musicdude2202 t1_iwldmq4 wrote
Reply to comment by veed_vacker in Republicans' margin in N.H. House shrinks again, after recount flips 2nd seat to Dems by rockonritalin
Are you seriously advocating for 3rd term elective abortions? Is that really your position that it should be legal to kill a completely viable baby for funzies or because “oops I changed my mind”? You people are sick.
PolarBlueberry t1_iwli6jg wrote
Do you think women make it to the 3rd term of pregnancy and go “nah, I don’t want to do this anymore, kill it.” At the 3rd term you’ve gone through the worst of the sickness, you’re having baby showers and decorating the nursery. Then you find out your child has a heart defect and might possibly survive but will not live a full or healthy life and will probably require extreme and expensive medical care. People go “no, I don’t want this child” in the first trimester as they just find out. People who need late term abortions aren’t doing it on a whim, it’s medically necessary for the health of the mother or the child will not be born viable.
gjcs14 t1_iwlj564 wrote
People like to run around with the narrative that at that stage it's about birth control as some sort of rhetorical cudgel. People who aren't even religious and if they were old enough to formulate an opinion 30 years ago, wouldn't give a shit about the issue at all. It's bizarre
mackerdoots t1_iwlt6xr wrote
NH has a ban after 24 weeks and that ban is even lifted after 24 week in cases of life of the mother or child. It is probably one of the most reasonable approaches to a compromise and a moderate stance
Asking to lift the ban completely after 24 weeks would actually be in support of people just getting an abortion on a whim and not much more. I would argue 24 weeks is probably a bit too long to allow people to get one on a whim. Even in the case of rape you don’t necessarily find out you were raped 4-6 months after the fact and then decide whether you want to keep it. Even for some extreme outlier cases we can put something in place instead of just opening up abortions to a free for all up until conception
PolarBlueberry t1_iwlxqqy wrote
That's quite reasonable and my response is directed at the "Oops I changed my mind."
Now, for the sake of looking at all angles, what would you think of this scenario:
A 33 year old mother of 2 is 26wks pregnant with her 3rd child and it is a healthy pregnancy. She has been at home for 8 years because her husband is able to provide enough for them to be comfortable, but paycheck to paycheck. Suddenly the husband and both children die in car accident. He does not have life insurance and now this woman who has been out of the work force will need to pay for the mortgage and all bills and still need to give birth and care for this child and she decides that it's too much and she doesn't want it.
I know this is made up, and many women would want to carry through as something to keep from her lost family, but for some it would be too much. Do you force this women you don't know to care for a child she does not want out of a moral obligation?
I'm not trying to change anybody's mind, or even push a single side. It's a difficult moral dilemma similar to the classic "Trolley Problem" and it's worth thinking about from multiple angles.
mackerdoots t1_iwm69me wrote
Well that is certainly is a very particular circumstance that sounds really unfortunate all around. If we want to make exceptions we need to pursue those specifically though. Making abortions open season for the sake of women’s rights though is a road that can lead to pretty immoral circumstances pretty quickly
I’m partial and biased because my daughter was born premature at 26 weeks. I find a moral line crossed when people push for open abortions at that point. In the example you gave if a woman had a premature birth it would be murder if she wanted the option to terminate it. If the baby is in the womb it suddenly becomes well within the woman’s right in some peoples eyes. That’s where I start to lose understanding and a little sympathy with those that support open and late term abortion rights. A baby shouldn’t have to come out early for better chances of survival in the third trimester. That’s a functional human being fighting for its life like anyone else at that point.
My opinion on your example is to definitely try to convince her to have the child and then choose whether to give it up for adoption. Postpartum depression can be very harmful but for all we know once the baby is born she ends up living with no regret and it’s what she ends up living for. So it’s definitely tricky and those things should be talked about instead of telling people they have no say in setting limitations
[deleted] t1_iwmrcuh wrote
[deleted]
gjcs14 t1_iwlenb6 wrote
That'd be the 2nd trimester chief
djdirectdrive t1_iwlfeyl wrote
Thanks...I was about to jump in. Glad someone here can count and knows how long a trimester is.
Less_Cryptographer86 t1_iwm33l6 wrote
There’s no such thing as third term “elective” abortion. Abortions only happen in the third term when the baby isn’t viable, is deceased, or mother will die.
musicdude2202 t1_iwmo284 wrote
So you’re arguing about nothing then because those exceptions already exist within the framework of the 24wk limit. It’s pretty much just elective abortion that’s been limited.
_drjayphd_ t1_iwm9i1x wrote
>Are you seriously advocating for 3rd term elective abortions?
Yes, and I'm sick of pretending we need to say no. They're so incredibly rare that the only reason to ban them is to grease the skids for further restrictions. The vast majority of abortions that far in are because the fetus isn't viable, is already deceased or is endangering the health of the mother.
musicdude2202 t1_iwmnsl7 wrote
For which there are exceptions for so what are you crying about with abortion restrictions?
_drjayphd_ t1_iwmoe0w wrote
No crying, I said there shouldn't need to be exceptions because there shouldn't be restrictions in the first place. That ban (which, as we all remember, didn't have those exceptions originally because the Republicans were running such a sloppy shop) only exists to normalize pushing for more restrictions because elective abortions are nearly non-existent that late.
musicdude2202 t1_iwnkiw8 wrote
So why limit it at birth then? Why not have the option to kill your kid until 2 or 5 or hell until they leave your house at 18+? Why even consider murder bad? Just do what you want we need to limit the population anyway.
_drjayphd_ t1_iwnkqj9 wrote
Literally nobody is seriously saying that and you know it, and you know damn well why.
musicdude2202 t1_iwp3t0e wrote
Well clearly I’m using reductio ad absurdum but frankly I don’t see a difference in killing a baby that has just been born and killing one that is mere weeks from birth. It’s infanticide and it’s wrong. Abortion was supposed to be safe legal and RARE, not an alternative to contraception. Sure you can carve out exceptions and rarities and what ifs all day but at the end of it the majority are elective and I believe there should be a limit as to how far into term that should be allowed. +- 12-15 weeks with exceptions for catastrophic rarities like a death potential seems more than fair to me
_drjayphd_ t1_iwpytiz wrote
You did a really terrible job of it, for starters. And the numbers don't back up what you're talking about either. What I was talking about is well beyond any kind of contraceptive use, as the vast majority of abortions after 24 weeks are because of complications. (And notice how we're talking about 24 weeks and now you're moving the goalposts to "oh, I would be okay with 12-15 weeks"? Fuck outta here with that.) I recognize that my view on abortion (no restrictions on elective abortions) isn't exactly shared with everyone here but guess what, yours isn't either and it's not grounded in reality.
Also I'm gonna assume you're going to support legislation to enshrine Griswold v. Connecticut and the subsequent right to contraception before Clarence Thomas isn't just musing about getting rid of that decision too. You can't base your views in "well, it shouldn't be an alternative to contraception..." without protecting access to contraception too.
musicdude2202 t1_iwtk7ce wrote
So emotional lol. Yes you are correct you are an extreme minority believing that elective abortion should have no limits. 12-15 is right on par with the overwhelming majority of the developed western world so I’d say I’m in the supreme majority on that. Yes use of contraceptives should be protected. Preventing pregnancy isn’t the same thing as killing a human being. Your view is radical bud. You won’t get your way
_drjayphd_ t1_iwtlgcn wrote
You ever consider that maybe "the overwhelming majority of the developed Western world" has reasons why it's so short that aren't applicable to the US? Like long established (longer than the US has been a country) intertwining of religion and government? Look at how long it took Ireland to decriminalize abortion because of the overwhelming history of Christian denominations as seats of power. It was only legalized four years ago because of a dentist dying from a miscarriage. That was the impetus to repeal a constitutional amendment that banned abortion in Ireland (which had already been outlawed since 1861 but anti-choice dickheads wanted to lock it in once they saw the tides were turning against them). You have zero perspective and you think you have the high ground. Do yourself a favor and walk away, neither of us are enacting any policy changes, especially not this deep in a thread.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments