurse as she wished because she was just so ill.

Even a week before, instead of two, would have probably helped her be a healthier mother to her baby, and he didn't need any NICU at all -- he was HUGE.

--------

What I fear, and what I believe the R lawmakers who are trying to codify things into law are going to accidentally do, is DEMAND that mothers wait until they're circling the drain and remain ill longer or die just to prolong a viable pregnancy, when live delivery is an option that a doctor should be able to advise at their discretion when both patiients will make it with few complications. If a mom wishes to suffer more to reduce her child's potential suffering, that should be her choice and respected, too.

I just don't think it should be forced or codified into a law that cripples a physician's ability to act on a gut instinct that they need to deliver this pregnancy alive now but can't back it up with more than raised blood pressure and slightly unhappy bloodwork.

[Crunchy Frog]

64. I don't really see it getting to the point

of legally micromanaging when a live delivery can be done in the event of pregnancy complications, if only because that would impact too many of their own constituents, and doctors simply wouldn't tolerate it.

My high BP hung on for a number of weeks after I had my babies too, though the retained fluid came off pretty quickly. I was on labetalol for several weeks.

My doctor sent me to a nephrologist over it. I think he was committing insurance fraud because it wasn't anything that he couldn't handle himself, and he had already been cut off by the major insurer in the area for fraud. He was a real piece of work.

I don't think they'll go after doctors for making medical decisions about when to do live deliveries. Those early deliveries save babies lives as well as mothers.

I wouldn't be surprised to see things like criminalizing home births, or legally forcing women to have unwanted c-sections or other treatments. Maybe even imprisoning women to keep them from consuming caffeine or tobacco, or violating bed rest orders. I do think things will get pretty bad in this country for women of reproductive age.

[moriah]

65. I totally agree with your last paragraph.

Forced Caesareans are far too common already, and while I am fine with criminalizing midwives who fail to do minimum stuff or people who say they're a "doula" then act like a midwife, I have a hard time criminalizing the birthing mother -- even a "freebirthing" one. However, I think many claiming "freebirth" are actually receiving labor support from unlicensed people acting n a medical capacity and just keeping it quiet.

However, these lawmakers are not consulting with doctors in their definitions to try to pass their laws that sound moderate on the surface -- and even when they do, there's a scare factor involved.

Some small hospitals in TX have been violating EMTALA by referring patients with ectopic pregnancies to larger, better insured hospitals.

Not because the TX law forbids treatment of ectopics, but because they're afraid of the very strange civil procedure outlier portions of the law. Essentially that even if they win they still have to pay the attorney's fees if someone hears their neighbor went to that hospital and came back not pregnant because of a surgery.

I simply do not think it is possible to legislate pregnancy and delivery, yet they keep trying. Suggesting ectopic pregnancies could be reimplanted, for example. Crazy laws where if you're sued you may win 20 lawsuits but have to pay attorney fees for each one.

[moriah]

14. I don't care if the mother's life is in danger or not, she can induce at 38 weeks....

... if she just doesn't want to be pregnant and put the kid up for adoption.

Abortion is not about killing babies but ending pregnancies before natural delivery (edit to clarify: and clearly the logical way to end a 38 week pregnancy, or even a 33 week twin pregnancy, is induction or Caesarean).

Please stop peddling these smears that suggest people are pushing infanticide.

[TexasBushwhacker]

32. Thank you

Add to that, a woman would have to find a doctor to perform the early delivery. No doctor is going to endanger or kill a healthy, viable fetus in the last trimester. They just aren't, so we need to quit arguing with people that being up cases that do not exist.

Here's an article from the Denver Post about late term abortions and why women have them. Colorado is one of the few states that basically leaves it up to the doctor and the mother, and the doctor doesn't always agree to perform the abortion.

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/13/late-abortion-women-2020/

[Texasgal]

11. No Government Entity

should require any restrictions at all! This is a surgical procedure that should be discussed with her doctor!

The gov need to stay out of women's uterus's PERIOD!

[Hekate]

15. The original Roe v Wade already HAS restrictions, based on the social & medical consensus then...

They are fine. They work.

Anti-choice people who want to muck around with it are seeking to end both abortion and contraception. They make believe that women are bopping in to clinics to have plump dimpled Gerber babies aborted, and it is a damnable lie.

That 6-week limit? The “baby” is a blob the size of a grain of rice. 14 or 15 weeks? No way in hell is that a “viable” fetus capable of life outside the womb.

Don’t be fooled, and don’t get drawn into false choices.

[ibegurpard]

17. No

Abortions are necessary sometimes during ALL portions of pregnancy and so should not be illegal. The price we pay for that is abortions that some might consider trivial (the numbers of which I do not believe are high anyway).

[MustLoveBeagles]

90. I agree

[eShirl]

18. NO!

[rampartc]

19. i don't think requiring licensed professional and sanitary facility are too much to ask

but, of course, louisiana can not be trusted even that far.

[lastlib]

28. Agreed.

Pretty much everything else s/b up to woman & her doctor, and nobody else should control it.

[Scrivener7]

20. Before viability. Though the viability window keeps getting pushed

back with medical advances. I believe it is at about 26 weeks now. Though I know of a twin who survived and did well after early delivery at 27 weeks. The twin did not survive.

And some pregnancies are of fetuses with conditions that mean they will never be viable, and I imagine some of these may not be discovered until after 26 weeks.

So in the end, between a woman and her doctor.

[Crunchy Frog]

35. It's currently considered to be 24 weeks, but a few babies have been saved

even as early as 22 weeks. It's unlikely though, and usually not a good outcome.

[electric_blue68]

67. I was a preemie...

perhaps at 27 or 28 weeks My non-identical twin died a few hours after birth. At one point dropped to 1 lb.
Had intravenous through my forehead. 1953.

One my aunts at a big family garherng held up a ?Cornish hen, and announced this how little she (I) was. I was in my ? early '20s. I was sooo embarrassed.

They did follow up cognitive tests. I practically was off the charts for abstract abilities.

[Scrivener7]

72. Wow. That is miraculous for 1953. The little guy I knew was born after 2010. He was in

a hospital for a year and needed services for a considerable time after that, but he caught up on motor abilities. He is also off the charts on intelligence.

[electric_blue68]

86. Glad things worked out for him! ...

(maybe I was closer to 30 weeks but the number 27 has been strongly embedded in my memory for decades, and I had no reason to think that much of it as a startling fact for some time )

One other unusual experience. (important set up)
So I was in what they called an isolette (incubator) for x weeks. Clear plastic I guess.

Anyway 3 decades ('80s) later I'm a temp in a bank in a back area helping bank tellers in the front.
This is when some banks started putting clear thick plastic up from counter to ceilings because of a whole lot of serious bank robberies in a relatively short period of time. There's a hole at face level, and then another piece of plastic bolted in away from the hole to let sound/ voice through. Rather one typical protective solution.

Not a usual thing to happen but I have to go up to the teller's area and talk to a customer through one of these speaking holes.

As I take my final look through the plastic at the customer after we're done speaking, and start turning away I get the weirdest feeling mentally but seeping into my body a bit.
Woah. It lingered for a bit. I was totally mystified!
I've never had that feeling ever again.

At some point later it occured to me that maybe I experienced a preverbal image memory of my tiny self looking at the nurses, doctors etc through the thickish plastic of the incubator. 🤔 Pretty wild

[Polybius]

21. I guess the status quo (states can ban it after 24-26 weeks)

Parental notifications for really young minors (let's say 15 and under) I could possibly support. I'm honestly quite surprised that 76% want zero restrictions at all. So deciding at 34 weeks for no reason other than "I changed my mind" should be allowed?

[DLevine]

22. Her body, her decision. nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

23. No. On demand, without apology, at any time.

[Polybius]

55. So at 36 weeks "Ya know what, I changed my mind" is fine?

That's insane, and I wouldn't cast a vote for anyone who supported that extreme position.

[Hekate]

61. No one advocates for that except politicians who want to ban ALL abortions from conception onward

If they can shock you into saying, “OMG OMG of course we can’t have abortions of totally healthy little angels at 36 weeks,” they can start arguing you into to earlier and earlier limits, until we end up with 15 weeks or 6 weeks and that is REALLY insane.

Don’t even go there. 36 weeks is an anti-choice fantasy of evil womanhood that can’t be trusted to make personal decisions. Do not engage with these RWNJ and stop asking us to do so.

Late term abortions are done extremely rarely and for reasons of the mother’s actual life or the fetus’ complete lack of viability. Do you have any idea what some of those complications actually are? If you can’t enumerate them, then go research it at an actual medical site.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

71. Yes, because it's such a rare hypothetical, it's absurd. It just does not happen without a really,

really good reason. But trying to codify those reasons is where the trouble starts.

[Vinca]

24. I passed. The only law that should exist is that the procedure is performed by a

medically-certified practitioner and not some weasel in a back alley with a collection of knitting needles. Morning after pills should be OTC.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

25. Morning-after pills are OTC.

[Vinca]

30. How did I miss that? Good to know. Don't tell Texas Republicans.

The price I encountered when looking it up was a bit disconcerting, though. Many women couldn't afford it.

[Wounded Bear]

33. They know, and they're working on it...

[LeftInTX]

37. They can't do anything until 2023

They went home after three special sessions.

Unless Abbott calls them back for another special session, but I doubt it unless they're forced back via a court case to re-district again.

[LeftInTX]

36. You're probably looking at Plan C, not Plan B

https://www.walmart.com/ip/My-Choice-Emergency-Contraceptive-1-Tablet/686849946?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=17529

[Vinca]

41. That must be it. The one I saw was about $50.

[LeftInTX]

46. Plan-C also requires a consultation, even if ordering them from overseas.

I think it's $150...(I think it includes the pills...can't remember)

[MustLoveBeagles]

26. I added an Other option

[WhiskeyGrinder]

38. The majority of people in this poll think that abortion should be legal up to the moment of birth?

Because that's what no restrictions means, y'all.

[Iggo]

42. And that's why these kinds of polls are nothing but bait.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

44. I mean...I voted for no restrictions.

[RandomNumbers]

45. Reluctantly, "other". Basically no restrictions - it is up to a woman and her doctor -

but assumes the woman is of age.

If a minor is pregnant I do believe the government should be involved. Depending on the circumstances, it should be up to the nearest adult relative, with preference to female relatives. I.e.: assuming the pregnant girl's mother didn't participate in the crime that resulted in an underage pregnancy, I think it should be up to her - even though I might disagree with the choice. Obviously in a case of medical necessity, the health of the pregnant girl should take precedence over bringing a baby to term.

I am extremely liberal in many areas but think we need to tread carefully where parental consent is involved.

Other than that, I think it should be up to the pregnant person and her doctor. If she chooses to give the father some say, that's fine too. But only if she chooses.

[Polybius]

57. So are you ok with a 25 year old woman simply changing her mind at 36 weeks?

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just asking.

[Hekate]

59. Stop that. It is a tried and true anti-choice argument. Roe v Wade HAS RESTRICTIONS already...

… and always has. All you have to do is look them up.

[iemanja]

60. Yes, but the Roe restrictions are no longer in place

It's now "viability," which is interpreted by some red states to mean the moment of conception.

[Hekate]

62. Which is why those of us who are pro-choice need to be really clear about RW goals...

When Sonia Sotomayor objected by saying that Amy Handmaid and the rest were presenting “a religious argument,” and not a legal or medical argument, she told the truth.

The RW lies without shame because, you know, Gawd. Gawd doesn’t even want contraception to be available, no kidding.

If we let them define the terms, we will lose. If we allow them to frame the argument, we will lose. We will lose everything.

[Polybius]

75. It's what the poll says

The hypothetical is the exact situation that I mentioned that could actually happen. I'll give you my answer, I wouldn't allow it at 36 weeks.

[Xolodno]

47. I think it should be stated that no one wants to have an abortion.

Life circumstances made it necessary. And I think Roe vs. Wade shouldn't be messed around with, it's a solution that works for an anguishing decision.

With that said, too much energy and money is placed in the wrong area. More education, free birth control options, free counseling, genetic testing if you are prone to having a child with serious defects, etc. An unwanted pregnancy should not happen in the first place. But should it happen, then you do have the option of last resort.

The schmucks who say they are pro life also promote abstinence only, and we all know how that works out. They impose a moral level they themselves probably break.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

50. People do want abortions; that's why they get them.

They’re also not always “anguishing” decisions, and no matter how hard you work to prevent all unwanted pregnancies, some will happen. Sometimes a wanted pregnancy turns into an unwanted one. All of this is okay, and abortion is okay.

[xmas74]

49. The only restriction should be that

Surgical abortions are done by licensed providers. They should also be required to be covered by insurance.

[Skittles]

51. THAT should be decided between a woman and her doctor

END OF STORY

[roamer65]

52. No.

Removing a fetus is not “murder” or “infanticide”.

The right wing uses the term infanticide maliciously in their propaganda war.

Abortion is simply last resort birth control.

[Silent3]

53. I'm okay with limited restrictions in the third trimester

I don't think every single possible restriction should be viewed as a slippery slope toward unjustified control over women's bodies. I'd, of course, never accept any restriction at any time that threatened a woman's health.

My view is that, while I certainly don't consider a blob of a few cells to have anywhere near the value of the life of a fully-born human being, I do see sliding scale of value of human life, increasing as birth approaches and self-viability is attained.

While not always true (and thus laws have to be carefully written to deal with extenuating circumstances), by time a woman has reached the third trimester of her pregnancy she's had a lot of time and opportunity to decide whether or not to continue with her pregnancy. If she's gone that far and decided to remain pregnant, I think it's fair to say she's accepted a certain degree of responsibility for, and made a degree of commitment to, the life that has been developing inside her.

At that point, it shouldn't be purely arbitrary to terminate a pregnancy. Now, if your response is "no woman would arbitrarily terminate her pregnancy, so such laws aren't needed!", then you aren't appreciating the need that many people feel (many of them women themselves, not just woman-hating sexist men) to want to codify that protection of late-term pregnancies regardless.

[NickB79]

54. As others have pointed out, virtually no doctors will perform an abortion at "any time"

You aren't going to find a doctor willing to abort a viable fetus at 35 weeks, virtually anywhere.

I understand the argument of bodily autonomy, and fully support it from a theoretical position. But realistically, point of viability is the only real-world option to select. Taking the position that abortion should be on demand at any time in the pregnancy gains us nothing and goes against what a solid majority of the US population supports right now.

[Polybius]

56. I think that a lot of people who voted for "No restrictions at all..." don't understand the poll

I simply can't believe that 78% would support a woman at 36 weeks saying "Ya know what, I changed my mind." We're better than that, and almost no one who's a well-known politician believe that. Certainly not Biden.

[Celerity]

58. +1

Although I am sure there are some ultra radicals who will say even that is oki.

[Hekate]

63. That's because no woman actually ever does that, and the way you keep repeating that mantra...

… makes me wonder why you are doing it.

Why are you doing it? Is that what you believe abortion is?

[Polybius]

76. So you don't understand the poll

The last choice is basically asking a hypothetical if a woman simply changed her mind at 36 weeks. If you support that, fine. If you oppose it, then you voted wrong.

[Hekate]

79. I do not engage in push-polls, and that is what you have constructed. nt

[Polybius]

80. It wasn't my poll

I would have made the "No restrictions at all, no state can impose any restrictions on abortion at all" option more clear.

[Hekate]

82. You are arguing the case: it might as well be yours

[Polybius]

83. Re-read the OP

MustLoveBeagles posted it.

[Hekate]

84. You and I crossed posts: I edited mine to reflect that while you were responding

Sorry for any confusion on that score

[Polybius]

85. It's all good

I will go back and re-read the edit now.

[MustLoveBeagles]

91. I did the poll

Using Polybius' sample questions in another thread linked in the OP.

[Ohio Joe]

66. No... I understood it...

Being a man, it is not anything I should ever really have a say in so... I'm fine trusting women to do what is best for them with their reproductive choices.

[Polybius]

77. You understood it

But from the replies above, some clearly didn't.

[eShirl]

69. Because abortion decisions are flippant and casual like that?

Stop condescending, please.

[Polybius]

78. Just check out the replies above

Some clearly didn't understand it. Some think states should be allowed to have restrictions on woman getting an abortion after 30 weeks and still voted for "No restrictions at all, no state can impose any restrictions on abortion at all."

[Arazi]

87. I think virtually all of them believe it's a private medical decision

Between a patient and her doctor.

I simply refuse to fall into arguing about viability or number of weeks. That's a moot point.

The singular issue is whether women get to make their own medical decisions in consultation with their doctor.

Along with that, if a woman has a 35 week old healthy fetus, she's going to find it impossible to locate an OB/GYN who will abort it. So that's a moot point as well.

[SYFROYH]

93. I voted no restrictions and I understood the implication.

The problem for me is that once you start placing restrictions you end up where we are now with onerous restrictions being in place or proposed.

I should say that I believe that a fertilized egg is a genetically complete human being but personhood, and all the requisite protections, don't come to bear until the organism is born and legal personhood is established.

I'd rather support the freedom of women even if it allows for some situations/abortions where I wouldn't agree personally.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

68. One restriction: men pay for All abortions period !

just give them an extra tax and take it out of all men's monthly pay check. The more money you make the more you pay. Very progressive, That way great men like TFG, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz can contribute to society in some positive way.

No exceptions, you are a man, you pay !

[Meowmee]

70. No restrictions

It is none of my biz what someone chooses to do, just as it is none of their biz what I would want. You will never stop abortions, women have been giving themselves abortions since ancient times and before I am sure. Now we have medical means to do it safely, it is safer than a pregnancy/ birth.

[Hortensis]

73. Reproduction creates TWO PEOPLE.

Denying that is willful dishonesty even more profound than anything anit-vaxxers and QNuts can come up with. The entire purpose of abortion is to stop the reproduction of a second person.

If person once formed does not have a right to life, does any person at any point? Really? What inconveniences to ourselves might cause us to say forget it? Is a "right to life" actually only based on "ability to fight those who'd kill"? No actual endowment of an inalienable right at all?

Polybius is right.

Of course abortion must become illegal or subject to only very strict conditions at some point. Where that point should be is the issue, and one will never be agreed on by everyone. Roe's stood as long as it has because most people could support the limits it set based on science and viability out of the womb.

In the third trimester, fetuses become viable, can live as babies outside the womb. After 23 weeks, hearing develops enough that babies are able to hear sounds from "outside" and learn to recognize their mothers' and other voices and sounds. They can be startled by noises and cry. After birth some seem to remember music they heard in the womb; for sure they know and are easily comforted by those who were around them before birth. It's unproven but widely believed from observations in utero that unborn babies, who sleep most of the time, have dreams.

Remember, where allowed, people still routinely dismember and skin food animals while they're still alive. "People" will do anything, which is why we must have social mores and legal restrictions.

OF COURSE many women would change their mind and abort after the point of viability if allowed, some right up to 40 weeks. Some fathers would persuade or instruct them to. After all, parents are legally responsible for a baby whose birth was induced, while abortion produces dead "tissue" that the hospital or clinic disposes of.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

74. .

Reproduction creates TWO PEOPLE.

Wait, what? Do you mean that a person who is pregnant has another person inside them from fertilization?

OF COURSE many women would change their mind and abort after the point of viability if allowed, some right up to 40 weeks.

This is just...patently untrue.

[Hekate]

81. That's a pretty shocking post, isn't it? nt

[MustLoveBeagles]

89. I'm struggling to understand it

[ismnotwasm]

88. Of course not

[Mad_Machine76]

92. Other than ensuring a safe and sanitary facility

And licensed professionals, no. I feel like to do otherwise creates a situation where there is little or no consensus and is a slippery slope back to the same situation we’re in today. Let pregnant people make their own decisions in consultation with their doctors.