Roe V Wade overturned!

You think there is a lot of racial diversity on these boards? Think again. Age diversity? Income diversity?

I don't think you'll find a lot of impoverished 60 year old African American women on here bantering with Flagpole over financial matters.

Or abortion.

You WILL find a lot of 15-35 year old middle class white dudes though.

Another clumsy way of saying abortion is murder. It isn't - except to the religious fanatics amongst us.

I was discussing this thread, not the other very different issues that are raised on this board. But, yes - young white middle class males do appear to be over-represented generally.

The debate is more particularly about a religious take on morality v a morality based on other values. Individual rights are the battle ground.

There is also an issue with "fetus rights". When a drunk driver hits a pregnant woman he gets charged with killing the unborn child as well, so this precedent leaks over into the abortion debate.

Alan

I'm not buying your argument that embryos would require an attorney to advocate for their rights, due process, etc, while in utero - if deemed legally alive. We don't even do this for born children. I made medical decisions for all of my children while they were infants, heck, right up until age 18. Never was there an attorney present.

Now... children services would get involved if there were instances of abuse or neglect on the part of my wife or me. But not attorneys on the regular.

A better argument might be that if a mother is abusing or neglecting their unborn children (abortion would qualify), then Children Services should be involved in the protection of said children. Which, I suppose, is what the pro-life movement is seeking... protection from abuse and neglect.

That is not true at all. Many low hormone dose birth control pills result in an endometrial lining that is so thin that there is no withdrawal bleeding (loestrin, yaz, lybrel). Also, a lot of birth control you can take continuously to not get a period ever or only have withdrawal bleeding 3-4 times a year (the hormone withdrawal bleeding is not due to having a period inasmuch as you are not ovulating). Not to mention IUDs.

There's more to periods than bleeding... Even still it simply isn't true that there's "no withdrawal bleeding" in the overwhelming majority of women.

Oral contraception doesn't stop bleeding either it lessens it.

Have you ever met a woman?

I'm good with that. There are many things about socialists, godless European countries that I would not want to emulate.

Why are you so invested in killing babies?

I was speaking from personal experience. As a woman who suffers from severe PMS (that results in a clinical level of depression and anxiety) as well as painful, heavy periods, my gyno recommended that I go on a low dose birth control pill to mitigate (I am also generally interested in being on contraception because I don't want to have kids right now). This (for me, and for many women who go on this particular formulation) results in no period because it is so low dose that there is not enough endometrial lining to shed. Even if you do get bleeding on hormonal contraception, it is because you cease taking the hormones, not because your body is going through its regular hormonal fluctuations because birth control inhibits ovulation (which causes the hormonal cycle leading to periods). Hence it being termed "withdrawal bleeding" rather than a true period since no ovulation is involved. The formulation and several others (including the ones I listed in my previous post) have this common side effect: no bleeding from a period at all in many women who take it. Most hormonal contraception is lower dose these days because it tends to result in less side effects.

For some formulations and for some women, it merely lessens bleeding, but for me it actually completely removes bleeding and I am no outlier. I had an extended discussion with my gyno about this because as a woman runner it doesn't give me anything to monitor to make sure I am not running into issues with RED-S. My gyno was unconcerned because I have zero history of bone stress injury and because my period returns whenever I have gone off this pill for a couple months even though I typically run 70-80 mpw. She also pointed out that getting bleeding while on a typical hormonal birth control pill, since it is unconnected with ovulation, tells you nothing about whether you are maintaining hormonal health for the sake of monitoring RED-S. This particular formulation of contraception also works really well for me in that it stabilizes my mood and has no negative side effects like weight gain or lethargy which I have noticed when on other pills.

So TL;DR. I am a woman. I also am a woman who has tried several forms of contraception and know women on a myriad of different forms of contraception. I am pretty aware of how these different forms of contraception affect having a period because it's something women runners discuss since hormonal contraception and IUDs can mask stress fracture risk, whether you get bleeding or not.

Abortions happen in all of those places.

There's a fair share of very vocal older white males as well. There appears to be very little female input of any age and next to no AA input.

Awesome. Can you name them and their credentials?

Based.

Can I take a page out of the pro-vaccine mandate crowds’ playbook and say something like “I waNt my FReeduMb” when mocking the pro-choice crowd?

I seem to remember this being a rebuttal online when people talked of bodily autonomy when it was vaccine related.

Does the article or study specify what the next level up, “legal in most cases”, entails? The article states that 49% of people support abortion for any reason and 50% against. That’s pretty much 50/50

One problem is that too many of the pro-lifers don't have the same concern for preventing pregnancy in the first place nor in helping with the continued care of those embryos and fetuses once they make it outside the womb.

Those who have abortions are typically low income and unmarried meaning the child is in for a rough upbringing. The overwhelming majority of abortions occur prior to 15 weeks. The odd thing is that in a state such as Florida the abortion rate has been increasing while the rate has decreased in a number of blue states.

Attorney ad litems are required when the parent's interest conflicts with the child's interest. If your kid gets in an accident, you have to have an attorney ad litem represent the child in any settlement because there is a conflict between the parent's financial (generally short term) interests and the child's (more long term). Same thing when you have a mother making decisions about her pregnancy. The mother may want to pursue treatment that will result in the best outcome for her health and may be willing to do so at the expense of the child. In fact, this happens all the time when mothers are confronted with the choice between a c-section and vaginal birth or having labor induced versus waiting until labor happens naturally. And there are a long list of complications that occur during pregnancy that have treatments that present a risk to the fetus. Even having a home birth would be subject to scrutiny because it raises risks for the fetus versus hospital birth. It is not at all a slippery slope to see a future where it is almost full on Gilead where women are subject to state intervention when a doctor, relative, clergy or anyone thinks that the mother is not taking care of herself (not eating well, working too many hours, etc.) and is putting the baby in jeopardy. Once the term "liberty" in the 14th amendment is held to not prevent the government from interfering with a woman's body, anything can be done to women in the name of protecting the legal person inside the womb.

Neither do you. What's your point?