Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Hekate

(100,133 posts)
61. "Legal limits" were written into Roe vs Wade from its inception.
Sat Jan 10, 2015, 02:25 PM
Jan 2015

The anti-choice movement has been very successful in promulgating a number of lies, among them the notion that there are are "no limits" on abortion.

There are, and they followed the social mores of millennia, rather than restrictions invented by men.

First trimester: no restrictions at all. In terms understood from previous centuries, that would be "restoration of the menses" or similar language. No business of men, strictly a woman's business.

Second trimester: increasing restrictions may be applied by the states. In previous centuries, this was considered the time of "quickening" when the fetus could first be felt to move. A woman would soon begin to "show." It has been known since the dawn of time that a miscarried fetus at this stage could not live, and so Roe used the terms viable and non-viable. Medically, it becomes more difficult for the doctor, as well.

Aside: the hopes of grieving parents and the advances of science have pushed the envelope of viability, but the chances of a good quality of life are still very iffy for micro-preemies. Still, this has given a new wedge for anti-choicers who want you to believe that a four to five month fetus is a Gerber Baby with chubby cheeks and a soccer team in its future.

Third trimesters: the most restrictions apply. The fetus now looks like a baby and has a good chance at life. Unless, of course, it doesn't. The number of late term abortions is vanishingly rare, and always involve some form of medical emergency. Babies do die in utero and must be extracted if the mother's body doesn't expel it on its own. Mothers have been known to die from pregnancy, and if their life can be saved, imo it should be. Some fetuses have deformities that are incompatible with life, such as anencephaly -- the brain is literally missing, and without the womb's life support system it dies within a week of birth. The surgery is difficult for doctors and dangerous for women.

As I say, the anti-choice movement has been very successful in promulgating certain lies.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Just as we expected. They can't wait to get control over women and their bodies, even if they have Arkansas Granny Jan 2015 #1
What is it about Republicans that makes them think this way? Elmer S. E. Dump Jan 2015 #46
Fundamentalists deserve the hell they fear. eom uppityperson Jan 2015 #2
Yes. Demoiselle Jan 2015 #26
While I'm opposed to any ban on abortions, the headline is false..... George II Jan 2015 #3
Agree. beaglelover Jan 2015 #13
Trust women and doctors, and you won't have to hedge your words. Hekate Jan 2015 #18
+1 nt brer cat Jan 2015 #20
Very, very well put. enlightenment Jan 2015 #25
Well LincolnsLeftHand Jan 2015 #30
Okay. enlightenment Jan 2015 #33
I also agree ... brett_jv Jan 2015 #55
"Legal limits" were written into Roe vs Wade from its inception. Hekate Jan 2015 #61
I disagree. Chemisse Jan 2015 #56
Thank you for the polite enlightenment Jan 2015 #60
As my repugnance toward second trimester abortions increases with the passing weeks of gestation, Chemisse Jan 2015 #62
I think enlightenment Jan 2015 #64
Thank you, Hekate. Control-Z Jan 2015 #52
+1000 ismnotwasm Jan 2015 #57
Needlessly sensational headlines that link to the same needlessly sensational headline are OK at DU. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #14
Roe v. Wade already bans it at 22 weeks for all intents. joshcryer Jan 2015 #34
I agree as well lancer78 Jan 2015 #37
You know what leads to more later-term abortions? Making it more difficult to get one in the first nomorenomore08 Jan 2015 #41
Glad to hear it nichomachus Jan 2015 #4
nothing new here. PatrynXX Jan 2015 #5
They'll get all the controversial /scary crap out of the way early, so it won't C Moon Jan 2015 #6
+1. Not like the Media ever holds the GOP responsible for any of its reprehensible behavior. Nope. blkmusclmachine Jan 2015 #31
Fuck these fuckin.... Burf-_- Jan 2015 #7
Thanks for moving the dialog forward . . . Journeyman Jan 2015 #11
What else can you say? BrotherIvan Jan 2015 #15
There really has been no dialog in decades, has there? I agree with Burf on this. nt Mnemosyne Jan 2015 #17
yep fuck em dembotoz Jan 2015 #49
Burf speaks for a lot of us Skittles Jan 2015 #51
I can't believe this baloney. Be seem to be going backward. Paper Roses Jan 2015 #8
"Am I angry?" handmade34 Jan 2015 #22
I agree completely. Time to shuttle these assholes off to the old folks' home. nomorenomore08 Jan 2015 #42
+1000 smirkymonkey Jan 2015 #63
Rep Adrian Smith, R Nebraska, has also introduced legislation to REPEAL Dodd-Frank misterhighwasted Jan 2015 #9
Rep Kevin Yoder, R Kansas, has started the process KansDem Jan 2015 #23
Is this the same Wall St./Dodd-Frank Bill that also FAILED today? Hope so. misterhighwasted Jan 2015 #24
In a Republican Congress, "science" is what they agree upon (facts and research be damned). . . Journeyman Jan 2015 #10
I wanna see JEEZUS!!! riding a dinosaur... easychoice Jan 2015 #53
They sure are having fun on their checklist.... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2015 #12
Now that Democrats are in their comfort zone of the minority BrotherIvan Jan 2015 #16
The only way they can ban abortion.... gerogie2 Jan 2015 #19
Agree but this constant nicking at riversedge Jan 2015 #21
There's plenty of ways to ban abortion without literally banning abortion. jeff47 Jan 2015 #54
Fetal pain. Unborn child. Ban abortion. Neon Gods Jan 2015 #27
Maybe they are pacing themselves. Turbineguy Jan 2015 #28
It may pass the House, but the whole thing is a fucking show davidpdx Jan 2015 #29
Or if, heaven forbid, it makes it through the Senate, this will happen anyway: freshwest Jan 2015 #32
I thought clinton was the first feminist president, also the first black president, if i recall NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #35
Not to women. freshwest Jan 2015 #36
well now, that depends, apparently. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #38
I wasn't talking about Clinton. Perhaps you didn't read my post: freshwest Jan 2015 #39
well then there's only one other thing you can mean and i suggest you don't speak for NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #40
No ismnotwasm Jan 2015 #58
you started out with "women," now you've changed it to "feminists" NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #59
Right! "not to women", fresh.. very important to them. Cha Jan 2015 #43
Mahalo for the link to "President Obama-the First Feminist President".. nice to go back and read Cha Jan 2015 #44
It won't make it through the Senate davidpdx Jan 2015 #45
Yes indeed, riversedge. This is one of the MANY differences. nt SunSeeker Jan 2015 #47
Wow, the GOP really have too much time on their hands, don't they. rstanleyj2918ca Jan 2015 #48
+1, I agree, wish for retribution. uppityperson Jan 2015 #50
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Congress Introduces A Nat...»Reply #61