6 ms·

IMO because the christian nationalist wing of the Republican Party needs talking points.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
parkingrift 4y ago
I think this completely ignores the moral issues of later term abortions. I am an atheist, and I am disturbed by the idea of a voluntary abortion after 20 weeks. Voluntary meaning no medical necessity. I think Republicans have latched onto this issue and Christianity in America has adopted it, but there is far more at play here than just Christian nationalism.
- vardump 4y ago
  I'm pro-choice. That said, after 20 weeks one really needs to consider that the fetus can feel pain.
  - prpl 4y ago
    I am also pro-choice - I have thought the viability standard was always going to be a moving target thanks to medical and technological advances that could topple at some point too - even if you defined it as something like NNth percentile. It does seem to me that setting an arbitrary (but flexible) point of no return was going to be necessary (probably around 18-24 weeks)
    - esyir 4y ago
      The trimesters have absolutely 0 actual meaning here, as this is fundamentally putting an arbitrary line on a continuous process. Yet this is probably the only way you're getting anything, as they're at least a useful Schelling point that can get some compromise.
  - stefan_ 4y ago
    And after 25 weeks one really needs to consider that the fetus may have a misshaped heart and no chance of survival outside the womb, requiring an abortion.
  - cute_boi 4y ago
    Regarding your second statement, I don't think anyone would consider aborting babie(s) after carrying for 20 weeks. These cases are outliers & it is mostly due to medical conditions.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Yes, they've taken the extreme view of "aborting a baby right before it's born" which doesn't fit the majority of cases and used it to argue against the norm, but if that were actually the case they would be limiting abortion to "reasonable" limits, not straight up "snitch on your neighbours if you think they've had an abortion" laws.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  What issue? What are the numbers on non medical necessity abortions post 20 weeks? Why 20 weeks? Are the voting populace or politicians knowledgeable enough about pregnancy to be able to legislate these things without exposing doctors and women to unnecessary legal risk? And again, back to the numbers, does the is even need legislating? Are women or doctors haphazardly running around killing perfectly viable fetuses for fun?
  - gruez 4y ago
    > And again, back to the numbers, does the is even need legislating? Are women or doctors haphazardly running around killing perfectly viable fetuses for fun? You realize that there are limits to voluntary abortions basically everywhere? Not having a limit is largely an american phenomenon. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abortion_Laws.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abortion_Laws.svg
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      The vast majority of the US had and has limits on abortion. What portion of the world has limits or not has no bearing on the reasoning for exposing doctors and patients to legal liabilities for no reason.
  - jonhohle 4y ago
    There are over a million abortions performed every year in the US. If your belief is that these are humans with all the rights of any other human, that’s a staggering human rights issue. The concept of viability is legal fiction. Given the technology, there’s no reason a fetus couldn’t live at any stage of development and likewise, until about age 3 or so, no child will live without external support. Culturally, we celebrate “birth”, but that event has nothing to do with life. On the other end is the necessity to support the life of a mother. While unfortunate, I think that’s a rare time that terminating a pregnancy is appropriate. That doesn’t mean lifestyle or convenience, though. That’s situations where only one or fewer people will make it alive if nothing is done. This represents a fraction of one percent of abortions. Other abuses may fall into this category.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Late term abortions are almost all wanted babies where something has gone horribly wrong for the baby, the mother, or both. There are also vanishingly few of them.
  - snikeris 4y ago
    These wouldn't be voluntary abortions, right? We were discussing voluntary abortions.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Voluntary late-term abortion are basically unicorns, and worth the same level of public policy attention.
  - parkingrift 4y ago
    I would not consider that voluntary.
- antifa 4y ago
  > I am disturbed by the idea of a voluntary abortion after 20 weeks I am also disturbed by strawman hypothetical edgecases.
  - parkingrift 4y ago
    >strawman hypothetical edgecases. Those words don't mean what you think they mean.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > I think Republicans have latched onto this issue and Christianity in America has adopted it, but there is far more at play here than just Christian nationalism. Yes, and polarization-fueled straw-man memes really obscure that. I swear some people's only understanding of "the other side" is a twisted view of the distortions of some overheated partisan bomb-thrower, stupefied into slogan form. But you kind of need something like that to feel confidently self-righteous.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  > ignores the moral issues of later term abortions If the SCOTUS decision was limited to that, the controvery would have been much, much smaller. Especially if it also considered medical exceptions. But why be sensible when you can just go full Spanish inquisition on them, right?
  - ejb999 4y ago
    >>If the SCOTUS decision was limited to that, If the SCOTUS did that, then they would be legislators, not judges; it is up to congress to decide where that cutoff should be, and then pass a law if they want - RvW didn't outlaw abortions, it just punted it back to the correct body to act if they wanted; I suspect they (congress) will be forced to pass a law, and it will likely set at a date that makes nobody happy - not the abortion at any time crowd, and not the 'zero exceptions' crowd. Most of Europe seems OK with a ~12 week cutoff. I suspect something around that, with narrow set of exceptions, would satisfy all but the most extremes on both sides.
- triceratops 4y ago
  How many abortions happen after 20 weeks? How many of them are due to medical reasons vs "don't want this baby anymore"? I'd wager that the vast majority of abortions post 20 weeks are performed with extreme reluctance and sadness, and only out of great necessity.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    I'd wager than many are talked to abortion, specifically that late in the cycle, out of a desire for organ harvesting from newborns and not out of necessity.
    - triceratops 4y ago
      > organ harvesting from newborns wat
      - hellojesus 4y ago
        Page 501 documents the research request and contact for human fetal tissue. https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-hhs-humanized-mice-fda-prod-3-00876/ https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-hhs-humanized-m... Also some famous undercover videos: https://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/ https://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-f...
        finfinfin 4y ago
        What’s the context? What is the research of? Is consent required / has it been received? Is this a common practice? Is it common to sell non-fetal tissue for research purposes? Etc etc Linking to a cryptic 575 page long PDF file is too conspiratorial to take seriously.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        > I'd wager that the vast majority of abortions post 20 weeks are performed with extreme reluctance and sadness, and only out of great necessity. My point was specifically aimed at this parent comment. It is easy to make baseless wagers about motivation. I find it an equally compelling narrative that, given research and financial incentives, there is great motivation for abortion clinics to persuade individuals to abort children. Especially late-term abortions since developed infant organs are likely demanding a premium due to their rarity. Both statements are conjectures.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

I think this completely ignores the moral issues of later term abortions. I am an atheist, and I am disturbed by the idea of a voluntary abortion after 20 weeks. Voluntary meaning no medical necessity. I think Republicans have latched onto this issue and Christianity in America has adopted it, but there is far more at play here than just Christian nationalism.

vardump 4y ago
I'm pro-choice. That said, after 20 weeks one really needs to consider that the fetus can feel pain.
- prpl 4y ago
  I am also pro-choice - I have thought the viability standard was always going to be a moving target thanks to medical and technological advances that could topple at some point too - even if you defined it as something like NNth percentile. It does seem to me that setting an arbitrary (but flexible) point of no return was going to be necessary (probably around 18-24 weeks)
  - esyir 4y ago
    The trimesters have absolutely 0 actual meaning here, as this is fundamentally putting an arbitrary line on a continuous process. Yet this is probably the only way you're getting anything, as they're at least a useful Schelling point that can get some compromise.
- stefan_ 4y ago
  And after 25 weeks one really needs to consider that the fetus may have a misshaped heart and no chance of survival outside the womb, requiring an abortion.
- cute_boi 4y ago
  Regarding your second statement, I don't think anyone would consider aborting babie(s) after carrying for 20 weeks. These cases are outliers & it is mostly due to medical conditions.
SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
Yes, they've taken the extreme view of "aborting a baby right before it's born" which doesn't fit the majority of cases and used it to argue against the norm, but if that were actually the case they would be limiting abortion to "reasonable" limits, not straight up "snitch on your neighbours if you think they've had an abortion" laws.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
What issue? What are the numbers on non medical necessity abortions post 20 weeks? Why 20 weeks? Are the voting populace or politicians knowledgeable enough about pregnancy to be able to legislate these things without exposing doctors and women to unnecessary legal risk? And again, back to the numbers, does the is even need legislating? Are women or doctors haphazardly running around killing perfectly viable fetuses for fun?
- gruez 4y ago
  > And again, back to the numbers, does the is even need legislating? Are women or doctors haphazardly running around killing perfectly viable fetuses for fun? You realize that there are limits to voluntary abortions basically everywhere? Not having a limit is largely an american phenomenon. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abortion_Laws.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abortion_Laws.svg
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    The vast majority of the US had and has limits on abortion. What portion of the world has limits or not has no bearing on the reasoning for exposing doctors and patients to legal liabilities for no reason.
- jonhohle 4y ago
  There are over a million abortions performed every year in the US. If your belief is that these are humans with all the rights of any other human, that’s a staggering human rights issue. The concept of viability is legal fiction. Given the technology, there’s no reason a fetus couldn’t live at any stage of development and likewise, until about age 3 or so, no child will live without external support. Culturally, we celebrate “birth”, but that event has nothing to do with life. On the other end is the necessity to support the life of a mother. While unfortunate, I think that’s a rare time that terminating a pregnancy is appropriate. That doesn’t mean lifestyle or convenience, though. That’s situations where only one or fewer people will make it alive if nothing is done. This represents a fraction of one percent of abortions. Other abuses may fall into this category.
ceejayoz 4y ago
Late term abortions are almost all wanted babies where something has gone horribly wrong for the baby, the mother, or both. There are also vanishingly few of them.
- snikeris 4y ago
  These wouldn't be voluntary abortions, right? We were discussing voluntary abortions.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Voluntary late-term abortion are basically unicorns, and worth the same level of public policy attention.
- parkingrift 4y ago
  I would not consider that voluntary.
antifa 4y ago
> I am disturbed by the idea of a voluntary abortion after 20 weeks I am also disturbed by strawman hypothetical edgecases.
- parkingrift 4y ago
  >strawman hypothetical edgecases. Those words don't mean what you think they mean.
tablespoon 4y ago
> I think Republicans have latched onto this issue and Christianity in America has adopted it, but there is far more at play here than just Christian nationalism. Yes, and polarization-fueled straw-man memes really obscure that. I swear some people's only understanding of "the other side" is a twisted view of the distortions of some overheated partisan bomb-thrower, stupefied into slogan form. But you kind of need something like that to feel confidently self-righteous.
raverbashing 4y ago
> ignores the moral issues of later term abortions If the SCOTUS decision was limited to that, the controvery would have been much, much smaller. Especially if it also considered medical exceptions. But why be sensible when you can just go full Spanish inquisition on them, right?
- ejb999 4y ago
  >>If the SCOTUS decision was limited to that, If the SCOTUS did that, then they would be legislators, not judges; it is up to congress to decide where that cutoff should be, and then pass a law if they want - RvW didn't outlaw abortions, it just punted it back to the correct body to act if they wanted; I suspect they (congress) will be forced to pass a law, and it will likely set at a date that makes nobody happy - not the abortion at any time crowd, and not the 'zero exceptions' crowd. Most of Europe seems OK with a ~12 week cutoff. I suspect something around that, with narrow set of exceptions, would satisfy all but the most extremes on both sides.
triceratops 4y ago
How many abortions happen after 20 weeks? How many of them are due to medical reasons vs "don't want this baby anymore"? I'd wager that the vast majority of abortions post 20 weeks are performed with extreme reluctance and sadness, and only out of great necessity.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  I'd wager than many are talked to abortion, specifically that late in the cycle, out of a desire for organ harvesting from newborns and not out of necessity.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    > organ harvesting from newborns wat
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      Page 501 documents the research request and contact for human fetal tissue. https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-hhs-humanized-mice-fda-prod-3-00876/ https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-hhs-humanized-m... Also some famous undercover videos: https://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/ https://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-f...
      - finfinfin 4y ago
        What’s the context? What is the research of? Is consent required / has it been received? Is this a common practice? Is it common to sell non-fetal tissue for research purposes? Etc etc Linking to a cryptic 575 page long PDF file is too conspiratorial to take seriously.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        > I'd wager that the vast majority of abortions post 20 weeks are performed with extreme reluctance and sadness, and only out of great necessity. My point was specifically aimed at this parent comment. It is easy to make baseless wagers about motivation. I find it an equally compelling narrative that, given research and financial incentives, there is great motivation for abortion clinics to persuade individuals to abort children. Especially late-term abortions since developed infant organs are likely demanding a premium due to their rarity. Both statements are conjectures.