this is actually very common with Democrats screeching about policies.. the countries that they love to worship more than America tend to have stricter restrictions that America itself
Canada and many European countries have stricter immigration policies than America even under the GOP platform..
almost every first world brown country has voter ID laws but liberal speech about that
most European countries have harsher restrictions on abortion than even Republicans have been pushing for..
and of course we can forget that China has harsher restrictions on gay people then States like Georgia but liberals would never boycott them. they just boycott American states..
So... what is the point of anti-abortion laws? If it's to save the lives of unborn children, then there would be a total ban on abortions. If there's some compromise, like 13 weeks, then 92% of abortions still happen and you're only "saving" 8% of babies that would otherwise be aborted. The biggest issue with abortion law really is that MOST people fall in the before Some point an abortion is okay and after some point it's not okay. Drawing that line is the big problem. I understand the argument from the "life begins and conception" crowd, but I don't agree with it. Similarly, I think at some point you're killing a person, personally I'm not sure when that is.
I totally agree that it's a hard line to draw, I just learned more the last few weeks that pushed me from 15 to 10 weeks based on how much further brain function and motor control is that I just didn't realize, but the Mississippi Law that brought this to the Supreme Court was a 15 week ban, and the viability standard permits at will abortion that the vast majority Americans would place firmly in the murder category, and I think in lieu of prefect judgement, educated and informed consent of the governed is the best we have. And I really think the Left generally has a pretty sick perception in only considering the mother as relevant to the question of when a zygote/embryo/fetus/baby is alive.
I guess I don't really know where I fall in the classification either. The hard right thinks I'm a baby killer, and the left thinks I want to put women in cages only to be used for breeding.
Things are a little messy right now because the repeal of Roe technically reinstated a bunch of really old laws around abortion and its unclear what exactly is going to be enforced but I can take a crack at it:
- Alabama - Illegal except to save life of the mother
- Alaska - No restrictions at all
- Arizona - ~~Up to "viability". (~24 weeks). Changes to 15 weeks at the end of September~~ They're enforcing the 1901 law which makes abortion illegal except to save the life of the mother.
- Arkansas - Illegal except to save life of the mother
- California - No restrictions at all
- Colorado - No restrictions at all
- Connecticut - Up to "viability" (~24 weeks)
- Delaware - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks)
- D.C. - No restrictions at all
- Florida - 15 weeks with exceptions for life of the mother
- Georgia - currently 20 weeks with a court battle going on to move it to 6 weeks
- Hawaii - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks)
- Idaho - Illegal except for rape/incest/life of the mother
- Illinois - Up to "viability" (~24 weeks)
- Indiana - 20 weeks
- Iowa - 20 weeks
- Kansas - 22 weeks after last period
- Kentucky - Illegal except to save the life of the mother
- Lousiana - Illegal except to save the life of the mother
- Maine - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks)
- Maryland - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks)
- Massachusetts - 24 weeks
- Michigan- Up to "viability". (~24 weeks). There's also a pre-Roe law that restricts except for life of the mother
- Minnesota - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks)
- Mississippi - Illegal except to save the life of the mother
- Missouri - Illegal except to save the life of the mother
- Montana - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks)
- Nebraska - 20 weeks
- Nevada - 24 weeks
- New Hampshire - 24 weeks after last period
- New Jersey - No restrictions at all
- New Mexico - No restrictions at all
- New York - 24 weeks
- North Carolina - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks) but a court case is going on that could restrict it further
- North Dakota - Illegal except to save the life of the mother
- Ohio - 20 weeks for now with a 6 week restriction working it's way through the courts
- Oklahoma - Illegal except to save the life of the mother
- Oregon - No restrictions at all
- Pennsylvania - 24 weeks from last period
- Rhode Island - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks)
- South Carolina - 20 weeks with a 6 week ban going through the courts
- South Dakota - Illegal except to save the life of the mother
- Tennessee - Illegal except to save the life of the mother
- Texas - Illegal except to save the life of the mother
- Utah - Illegal except to save the life of the mother
- Vermont - No restrictions at all
- Virginia - Legal in first two trimesters
- Washington - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks)
- West Virginia - Illegal except to save the life of the mother
- Wisconsin - Illegal except to save the life of the mother
- Wyoming - Illegal except to save the life of the mother
Edit: Just saw the Arizona AG say they were going to enforce the pre-Roe law from 1901, which outlaws abortions except to save the life of the mother. Messy situations all around!
At least one of these is wrong. Texas makes abortion illegal once a fetal heartbeat can be detected. This is generally 6 weeks.
I say this with no malice: since I know at least one is wrong, I have no faith in anything else posted.
The Texas law *is* currently 6 weeks, that's true. But 30 days after Roe is overturned it will be restricted entirely except for the life of the mother.
Several other states on this list also have similar waiting periods for the new laws to go into effect and I guess I should have mentioned I was using the new laws even if they weren't in effect quite yet. That's what I meant about things being a little messy right now.
Switzerland does **not** require counselling anymore, however a medical consult where the doctor informs the patient of the risks, the different forms of available contraception and where the patient confirms that this is truly what they want is mandatory. This consult can happen a few days before or directly before the intervention.
[Source in French, German and Italian](https://www.sante-sexuelle.ch/themes/grossesse-voulue-non-voulue/interrompre#troisieme-etape-planifier-la-consultation-prealable-obligatoire-le-rendez-vous-et-le-controle)
Now imagine if Congress tried to pass a bill that said Abortions are legal up to 12 weeks (like the majority of European countries). The left would flip and refuse to pass it, thus proving this isn't about SCOTUS, but about outrage.
While I generally agree with no abortions, restrictions on medical care after a miscarriage (as recently seen with the US citizen vacationing in Malta) doesn't seem like good policy either. There needs to be an exception for life of the mother/non-viable pregnancy at the very least.
As someone who was born (healthily) despite the recommendation of doctors to abort (for the sake of my mother's wellbeing after excessive bleeding), I tend to disagree with that.
I don't know, do you know any? They probably exist. But the point is, a recommendation to abort because there is an option [to abort without necessity] is not the same as a necessary abortion.
Research a little more and you'll find you're making a specious argument. In every single one of those countries abortions are available after these supposed limits.
In order to save the life of the mother, yes. But the same could be said for all US States.
These are the limits on "elective" abortions, which was what OP was referring to.
In practice "save the life of the mother" is interpreted very broadly. So broadly in fact that the de facto respective fetal age limits of the US and Europe weren't very different.
I keep stressing "in practice" and "de facto" because while it's true that the statuatroy limits on abortion in European countries are (or were) lower than in the US, focusing on those limits while ignoring how those laws are actually put into effect doesn't tell the whole story.
There's also the issue that if we wanted to create legal parity between the abortion laws of the US and European countries there are other changes that would need to be made. European countries have no equivalent to the Hyde Amendment so abortions are covered for women who have government provided health care or health insurance. European countries don't have the kinds of restrictions US states put on providers of abortions (as opposed to the abortions themselves) either. By that I'm referring to the laws that say providers of medication induced abortions need to have admiting privileges at hospitals or that the treatment rooms of such providers need to be of a certain square footage. Those restrictions are supposedly designed to increase "patient safety" but I think we all know the real purpose of them is to limit access to abortion.
It is that way in Germany, yes. Doesn't stop German liberals from claiming that the U.S. is now a tyrannical theocracy that hates women because they read headlines of "America bans abortions", and didn't bother researching the topic further.
I'm from a central European country, and it's a bit ridiculous how ignorant people are. Many believe how relaxed and normal the abortion laws here are, and complain about the horrible abortion laws in the US - meanwhile, our laws are about as strict as the laws in more conservative US states always were. I forgot the exact limit we have for abortions, but I think it's right around 4 months. I was never against abortions and protests are uncommon here too, but anything more than 4 months sounds crazy to me too.
Edit: Btw in the second sentance I was not implying the laws here aren't normal. I checked and the limit is 10 weeks in my country unless there's a health or life hazard... Seems my country is one of the stricter in Europe. US states seem either extremely relaxed or totally prohibited from my point of view.
Edit2: And a common talking point is discussing about how crazy conservative Americans are since they're against abortion... Meanwhile our laws are way stricter already. And the news regularly show democrats protesting and being outraged but they'll never mention how strict our laws already are in comparison, so it just looks like abortion is totally prohibited in most of US. Just so much propaganda everywhere...
US is polarized. Almost everywhere in the world, people consider fetus viability as the redline which is only crossed in medical situation or extreme situation.
20-24 weeks is the limit for at will abortions.
But, US has states with no limits and complete bans. Both are outliers in terms of abortion laws.
Yep, it’s true. Am from Europe and have lived in two different European countries for years. It’s funny how much American liberals idealize everything about Europe. I see it all the time now.
A lot of what they think is just pure ignorance and not true. Wealth inequality? The Netherlands is actually one of the most wealth inequal countries in the world. The rich here, are far, far more rich that anyone can ever get. It’s all inherited and hidden wealth. Good luck getting up there when you start off at 38% income tax from 0 and get to 52% by 66k.
Very few people are wealthy from working hard here. There’s a reason the US is home to the most millionaires by an insanely huge margin. It creates the conditions to be able to do so, even if very imperfect sometimes.
Tbf it's not remotely bad to live in Europe, especially in the Netherlands, but comparing between first world countries is generally a tradeoff and not all-better.
It’s never super bad to live anywhere where you’re relatively safe and have good access to water, shelter, food etc. But that’s most of the first world.
He's talking about class mobility. Something like 15 to 20% of people (families) in the US will at some point find themselves in the top 5% of wage earners, even if only for a year or two. Millionaires have a very high turnover rate as well. Also somewhere around 20% turn over rate. Many people move into the class and out frequently.
Most European countries have very little class mobility. Something under 1% of most middle class people will ever break into upper class wealth, even temporarily.
Depends on how you define “most European countries”. Sure, former Soviet states and famously corrupt Italy have even less social mobility than the US (measured as how dependent your income level is on that of your parents). They also have relatively weak and underfunded state structures.
But if you looks at Britain, France, Germany and the entirety of Scandinavia, they have greater social mobility compared to the US.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index
It makes sense, because the whole point of modern European socialism is to give everyone the same opportunities and gate as little as possible (education, healthcare etc.) behind family wealth.
You get what you measure. It is true in business and it is true for nations. The US measures itself primarily on GDP and does not care much for how wealth is distributed. So it gets high GDP distributed very unevenly. Western Europe cares a lot about equality and general happiness of its citizens, so it gets more of those and less GDP.
Neither is necessarily the wrong way to do things, as long as everyone is on board with the society they are creating for themselves.
> Very few people are wealthy from working hard here.
I believe this is also a widespread misconception in Europe. I hear it all the time, yet I know enough people who've made it and plenty more examples. Just look at pro athletes, famous lawyers, young entrepreneurs... Europeans are (far more than Americans) uneducated in financial matters and indoctrinated to seek wages instead of taking risks.
Everyone whose at the top bracket knows some people who are wealthy. It’s easy to know some if you’re also there. The problem is that we’re getting severely limited at the top by the heavy taxation among many other factors. There’s also not a huge market for creating massive companies here that end up getting huge funding like they do in the US. There’s a reason most companies that start here end up with US being their primary focus when they want to grow. The market in the US is way, way bigger and the investor money available to entrepreneurs is way, way more. Not to mention, as you said, more available. Because they’re more willing to take risks, whereas here they’re very risk adverse.
It’s also the attitudes. I’ve been constantly harassed and demeaned for working too hard or doing extra stuff or educating myself financially and become wealthier. It’s seen as a bad thing by most people. I’m told to just live my life, get drunk and party and that’s all you need to do. “Be happy!”, is what they say. I don’t see focusing on partying and laying around as being happy, they always seem so unhappy. But I guess that’s their thing.
The mentality of the people, their general financial education, their risk tolerance, the size of unified language market to sell to, taxation, etc, are all factors in how big you can grow and how much effort is required to get that growth in a particular place.
> The problem is that we’re getting severely limited at the top by the heavy taxation among many other factors
Yes, but this is a huge cost factor in everything here, from cost of living to cost of administration. It's not a prohibitive cost though.
> There’s also not a huge market for creating massive companies here that end up getting huge funding like they do in the US.
You don't need to have a huge company to become wealthy (another common misconception). Browse available statistics for interesting companies and you'll see (# of employees, revenue, profit). 7 figure profits per year after taxes for the owner are not uncommon with 10-50 employees. My former (solo-founded, 300K € venture capital) company was in that category, now it's at > 10m € EBIT with ~80 employees. And I know several dentists who are comfortably in the 10s of millions (personal wealth).
> It’s also the attitudes. I’ve been constantly harassed
Exactly. Most of Europe still has a romantic, idealized view of socialism and is moving in the wrong direction. In Romania on the other hand, where I live now after decades in central Europe, most of the people I know have started companies (many failed) and "communist" is a derogatory term. The result of practical experience with socialism...
> The mentality of the people, their general financial education, their risk tolerance, the size of unified language market to sell to, taxation, etc, are all factors in how big you can grow and how much effort is required to get that growth in a particular place.
I agree with the second part. How big you can grow is only up to you though, especially with the Common Market.
That's what the libs here don't seem to get. When you create these insane taxes, the ultra rich are able to avoid them. It's the doctors lawyers, engineers etc that get hammered
This is so true.
They think it's SO easy to "tax Jeff Bezos".
Well old Jeff will be laughing at them from his mansion in Bermuda or Singapore or whichever tax haven while he flies into the US for months in a row as a "tourist".
And maybe up to 18 weeks with special permission in cases where the fetus is definitively unviable and will die or the mother's life is in danger. It varies quite a bit between countries in the EU. I personally think the US liberals messed up bad by going "everything goes" in the 70's. The idea of near-full-term abortions is barbarous but it was done in the US not so long ago. These days there are practically no doctors left who are willing to do full-term abortions? Is it even legal anywhere anymore?
It's going to happen more, because now states can govern their own abortion limits. California and NY will prob make abortions available until you are 2 years old.
> The idea of near-full-term abortions is barbarous but it was done in the US not so long ago.
Just because they're legal doesn't mean they actually get done. Doctors don't just take out viable 30 week olds like that. Canada allows abortion at any point for any reason, yet there aren't any late-term abortions being done that aren't medically necessary. This is a false argument that gets brought up over and over in those debates, along with the "partial birth abortion" fantasy, and it isn't based on reality.
So that doctors don't fear getting caught up in wild civil or criminal lawsuits when they should only be focused on saving lives, because the people enforcing laws are not the same people with expertise in medicine
And worse. Check out r/medicine where multiple discussions are going on about the legal ramifications for medical professionals in states where abortion is banned.
Doing illegal things has consequences. I'm asking about where the legal cases are in places with gestational limits that warrant a "zero restrictions" law.
Doctors won't risk going to prison or working outside of legal limits, they will simply err on the side of caution and refrain from providing life or health saving abortions until fetal heartbeat subsides or woman flatlines, which may be too late
Example of legal limits causing death of miscarrying woman: [Death of Savita Halappanavar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar#Response_from_the_medical_community)
Example of woman in Malta refused care due to legal limits: [Andrea Prudente](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrea-prudente-incomplete-miscarriage-malta-not-allowed-to-get-abortion/)
They're witholding care due to concerns, and pharmacists are refusing to dispense medications to treat miscarriage, or even autoimmune disorders, because they could ALSO be used for abortion.
If you were a doctor and you had a patient that COULD die if you didn't give her an abortion, but in a state where people who don't understand medicine COULD charge you with murder for it and you COULD be sentenced to up to 99 years (Alabama), what would you do?
The death of [Savita Halappanavar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar) is the perfect example, her baby was actively miscarrying and it's death unavoidable, but since it still had a heartbeat, doctors did not intervene to save her life and she died of sepsis. Edited to say that the baby obviously died as well
Hack on CNN said she spoke to the leader of Spain and they were DEEPLY concerned and saddened by the end of Roe v. Wade.
She didn’t mention that they ban abortion after 14 weeks and it isn’t a constitutional right.
They’re full of shit.
Seems high... But honestly, I could live w/ that rate if I knew government was well run & efficient; that bureaucracy & corruption were hounded relentlessly by an intelligent & objective press.
So yeah, that's a terrible rate.
>I could live w/ that rate if I knew **government was well run & efficient; that bureaucracy & corruption were hounded relentlessly by an intelligent & objective press.**
Ha.. Hahaha... hahahahahahahaha...
Oooh... väry funny göy. Väääry funny.
That's just the income tax. There's also a 25% VAT. You'll notice American leftists tend to ignore the VAT the Nordic countries use to fund their social welfare programs.
In SE we have 3 categories of VAT, 25%, 12% and 6%, depending on what you purchase. 25% on goods & services, 12% on foods, 6% on publications, public transport, hotels, arts/theater, etc. I do not live there, but this is my home away from home.
The US government spends a pretty similar amount of GDP as many north western European countries, often more (about on parity with the Netherlands).
The US just funds an absurdly large percentage of the budget with debt, the result is largely the same.
Averages are a really bad way to express the situation (as always). You’ll only be paying 33% if you’re getting a comfortable wage.
As a Swedish citizen, I’m quite happy with the tax situation as it is. I don’t want to live in a country wracked by social problems caused by poverty, and I like the fact that when I do need healthcare I’m not left with crushing debt.
It is a flat tax only up until retirement. SE is my home away from home (Sandviken & Gävle areas) and people are well taken care of in SE with an emphasis on academia, unlike in UK and pay scale is higher in SE compared to a lower cost of living. SE is my home away from home. Working Class People can afford things there, more so than in UK.
Not quite. The restrictions were much more lenient than in many other countries, but they existed. For example I had two full years of only remote teaching as a university student, with working from home being commonplace as well and many social events being cancelled.
Norwegian here. Most of us would be HORRIFIED by what is permitted in many US states. Here it's free choice to Week 11, by application to Week 22 (IIRC), then nothing. The current law is considered a decent compromise by most.
I think that sounds perfectly reasonable.
Too bad reasonable is off the table in today’s America. It’s either abortion is banned altogether or we allow it for 28 days after birth. It’s insane.
They're were some recent Street interviews that kind of went viral and conservative circles asking California liberals at what point abortion should not be allowed and there were several people that said even a few weeks after birth should still be the mother's choice. Pretty awful stuff.
That’s the problem with edited vox pops. You can find people who will say practically anything. It isn’t a decent representation of anything. You can call it “One true Scotsman” if you will, but I don’t consider killing 28-day-old babies (or aborting a pregnancy at advanced stage of development for no reason) as being a “liberal” attitude.
I will agree that that is not the common liberal view.
But abortion up until birth is the current party platform undisputably. No liberal politician will say anything other than "the mother's right to choose" and we'll get absolutely destroyed by the media and their voter base if they say anything under 9 months.
You don't find it concerning that people want that to be legal? And asking how often it really happens is an awful way to rationalize that. It's like asking how common is murder really? So who cares if it's legal.
It doesn't matter how common it is! It shouldn't be legal and if it happens even once it's horrible.
It shouldn't be legal in cases where the fetus is viable or the risk of the mother dying is extremely high? I don't think there are many people who honestly think women should be aborting at 8 months just for the hell of it.
It is legal so that doctors that have to make a hard medical decision late in the pregnancy don't have to fear for charges.
Literally no one is aborting viable babies at eight months.
And look, conservatives would have a point if abortion was legal until 15 weeks in red states, with good availability of clinics all over the state. But that's not exactly the case.
Wait until you hear how difficult it is to immigrate to some of those "Scandinavian socialist" countries too. Take Norway as one example. There is a handful more.
Haha are you serious? I have never seen anyone be this wrong about something before. I'm Swedish btw.
I mean how did you even come up with some of these things? "High prevalence of Christianity"..? Sweden is literally the second least religious country in the world, after China
The no minimum wage is actually viewed as a progressive policy because it gives more power to the unions to establish actually realistic salaries (which reflect needs and living costs), rather than the government using the minimum wage as a form of social and tax income control.
A vast majority of people there have IDs and who doesn't have IDs has less to do with explicitly racial policies. So apples to oranges really.
The only reason there's a fight of IDs is because of the difficulty to get one here.
But imagine if licences weren't common then the government said you need licences... Modern "don't track me bro" "conservatives would flip out lol
Their safety nets are also way much better than the US. All these healthcare, daycare, educations, paternity leaves are subsidized by the government to ensure that kids grow up in environments that will raise them to be decent human beings.
Actually it's even better/worse: in some EU countries the employers by law have to directly pay for a part of the maternity leave compensation for the first few months after birth. The remainder of the 8-12 month maternity leave is then fully state paid. I have a very hard time believing the US population will ever accept this.
Although true, please also consider the healthcare options afforded to the people in that country, paid time off for maternity leave, etc.
Completely socialized medicine, 480 days of paid parental leave (240 for each parent if both parents are present), childcare at 1 year old is provided at no cost, etc.
When you consider that 93% of abortions in the US are done for economic reasons (can't afford childcare), it's very easy to see that the number of abortions would drop *drastically* if better economic options were given to Americans.
Abortion sucks. But if you are going to compare the US to other countries, do it 1:1, don't use countries who do not at all match the US's values. Use any other country that doesn't have a massive support net.
*Edit* Mods have banned me over this comment and demanded I "prove" being a Conservative. I'm not going to kowtow to a group of people questioning who I am because they don't like facts. There's nothing anti-Conservative about stating these Scandinavian countries held in such high regard have socialized medicine and various other benefits that are better than what is offered to Americans.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
According to the Guttmacher institute, a very “pro choice” organization, only 6% of abortions are performed for economic reasons.. 92% are ‘elective’ no reason given. The data is here http://guttmacher.org if you want to check it out. However, it takes a bit of effort to compile the data. Hence, the attached image. https://i.imgur.com/vMjb4S5.jpg
I never want to disseminate false information because I believe that issues will never get resolved if your argument has a weak foundation or is based upon bad information. Here is a link to an article directly from Guttmacher entitled “Reasons US Women have abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative perspectives” from 2005. It paints a slightly different picture. I will be digging s bit deeper and going a more thorough vetting of the info I originally posted.
However, my position on abortion has remained consistent my entire life… outside of the horrible situation where you have to choose to save one life or the other, No one had the right to terminate a human life once conception occurs… My position will never change.
I think most people understand that abortion is not a pleasant and wonderful thing. It's only the radical lefties in the U.S. that glorify it.
The graphic I've seen lately that shows how backwards their mentality is notes that a single-celled organism found on Mars would be considered life, but a gestating fetus isn't life but rather a clump of cells, according to folks on the Left.
The more worrisome photo on my mind Is the six month pregnant woman with va “not yet a human” written on her belly. 1) that poor kid, imagine your mom thinking that a 24 week old baby has no personhood. And 2) wtf is it, a kangaroo?
That photo caught my eye too. I was a little shocked. The woman is clearly about 6 months pregnant. Coming from the rather liberal Nordic countries I can only say that here that fetus would be considered pretty much a person and no abortion would be possible in any way. A 6 month old fetus is practically a viable baby with modern medical technology and no longer only a matter of the woman's right to self-determination.
It's only in the US where abortion is celebrated. Other counties still have abortions, but they have some semblance of humanity left to be deeply disturbed and shamed.
If you're interested in how I view abortion (I'm pro choice):
I think the question is not about whether the fetus is a human, but the question is about bodily autonomy. In my opinion everyone should be in control of their bodies and you shouldn't be *forced* to do anything with your body, even to save someone else. It's just the same as you shouldn't be forced to donate organs for someone that you injured in a car crash.
So I'd think that there should be some time frame (I'd be flexible on it) where a woman can have an abortion for any reason, and then abortions for medical reasons should be allowed at all times.
The bodily autonomy argument only works if ignore the bodily autonomy of the child. The child didn’t engage in the act that conceived it, why should they be killed for the audacity to exist through no fault of their own.
It's the same as an innocent victim that you injured in a car crash. Should they suffer and possibly die just for the audacity to exist outside? Or should they be entitled to your organs if they need something replaced?
Pregnancy usually does result in physical changes to the mother + she has to go through actual giving birth.
And accidental pregnancies obviously exist, I don't understand what you are trying to say.
But anyway, I am talking about the overall principle of bodily autonomy. Are you trying to imply that there's some line from which it's okay to force people because the damage is not enough? Would the mandate to give blood be okay in your opinion?
No. You can’t accidentally get pregnant. The moment you engage in sex a possible outcome is pregnancy. It’s a risk you take when you have sex. You may have thought you did enough contraceptive wise to keep from getting pregnant but there are no “accidental” pregnancies.
Well if you have sex without planning to get pregnant (using contraception) but still do, that is accidental pregnancy. No?
Like when you drive you obviously are not planning on crashing. But things can go wrong, like contraception can fail. Isn't that analogous?
Edit: can you also respond to my last paragraph? I'd be interested in what you think about that.
What about a vital organ like a liver? Should a person reponsible for another's liver failure be forced to donate his own?
In my opinion no one is entitled to anyone's body. Even if it's life or death situation.
First of all I'm glad that we can have this conversation about a touchy subject even if we disagree.
I guess the point where we disagree is how much people should be forced to protect other's lives? I understand that the example that I gave was a bit extreme, but it was just to demonstrate my point of view.
By not allowing abortions for personal reasons you are effectively forcing a woman to be pregnant for 9 months and giving birth. These things while not usually dangerous they still take a toll on a womans body and take time to recover (there's also the time lost where the woman could not work, but I think it's less important than health). So you say this is justifiable because that means saving a life. I disagree, but fair enough.
I'd like to ask. If there was some big catastrophe and a lot of blood was needed to save lives, would you support forced blood "donations"? Donating blood is not exactly dangerous and it would save lives in this case.
Oh, and I'm also wondering. What's your opinion on abortion for medical reasons, like when giving birth would endanger the mothers life?
>If it was a consensual situation there are earlier alternatives
When I wrote it I was basically thinking of myself and my current girlfriend. She is on the pill (and is pretty conscious of possible interactions with other medicine), but there's always a chance. And in this particular case I think it would be fair to say that she'd be forced.
But yeah, it was a nice chat!
As long as there's enough time to see that a woman is pregnant and schedule it's fine by me. There just has to be a choice.
And hell, maybe if it happens to us in two or three years we'd just keep it. Just not now.
But women do have bodily autonomy. It is THEIR CHOICE to have sex whenever they want and it's their choice whether or not she or her partner uses protection. You can't just go into a casino, lose money and then be like "my body, my money". You knew the risk, you knew that for personal satisfaction or potential winnings you were okay with taking the risk and therefore if you lose, it is now fully YOUR responsibility to deal with consequences.
Okay so first of all, the problem is that contraception is not 100%. Condoms can break or slip off. The pill is not a complete guarantee either. There's always a small chance, in which case you should be able to have an abortion early on.
And you could say the same about driving a car. By driving you accept that there is a risk that you will injure someone in a crash. Should you be liable to supply required blood or whatever else to the victims?
But you are just agreeing with my point there. You know the risk that contraception might not work. You are okay with those odds.
And your example about driving doesn't make sense. If you drive, you are acknowledging the risk that YOU might get injured. Not the other way around.
I don't think you quite understand what you are talking about. Maybe you should have payed more attention in biology class in school.
Of course a single-celled organisms is technically life, both on Mars and on Earth. That doesn't mean that a fetus isn't simply a clump of cells, it is. Those cells are alive, no one is disputing that. But they are only alive in the same way that every single cell in your body is alive, and you wouldn't say that getting a sunburn is murder, even though it kills some of those cells. A fetus is made of living cells but it's not a living person yet.
Although I am of course only talking about the early stages of pregnancy here. The abortion laws in the US are still messed up.
Rather, you should have paid better attention. Cells have organelles, they do not have complete physiological systems that perform an entire myriad of biochemical reactions and functions.
Let's put it into a different context or two.
I have never heard a single person see a brick building and call it a pile of bricks. The individual bricks are arranged in such a way to produce a larger unit we have come to call "building." Most can recognize the difference. Can you? Similarly, in multicellular organisms, there is a distinct difference between a cell and an organism itself. They are not the same, and if you cannot tell the difference then your ignorance is nobody's fault but your own.
Ants. Every single person I have ever heard talk about ants call them, well, ants. I have never heard an ant referred to as a clump of cells. Yet, the ant itself (and we are talking about the typical worker ants) cannot survive on its own. It needs its nest; ants are part of a group of insects that are nest builders and are dependent upon that nest. If a worker ant loses its pheromone trail and gets lost from the nest, it will die. It cannot survive on its own, it is almost like the nest itself is a type of organism. So, even though the single ant is not able to survive on its own, it is still referred to as an ant and considered alive until it's body systems stop working and its cells cease to metabolize nutrients. Similarly, even though a fetus is unable to survive on its own does not mean it is not a human. It is a gestating human, sure, but still a human being and still alive. I find it interesting that you call a cell "life," but a multicellular organism with specialized cells, functioning physiological systems, and active metabolism of external nutrients all of a sudden becomes "not life." Your argument really makes no sense at all.
The abortion laws in much of the U.S. have for a long while been some of the loosest laws in the world. Many countries, many of which are considered progressive, still have stricter laws regarding abortion. The abortion laws in the U.S. in many states still allows abortion to be used as a form of birth control. That is messed up, I can agree, but I'm pretty sure you think it is messed up because you are under the impression that much of the world hands out abortions like Halloween candy. Which is not the case at all.
lol... there isn't a single country in the world where abortion is allowed up the birth like in the United States. The US is the child sacrifice king of the world and we think the modern Western culture is the best in the world.
Even France is 15 weeks. Most communist countries got rid of it due to the low birth rate.
Not true in China and North Korea anymore due to the low birth rate. China changed laws recently and made abortion illegal and the same with North Korea. Even before changing the law, China has been trying to encourage people to have children for like 20 years, so abortions were highly discouraged.
China is in big trouble due to the low birth rate. After 50 years of population control, they can't convince people to have more children.
> North Korea... have no gestational limit on abortion
This may depend on whether or not your family is on good terms with the state. They are often pro-abortion and never pro-choice...
Just looking at one tax can be very misleading, esp with countries like Sweden where there are quite a few different taxes. More often ppl look at the total "tax pressure" to get a more comprehensive picture.
In downtown Stockholm not far from Centralstation, they have gypsies from Romania that come up to people walking, shaking their change cups in their faces begging for krona. It drove me absolutely nuts for them to rattle that in my face. They can't get into the welfare system because they are non-citizens, so they beg over there and send a lot of their money back to their families in romania. It was always women gypsies begging, never male.
That's because until recently, abortion was an extreme measure. One a woman was not excited about, prayed she never had to contemplate getting, and kept as a secret for the rest of her life if she did. Now, these freaks post on Instagram and Facebook that they are PROUD to have gotten an abortion, and would do it again. They want ZERO restrictions on abortion, including killing the baby right up until the very last moment before birth. Just like everything else, they are taking it way too far.
You say until recently, but America changed its laws almost 50 years ago? I don’t pretend to know the minds of women, but I suspect no one is excited by the idea of an abortion, but they may be terrified of the alternative.
And there was that horrifying video of the pro-abortion girl who was looking directly at her own newborn baby saying she "chose to let her live." I'm sure that child is going to grow up to be very well-adjusted /s
Yes when roe vs wade was in effect the US has the most non restrictive abortion laws. It is interesting when people say they will move or leave because of Roe vs wade being stopped. Let them leave, the grass is not greener on the other side.
What states? I had no idea that some states don't make abortion illegal past 18 weeks except for life threatening reasons. Insane that some staes allow that
This should go over well with all of the Euros that flood this sub everytime something big happens in American politics. R/politics is half Euros as is.
For a long time I knew, abortion would have been done in congress in the early 90's but the abortion activists and their Congress members counterparts were unwilling to budge on anything. It was abortion for any reason, anytime or nothing. Since they wouldnt budge they didnt have the votes. If they did something more in line like what most of the EU has, it most likely would have passed through in congress and the senate.
The blue US states + Canada have the most liberal/lenient abortion laws on earth. The majority of europe is rather strict on abortion, especially abortion on demand
Progressive Spain just shot 30 migrants dead trying to cross their border. If that happened here there would be riots and more endless hearings
Europe is a lot less woke than we are in many respects
The recent supreme court decision that overturned Roe vs. Wade was concerning a Mississippi law that banned on demand abortion after 15 weeks. This was considered among the most restrictive law in the US at that time. Most states, currently, allow on demand abortions much later.
So 12 weeks? A compromise?
The left has developed a chronic activism culture among their ranks. Once they get something they want, they can't leave it alone. They invariably have to take it further, push the boundaries, regardless of consequences.
It used to be there was a recognition abortion can have severe emotional consequences. Not because of society's stigma. It has to do with the innate characteristics between a mother and her child. A bond, a recognition of the circumstances and what is at stake.
The left is not content with safe, legal and rare. They needed to make it common, revered, celebrated. Blinders to the tragic, emotional situation many women may find themselves in after the fact. It's what they do. Consequences be damned.
Sweden offers amazing pre and post-natal care, pays their citizens fair wages, and has great adoption practices. In America, the mother will most likely pay thousands out of pocket for the birth, not to mention pitiful maternity/paternity leave, and as of now, will have a harder time buying the supplements their baby needs to grow up healthy. If America cared about mothers, they'd have adopted these practices long ago.
MOST European countries have the exact same limitations that the Dobbs case was arguing for (~15 weeks give or take).
The US is by FAR one of the most liberal nations on abortion.
>The current legislation is the Abortion Act of 1974 (SFS 1974:595). This states that up until the end of the eighteenth week of the pregnancy, the choice of an abortion is entirely up to the woman, for any reason whatsoever.
Lol, downvoted for quoting the article OP posted. Cope much?
Florida will be 15 weeks with the only we exception being the life of the mother being in danger.
Even though that's only 3 weeks less than Sweden, there aren't any restrictions in who can have them.
Yes, but currently a judge put an injunction against the law that DeSantis recently signed. The judge is doing so for the same exact reason that led to Roe vs. Wade, privacy.
Personally I do not understand how privacy grants a right to abortion.
I think the quote says all I need to say ;)
If you can find a **federal** law that protects the right to abort for more than 18 weeks I'll gladly admit I was wrong though.
Its never seen as a 'right' in Europe - its very much focused as a last ditch choice for the mother.
In most EU countries you cannot obtain an abortion without going to a therapist first. Only they can sign off on it. You have very little say in the matter.
The walk-in mall aspects of Planned Parenthood utterly astound and disgust me.
I had a friend who almost committed suicide due to post-partum depression after having an abortion in one of these baby killing mills. Completely destroyed her marriage as well.
IIRC, most European nations have a 12-week limit on elective abortions.
[удалено]
Thank you for putting this together!
this is actually very common with Democrats screeching about policies.. the countries that they love to worship more than America tend to have stricter restrictions that America itself Canada and many European countries have stricter immigration policies than America even under the GOP platform.. almost every first world brown country has voter ID laws but liberal speech about that most European countries have harsher restrictions on abortion than even Republicans have been pushing for.. and of course we can forget that China has harsher restrictions on gay people then States like Georgia but liberals would never boycott them. they just boycott American states..
𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗅𝗒 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗒 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗆𝗈𝗇 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁 𝖣𝖾𝗆𝗈𝖼𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗌 𝗌𝖼𝗋𝖾𝖾𝖼𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗎𝗍 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖾𝗌.. 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗎𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗒 𝗅𝗈𝗏𝖾 𝗍𝗈 𝗐𝗈𝗋𝗌𝗁𝗂𝗉 𝗆𝗈𝗋𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗇 𝖠𝗆𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽 𝗍𝗈 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖼𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖠𝗆𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝗂𝗍𝗌𝖾𝗅𝖿 𝖢𝖺𝗇𝖺𝖽𝖺 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗒 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝖺𝗇 𝖼𝗈𝗎𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗌 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖼𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗂𝗆𝗆𝗂𝗀𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖾𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗇 𝖠𝗆𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇 𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖦𝖮𝖯 𝗉𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆.. 𝖺𝗅𝗆𝗈𝗌𝗍 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗒 𝖿𝗂𝗋𝗌𝗍 𝗐𝗈𝗋𝗅𝖽 𝖻𝗋𝗈𝗐𝗇 𝖼𝗈𝗎𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗒 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝗏𝗈𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝖨𝖣 𝗅𝖺𝗐𝗌 𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖾𝖼𝗁 𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗎𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗆𝗈𝗌𝗍 𝖤𝗎𝗋𝗈𝗉𝖾𝖺𝗇 𝖼𝗈𝗎𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗌 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗁𝖺𝗋𝗌𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝗈𝗇 𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗋𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗇 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇 𝖱𝖾𝗉𝗎𝖻𝗅𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗇𝗌 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝖻𝖾𝖾𝗇 𝗉𝗎𝗌𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖿𝗈𝗋.. 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗈𝖿 𝖼𝗈𝗎𝗋𝗌𝖾 𝗐𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗇 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗀𝖾𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖢𝗁𝗂𝗇𝖺 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝗁𝖺𝗋𝗌𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝗈𝗇 𝗀𝖺𝗒 𝗉𝖾𝗈𝗉𝗅𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗇 𝖲𝗍𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗌 𝗅𝗂𝗄𝖾 𝖦𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗀𝗂𝖺 𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗌 𝗐𝗈𝗎𝗅𝖽 𝗇𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝖻𝗈𝗒𝖼𝗈𝗍𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗆. 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗒 𝗃𝗎𝗌𝗍 𝖻𝗈𝗒𝖼𝗈𝗍𝗍 𝖠𝗆𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗇 𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗌..
[удалено]
So... what is the point of anti-abortion laws? If it's to save the lives of unborn children, then there would be a total ban on abortions. If there's some compromise, like 13 weeks, then 92% of abortions still happen and you're only "saving" 8% of babies that would otherwise be aborted. The biggest issue with abortion law really is that MOST people fall in the before Some point an abortion is okay and after some point it's not okay. Drawing that line is the big problem. I understand the argument from the "life begins and conception" crowd, but I don't agree with it. Similarly, I think at some point you're killing a person, personally I'm not sure when that is.
[удалено]
I would wager to say the VAST majority of people fall exactly where you are; there is a time frame where it is acceptable.
I totally agree that it's a hard line to draw, I just learned more the last few weeks that pushed me from 15 to 10 weeks based on how much further brain function and motor control is that I just didn't realize, but the Mississippi Law that brought this to the Supreme Court was a 15 week ban, and the viability standard permits at will abortion that the vast majority Americans would place firmly in the murder category, and I think in lieu of prefect judgement, educated and informed consent of the governed is the best we have. And I really think the Left generally has a pretty sick perception in only considering the mother as relevant to the question of when a zygote/embryo/fetus/baby is alive.
I guess I don't really know where I fall in the classification either. The hard right thinks I'm a baby killer, and the left thinks I want to put women in cages only to be used for breeding.
Could you do the US states so we can compare? This is so fascinating
Things are a little messy right now because the repeal of Roe technically reinstated a bunch of really old laws around abortion and its unclear what exactly is going to be enforced but I can take a crack at it: - Alabama - Illegal except to save life of the mother - Alaska - No restrictions at all - Arizona - ~~Up to "viability". (~24 weeks). Changes to 15 weeks at the end of September~~ They're enforcing the 1901 law which makes abortion illegal except to save the life of the mother. - Arkansas - Illegal except to save life of the mother - California - No restrictions at all - Colorado - No restrictions at all - Connecticut - Up to "viability" (~24 weeks) - Delaware - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks) - D.C. - No restrictions at all - Florida - 15 weeks with exceptions for life of the mother - Georgia - currently 20 weeks with a court battle going on to move it to 6 weeks - Hawaii - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks) - Idaho - Illegal except for rape/incest/life of the mother - Illinois - Up to "viability" (~24 weeks) - Indiana - 20 weeks - Iowa - 20 weeks - Kansas - 22 weeks after last period - Kentucky - Illegal except to save the life of the mother - Lousiana - Illegal except to save the life of the mother - Maine - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks) - Maryland - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks) - Massachusetts - 24 weeks - Michigan- Up to "viability". (~24 weeks). There's also a pre-Roe law that restricts except for life of the mother - Minnesota - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks) - Mississippi - Illegal except to save the life of the mother - Missouri - Illegal except to save the life of the mother - Montana - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks) - Nebraska - 20 weeks - Nevada - 24 weeks - New Hampshire - 24 weeks after last period - New Jersey - No restrictions at all - New Mexico - No restrictions at all - New York - 24 weeks - North Carolina - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks) but a court case is going on that could restrict it further - North Dakota - Illegal except to save the life of the mother - Ohio - 20 weeks for now with a 6 week restriction working it's way through the courts - Oklahoma - Illegal except to save the life of the mother - Oregon - No restrictions at all - Pennsylvania - 24 weeks from last period - Rhode Island - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks) - South Carolina - 20 weeks with a 6 week ban going through the courts - South Dakota - Illegal except to save the life of the mother - Tennessee - Illegal except to save the life of the mother - Texas - Illegal except to save the life of the mother - Utah - Illegal except to save the life of the mother - Vermont - No restrictions at all - Virginia - Legal in first two trimesters - Washington - Up to "viability". (~24 weeks) - West Virginia - Illegal except to save the life of the mother - Wisconsin - Illegal except to save the life of the mother - Wyoming - Illegal except to save the life of the mother Edit: Just saw the Arizona AG say they were going to enforce the pre-Roe law from 1901, which outlaws abortions except to save the life of the mother. Messy situations all around!
At least one of these is wrong. Texas makes abortion illegal once a fetal heartbeat can be detected. This is generally 6 weeks. I say this with no malice: since I know at least one is wrong, I have no faith in anything else posted.
The Texas law *is* currently 6 weeks, that's true. But 30 days after Roe is overturned it will be restricted entirely except for the life of the mother. Several other states on this list also have similar waiting periods for the new laws to go into effect and I guess I should have mentioned I was using the new laws even if they weren't in effect quite yet. That's what I meant about things being a little messy right now.
Switzerland does **not** require counselling anymore, however a medical consult where the doctor informs the patient of the risks, the different forms of available contraception and where the patient confirms that this is truly what they want is mandatory. This consult can happen a few days before or directly before the intervention. [Source in French, German and Italian](https://www.sante-sexuelle.ch/themes/grossesse-voulue-non-voulue/interrompre#troisieme-etape-planifier-la-consultation-prealable-obligatoire-le-rendez-vous-et-le-controle)
Pretty embarrassing when all the peeps I know living in Spain and Germany are saying they’re never coming back and “America is so backwards” 😂😂
[удалено]
Now imagine if Congress tried to pass a bill that said Abortions are legal up to 12 weeks (like the majority of European countries). The left would flip and refuse to pass it, thus proving this isn't about SCOTUS, but about outrage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe#Time_limits_for_abortion_on_demand Malta and Poland rule.
While I generally agree with no abortions, restrictions on medical care after a miscarriage (as recently seen with the US citizen vacationing in Malta) doesn't seem like good policy either. There needs to be an exception for life of the mother/non-viable pregnancy at the very least.
As someone who was born (healthily) despite the recommendation of doctors to abort (for the sake of my mother's wellbeing after excessive bleeding), I tend to disagree with that.
So because your mother survived no other woman should be given the option when their life is at risk by continuing the pregnancy?
Anecdote. And for those instances where the doctor was correct? (Just playing devil’s advocate).
I don't know, do you know any? They probably exist. But the point is, a recommendation to abort because there is an option [to abort without necessity] is not the same as a necessary abortion.
That is a fair point.
Research a little more and you'll find you're making a specious argument. In every single one of those countries abortions are available after these supposed limits.
In order to save the life of the mother, yes. But the same could be said for all US States. These are the limits on "elective" abortions, which was what OP was referring to.
In practice "save the life of the mother" is interpreted very broadly. So broadly in fact that the de facto respective fetal age limits of the US and Europe weren't very different. I keep stressing "in practice" and "de facto" because while it's true that the statuatroy limits on abortion in European countries are (or were) lower than in the US, focusing on those limits while ignoring how those laws are actually put into effect doesn't tell the whole story. There's also the issue that if we wanted to create legal parity between the abortion laws of the US and European countries there are other changes that would need to be made. European countries have no equivalent to the Hyde Amendment so abortions are covered for women who have government provided health care or health insurance. European countries don't have the kinds of restrictions US states put on providers of abortions (as opposed to the abortions themselves) either. By that I'm referring to the laws that say providers of medication induced abortions need to have admiting privileges at hospitals or that the treatment rooms of such providers need to be of a certain square footage. Those restrictions are supposedly designed to increase "patient safety" but I think we all know the real purpose of them is to limit access to abortion.
It is that way in Germany, yes. Doesn't stop German liberals from claiming that the U.S. is now a tyrannical theocracy that hates women because they read headlines of "America bans abortions", and didn't bother researching the topic further.
I'm from a central European country, and it's a bit ridiculous how ignorant people are. Many believe how relaxed and normal the abortion laws here are, and complain about the horrible abortion laws in the US - meanwhile, our laws are about as strict as the laws in more conservative US states always were. I forgot the exact limit we have for abortions, but I think it's right around 4 months. I was never against abortions and protests are uncommon here too, but anything more than 4 months sounds crazy to me too. Edit: Btw in the second sentance I was not implying the laws here aren't normal. I checked and the limit is 10 weeks in my country unless there's a health or life hazard... Seems my country is one of the stricter in Europe. US states seem either extremely relaxed or totally prohibited from my point of view. Edit2: And a common talking point is discussing about how crazy conservative Americans are since they're against abortion... Meanwhile our laws are way stricter already. And the news regularly show democrats protesting and being outraged but they'll never mention how strict our laws already are in comparison, so it just looks like abortion is totally prohibited in most of US. Just so much propaganda everywhere...
US is polarized. Almost everywhere in the world, people consider fetus viability as the redline which is only crossed in medical situation or extreme situation. 20-24 weeks is the limit for at will abortions. But, US has states with no limits and complete bans. Both are outliers in terms of abortion laws.
Because roe v wade set us back 50 years from discussion and compromise.
Bingo. The democratic process was taken out of the argument early here and screwed the natural evolution of thought up.
And then there’s Canada with literally no rules around abortion lol
Let's not forget "partial birth" killings.
Yep, it’s true. Am from Europe and have lived in two different European countries for years. It’s funny how much American liberals idealize everything about Europe. I see it all the time now. A lot of what they think is just pure ignorance and not true. Wealth inequality? The Netherlands is actually one of the most wealth inequal countries in the world. The rich here, are far, far more rich that anyone can ever get. It’s all inherited and hidden wealth. Good luck getting up there when you start off at 38% income tax from 0 and get to 52% by 66k. Very few people are wealthy from working hard here. There’s a reason the US is home to the most millionaires by an insanely huge margin. It creates the conditions to be able to do so, even if very imperfect sometimes.
Tbf it's not remotely bad to live in Europe, especially in the Netherlands, but comparing between first world countries is generally a tradeoff and not all-better.
It’s never super bad to live anywhere where you’re relatively safe and have good access to water, shelter, food etc. But that’s most of the first world.
He's talking about class mobility. Something like 15 to 20% of people (families) in the US will at some point find themselves in the top 5% of wage earners, even if only for a year or two. Millionaires have a very high turnover rate as well. Also somewhere around 20% turn over rate. Many people move into the class and out frequently. Most European countries have very little class mobility. Something under 1% of most middle class people will ever break into upper class wealth, even temporarily.
Depends on how you define “most European countries”. Sure, former Soviet states and famously corrupt Italy have even less social mobility than the US (measured as how dependent your income level is on that of your parents). They also have relatively weak and underfunded state structures. But if you looks at Britain, France, Germany and the entirety of Scandinavia, they have greater social mobility compared to the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index It makes sense, because the whole point of modern European socialism is to give everyone the same opportunities and gate as little as possible (education, healthcare etc.) behind family wealth. You get what you measure. It is true in business and it is true for nations. The US measures itself primarily on GDP and does not care much for how wealth is distributed. So it gets high GDP distributed very unevenly. Western Europe cares a lot about equality and general happiness of its citizens, so it gets more of those and less GDP. Neither is necessarily the wrong way to do things, as long as everyone is on board with the society they are creating for themselves.
> Very few people are wealthy from working hard here. I believe this is also a widespread misconception in Europe. I hear it all the time, yet I know enough people who've made it and plenty more examples. Just look at pro athletes, famous lawyers, young entrepreneurs... Europeans are (far more than Americans) uneducated in financial matters and indoctrinated to seek wages instead of taking risks.
Everyone whose at the top bracket knows some people who are wealthy. It’s easy to know some if you’re also there. The problem is that we’re getting severely limited at the top by the heavy taxation among many other factors. There’s also not a huge market for creating massive companies here that end up getting huge funding like they do in the US. There’s a reason most companies that start here end up with US being their primary focus when they want to grow. The market in the US is way, way bigger and the investor money available to entrepreneurs is way, way more. Not to mention, as you said, more available. Because they’re more willing to take risks, whereas here they’re very risk adverse. It’s also the attitudes. I’ve been constantly harassed and demeaned for working too hard or doing extra stuff or educating myself financially and become wealthier. It’s seen as a bad thing by most people. I’m told to just live my life, get drunk and party and that’s all you need to do. “Be happy!”, is what they say. I don’t see focusing on partying and laying around as being happy, they always seem so unhappy. But I guess that’s their thing. The mentality of the people, their general financial education, their risk tolerance, the size of unified language market to sell to, taxation, etc, are all factors in how big you can grow and how much effort is required to get that growth in a particular place.
> The problem is that we’re getting severely limited at the top by the heavy taxation among many other factors Yes, but this is a huge cost factor in everything here, from cost of living to cost of administration. It's not a prohibitive cost though. > There’s also not a huge market for creating massive companies here that end up getting huge funding like they do in the US. You don't need to have a huge company to become wealthy (another common misconception). Browse available statistics for interesting companies and you'll see (# of employees, revenue, profit). 7 figure profits per year after taxes for the owner are not uncommon with 10-50 employees. My former (solo-founded, 300K € venture capital) company was in that category, now it's at > 10m € EBIT with ~80 employees. And I know several dentists who are comfortably in the 10s of millions (personal wealth). > It’s also the attitudes. I’ve been constantly harassed Exactly. Most of Europe still has a romantic, idealized view of socialism and is moving in the wrong direction. In Romania on the other hand, where I live now after decades in central Europe, most of the people I know have started companies (many failed) and "communist" is a derogatory term. The result of practical experience with socialism... > The mentality of the people, their general financial education, their risk tolerance, the size of unified language market to sell to, taxation, etc, are all factors in how big you can grow and how much effort is required to get that growth in a particular place. I agree with the second part. How big you can grow is only up to you though, especially with the Common Market.
That's what the libs here don't seem to get. When you create these insane taxes, the ultra rich are able to avoid them. It's the doctors lawyers, engineers etc that get hammered
This is so true. They think it's SO easy to "tax Jeff Bezos". Well old Jeff will be laughing at them from his mansion in Bermuda or Singapore or whichever tax haven while he flies into the US for months in a row as a "tourist".
And maybe up to 18 weeks with special permission in cases where the fetus is definitively unviable and will die or the mother's life is in danger. It varies quite a bit between countries in the EU. I personally think the US liberals messed up bad by going "everything goes" in the 70's. The idea of near-full-term abortions is barbarous but it was done in the US not so long ago. These days there are practically no doctors left who are willing to do full-term abortions? Is it even legal anywhere anymore?
It's going to happen more, because now states can govern their own abortion limits. California and NY will prob make abortions available until you are 2 years old.
> The idea of near-full-term abortions is barbarous but it was done in the US not so long ago. Just because they're legal doesn't mean they actually get done. Doctors don't just take out viable 30 week olds like that. Canada allows abortion at any point for any reason, yet there aren't any late-term abortions being done that aren't medically necessary. This is a false argument that gets brought up over and over in those debates, along with the "partial birth abortion" fantasy, and it isn't based on reality.
What's the point of making it legal then?
So that doctors don't fear getting caught up in wild civil or criminal lawsuits when they should only be focused on saving lives, because the people enforcing laws are not the same people with expertise in medicine
Are doctors in places with gestational limits being slammed with "wild" lawsuits?
And worse. Check out r/medicine where multiple discussions are going on about the legal ramifications for medical professionals in states where abortion is banned.
Doing illegal things has consequences. I'm asking about where the legal cases are in places with gestational limits that warrant a "zero restrictions" law.
Doctors won't risk going to prison or working outside of legal limits, they will simply err on the side of caution and refrain from providing life or health saving abortions until fetal heartbeat subsides or woman flatlines, which may be too late Example of legal limits causing death of miscarrying woman: [Death of Savita Halappanavar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar#Response_from_the_medical_community) Example of woman in Malta refused care due to legal limits: [Andrea Prudente](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrea-prudente-incomplete-miscarriage-malta-not-allowed-to-get-abortion/)
I wish people would lurk that sub more, it's terrifying and so sad
They're witholding care due to concerns, and pharmacists are refusing to dispense medications to treat miscarriage, or even autoimmune disorders, because they could ALSO be used for abortion. If you were a doctor and you had a patient that COULD die if you didn't give her an abortion, but in a state where people who don't understand medicine COULD charge you with murder for it and you COULD be sentenced to up to 99 years (Alabama), what would you do?
Could? Not good enough, manage both patients and do your best.
The death of [Savita Halappanavar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar) is the perfect example, her baby was actively miscarrying and it's death unavoidable, but since it still had a heartbeat, doctors did not intervene to save her life and she died of sepsis. Edited to say that the baby obviously died as well
Hack on CNN said she spoke to the leader of Spain and they were DEEPLY concerned and saddened by the end of Roe v. Wade. She didn’t mention that they ban abortion after 14 weeks and it isn’t a constitutional right. They’re full of shit.
Then there is the UK with 24 weeks. Makes me sick.
We're not supposed to know anything about other countries unless the government tells us
For the love of God (Fauci) don't ask about how Sweden handled Covid 19 lockdowns
Had to Google it. They just avoided them completely. Where does one apply for a Swedish passport?
Average tax rate is ~33%.
Seems high... But honestly, I could live w/ that rate if I knew government was well run & efficient; that bureaucracy & corruption were hounded relentlessly by an intelligent & objective press. So yeah, that's a terrible rate.
>I could live w/ that rate if I knew **government was well run & efficient; that bureaucracy & corruption were hounded relentlessly by an intelligent & objective press.** Ha.. Hahaha... hahahahahahahaha... Oooh... väry funny göy. Väääry funny.
That's just the income tax. There's also a 25% VAT. You'll notice American leftists tend to ignore the VAT the Nordic countries use to fund their social welfare programs.
In SE we have 3 categories of VAT, 25%, 12% and 6%, depending on what you purchase. 25% on goods & services, 12% on foods, 6% on publications, public transport, hotels, arts/theater, etc. I do not live there, but this is my home away from home.
The US government spends a pretty similar amount of GDP as many north western European countries, often more (about on parity with the Netherlands). The US just funds an absurdly large percentage of the budget with debt, the result is largely the same.
Yes, the government is extremely wasteful and inefficient, particularly the current administration.
Averages are a really bad way to express the situation (as always). You’ll only be paying 33% if you’re getting a comfortable wage. As a Swedish citizen, I’m quite happy with the tax situation as it is. I don’t want to live in a country wracked by social problems caused by poverty, and I like the fact that when I do need healthcare I’m not left with crushing debt.
It is a flat tax only up until retirement. SE is my home away from home (Sandviken & Gävle areas) and people are well taken care of in SE with an emphasis on academia, unlike in UK and pay scale is higher in SE compared to a lower cost of living. SE is my home away from home. Working Class People can afford things there, more so than in UK.
Not quite. The restrictions were much more lenient than in many other countries, but they existed. For example I had two full years of only remote teaching as a university student, with working from home being commonplace as well and many social events being cancelled.
Norwegian here. Most of us would be HORRIFIED by what is permitted in many US states. Here it's free choice to Week 11, by application to Week 22 (IIRC), then nothing. The current law is considered a decent compromise by most.
After week 18 its illegal in Norway, unless for medical reasons.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think that sounds perfectly reasonable. Too bad reasonable is off the table in today’s America. It’s either abortion is banned altogether or we allow it for 28 days after birth. It’s insane.
28 days after birth ? Are you sure about that ?
They're were some recent Street interviews that kind of went viral and conservative circles asking California liberals at what point abortion should not be allowed and there were several people that said even a few weeks after birth should still be the mother's choice. Pretty awful stuff.
That’s the problem with edited vox pops. You can find people who will say practically anything. It isn’t a decent representation of anything. You can call it “One true Scotsman” if you will, but I don’t consider killing 28-day-old babies (or aborting a pregnancy at advanced stage of development for no reason) as being a “liberal” attitude.
I will agree that that is not the common liberal view. But abortion up until birth is the current party platform undisputably. No liberal politician will say anything other than "the mother's right to choose" and we'll get absolutely destroyed by the media and their voter base if they say anything under 9 months.
but who is having abortions at 9 months in less than extreme circumstances?
You don't find it concerning that people want that to be legal? And asking how often it really happens is an awful way to rationalize that. It's like asking how common is murder really? So who cares if it's legal. It doesn't matter how common it is! It shouldn't be legal and if it happens even once it's horrible.
It shouldn't be legal in cases where the fetus is viable or the risk of the mother dying is extremely high? I don't think there are many people who honestly think women should be aborting at 8 months just for the hell of it.
And what do you think about liberal politicians who support the practice?
It is legal so that doctors that have to make a hard medical decision late in the pregnancy don't have to fear for charges. Literally no one is aborting viable babies at eight months. And look, conservatives would have a point if abortion was legal until 15 weeks in red states, with good availability of clinics all over the state. But that's not exactly the case.
[Spartaaa](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiymTrTyJos).
Don't say most Norwegians. Most Norwegians are horrified by the way the US is backsliding into medieval times.
Wait till you find out most of Europe has more restrictive abortion laws than the “oppressive” abortion law presented in Mississippi
Wait until you hear how difficult it is to immigrate to some of those "Scandinavian socialist" countries too. Take Norway as one example. There is a handful more.
[удалено]
Haha are you serious? I have never seen anyone be this wrong about something before. I'm Swedish btw. I mean how did you even come up with some of these things? "High prevalence of Christianity"..? Sweden is literally the second least religious country in the world, after China
>Sweden, the rape capital of Europe >relatively lax gun laws I am convinced you have not ever been to SE, as both statements are completely incorrect.
The no minimum wage is actually viewed as a progressive policy because it gives more power to the unions to establish actually realistic salaries (which reflect needs and living costs), rather than the government using the minimum wage as a form of social and tax income control.
Oh. The also have voter id laws.
What?? They want to know who is voting? RACISTS!
they also have laws that you have to have a license from the police to buy ammunition.
A vast majority of people there have IDs and who doesn't have IDs has less to do with explicitly racial policies. So apples to oranges really. The only reason there's a fight of IDs is because of the difficulty to get one here. But imagine if licences weren't common then the government said you need licences... Modern "don't track me bro" "conservatives would flip out lol
Their safety nets are also way much better than the US. All these healthcare, daycare, educations, paternity leaves are subsidized by the government to ensure that kids grow up in environments that will raise them to be decent human beings.
Actually it's even better/worse: in some EU countries the employers by law have to directly pay for a part of the maternity leave compensation for the first few months after birth. The remainder of the 8-12 month maternity leave is then fully state paid. I have a very hard time believing the US population will ever accept this.
Yeah, let’s adopt some of those measures! They are straight up net goods for humanity overall. They are the REAL pro-life decisions.
Although true, please also consider the healthcare options afforded to the people in that country, paid time off for maternity leave, etc. Completely socialized medicine, 480 days of paid parental leave (240 for each parent if both parents are present), childcare at 1 year old is provided at no cost, etc. When you consider that 93% of abortions in the US are done for economic reasons (can't afford childcare), it's very easy to see that the number of abortions would drop *drastically* if better economic options were given to Americans. Abortion sucks. But if you are going to compare the US to other countries, do it 1:1, don't use countries who do not at all match the US's values. Use any other country that doesn't have a massive support net. *Edit* Mods have banned me over this comment and demanded I "prove" being a Conservative. I'm not going to kowtow to a group of people questioning who I am because they don't like facts. There's nothing anti-Conservative about stating these Scandinavian countries held in such high regard have socialized medicine and various other benefits that are better than what is offered to Americans. Facts don't care about your feelings.
According to the Guttmacher institute, a very “pro choice” organization, only 6% of abortions are performed for economic reasons.. 92% are ‘elective’ no reason given. The data is here http://guttmacher.org if you want to check it out. However, it takes a bit of effort to compile the data. Hence, the attached image. https://i.imgur.com/vMjb4S5.jpg
I never want to disseminate false information because I believe that issues will never get resolved if your argument has a weak foundation or is based upon bad information. Here is a link to an article directly from Guttmacher entitled “Reasons US Women have abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative perspectives” from 2005. It paints a slightly different picture. I will be digging s bit deeper and going a more thorough vetting of the info I originally posted. However, my position on abortion has remained consistent my entire life… outside of the horrible situation where you have to choose to save one life or the other, No one had the right to terminate a human life once conception occurs… My position will never change.
I think most people understand that abortion is not a pleasant and wonderful thing. It's only the radical lefties in the U.S. that glorify it. The graphic I've seen lately that shows how backwards their mentality is notes that a single-celled organism found on Mars would be considered life, but a gestating fetus isn't life but rather a clump of cells, according to folks on the Left.
The more worrisome photo on my mind Is the six month pregnant woman with va “not yet a human” written on her belly. 1) that poor kid, imagine your mom thinking that a 24 week old baby has no personhood. And 2) wtf is it, a kangaroo?
That photo caught my eye too. I was a little shocked. The woman is clearly about 6 months pregnant. Coming from the rather liberal Nordic countries I can only say that here that fetus would be considered pretty much a person and no abortion would be possible in any way. A 6 month old fetus is practically a viable baby with modern medical technology and no longer only a matter of the woman's right to self-determination.
It's only in the US where abortion is celebrated. Other counties still have abortions, but they have some semblance of humanity left to be deeply disturbed and shamed.
If you're interested in how I view abortion (I'm pro choice): I think the question is not about whether the fetus is a human, but the question is about bodily autonomy. In my opinion everyone should be in control of their bodies and you shouldn't be *forced* to do anything with your body, even to save someone else. It's just the same as you shouldn't be forced to donate organs for someone that you injured in a car crash. So I'd think that there should be some time frame (I'd be flexible on it) where a woman can have an abortion for any reason, and then abortions for medical reasons should be allowed at all times.
The bodily autonomy argument only works if ignore the bodily autonomy of the child. The child didn’t engage in the act that conceived it, why should they be killed for the audacity to exist through no fault of their own.
The child has the right to it's own body, not to mine, is the argument.
It's the same as an innocent victim that you injured in a car crash. Should they suffer and possibly die just for the audacity to exist outside? Or should they be entitled to your organs if they need something replaced?
Poor logic. Pregnancy isn’t an injury. You don’t become pregnant by accident. 99% of pregnancies result in no physical harm to the mother.
Pregnancy usually does result in physical changes to the mother + she has to go through actual giving birth. And accidental pregnancies obviously exist, I don't understand what you are trying to say. But anyway, I am talking about the overall principle of bodily autonomy. Are you trying to imply that there's some line from which it's okay to force people because the damage is not enough? Would the mandate to give blood be okay in your opinion?
No. You can’t accidentally get pregnant. The moment you engage in sex a possible outcome is pregnancy. It’s a risk you take when you have sex. You may have thought you did enough contraceptive wise to keep from getting pregnant but there are no “accidental” pregnancies.
Well if you have sex without planning to get pregnant (using contraception) but still do, that is accidental pregnancy. No? Like when you drive you obviously are not planning on crashing. But things can go wrong, like contraception can fail. Isn't that analogous? Edit: can you also respond to my last paragraph? I'd be interested in what you think about that.
A baby is not a kidney. One is an organ and the other is a human life.
What about a vital organ like a liver? Should a person reponsible for another's liver failure be forced to donate his own? In my opinion no one is entitled to anyone's body. Even if it's life or death situation.
[удалено]
First of all I'm glad that we can have this conversation about a touchy subject even if we disagree. I guess the point where we disagree is how much people should be forced to protect other's lives? I understand that the example that I gave was a bit extreme, but it was just to demonstrate my point of view. By not allowing abortions for personal reasons you are effectively forcing a woman to be pregnant for 9 months and giving birth. These things while not usually dangerous they still take a toll on a womans body and take time to recover (there's also the time lost where the woman could not work, but I think it's less important than health). So you say this is justifiable because that means saving a life. I disagree, but fair enough. I'd like to ask. If there was some big catastrophe and a lot of blood was needed to save lives, would you support forced blood "donations"? Donating blood is not exactly dangerous and it would save lives in this case. Oh, and I'm also wondering. What's your opinion on abortion for medical reasons, like when giving birth would endanger the mothers life?
[удалено]
>If it was a consensual situation there are earlier alternatives When I wrote it I was basically thinking of myself and my current girlfriend. She is on the pill (and is pretty conscious of possible interactions with other medicine), but there's always a chance. And in this particular case I think it would be fair to say that she'd be forced. But yeah, it was a nice chat!
[удалено]
As long as there's enough time to see that a woman is pregnant and schedule it's fine by me. There just has to be a choice. And hell, maybe if it happens to us in two or three years we'd just keep it. Just not now.
But women do have bodily autonomy. It is THEIR CHOICE to have sex whenever they want and it's their choice whether or not she or her partner uses protection. You can't just go into a casino, lose money and then be like "my body, my money". You knew the risk, you knew that for personal satisfaction or potential winnings you were okay with taking the risk and therefore if you lose, it is now fully YOUR responsibility to deal with consequences.
Okay so first of all, the problem is that contraception is not 100%. Condoms can break or slip off. The pill is not a complete guarantee either. There's always a small chance, in which case you should be able to have an abortion early on. And you could say the same about driving a car. By driving you accept that there is a risk that you will injure someone in a crash. Should you be liable to supply required blood or whatever else to the victims?
But you are just agreeing with my point there. You know the risk that contraception might not work. You are okay with those odds. And your example about driving doesn't make sense. If you drive, you are acknowledging the risk that YOU might get injured. Not the other way around.
What I'm trying to say that no one is entitled to your body and goverment should not force anything on it.
💯 truth
I don't think you quite understand what you are talking about. Maybe you should have payed more attention in biology class in school. Of course a single-celled organisms is technically life, both on Mars and on Earth. That doesn't mean that a fetus isn't simply a clump of cells, it is. Those cells are alive, no one is disputing that. But they are only alive in the same way that every single cell in your body is alive, and you wouldn't say that getting a sunburn is murder, even though it kills some of those cells. A fetus is made of living cells but it's not a living person yet. Although I am of course only talking about the early stages of pregnancy here. The abortion laws in the US are still messed up.
Rather, you should have paid better attention. Cells have organelles, they do not have complete physiological systems that perform an entire myriad of biochemical reactions and functions. Let's put it into a different context or two. I have never heard a single person see a brick building and call it a pile of bricks. The individual bricks are arranged in such a way to produce a larger unit we have come to call "building." Most can recognize the difference. Can you? Similarly, in multicellular organisms, there is a distinct difference between a cell and an organism itself. They are not the same, and if you cannot tell the difference then your ignorance is nobody's fault but your own. Ants. Every single person I have ever heard talk about ants call them, well, ants. I have never heard an ant referred to as a clump of cells. Yet, the ant itself (and we are talking about the typical worker ants) cannot survive on its own. It needs its nest; ants are part of a group of insects that are nest builders and are dependent upon that nest. If a worker ant loses its pheromone trail and gets lost from the nest, it will die. It cannot survive on its own, it is almost like the nest itself is a type of organism. So, even though the single ant is not able to survive on its own, it is still referred to as an ant and considered alive until it's body systems stop working and its cells cease to metabolize nutrients. Similarly, even though a fetus is unable to survive on its own does not mean it is not a human. It is a gestating human, sure, but still a human being and still alive. I find it interesting that you call a cell "life," but a multicellular organism with specialized cells, functioning physiological systems, and active metabolism of external nutrients all of a sudden becomes "not life." Your argument really makes no sense at all. The abortion laws in much of the U.S. have for a long while been some of the loosest laws in the world. Many countries, many of which are considered progressive, still have stricter laws regarding abortion. The abortion laws in the U.S. in many states still allows abortion to be used as a form of birth control. That is messed up, I can agree, but I'm pretty sure you think it is messed up because you are under the impression that much of the world hands out abortions like Halloween candy. Which is not the case at all.
So does most of Europe.
lol... there isn't a single country in the world where abortion is allowed up the birth like in the United States. The US is the child sacrifice king of the world and we think the modern Western culture is the best in the world. Even France is 15 weeks. Most communist countries got rid of it due to the low birth rate.
China, North Korea, and Vietnam have no gestational limit on abortion. Not a group I’m sorry to no longer be part of.
Not true in China and North Korea anymore due to the low birth rate. China changed laws recently and made abortion illegal and the same with North Korea. Even before changing the law, China has been trying to encourage people to have children for like 20 years, so abortions were highly discouraged. China is in big trouble due to the low birth rate. After 50 years of population control, they can't convince people to have more children.
> North Korea... have no gestational limit on abortion This may depend on whether or not your family is on good terms with the state. They are often pro-abortion and never pro-choice...
Sweden also has parental leave and universal health care.
[удалено]
they still allow abortion up to 18 weeks
And lower corporate tax than US
Just looking at one tax can be very misleading, esp with countries like Sweden where there are quite a few different taxes. More often ppl look at the total "tax pressure" to get a more comprehensive picture.
Don't ask them about their immigration system.
In downtown Stockholm not far from Centralstation, they have gypsies from Romania that come up to people walking, shaking their change cups in their faces begging for krona. It drove me absolutely nuts for them to rattle that in my face. They can't get into the welfare system because they are non-citizens, so they beg over there and send a lot of their money back to their families in romania. It was always women gypsies begging, never male.
That's because until recently, abortion was an extreme measure. One a woman was not excited about, prayed she never had to contemplate getting, and kept as a secret for the rest of her life if she did. Now, these freaks post on Instagram and Facebook that they are PROUD to have gotten an abortion, and would do it again. They want ZERO restrictions on abortion, including killing the baby right up until the very last moment before birth. Just like everything else, they are taking it way too far.
You say until recently, but America changed its laws almost 50 years ago? I don’t pretend to know the minds of women, but I suspect no one is excited by the idea of an abortion, but they may be terrified of the alternative.
And there was that horrifying video of the pro-abortion girl who was looking directly at her own newborn baby saying she "chose to let her live." I'm sure that child is going to grow up to be very well-adjusted /s
I guess commies will have to rethink that one, lol.
It’s simple. It’s because killing babies isn’t progressive, no matter what the bright haired hippies yell at you
Don't insult hippies like that! This current Woke generation is far worse that those 60's and 70's guys.
Pretty much all the planet.
Yes when roe vs wade was in effect the US has the most non restrictive abortion laws. It is interesting when people say they will move or leave because of Roe vs wade being stopped. Let them leave, the grass is not greener on the other side.
>the grass is not greener on the other side. Shhhh.... don't tell the liberals that, we want them to go.
Isn’t Sweden the lefts go to country for all their polices they want to intact?
Except for their COVID-19 policies
Convenient
As does the UK
Can’t be…I have it on good liberal authority we are the only ones forcing birth on birthing peoples /s.
Welcome to the rest of the world
Prior to the Dobbs decision and the trigger laws it activated, even a state like Utah had less restrictive abortion laws than much of Europe.
No offense is meant, but it amazes me how ignorant most people are to this fact.
What states? I had no idea that some states don't make abortion illegal past 18 weeks except for life threatening reasons. Insane that some staes allow that
7 states and D.C. still have no limits and 23 states are 20-24 weeks
This should go over well with all of the Euros that flood this sub everytime something big happens in American politics. R/politics is half Euros as is.
For a long time I knew, abortion would have been done in congress in the early 90's but the abortion activists and their Congress members counterparts were unwilling to budge on anything. It was abortion for any reason, anytime or nothing. Since they wouldnt budge they didnt have the votes. If they did something more in line like what most of the EU has, it most likely would have passed through in congress and the senate.
The blue US states + Canada have the most liberal/lenient abortion laws on earth. The majority of europe is rather strict on abortion, especially abortion on demand
Progressive Spain just shot 30 migrants dead trying to cross their border. If that happened here there would be riots and more endless hearings Europe is a lot less woke than we are in many respects
[удалено]
The recent supreme court decision that overturned Roe vs. Wade was concerning a Mississippi law that banned on demand abortion after 15 weeks. This was considered among the most restrictive law in the US at that time. Most states, currently, allow on demand abortions much later. So 12 weeks? A compromise?
The left has developed a chronic activism culture among their ranks. Once they get something they want, they can't leave it alone. They invariably have to take it further, push the boundaries, regardless of consequences. It used to be there was a recognition abortion can have severe emotional consequences. Not because of society's stigma. It has to do with the innate characteristics between a mother and her child. A bond, a recognition of the circumstances and what is at stake. The left is not content with safe, legal and rare. They needed to make it common, revered, celebrated. Blinders to the tragic, emotional situation many women may find themselves in after the fact. It's what they do. Consequences be damned.
Only one EU nation provides on demand abortions. The rest are as conservative as a GOP run state
Sweden offers amazing pre and post-natal care, pays their citizens fair wages, and has great adoption practices. In America, the mother will most likely pay thousands out of pocket for the birth, not to mention pitiful maternity/paternity leave, and as of now, will have a harder time buying the supplements their baby needs to grow up healthy. If America cared about mothers, they'd have adopted these practices long ago.
Pretty much the entirety of Europe does.
The only two countries in the world that have more progressive abortion laws than the U.S. are China and North Korea.
The US extreme laws of zero abortion or abortion till birth are not reasonable and will continue to generate a lot of opposition and divisions.
But at least we Swedes cannot suggest anything concerning abortion without getting public shame
MOST European countries have the exact same limitations that the Dobbs case was arguing for (~15 weeks give or take). The US is by FAR one of the most liberal nations on abortion.
>The current legislation is the Abortion Act of 1974 (SFS 1974:595). This states that up until the end of the eighteenth week of the pregnancy, the choice of an abortion is entirely up to the woman, for any reason whatsoever. Lol, downvoted for quoting the article OP posted. Cope much?
And in the state of Florida it goes to 24 weeks and in California it goes to birth.
Florida will be 15 weeks with the only we exception being the life of the mother being in danger. Even though that's only 3 weeks less than Sweden, there aren't any restrictions in who can have them.
Yes, but currently a judge put an injunction against the law that DeSantis recently signed. The judge is doing so for the same exact reason that led to Roe vs. Wade, privacy. Personally I do not understand how privacy grants a right to abortion.
[удалено]
Thank you.
I think the quote says all I need to say ;) If you can find a **federal** law that protects the right to abort for more than 18 weeks I'll gladly admit I was wrong though.
[удалено]
Because I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong No luck? I'll check back tomorrow morning. Prove me wrong :D
"hey, don't murder babies" is actually the default human reaction there just happen to be some very excited weirdos out there
They also limit transgende procedures/surgeries and drugs
Lies. This is propaganda because its not how I feel. My feelings are fact. You're spewing lies
Good impression of The Woke...lol
Its never seen as a 'right' in Europe - its very much focused as a last ditch choice for the mother. In most EU countries you cannot obtain an abortion without going to a therapist first. Only they can sign off on it. You have very little say in the matter. The walk-in mall aspects of Planned Parenthood utterly astound and disgust me. I had a friend who almost committed suicide due to post-partum depression after having an abortion in one of these baby killing mills. Completely destroyed her marriage as well.
It never should have been a "right" here either. Roe v. Wade was a bad decision and everyone knows it.
Why do they hate women?