Roe V Wade overturned!

NotChildren wrote:

joedlrt wrote:

She was a disaster before the birth. She was a disaster after the birth. She had no injuries from the birth. I have the views I do because of the influence of my mother, my wife and my daughters. One can be pro-woman and opposed to most forms and rationales behind abortions. The typical justifications for abortions (health of the mother, rape, incest, genetic disorders, inviable pregnancies, etc.) typically only apply to a very small percentage of abortions. The case in question deals with a Mississippi law that prohibits abortions after 15 weeks gestation. By 15 weeks, rape, incest and any genetic conditions would be known, so most of the arguments that the poster was referring to would not apply in this case.

This argument is completely false on so many different levels. There are thousands of genetic conditions that are not known until later in the pregnancy. Many women, especially young girls who have not had regular periods DO NOT KNOW THEY ARE PREGNANT until later in the pregnancy, especially if they have been RAPED by a family member at a young age, they don't even know what sex is. Ectopic pregnancies can be discovered after 15 weeks. Severe health issues can crop up after 15 weeks. But it doesn't matter!!! Because the law does not recognize the a fetus as a human being, even if your religion does, so it is none of your business what a woman does, she does not have to justify her reasons to you, or to the government. It's a PRIVATE health matter.

NotChildren wrote:

sooouhhh wrote:

I see your point, but no child can survive "on their own" until well into childhood. They're all dependent on others to care for them. Are they not human until they no longer require other humans for support, biological or otherwise? This isn't a sufficient definition of life, in my opinion. It's too simple.

This issue tears me apart. While I 100% support a woman's right to choose what happens to their bodies, I can't NOT ask myself if anyone is considering the rights of those unborn, regardless of the circumstances. These beings - potential humans, fetuses, the unborn, whatever term suits your purpose - have no voice in these matters. They have different DNA, different biological profiles than the mother. They are separate beings.

The issue, I suppose is biology. Females are designed to be incubators for 9 months, like it or not. They have no umbilical cord or placenta until impregnation. Are those part of the female body? OR the unborn? Who owns the decision to remove them? Whose life depends on them?

I support all life. To me, one must be consistent though. For my political views, the Dems seem to base most of their policies (civil, social, otherwise) on the collective rights of all humans. I vote Dem. But I'm also Pro-Life. Pro-Birth. Pro-Fetus.

A Pro-Life Democrat. I think I'm allowed to be so.

The key distinction is "never viable for life", meaning, without a uterus to sustain them, they would not survive. I do not count fetuses that fall under this distinction, as human beings or individuals, and there are late term mutations that make this happen later on in pregnancy as well. Once they are born and physcally seperate (can be bottle fed, independent blood flow etc etc), they are then human. I do not agree with later term abortions unless the fetus is unviable or the mother's life is at risk (then an emergency C-section is the option). I am happy you can choose to be and believe whatever you want to (yay America!). We cannot take life-insurance out on fetuses, we cannot give them ss cards, until they are born. This means the government does not recognize them as individuals either, and that means the Mother has more rights under non-religious law than the fetus does, and she should be able to decide how to proceed with her pregnancy. You and your family are allowed to do as you see fit/believe religiously.

joedlrt wrote:

NotChildren wrote:

This argument is completely false on so many different levels. There are thousands of genetic conditions that are not known until later in the pregnancy. Many women, especially young girls who have not had regular periods DO NOT KNOW THEY ARE PREGNANT until later in the pregnancy, especially if they have been RAPED by a family member at a young age, they don't even know what sex is. Ectopic pregnancies can be discovered after 15 weeks. Severe health issues can crop up after 15 weeks. But it doesn't matter!!! Because the law does not recognize the a fetus as a human being, even if your religion does, so it is none of your business what a woman does, she does not have to justify her reasons to you, or to the government. It's a PRIVATE health matter.

Not false in the least. You evidently have no understanding of statistics and maybe less of modern science. Fewer than 1.5% of abortions are due to rape or incest. About 6% are for the health of the mother. Ectopic pregnancies and genetic issues are typically discovered in the first ultrasound (typically between 10-12 weeks) and subsequent amnio. If an individual would terminate a pregnancy due to a genetic condition (not all people would), there are NIPTs that can indicate the need for a confirming amnio for most conditions. My wife and I were told that one of our identical twins had a marker for downs syndrome (nuchal translucency outside of normal during the 10 week ultrasound). We didn't do the amnio because we wouldn't terminate the pregnancy because we would not end the life just because it might be imperfect (and because the odds that one identical twin would have downs and the other would not were exceedingly rare).

The thing that nobody talks about is how ineffective abortion is as a policy as a means of decreasing out of wedlock births. Before Roe v. Wade, the incidence of out of wedlock births was far lower than in the aftermath (even before Carter further destroyed the institution of marriage with the WIC program). This is because women were less likely to engage in sex outside of marriage (the percentage of 16-year-old females who had engaged in sex jumped from 13.8% from 1965-1969 to 28.1% by 1975-1979 after abortion and the pill became widespread). The increase in engagement in high-risk behavior due to the perceived risk reduction from the availability of contraception and abortion more than overcame the perceived reduction in risk provided by the availability of those same prevention strategies. Out of wedlock births increased from 322,000 to 515,000 over that same period (even with abortions among unmarried increasing from 88,000 to 985,000). So, the increased availability of abortions and the pill led to a 60% increase in out of wedlock births (and an increase in pregnancies overall by 265%. I'd call that a failure of policy.

An analysis of out-of-wedlock births in the United States (brookings.edu)

Wise Old Man wrote:

1) Just reminding everybody this is a draft decision (if true). These change, even dramatically, in the end.

2) If Roe is overturned the practical implications will be more modest than people realize. Roe has effectively been overturned for years in parts of the country. The decision has proved weak in protecting abortion rights. For example there is only one center that performs abortions in the Dakotas. A study from my institution indicates that if Roe is overturned the number of abortions performed will decrease by about 10-15% nationwide at most.

3) On whatever side of this debate you sit, it should trouble you that the law is so unequally applied across the country on a matter of such great importance. The privileged will still have access to safe and legal abortion and those without privilege will not. Just like with the death penalty, it’s not the morality of the act, but it’s the grossly unequal application of the laws across the country that is so troubling.

4) As a doctor, I care about harm prevention and not as much about morals. Humans are humans. They are going to have sex and have unwanted pregnancies. Many are going to seek abortion. You can’t legislate this away. If it’s going to happen regardless, you should reduce the harm by providing safe access, but do everything possible to reduce the demand.

5) My biggest problem with many in the pro life camp is not the opposition to abortion, it’s the hypocrisy as it applies to globally reducing unwanted pregnancies. Certainly a world with no abortions would be best. Everybody agrees on this, right? The most effective way to achieve this goal is not to ban abortion, but to double down on education and easy access to birth control.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

joedlrt wrote:

Not false in the least. You evidently have no understanding of statistics and maybe less of modern science. Fewer than 1.5% of abortions are due to rape or incest. About 6% are for the health of the mother. Ectopic pregnancies and genetic issues are typically discovered in the first ultrasound (typically between 10-12 weeks) and subsequent amnio. If an individual would terminate a pregnancy due to a genetic condition (not all people would), there are NIPTs that can indicate the need for a confirming amnio for most conditions. My wife and I were told that one of our identical twins had a marker for downs syndrome (nuchal translucency outside of normal during the 10 week ultrasound). We didn't do the amnio because we wouldn't terminate the pregnancy because we would not end the life just because it might be imperfect (and because the odds that one identical twin would have downs and the other would not were exceedingly rare).

The thing that nobody talks about is how ineffective abortion is as a policy as a means of decreasing out of wedlock births. Before Roe v. Wade, the incidence of out of wedlock births was far lower than in the aftermath (even before Carter further destroyed the institution of marriage with the WIC program). This is because women were less likely to engage in sex outside of marriage (the percentage of 16-year-old females who had engaged in sex jumped from 13.8% from 1965-1969 to 28.1% by 1975-1979 after abortion and the pill became widespread). The increase in engagement in high-risk behavior due to the perceived risk reduction from the availability of contraception and abortion more than overcame the perceived reduction in risk provided by the availability of those same prevention strategies. Out of wedlock births increased from 322,000 to 515,000 over that same period (even with abortions among unmarried increasing from 88,000 to 985,000). So, the increased availability of abortions and the pill led to a 60% increase in out of wedlock births (and an increase in pregnancies overall by 265%. I'd call that a failure of policy.

An analysis of out-of-wedlock births in the United States (brookings.edu)

If it’s acceptable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy due to rape, it’s acceptable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy for other reasons.