Support NeoGAF

[Keri]

Fuck the GOP's entire pro-birth shitpile.

Don't support proper sex education
Don't support easier access to contraceptives
Don't want to allow women to abort an unwanted pregnancy
Don't want to provide assistance in supporting the child they forced the woman to have

How do they get it wrong every single step of the way?

Don't forget, they also proposed removing the designation of maternity care as "essential" coverage and thereby permitting health insurers to remove the care from regular plans. Which would have resulted in pregnant women having to separately purchase this coverage (and pay extraordinary costs for it), if they wanted prenatal care.

I guess a 20 week ban matters less, in a world where women can't afford to get their scans anyway.

 

[Alucrid]

imagine if one of the few promises he's able to keep is the one to punish women who get abortions. hope this bill tanks.

 

[Mahonay]

Fuck this and fuck the Republicans. This is anti-women.

 

[WiiredShawn]

And for what? For what?

To move us back to the golden age of the 1950s, when white men's authority went largely unchecked.

That's all most of this posturing about abortion is. Few people in America cared about abortion until men started to perceive threats to their dominance and privilege. As long as women have to get abortions secretly and with unreasonable risk and expense, then men don't mind; women are still stripped of choice and kept down by shame and/or struggle. But codifying abortion into a legal right, and basically letting women decide what to do with men's babies? That just won't fly.

I understand people can and do have reasonable feelings about the sanctity of life. But that's not what the abortion debate is about on a societal level. It's about the dominant group in America - rich, white, Christian men - capitalizing on an emotionally charged, morally ambiguous issue so as to continue shoring up power for themselves. Because women who decide when to conceive are women with much greater control over their destinies, and the misogynists that underpin "traditional values" loathe nothing more - and thus make for a very reliable voting bloc.

 

[ZealousD]

Anyone in favor of a 20-week abortion ban is missing essential knowledge of the way pregnancy is handled in the medical community, and is advocating to strip parents of the right to make informed choices. Anyone in favor of a 20-week abortion ban is asking women to spend four months of their lives, possibly longer, suffering. And for what? For what?

The life of the baby?

I mean, that's basically what the debate is ultimately about. When do the unborn deserve protection?

 

[necrosis]

The GOP is incredibly pro-life. Until the instant the child is born, anyway.

i've confronted several pro-lifers with the notion that they should be responsible for any child born because the mother was unable to pursue an abortion, and they always "counter" that it's the mother's fault for having sex

their position on abortion has little to do with being "pro-life;" it's about punishing liberated women

 

[Particle Physicist]

I'm kinda fine with it?
Rape, incest, mother life are covered, and 20 weeks give decent time for decision?

Medical decision should be made by politicians rather than patients and their doctors.

 

[Keri]

The life of the baby?

I mean, that's basically what the debate is ultimately about. When do the unborn deserve protection?

I guarantee you that at 20+ weeks, the parents who choose to terminate care deeply about their child and are doing the best thing they believe possible for them.

 

[devilhawk]

For neutral reference, a 'viable', deliverable fetus these days is 24 weeks.

If we remove religion from the picture, I have no idea why this should be legislation. Just foolish.

Scientifically, I believe the answer should be banned after 21 weeks (the current earliest birth is 21 weeks not 24) except in the cases of major birth defects, or health complications in mother or child. The 21 weeks timeline will become more relevant as neonatal medicine continues to progress.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Since I feel like many on GAF may not know this, 20 weeks is when most pregnant women have their anatomy scan, which is a detailed ultrasound that looks for signs of birth defects. So, this bill would prevent women from terminating pregnancies where birth defects are detected, almost completely.

Good post.

Also an EEG which we use to judge death can't detect 'life' by the same measurement till round week 25, thats my personal 'im fine with it' zone. I'm not saying it's the 'should be law' zone though.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Since I feel like many on GAF may not know this, 20 weeks is when most pregnant women have their anatomy scan, which is a detailed ultrasound that looks for signs of birth defects. So, this bill would prevent women from terminating pregnancies where birth defects are detected, almost completely.

Also some of those defects are so terrible they aren’t compatible with life or they do live but not long.

 

[MistakenMobius]

Scientifically, I believe the answer should be banned after 21 weeks (the current earliest birth is 21 weeks not 24) except in the cases of major birth defects, or health complications in mother or child. The 21 weeks timeline will become more relevant as neonatal medicine continues to progress.

But as long as the fétus is not born he has no right.
There is no reason to suppress abortion right before birth, a 35 week pregnancy has as much right to be terminated than any other previous pregnancy.

 

[RDreamer]

Scientifically, I believe the answer should be banned after 21 weeks (the current earliest birth is 21 weeks not 24) except in the cases of major birth defects, or health complications in mother or child. The 21 weeks timeline will become more relevant as neonatal medicine continues to progress.

So why ban it if you're going to have all these exceptions?

Do people think that there are women waiting until 21 weeks or whatever to terminate perfectly healthy, viable fetuses? I feel like that is what people want to regulate, some boogie (wo)man scenario that doesn't realistically exist. All you do by "banning" at some pre-determined spot and then working back from there with exceptions is forgetting some shit that probably should be an exception and making someone else's life hell.

These situations are incredibly different per person. How about we let the woman and her doctor decide what's best based on the circumstances? Or are we just afraid these women will make bad decisions and thus we have to regulate that?

 

[SeanTSC]

Since I feel like many on GAF may not know this, 20 weeks is when most pregnant women have their anatomy scan, which is a detailed ultrasound that looks for signs of birth defects. So, this bill would prevent women from terminating pregnancies where birth defects are detected, almost completely.

Jesus, this is an extremely scumbag move.

Fuck every last person who supports this foul bullshit.

 

[ZeoVGM]

The life of the baby?

I mean, that's basically what the debate is ultimately about. When do the unborn deserve protection?

When they're no longer unborn.

 

[ZealousD]

I guarantee you that at 20+ weeks, the parents who choose to terminate care deeply about their child and are doing the best thing they believe possible for them.

That may be so, but more than one parent in this world has committed harm to their own children while having the best of intentions.

 

[ZealousD]

When they're no longer unborn.

So you're in favor of unconditionally allowing women to terminate their pregnancy all the way up until birth?

 

[RDreamer]

The life of the baby?

I mean, that's basically what the debate is ultimately about. When do the unborn deserve protection?

Protection from what? From these evil women that would make more informed decisions about their health than we can with a blanket law that tries to cover every birth in the entire country?

 

[StoneFox]

i've confronted several pro-lifers with the notion that they should be responsible for any child born because the mother was unable to pursue an abortion, and they always "counter" that it's the mother's fault for having sex

their position on abortion has little to do with being "pro-life;" it's about punishing liberated women

Maybe someone should get it through their thick heads that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

 

[RDreamer]

So you're in favor of unconditionally allowing women to terminate their pregnancy all the way up until birth?

Do you think there's some sort of epidemic of women waiting 9 months to terminate a perfectly viable fetus and their doctor is also going to somehow go along with this medical procedure that at that point is likely more dangerous to them than just giving birth? You think this is something we need to regulate for some reason?

 

[Resident_UA]

20 weeks is a long time. Unless they prevent abortions in life threatening cases I don’t see any issues with it...

 

[neorej]

Republicans, they only care about your life until you're born. After that you're on your own.

 

[norinrad]

Continues to destroy women and gets away with it because the religious nuts have his back and so does many many women because of their hatred for Hilary.

 

[Alcotholic]

Are they going to make clinics more accessible?
This legislation is fucking awful. The least they could do is open more clinics.

I know they won't, but still.

 

[hey_monkey]

The life of the baby?

I mean, that's basically what the debate is ultimately about. When do the unborn deserve protection?

That may be so, but more than one parent in this world has committed harm to their own children while having the best of intentions.

So you're in favor of unconditionally allowing women to terminate their pregnancy all the way up until birth?

You're being purposely, ignorantly reductive and somehow I have this magical prediction that even the most staggering pile of facts wouldn't convince you, so please feel free to fuck off into the sea with this shit.

 

[Mahonay]

20 weeks is a long time. Unless they prevent abortions in life threatening cases I don’t see any issues with it...

I guess you decided to just not read this post

Since I feel like many on GAF may not know this, 20 weeks is when most pregnant women have their anatomy scan, which is a detailed ultrasound that looks for signs of birth defects. So, this bill would prevent women from terminating pregnancies where birth defects are detected, almost completely.

Also are you a woman? If you are a man, in reality, it really doesn't matter if you yourself "don't see any issues" with this. It's not our bodies and we are not carrying the baby.

 

[Messofanego]

The life of the baby?

I mean, that's basically what the debate is ultimately about. When do the unborn deserve protection?

That may be so, but more than one parent in this world has committed harm to their own children while having the best of intentions.

So you're in favor of unconditionally allowing women to terminate their pregnancy all the way up until birth?

Tell us how you really feel.

 

[Keri]

That may be so, but more than one parent in this world has committed harm to their own children while having the best of intentions.

Still, isn't it better if we let the people with the "best of intentions" and the most investment in the situation, make the decision of what's best for their child? Doesn't that have better odds of success, than letting someone who has no connection to the fetus, no knowledge of its medical condition and no responsibility for its care, decide?

Again, at 20+ weeks, you're talking about parents who wanted the child, who had a vision of their future with this child and may have already picked out a name.

 

[WiiredShawn]

So why ban it if you're going to have all these exceptions?

Do people think that there are women waiting until 21 weeks or whatever to terminate perfectly healthy, viable fetuses? I feel like that is what people want to regulate, some boogie (wo)man scenario that doesn't realistically exist. All you do by "banning" at some pre-determined spot and then working back from there with exceptions is forgetting some shit that probably should be an exception and making someone else's life hell.

These situations are incredibly different per person. How about we let the woman and her doctor decide what's best based on the circumstances? Or are we just afraid these women will make bad decisions and thus we have to regulate that?

I was about to say the same thing. Why do we need to regulate this at all?

It seems more like men's terror over some fictionalized scenario, where women just can't wait to terminate their babies. But that's the problem - men not thinking about any of this from a woman's perspective, only their own.

Men have spent centuries trying to organize society in a way that benefits their breeding prospects, which has often entailed limiting women's own autonomy. The advent of birth control and the legalization of abortion threw wrenches into that endeavor. That's why men try to strip out maternal care, proper sex education, and abortion access.

All this philosophical debate about "when is a fetus a person?" is interesting and worthwhile on its own, but acting like that's really the driving concern requires ignoring the historical treatment of women, sexuality and paternity. The question is a moral distraction from a social issue.

Never forget, folks, that white men were willing to give Black men - who had been slaves - the right to vote more than 50 years before women. The fear over female autonomy is unmistakable.

 

[CallMeSHAFT]

So if this passes (it wont), a women who wants an abortion after 20 weeks has to choose between 5 years in prison or saying they had incest? It'd make for a weird conversation with your doctor, but I'd certainly go with saying it was incest.

 

[SeanTSC]

Do you think there's some sort of epidemic of women waiting 9 months to terminate a perfectly viable fetus and their doctor is also going to somehow go along with this medical procedure that at that point is likely more dangerous to them than just giving birth? You think this is something we need to regulate for some reason?

It's clearly just bullshit designed to arbitrarily enforce rules on women and exert power over them for "reasons". We do not need to legislate this shit. It should always be up to the woman and it's no one else's business. The motivations behind this crap is always so transparent.

If people want less abortions they should be putting time and money into educating people on sex, safe sex, and consequences. Not trying to over-legislate women's body's and stupidly campaigning for Abstinence programs which do absolutely nothing. The more educated people are about all of this the less unwanted pregnancies there are. Far, far less.

Put the focus where it matters, educating people in the first place, not this blatant attempt to fuck with women.

 

[FUME5]

I'm gonna go have 20, 1 week abortions in protest.

Way to stick it to the man.

 

[NimbusD]

I'm kinda fine with it?
Rape, incest, mother life are covered, and 20 weeks give decent time for decision?

cool so 21 weeks and its 5 years in prison guys. Massoluk is a-ok with it.

 

[davepoobond]

So you're in favor of unconditionally allowing women to terminate their pregnancy all the way up until birth?

So you either think abortion is a right or that abortion is murder and that it literally doesn't matter what week it happens at, it should be banned. How can you say 20+ weeks you are okay with banning and not 17, 18, 19 weeks? What has changed in your mind? Why aren't you advocating for jailing all women who abort at 20+ weeks NOW since they are killing babies to you?

It's a bullshit game. You ban 20+ weeks then a year later come back and ban 19+ cause "what's one more week" then all of a sudden you are down to 10 weeks and some women might not know they are pregnant before having no opportunity to decide on an abortion.

 

[hey_monkey]

If people want less abortions they should be putting time and money into educating people on sex, safe sex, and consequences. Not trying to over-legislate women's body's and stupidly campaigning for Abstinence programs which do absolutely nothing. The more educated people are about all of this the less unwanted pregnancies there are. Far, far less.

Put the focus where it matters, educating people in the first place, not this blatant attempt to fuck with women.

And perhaps we should consider putting more resources toward caring for children born with challenges. Toward children born into poverty. Toward all the children without families who don't get adopted.

We don't care before pregnancy, and we don't care after.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

I'm kinda fine with it?
Rape, incest, mother life are covered, and 20 weeks give decent time for decision?

This doesn't even make sense even if 20 weeks wasn't the scan point. It's not like 99.9% women who have abortions past the 20 week mark want to have abortions. It's because something came up with and (most likely) discussed with the doctor.

Also yeah, not my body so...

 

[Mahonay]

And perhaps we should consider putting more resources toward caring for children born with challenges. Toward children born into poverty. Toward all the children without families who don't get adopted.

We don't care before pregnancy, and we don't care after.

Yuuuuup

 

[J2 Cool]

Can we start calling gun-control supporters "pro-lifers"? Administration needs to go fuck itself

 

[GHG]

Ah yes, this seems like the most important bill to be passing in light of recent events,

 

[RDreamer]

The whole "SO YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF ABORTIONS AT 9 MONTHS!?!?!?!?!" bullshit is such a fucking cop out crap way of arguing and it just pisses me off beyond belief. You're not automatically in favor of some farfetched fucking scenario just because you think it should technically be legal and jumping to that point doesn't make your argument valid either.

I'm not in favor of a whole helluva lot of things that aren't good ideas but might be technically legal because there's no goddamned reason for us to keep regulating things that aren't really happening.

It's even more infuriating because the shit comes from the people who are supposed to be in the party arguing against the long arm of the federal government making decisions for you when you should know best. How about ya fuck off and stick to that philosophy when it counts?

And all of that is just not even taking into account the wacky goddamned scenario that must be playing in people's minds for them to think someone is in favor of 9 month abortions. Like, the image of women as a whole must be insanity to them. They think some women are going to carry for 9 months and then change their mind? Then some fucking doctor is going to want to do a dangerous medical procedure that's completely and utterly unnecessary... Or the doctor isn't going to and somehow these women are going to like... force them to? And that this scenario is going to play out so much if we legalize it that good lord it'll be like baby holocaust up in here or something. I just can't wrap my mind around it.

 

[Resident_UA]

I guess you decided to just not read this post

I mean it does say that there are exceptions. Not sure what point you’re trying to make...

 

[Keri]

The whole "SO YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF ABORTIONS AT 9 MONTHS!?!?!?!?!" bullshit is such a fucking cop out crap way of arguing and it just pisses me off beyond belief. You're not automatically in favor of some farfetched fucking scenario just because you think it should technically be legal and jumping to that point doesn't make your argument valid either.

Also, an "abortion" at 9 months is basically impossible. At that point, it's just birth. The baby just comes out and lives outside the mother.

I mean it does say that there are exceptions. Not sure what point you’re trying to make...

The article doesn't list the health of the fetus (or quality of life) as an exception.

 

[WiiredShawn]

The whole "SO YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF ABORTIONS AT 9 MONTHS!?!?!?!?!" bullshit is such a fucking cop out crap way of arguing and it just pisses me off beyond belief. You're not automatically in favor of some farfetched fucking scenario just because you think it should technically be legal and jumping to that point doesn't make your argument valid either.

I'm not in favor of a whole helluva lot of things that aren't good ideas but might be technically legal because there's no goddamned reason for us to keep regulating things that aren't really happening.

It's even more infuriating because the shit comes from the people who are supposed to be in the party arguing against the long arm of the federal government making decisions for you when you should know best. How about ya fuck off and stick to that philosophy when it counts?

And all of that is just not even taking into account the wacky goddamned scenario that must be playing in people's minds for them to think someone is in favor of 9 month abortions. Like, the image of women as a whole must be insanity to them. They think some women are going to carry for 9 months and then change their mind? Then some fucking doctor is going to want to do a dangerous medical procedure that's completely and utterly unnecessary... Or the doctor isn't going to and somehow these women are going to like... force them to? And that this scenario is going to play out so much if we legalize it that good lord it'll be like baby holocaust up in here or something. I just can't wrap my mind around it.

We're talking about the successors to the "Black men just want to rape our white women" mentality. Or the "Obama wants to install Sharia law" mentality.

Logical reasoning clearly isn't their strong suit.

 

[Vagabundo]

Considering that around 22 weeks babies become viable outside the womb I'm okay. I'd guess its a very very small amount of abortions get done that late - hopefully.

 

[StoneFox]

And all of that is just not even taking into account the wacky goddamned scenario that must be playing in people's minds for them to think someone is in favor of 9 month abortions. Like, the image of women as a whole must be insanity to them. They think some women are going to carry for 9 months and then change their mind? Then some fucking doctor is going to want to do a dangerous medical procedure that's completely and utterly unnecessary... Or the doctor isn't going to and somehow these women are going to like... force them to? And that this scenario is going to play out so much if we legalize it that good lord it'll be like baby holocaust up in here or something. I just can't wrap my mind around it.

No, you see, you have to believe that women aren't rational and only run on emotions and whims, that's the only way this logic makes sense.

"Oh man, I've suffered through all this pain, vomiting, food urges, mood swings, possible life threatening conditions and physical limitations, but instead of stopping it early and saving myself from this hardship I decided to wait a full 9 months because no law says I can't lol"

 

[parrotbeak]

Anyone know the criteria for abortion in the case of rape? Does the rape have to be proven in court? Cuz if so that's a fucking bad joke.

 

[davepoobond]

Anyone know the criteria for abortion in the case of rape? Does the rape have to be proven in court? Cuz if so that's a fucking bad joke.

When talking about law it isn't considered rape until someone is proven guilty... soooo good luck getting that exception proven before you give birth

 

[erlim]

Fuck the GOP for ferociously enforcing an agenda of horrible backwards-ass social, cultural, and scientific beliefs. Fucking those aggressive self righteous religious zealot cavemen fucks.

 

[psychowave]

I'm kinda fine with it?
Rape, incest, mother life are covered, and 20 weeks give decent time for decision?

You're fine with women seeking illegal, unsafe abortions that could put their lives in danger?

 

[B33]

I'm kinda fine with it?
Rape, incest, mother life are covered, and 20 weeks give decent time for decision?

It doesn’t matter if you’re fine with it.

Leave it for the women and their physicians to decide.

Fuck Trump.