Support NeoGAF

[Mahonay]

Regarding the rest of comments, bar those putting words into my mouth, I have already expressed my opinion and stated my arguments.

this legislation isn't about bodies of women

.

 

[Sunster]

Take that women!

 

[Zaphrynn]

The non-true part of the statement was mixing "at will" and "because... reasons". Again, pretty much everywhere (and limits are pretty much everywhere) in situations discussed abortion is still going to happen, but simply with doctor's approval.

Doctors in America are going to be MUCH MUCH more hesitant to do a late term abortion for any reason if they can potentially go to jail for it. And um, the reason of birthing a stillborn, or birthing a child that WILL die shortly after birth, will have a serious and debilitating defect, etc, are GOOD reasons (as good as a reason for this can be) to have an abortion. Yes, decisions have reasons behind them.

An acquaintance of mine, with lupus, who already has a child, has had SEVEN miscarriages. Her doctor refuses to sterilize her, and we expect doctors to be more well-reasoned and less biased on abortion? Even if that fetus poses a significant risk to the mother? When said doctor could get fined and go to jail?

Edit: And who the fuck is going to bat for those women and fetuses? Who is helping pay for them? Who is providing her with mental services because this experience has been extremely traumatic for her? Because this situation is not as uncommon as people think.

A couple other things worth considering - The United States has the worst maternal mortality rate of all western nations. Women in the U.S. are significantly more likely to die in childbirth than women in Europe and restricting access to abortion in the United States, will ultimately result in some amount of women being forced to give their lives for pregnancies they did not want to carry.

Also, a 20 week ban that doesn't include exceptions based on the health of the fetus (which there is no indication this one does) could ironically cause MORE harm to fetuses - As it could encourage more invasive testing earlier in pregnancies, that include a risk of miscarriage. An amniocentesis for example, if I remember correctly, has a 1/600 chance t
of inducing a miscarriage. If women can't react to information they receive at their 20 week scan and undergo further testing then, they might opt for an amnio earlier and if enough women are making this choice, then there will be unwanted miscarriages as a result.

The point of all of this is that it's important for women to have the time to weigh their options, with their doctors and make the decisions that are best for them and their child.

And this is very much the crux of it. But hey, women can't be trusted to make these decisions. We're callous, selfish, emotional, and stupid.

 

[llien]

.

I stand by that statement (surprised you thought i'd deny saying it). but I surely didn't say things in, e.g. #341

Doctors in America are going to be MUCH MUCH more hesitant to do a late term abortion for any reason if they can potentially go to jail for it.

I agree with this point.

And um, the reason of birthing a stillborn, or birthing a child that WILL die shortly after birth, will have a serious and debilitating defect, etc, are GOOD reasons (as good as a reason for this can be) to have an abortion. Yes, decisions have reasons behind them.

Basically, US healthcare sucks. Hard to argue with that.

An acquaintance of mine, with lupus, who already has a child, has had SEVEN miscarriages. Her doctor refuses to sterilize her,..

But why???
If there area some laws around it, that, in my opinion, would be a law about body.

Even if that fetus poses a significant risk to the mother? When said doctor could get fined and go to jail?

If you say, our HC sucks so much, we are better off not having legislations depending on "what doctors say", I agree with it.

 

[Bolivar687]

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Illien meant that the purpose of pro-life legislation is to protect the objective humanity of the unborn person and not to arbitrarily infringe upon the autonomy of women.

I genuinely hope you guys are just being uncharitable and that you truly did not take that post as literally as you're pretending to.

And this is very much the crux of it. But hey, women can't be trusted to make these decisions. We're callous, selfish, emotional, and stupid.

Why the self-deprecation? A great deal of women are single issue voters sending pro-life representatives to Washington to enact legislation like this. This issue is nowhere near as divided across gender lines as you're portraying it. The average pro-life activist is a college-educated woman.

 

[WhereAreMahDragonz]

Why the self-deprecation? A great deal of women are single issue voters sending pro-life representatives to Washington to enact legislation like this. This issue is nowhere near as divided across gender lines as you're portraying it. The average pro-life activist is a college-educated woman.

Just because some women do it doesn't mean it's something ALL women want. Stop generalizing and assuming it's the same for everyone.

It is very divided among gender lines, whether you want to believe it or not.

It shouldn't even be an issue. Women are entitled to autonomy over their own fucking body. Done.

 

[Keri]

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Illien meant that the purpose of pro-life legislation is to protect the objective humanity of the unborn person and not to arbitrarily infringe upon the autonomy of women.

I genuinely hope you guys are just being uncharitable and that you truly did not take that post as literally as you're pretending to.

You cannot discount that this legislation has a massive effect on the bodies of pregnant women. if you can't acknowledge that, then you have no meaningful opinions or information to offer. To just say "it's not about that," is so incredibly offensive as it suggests women's bodies are so worthless, they don't even need to be acknowledged. Women die in childbirth, but I'm suppose to accept legislation that forces childbirth on women, because ugh, it's not even about them!

 

[hey_monkey]

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Illien meant that the purpose of pro-life legislation is to protect the objective humanity of the unborn person and not to arbitrarily infringe upon the autonomy of women.

I genuinely hope you guys are just being uncharitable and that you truly did not take that post as literally as you're pretending to.

Why the self-deprecation? A great deal of women are single issue voters sending pro-life representatives to Washington to enact legislation like this. This issue is nowhere near as divided across gender lines as you're portraying it. The average pro-life activist is a college-educated woman.

Oh, yes, many people frame the abortion debate as one of human rights and the beginning of life. But like many political beliefs in the US, it's often couched in ignorance and hypocrisy.

As for the rest of the comments, I see we've come full circle on the hamster wheel and can begin repeating the same arguments that have already happened in this thread. Forgive me if I tap out on that one.

 

[WhereAreMahDragonz]

It's 2017 and we're still trying to prevent women from being independent and not under the thumb of a male figure and / or the government I can't even believe

 

[Zaphrynn]

1.) But why???
If there area some laws around it, that, in my opinion, would be a law about body.


2.)If you say, our HC sucks so much, we are better off not having legislations depending on "what doctors say", I agree with it.

1.) Because people do not trust women when it comes to decisions about their health and bodies. Another friend told her gyno she was a virgin and to be careful for her first exam. Guess who didn't believe her? Her doctor. Resulted in a lot of unnecessary pain for my friend. Doctors and nurses also tend to not take women's pain as seriously. Happened to another girl Gaffer who went through a stroke.

2.) We still need doctors to help counsel and inform, but ultimately the decision should be up the the woman and her family. A potential fee and prison takes options away.

Why the self-deprecation? A great deal of women are single issue voters sending pro-life representatives to Washington to enact legislation like this. This issue is nowhere near as divided across gender lines as you're portraying it. The average pro-life activist is a college-educated woman.

Women can be just as sexist as men. That's why institutionalized sexism is dangerous and affects everyone. Hell, I used to be shitty about women too. I used to prop myself up as "different" from other women because of biases I personally held but did not realize. "I'm not like those other women." This has caused me a slew of long-term issues. Additionally, I used to work with a woman who believed women shouldn't be president. This was last year. Women buy into the patriarchy too, especially if a religion is attached to it.

To state it in a way relevant to the thread: If we believe most women at 20+ weeks would only get an abortion if medically or emotionally necessary, then we do not need a law about it. We trust the decisions of those women and their family. To say we need a law, means we do not trust women to make this decision.

Forgive me if I tap out on that one.

Yeah, I pretty much need to do this as well.

 

[CadetMahoney]

The fetus is in the uterus.
If a woman does not want anything to happen to her internal organ, the uterus, she is allowed. If this happens to kill a human being so be it.

Your position is understandable, although, shocking.
I don't believe you really think that's ok.

Uhh, where have you been? That's what Roe v Wade was about. Since 1973.

People don't have the "right to life" at the expense of someone else. The "right to life" doesn't exist legally.

A zygote embryo or fetus aren't even people legally. They weren't people even when abortion used to be illegal. Most abortions are early term, way before any "squatter rights" (viability) becomes an issue. None of this is "shocking" if you looked into it at any depth.

 

[WhereAreMahDragonz]

Maybe next Congress would like to regulate when and how I shit? Only because they love eating it so much

 

[KingV]

As with most criticisms of Hillary from the left, context is everything.


She supports a woman's right to terminate at any point during pregnancy. Her "restrictions" aren't anything. They're just empty words she's saying so people don't think she wants to abort babies minutes after their born and other crazy arguments like that.

If she was president, she wouldn't have signed anything that actually restricted a woman's ability to have an abortion.

So point me to where she says, or her campaign said that she effectively means this.

I believe you are quoting a Ny Times opinion piece written by some anti-abortion dude. I’m not sure I trust that as a source, as I can easily find (Russian) Facebook posts stating that Hillary and Bernie both support abortions for any reason up to 36 weeks.

What I can’t find is anything where Hillary herself, or her campaign directly, says what you are saying she believes. What I can find is her saying “I support a late term abortion ban as long as it has provisions for the health of the mother”.

Essentially, she is telling you in plain language what she believes and you’re argument is “actually that’s not what she believes at all”. But I’m not sure where exactly her position changed, or where she said it changed, or why. I just know she was later more cagey about it, and spoke in more generalities.

 

[robosllim]

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.

It's an old refrain, but... Republicans will force you to have unhealthy babies, but won't help you care for them once they're out. Pro-life indeed.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

20 weeks. Psh. Bullshit. Trying to corner women more and more.

Just teach a realistic sex education. You can avoid this shit. But this isn't about "saving lives," after all. It was never actually about saving lives.

 

[Airola]

One that has ample legal backing for it too (bodily autonomy/integrity) that would be a clear legal double standard if it only applies to women. Roe already argued all this in court but pro-lifers don't seem well researched on the topic.

Roe later thought she was wrong about it and regretted ever going to court. She wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade.

It's not as if the arguments she gave are the be-all and end-all of the subject.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Roe later thought she was wrong about it and regretted ever going to court. She wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade.

It's not as if the arguments she gave are the be-all and end-all of the subject.

When I mean Roe, it refers to the 1973 legal case and arguments made, not the person. She wanted an abortion she didn't do the (legal) heavy lifting arguing for it, which were found to be sound and have stood plenty legal arguments against it for 44 years now.

The closest pro-lifers have got is that abortion harms women (more than carrying a pregnancy to term), that failed completely and miserably when looked at too.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I don't get why the Federal Government would even be allowed to legislate abortions

I mean, calling abortions part of the commerce clause is a pretty insane stretch and the 14th Amendment argument sounds like a law school fever dream.

 

[Mahonay]

In case anyone in here hasn't seen the new thread yet

Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA), pro-lifer urged mistress to get Abortion

 

[H.Protagonist]

I feel like there should be a basic competency question you must answer before posting in abortion threads. If you don't even know the general timeline of what happens in a pregnancy, you should refrain from posting your hot take on how 20 weeks seems like an awful long time for women to make up their flighty little minds on the obvious result of their reckless and shameless one night stands.

I personally do not think there should be any ban, and certainly not one as early as 20 weeks when you JUST find out if your baby even has all its bits in the right order. Even 24 would be a tight timeline to act on the results of the 20 week scan, especially with the healthcare we have right now (the UK schedule isn't bad, but very bare bones and hard to get a timely appt with the overburdened system sometimes). I'm glad it's apparently just grandstanding and won't pass, but the posts that always pop up in these threads make it clear why it's possible for them to keep threatening rights and access.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

It is 12 weeks in Germany.
More, only if physical or psychological health of the woman is seriously threatened (I think birth defects also apply)


It ain't just mother's body,

man you are even further behind than us austrians at 14 weeks. Which is an embarrassing state of the law anyway in need of updating after more than 30 years.

The mother's body takes priority, that's universally accepted.

 

[Angelus Errare]

I feel like there should be a basic competency question you must answer before posting in abortion threads. If you don't even know the general timeline of what happens in a pregnancy, you should refrain from posting your hot take on how 20 weeks seems like an awful long time for women to make up their flighty little minds on the obvious result of their reckless and shameless one night stands.

I personally do not think there should be any ban, and certainly not one as early as 20 weeks when you JUST find out if your baby even has all its bits in the right order. Even 24 would be a tight timeline to act on the results of the 20 week scan, especially with the healthcare we have right now (the UK schedule isn't bad, but very bare bones and hard to get a timely appt with the overburdened system sometimes). I'm glad it's apparently just grandstanding and won't pass, but the posts that always pop up in these threads make it clear why it's possible for them to keep threatening rights and access.

There really should tbh because as a guy, reading through this thread is embarrassing as hell at the sheer lack of knowledge of the female body but such confidence and authority in the shit they post.

 

[OmnipotentO]

20 weeks. Psh. Bullshit. Trying to corner women more and more.

Just teach a realistic sex education. You can avoid this shit. But this isn't about "saving lives," after all. It was never actually about saving lives.

Education?? But then how will they punish women for having sex?

Spoiler

it's what the abortion issue has always been about when you get down to it

 

[excelsiorlef]

I find it interesting how many of the abortion is murder after xyz weeks people, how many of the abortion after xyz is just like killing a 4 year old people don't actually finish that thought by stating: and that's why those women who seek/get abortions after xyz should go to jail.

It's pretty intellectually dishonest to invoke murder and compare it to killing a 4 year old but then refuse to say the women you are accusing of committing murder should be punished.


Ask yourself, when Trump did imply that, whyso many even in the GOP freaked the fuck out and went out of their way to denounce it.... it's almost like abortion and murder aren't actually comparable. Imagine that

 

[Stop It]

This post makes my blood boil.

I've carried a child. I've seen all the scans and I've felt the kicking. I have full understanding of what it means to be 20 weeks pregnant and I do NOT support a 20 week ban, because at that point you are only preventing people from terminating pregnancies which are no longer viable or which have birth defects that will affect quality of life.

Indeed, which is why many countries have split limits.

This isn't a progressive Vs conservative debate any longer in Northern European countries as public healthcare supported abortion and support is commonly accepted. The debates are usually over timings as medical science advance.

Personally, I couldn't commit to an abortion and my partner who is Catholic certainly opposes it. However I firmly believe that my, or other people's moral compass should not be a factor in this debate, especially in the US where the moral authority of republican party is zero when the rights of healthcare means nothing to them and the moment the child is born they no longer give a shit.

No, the results of the 20 week scan are crucial and if anything comes up that requires action, then that action should be taken by those affected with the support of the medical teams helping them. Abortion should not be restricted purely based on timing when things can and will go awry at any point in development.

However if you get to the point of viability and decide you just don't want a child? Or there's personal factors arising? Then personally there's better options at that point. A good social security net and adoption systems should be there to catch these cases.

 

[llien]

Uhh, where have you been? That's what Roe v Wade was about. Since 1973.

People don't have the "right to life" at the expense of someone else. The "right to life" doesn't exist legally.

US constitution has hardly any meaning outside US, but even the linked document contradicts what you have stated:

The court also recognized that the right to privacy is not absolute and that a state has valid interests in safeguarding maternal health and protecting potential life.

"At expense of someone else" in your post is quite out of context of "abortion at will, no timing restrictions".

It has been stated at least twice that other considerations make it legal at past "at will" times in most countries. We have also discussed that healthcare in US is so flawed that that alone could warrant not imposing any restrictions of this kind.

A zygote embryo or fetus aren't even people legally.

As someone who has witnessed "fetus into human" transformation twice, that lasted, literally, seconds (yes, seconds), I need to tell you that I do not think, that they aren't humans, no matter what law says.

 

[H.Protagonist]

Has anyone against this actually seen what a baby looks like at week 20? I’m not talking about pictures on the internet, but actually been to an ultra sound at 20 weeks. It’s practially alive and kicking by then and if you’ve seen it, then there is no way that you wouldn’t think that it’s anything other than murder at that point.

I have one child, and I'm 31 weeks along with my second one. I think your post is asinine. Have YOU ever had to do more than 'see' it kicking on a screen? Have you had to deal with the nausea, the aches, the pains, the physical/mental stress of carrying/creating one for 9 months? Have you had to go through the excruciating process of giving birth to it? The logistical/often long term changes in your work life, to your career? And that's not even considering the aftermath of giving birth or having to care for a child with severe disabilities.

It's so easy for people who will never have to go through it to make such self-righteous little comments. As if being pregnant is some afterthought or minor thing that just happens and magically resolves itself without blood and scarring and death in some cases, and is therefore OK to expect women to just do because you saw a 20 week ultrasound. Get out of here with that.

There really should tbh because as a guy, reading through this thread is embarrassing as hell at the sheer lack of knowledge of the female body but such confidence and authority in the shit they post.

It's depressing and terrifying because that's exactly what I imagine most of the OK w/ bans men's crowd are thinking. That they're happy to back up such an ignorant restriction because of feels. It's not something something that they personally will ever be held to, so sure, why not. Why not.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

US constitution has hardly any meaning outside US, but even the linked document contradicts what you have stated:



"At expense of someone else" in your post is quite out of context of "abortion at will, no timing restrictions".

It has been stated at least twice that other considerations make it legal at past "at will" times in most countries. We have also discussed that healthcare in US is so flawed that that alone could warrant not imposing any restrictions of this kind.


As someone who has witnessed "fetus into human" transformation twice, that lasted, literally, seconds (yes, seconds), I need to tell you that I do not think, that they aren't humans, no matter what law says.

He didn't say they are not potential humans, he said they are not a 'person'. I would agree, the fetus does not have personhood.

 

[Dr. Buni]

The right to abort should be a basic one. No one is obligated to have a child, regardless of its origins. Sex, rape, it doesn't matter.

Also, yes, a fetus is not a person. It is a fetus.

I really don't get anti-abortion people.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

The right to abort should be a basic one. No one is obligated to have a child, regardless of its origins. Sex, rape, it doesn't matter.

Also, yes, a fetus is not a person. It is a fetus.

I really don't get anti-abortion people.

It's just an appeal to morality honestly. It's easy to say "it's a person, it's alive, you're killing a person" when it's not you having to carry it, deal with the circumstances of the pregnancy or having to be fully responsible for it for the next forever.

I find it shitty and unrealistic. If you are anti abortion please adopt all these children then. Be a foster care provider. Make it so. Otherwise mind your own fucking business. They're not actually interested in protecting human life as they wont ever assume any responsibility for the things they preach. It's just about "protecting" children they will never meet, never know and never actually give a shit about except when their mom wants to make a personal decision.

I really hate these people.

 

[Randomizer123454444]

I have hard time understanding why the same people who claim to care about babies lives before they are born, care about them so little AFTER they are born. IMO you can start talk about caring about the baby when you start also talking about maternity/parental leave, childcare, healthcare etc. Until then then you are just a hypocrite.

As a man I'll trust women's judgement on this one. But if you had me at gunpoint and forced me to set a limit, I'd say "when baby has a reasonable chance of surviving outside the womb". After that unwanted babies become a matter of adoption etc imo.

I do not support this bill.

 

[Bolivar687]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-passes-bill-banning-abortion-after-20-week-mark/

 

[Platy]

In case anyone in here hasn't seen the new thread yet

Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA), pro-lifer urged mistress to get Abortion

Statistically expected.

 

[Mahonay]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-passes-bill-banning-abortion-after-20-week-mark/

God fucking damn it

Please let this not pass on the Senate.

 

[excelsiorlef]

God fucking damn it

Please let this not pass on the Senate.

Unless they find a bunch of Democrats who want to end their careers I doubt it will

 

[CadetMahoney]

US constitution has hardly any meaning outside US

I'm talking about USA. The thread topic.

"At expense of someone else" in your post is quite out of context of "abortion at will, no timing restrictions".

Roe was never about "abortion at will, no timing restrictions" something I never said. We've known this since 1973. Fetal viability grants the fetus some protections, but none that override the mother's health.

It has been stated at least twice that other considerations make it legal at past "at will" times in most countries. We have also discussed that healthcare in US is so flawed that that alone could warrant not imposing any restrictions of this kind.

I am not following you. We already know elective late term abortions are illegal since 1973.

As someone who has witnessed "fetus into human" transformation twice, that lasted, literally, seconds (yes, seconds), I need to tell you that I do not think, that they aren't humans, no matter what law says.

That means innocent people are being deliberately created and killed in IVF clinics, but pro-lifers don't protest outside those. I guess getting to shout at women is a big motivator.

 

[Koren]

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.

That's an issue, but can't test be carried earlier?

In a huge majority of European countries the limit is 12 weeks (+/-2). It doesn't seem to be Hell.

I'd say that even for the mother, an abortion at 20 must be awful (one of my friends miscarried a couple times around this time, it was harsh)

 

[CadetMahoney]

That's an issue, but can't test be carried earlier?

In a huge majority of European countries the limit is 12 weeks (+/-2). It doesn't seem to be Hell.

If there's no good reason to reduce the limit than there's no point in asking if the test can be carried out earlier. You shouldn't arbitrarily lower the limit just because you can't ban abortion outright.

As for other countries Canada and UK laws haven't resulted in societal meltdown. People travel from Ireland to UK to have abortions.

 

[hey_monkey]

That's an issue, but can't test be carried earlier?

In a huge majority of European countries the limit is 12 weeks (+/-2). It doesn't seem to be Hell.

I'd say that even for the mother, an abortion at 20 must be awful (one of my friends miscarried a couple times around this time, it was harsh)

This has been addressed earlier in the thread. There are some tests that can be done earlier, but they're expensive and insurance usually won't cover them. Other tests, if performed earlier, can increase chances of or even cause miscarriages.

The bottom line is trust women. Allow them to make informed decisions. Yes, if we want to be incredibly reductive and push this line, sure, I suppose it's possible that someone will decide to have an elective abortion just because at 21/22 weeks if there's no ban in place. But it's far more typical that anyone choosing to terminate a pregnancy after the first trimester has a very good reason to do so - why restrict that or turn it into some kind of legal minefield for a woman or a doctor? So you can feel better about yourself for protecting the unborn? Come on.

 

[Mahonay]

The bottom line is trust women. Allow them to make informed decisions. Yes, if we want to be incredibly reductive and push this line, sure, I suppose it's possible that someone will decide to have an elective abortion just because at 21/22 weeks if there's no ban in place. But it's far more typical that anyone choosing to terminate a pregnancy after the first trimester has a very good reason to do so - why restrict that or turn it into some kind of legal minefield for a woman or a doctor? So you can feel better about yourself for protecting the unborn? Come on.

Lol they can't trust women with making decisions about abortion, yet we're supposed to trust "law abiding" gun owners that are armed to teeth. Funny huh?

 

[WiiredShawn]

Lol they can't trust women with making decisions about abortion, yet we're supposed to trust "law abiding" gun owners that are armed to teeth. Funny huh?

Patriarchy in a nutshell.

 

[StoneFox]

Lol they can't trust women with making decisions about abortion, yet we're supposed to trust "law abiding" gun owners that are armed to teeth. Funny huh?

It's like how men like to pretend that the wild west was all hotshot cowboys when most of the western territories were run by women because they had all the money. The West was the first to have female governors and women in higher ranking political and business roles. That is, until more people moved out there and made it more similar to the Eastern states.

People forget that Wyoming refused to become a state unless women kept their right to vote.

 

[Keri]

That's an issue, but can't test be carried earlier?

In a huge majority of European countries the limit is 12 weeks (+/-2). It doesn't seem to be Hell.

I'd say that even for the mother, an abortion at 20 must be awful (one of my friends miscarried a couple times around this time, it was harsh)

Hey Monkey pretty much already answered your question, but to elaborate a little: Yes, there are tests that can be done earlier than 20 weeks, but they have risks. You can have a CVS done between 10-12 weeks, but there's a 1/100 chance it will induce a miscarriage. You can wait to between weeks 15-20 and have an amniocentesis done, but this carries a risk of miscarriage as well. I remember my doctor giving me odds of 1/600, but looking at Wikipedia, studies range with results of between a 1/200 and a 1/1,600 risk of miscarriage.

The way things work now, women use information they receive from the non-invasive and non-threatening scans performed at 12 and 20 weeks, to gauge whether the risk of further testing is worth it. Also, the information you can get at the 20 week scan is more detailed, because the baby is more developed and more can be seen. You just can't see the same amount of information at the 12 week scan. The 20 week scan can check if the heart is developing properly, for example. I was very fortunate in my pregnancy that the results in both my scans were good. The scans suggested the chance my baby had a defect was much lower than the risk of miscarriage from further testing. So, I opted against any further testing, because it was more likely I'd miscarry a healthy (and very much wanted) child. If women can't react to the information they receive in these scans, then women will have to decide whether to risk further testing earlier, without knowing the statistical likelihood there's any problem at all. Women with a 1/100,000 chance of a birth defect, may choose to perform testing with a 1/100 chance of inducing miscarriage, simply because they weren't given the chance to find this information out and respond to it. Think about that.

Maybe the European countries with lower limits should reconsider their positions, but I wonder if these countries with lower limits also offer better resources and care for disabled children and their families? Is there access to special education programs and day care? Access to adult day care? Are the costs of caring for the disabled subsidized? Is their health care covered? Because all of that makes a big difference. In the United States having a disabled child could bankrupt you and your child could end up on the street and alone, if/when you die before them.

 

[hey_monkey]

Maybe the European countries with lower limits should reconsider their positions, but I wonder if these countries with lower limits also offer better resources and care for disabled children and their families? Is there access to special education programs and day care? Access to adult day care? Are the costs of caring for the disabled subsidized? Is their health care covered? Because all of that makes a big difference. In the United States having a disabled child could bankrupt you and your child could end up on the street and alone, if/when you die before them.

I absolutely agree with Keri's position here that lower limits should be reconsidered until or unless there's good care in place. Worrying about the future for a seriously disabled child is the reality for so many parents. BSB posted about this with regard to her brother, too.

The United States simply does not wish to put the money into infrastructure to help take care of its citizens but wants to limit choices that could mitigate burdens on the system as well. It's ridiculous.

 

[crackhead_bob]

I absolutely agree with Keri's position here that lower limits should be reconsidered until or unless there's good care in place. Worrying about the future for a seriously disabled child is the reality for so many parents. BSB posted about this with regard to her brother, too.

The United States simply does not wish to put the money into infrastructure to help take care of its citizens but wants to limit choices that could mitigate burdens on the system as well. It's ridiculous.

Yeah, it's kinda like they want to have their fetus cake and it.

 

[ChainedMaster]

When something disproportionately has a negative affect on women because of their inherent biology - here, the biological infrastructure to bear children, and thus the burden of dealing with the medical reality of abortion, yes, it's anti-women. It does not affect anyone in the same way.

And then there are the social/cultural aspects. Men aren't held as responsible for birth control. Unless women pursue child support and take legal action, men are free to bounce. Men aren't told they are slutty murderers over abortion discussions, either; that sure happens.

I could continue, but honestly, in these threads, I wonder about the point of entering a male-dominated space and trying to be heard when so many of you-not all-simply aren't interested.

I'm tired. Tired of doing this over and over.

That's like saying if banning drug use disproportionately affects one race, it's racist. It's not. Banning drug use is for the benefit of society, or that's what most people feel. I don't, but that's besides the point. In the minds of pro-lifers people, banning abortion is as well. It's really not a difficult concept. Anti-women implies a sexist stance.

 

[RedHill]

Oh, ok
Then I'm not fine with it

Almost like you should have looked up the facts first, huh.

 

[Yaboosh]

That's like saying if banning drug use disproportionately affects one race, it's racist. It's not. Banning drug use is for the benefit of society, or that's what most people feel. I don't, but that's besides the point. In the minds of pro-lifers people, banning abortion is as well. It's really not a difficult concept. Anti-women implies a sexist stance.

Except the drug laws are undeniably racist. And were designed to be that way. That is really the worst possible comparison you could have made for your argument.

 

[Bendeavor]

That's like saying if banning drug use disproportionately affects one race, it's racist. It's not. Banning drug use is for the benefit of society. In the minds of pro-lifers people, banning abortion is as well. It's really not a difficult concept. Anti-women implies a sexist stance.

Redlining disproportionately prevented people from non-white communities from getting loans, and even though supporters of the practice said it was solely based on the poverty levels of communities banks wanted to avoid, the practice was banned because it was deemed discriminatory (particularly against black people). Just because some people say they have one thing in mind doesn't mean they can't be engaging in a bigoted practice.

 

[ChainedMaster]

Except the drug laws are undeniably racist. And were designed to be that way. That is really the worst possible comparison you could have made for your argument.

Banning drug use is not inherently racist.