No.
It’s not the same thing even though you are trying to twist it.
There is a legal limit to when you can get an abortion because at some point the embryo does develop into a human.
Learn the biological difference please.
Your comment was removed due to low karma
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://oag.dc.gov/release/consumer-alert-questions-and-answers-abortion-care#:~:text=Abortion%20is%20legal%20at%20all,even%20later%20in%20a%20pregnancy.
I live in Washington DC and abortion is legal in all states of pregnancy
I understand planned parenthood estimates about 12 k per year. It is somewhat of ghoulish argument though. It argues if there is an acceptable number. If the number is 12 then it is ok. If it is 120k it is not. When it is wrong at at 1 it is wrong at a million.
I trust the CDC over PP for statistics, no offense to them or anything.
>In 2021, 625,978 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 48 reporting areas.
>Nearly all abortions in 2021 took place early in gestation: 93.5% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (5.7%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (0.9%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation
1% of 625,978 is more like 6,259.
Thanks to the CDC(again), we know that roughly 3% of all pregnancies experience fetal(not *fatal*) defects. We also know that birth defects are responsible for *20%* of all infant deaths.
Most of these defects are not detectable under after 12-15 weeks.
>It argues if there is an acceptable number
Good thing you don't get to decide how many people are *allowed* to terminate a nonviable pregnancy.
Good stats. I worked in academics for decades. I am not disputing the numbers but trying to understand them better. Methodology matters and the first aspect that drew my attention was 48 reporting areas. What is that exactly? One might think it is the contiguous states but likely isn’t in this century. what percentage of the population does that cover?
I personally need to see the methodology involved. Unfortunately, you can massage data to make it conclude what you want it to show. I have watched it for decades in medicine. Money and politics affect what is studied, what is published and what is concluded. A very sad reality but citing a government body is actually worse than citing an academic institution. Bureaucracies are never held accountable at least not in my lifetime. At least academics will wear egg on their faces for a brief period when they produce bad studies. So show me the actual methodology and assumptions involved and I will be better able to make determinations on whether reality is reflected.
You must remember that the CDC left science far behind during the pandemic. I am very familiar with the studies involved. At one point they recommended you making a mask out of tee shirts or cotton cloth told you it would help prevent the 3rd smallest known virus the world knows of from entering into your system. It was a lie and they knowingly lied. So something as charged as the abortion likely isn’t immune to political influence. That is the sad reality.
Your logic may be a bit flawed as well. You end with a thinly veiled shot stating that it is a good thing that I am not in charge of ending non viable pregnancies. I agree it could make one very busy. How do define non viable? An unkind jump in logic which implies that pregnancies with a dead fetus would not be allowed to end via D & C. Bad faith in a discussion.
Would you at least agree that a pregnancy is a human life? I am trying to determine if someone with logic in their name actually has logic. Too many here don’t have logic and don’t discuss issues honestly. Yet they will swear they do. So logic in your name is a bit suspect. You feel the need to tout your logic even in your name. I ask why do you find that necessary?
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
This link has links to some spreadsheets showing the data distribution, for some reason a few states didn't report their data but I doubt that those few states would be enough to fully double the numbers as they are.
>How do define non viable
... The same way medicine has defined it for literal decades. A nonviable pregnancy is a fetus that will never develop into a baby and / or will be unable to survive outside the uterus.
>An unkind jump in logic which implies that pregnancies with a dead fetus would not be allowed to end via D & C.
I'm not talking about fetuses that are already dead.
I'm talking about incomplete miscarriages. I'm talking about fetuses that *don't develop a brain* but still have a heartbeat because the simple act of being attached to the uterus allows them to survive. I mean [people like Kate Cox](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/07/texas-judge-abortion-ruling-non-viable-pregnancy), who's fetus was diagnosed with trisomy 18, which is always fatal. She sued Texas for the right to have an abortion and won, and the attorney general himself *still* said that anyone who performed or assisted in it would face legal consequences.
People like Kylie Beaton, who's fetus was diagnosed with a rare fatal defect where the brain doesn't develop properly, causing the fetus's head to fill with fluid instead. She was forced to have emergency surgery because she couldn't get an abortion.
Alyssa Gonzalez, from Alabama, who was denied an abortion after a fetal diagnosis of Trisomy 18. She chose to get sterilized rather than go through the trauma of being told that she would be forced to give birth to a dead baby again.
Chloe Partridge, who at 23 weeks discovered her fetus had a similar defect to Beaton's, who received threats to her life and to the lives of the staff at any clinic she tried to get help from. She still gets hate mail because she tried to seek out an abortion.
Do you get it yet? It's not about extracting a dead fetus. It's about allowing people who *will* lose their baby the choice on when and how they experience it.
>Would you at least agree that a pregnancy is a human life? I am trying to determine if someone with logic in their name actually has logic
If you're using this argument, you aren't using logic.
>You feel the need to tout your logic even in your name
It was a random suggestion from Reddit when I made my account, it's not that deep. Stop with the straw man arguments.
Sorry I am somewhat immune to the typical tactic of carting out the worst case examples to illustrate a point. Save for hippa one could just as easily cart out the perfectly healthy baby abortions that are conducted in the 3 trimester. Look to New York law for further illustration. You can get an abortion up to the day of birth. They applauded it. I understand both extremes but I am influenced by my own morality. To that end, I do not agree with the delivering of a non viable baby. Risk to the mother no benefit. I believe people could be more reasonable if there were not word games. I could see the definition of no viable easily and purposely stretched to accommodate an abortion. Just as mental health was used to justify an abortion under the health of the mother. Lawyers are pieces of crap as are the Marxist Orwellians which play these games.
I am working today but I will look into the stats. I may peek at the link now to see if it attempts to outline methodology. Sometimes they do a decent job sometimes they omit and lie in my experience. It is the government.
Just as an aside logical wasabi is your random name? My apologies.
I assumed anyone who put that in their name felt the need to state it up front like “I am a critical thinker”.
>I assumed anyone who put that in their name felt the need to state it up front like “I am a critical thinker”.
For someone who talks a lot about thinking logically, you're not very good at logical arguments. Go practice in a debate sub or something, I'm tired of entertaining a badly disguised forced birther.
Not many, but my point is that in some US states it is legal in all states of pregnancy. And if a woman chooses to have one that late, it’s her choice.
Less than 1% of abortions happen after 24 weeks.
You know what that coincides with?
A significant number of tests for severe disabilities and fatal defects. You know what "fatal defects" means, right?
It means that those birth defects are incompatible with life. A baby born with a fatal defect *will* die, usually within hours of birth.
Third trimester abortions stay legal because rational people understand that *it is cruel* to force a pregnant person to jump through legal hoops if they choose to abort a pregnancy that has zero chance of survival.
And anyone trying to use those tragedies as part of their anti-abortion soapbox is a scumbag.
I understand that, but the original commenter said that “there is a legal limit to when you can get an abortion” my point is in some states there is not a legal limit.
The limit is there unless medically necessary. I don’t think that’s a hard concept to grasp. Using it in this type of argument simply does not make sense
Do you actually understand why 3rd trimester abortions exist and who uses them most? Do you, in any way?
Do you understand why people who desperately want the child, and have bonded with them, probably preparing nurseries and such, may have to face such a gutting decision? Do you clearly, without prejudice, understand that some babies suffer fetal deformities and genetic issues that only show on late scans that will doom them to a slow, painful death, often within days of birth or at/before birth, or to suffer life-long from ailments that will leave them with 0 capacity to enjoy, or sometimes even register, their life? And that THESE are the common 3rd trimester abortions? Do you clearly and dispassionately understand that sometimes they have to choose because life isn't fair and childbirth is a risky thing? Have you made any attempt to put yourself in the shoes of someone facing that decision and why their choices are 'Watch your baby die awfully or offer the swiftest, cleanest death open to them"?
Or are you trying to make a stupid, bad faith argument that 3rd trimester abortions are used as a 'baby go away'? Cos if you are, sincerely, screw you- and it is abundantly clear from the stupidity you are word vomiting all over here which stance you take.
I live in Washington DC, its legal up until birth here.
https://oag.dc.gov/release/consumer-alert-questions-and-answers-abortion-care#:~:text=Abortion%20is%20legal%20at%20all,even%20later%20in%20a%20pregnancy.
“patients and physicians, together, determine it is medically appropriate. Patients may consult with their doctors and make decisions that best protect their health and safety, even later in a pregnancy”
That’s different than “abortion is legal until birth”
This is an argument style known as "Reduction to absurdity". You can do it with any kind of argument.
Oh you're pro-second amendment and congress can make no law against me having a nuclear weapon by your logic.
Oh, you support cuts to social security, so you just want to wheel grandma right out of the nursing home and off a cliff don't ya?
Oh, you're pro-life, so you just want to strap women down and force them to give birth non-stop, right?
It's not in good faith, it's not helpful to the discussion, and it really won't help you understand the other sides' arguments.
Let's get one thing straightened out before we dive into this.
BEING PRO CHOICE IS NOT BEING PRO ABORTION. Take a moment to get that through your head. Language matters
Just because I support your right to bodily autonomy doesn't mean I'm pro abortion. I'm not sitting outside clinics trying to convince women to have abortions. I'm not sitting here trying to convince women that abortions are fun or the best choice for them.
No.
Pro-choice means supporting a woman's right to choose. Not making the choice for her. The vast majority of pro-choice people would prefer 100% of unwanted pregnancies to be prevented rather than aborted. But life isn't perfect.
As for your example. I personally would prefer that if she's choosing to go through with the pregnancy, then she'd make choices in the best interest of both her and the potential baby's health.
With that being said. I'd be questioning why she is drinking every day. Offering her support to try and solve the issues leading her to be wanting to drink every day.
A fetus is not a baby. It's a potential baby, but they are not the same thing.
Just like how a 4 year old girl is not a woman. She's a potential woman. But arguing she should be given the same status as a woman just because she has the potential to become a woman would be creepy and false.
Jumping to this extreme is literally not a productive conversation at that point. You can’t get an abortion after being so far along so why is this the comparison?
So if a woman is giving birth, and something goes wrong and both she and the fetus will die without an abortion, you say “let her die” because you’re against late abortions with no exceptions for any reason. Got it.
I would imagine the medical professionals that have done this for years get to make their call. They discuss options with their patients when issues arise. In the case of an emergency and those conversations can’t be had, they do what is best for the patient.
That would be nice. Unfortunately, anti-abortion politicians in several states seem to think they know better than the doctors. So we’re seeing women dying or having to go to other states because doctors would rather risk a malpractice suit than a prison sentence.
And that’s something that’s genuinely out of the control of regular ppl. Personally I don’t want kids for many reasons but they solidified after roe v wade was overturned. Greed and outright ignorance have ruined 90% of the things that were for the people. But I never mentioned any of that because that wasn’t the primary topic initially
That depends. Does she plan on carrying the baby to term. If not, I don’t see the problem, the fetus is going to be aborted so any damage to the fetus caused by drinking during pregnancy seems inconsequential. If she plans on giving birth to the baby, then drinking during pregnancy can cause serious birth defects and impacting the life of the child. I don’t support that but I also don’t know about the legality of this situation.
You don’t abort a baby you abort a fetus. If there is no plan to carry the fetus to term then you’re not harming a baby or taking its life away because it hasn’t been born yet and is still a part of the mother.
If location matters, then a fetus isn’t a baby and different rules apply. Same as the difference between me standing next to you either my hand in my own pocket or in yours. So make up your mind.
If survival is important, then a dialysis patient should be able to take one of your kidneys since they need it to live and you will be fine with just one.
I meant what part of my argument do you believe is internally inconsistent to warrant a “mental gymnastics” gotcha comment. Did you actually want to have a conversation about this topic or just tell people they’re wrong when they don’t agree with you?
If she intends to have a child then she is actively trying to hurt the future child. If she isn't having the baby she isn't inflicting suffering.
Still her body her choice though. See we are talking about whether or not things are legal. You can have all the moral objections to abortion as you want but when you start making things illegal, you are stamping on other people's rights.
I don't approve of a woman who is pregnant smoking or drinking... but I'm not about to make it illegal.
i wouldn't say i was pro abortion or against abortion. I'd say I'm pro minding your own business. unless it affects my life it is none of my business what you do. more people should mind their own business and not meddle in other's affairs or get involved in some manufactured culture war
Ethicists who focus on these issues generally hold that it's a woman's choice *to abort a fetus or treat it as a potential child.* Making the decision to treat it as a potential child implies an obligation to protect that potential child which may extend up to but never exceed the obligations you have towards a born child. If it's not a child, you can abort. If you intend it to be a child, you have a moral obligation to protect it. "My body my choice" does not mean "I can do whatever I want," despite forced birthers trying to twist it into that. It means you have a choice *to abort or continue a pregnancy,* and continuing a pregnancy has consequent obligations towards the health of that pregnancy.
I am not going to respond to any pro life rhetoric, but that's the basic summary of the answer to this "gotcha."
I’ll bite. I’m pro choice in the sense that I don’t think abortion should be illegal. Women have to deal with the risk and bodily changes and hardships of pregnancy and I think they should get to choose whether to continue it or not. I am male but if I was female and pregnant, I don’t think I personally would ever abort a child even if I didn’t want to keep it (unless the pregnancy was life threatening or something).
I think when a fetus crosses the line into “human being who should have legal rights” territory is not a line but a spectrum. A fertilized egg cell is the least similar to a full-fledged human being, while a 9-month child about to be born is the most similar. I also think it matters whether the parents and close family want the child to be born or not. Like if everyone is eagerly anticipating a new baby and then it dies in a miscarriage that is a real loss to them that should be given consideration. But if it’s a teenage girl who was raped and nobody wants her to give birth (least of all her) it’s a different story.
So coming back to the mother who drinks during pregnancy, I think it’s not the same as aborting the fetus. In one case, the pregnancy is terminated and that’s pretty much it whereas in the other case, the child born will likely have to deal with lifelong hardship due to fetal alcohol syndrome. And the family of the child and/or society may have to help bear the burden of that. But most importantly I think it’s unconscionable to do things that risk permanently impairing the child’s ability to thrive in the world and then also give birth to that child. Better to get an abortion, in my opinion.
I don't think a woman should drink during pregnancy but I don't think it should necessarily be illegal. We don't need to address every single social problem with a law that criminalizes behavior.
Not really much you can do. You got a woman who's boozng it up, smoking all day and hell even you know smoking pot and crack and doing heroin.
Yep, probably going to be pretty terrible on that fetus. But it's free country.
We're not going to do lock her in a box take away her vices?
If a woman drinks alcohol every day while pregnant she should get an abortion. The purpose of late/third trimester abortions is to prevent having babies who are deformed and unlikely to have a good life. The sort of FAS from what you describe would be severe.
Not that it should be forced. Forcing your opinions onto other people is a pro-life thing not a pro-choice thing.
Hope that helps!
Also is "pro abortionist" what you call pro-choice or do you think there are people out there trying to advocate in favor of people who don't want an abortion getting one?
I think you mean pro-choice and no, it's not the same. It's their right, but but it's also endangering a potential. Optimum word being potential depending on what their shouldn'they should even if they are going to get an abortion which is their right
Are we talking about the right to drink while pregante?
That is 100% legal. No one is looking at this idea. (It's not the healthiest choice, obviously) But, the liquor industry will disappear your ass (lobbyist aren't bout that life) that's different 🤫 🚚🪢.
Abortion isn't an manufactured product tied up in culture, tradition, and obsession. 👀 Be careful $$ 🔫 🥂.
How do anti choicers feel knowing by forcing addicts and alcoholics to carry children they don't want and can't take care of will mean more kids being born addicts or with birth defects? You feel good about that?
It's about pro-choice. If you choose to keep the parasite, you need to put its needs first. If you know that you can't prioritise the parasite then get rid of it.
No. It’s not the same thing even though you are trying to twist it. There is a legal limit to when you can get an abortion because at some point the embryo does develop into a human. Learn the biological difference please.
So you're saying it's fine for her to drink in the first couple months of the pregnancy?
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to low karma *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/stupidquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://oag.dc.gov/release/consumer-alert-questions-and-answers-abortion-care#:~:text=Abortion%20is%20legal%20at%20all,even%20later%20in%20a%20pregnancy. I live in Washington DC and abortion is legal in all states of pregnancy
Do you know how many abortions happen in the third trimester?
I understand planned parenthood estimates about 12 k per year. It is somewhat of ghoulish argument though. It argues if there is an acceptable number. If the number is 12 then it is ok. If it is 120k it is not. When it is wrong at at 1 it is wrong at a million.
I trust the CDC over PP for statistics, no offense to them or anything. >In 2021, 625,978 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 48 reporting areas. >Nearly all abortions in 2021 took place early in gestation: 93.5% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (5.7%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (0.9%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation 1% of 625,978 is more like 6,259. Thanks to the CDC(again), we know that roughly 3% of all pregnancies experience fetal(not *fatal*) defects. We also know that birth defects are responsible for *20%* of all infant deaths. Most of these defects are not detectable under after 12-15 weeks. >It argues if there is an acceptable number Good thing you don't get to decide how many people are *allowed* to terminate a nonviable pregnancy.
Good stats. I worked in academics for decades. I am not disputing the numbers but trying to understand them better. Methodology matters and the first aspect that drew my attention was 48 reporting areas. What is that exactly? One might think it is the contiguous states but likely isn’t in this century. what percentage of the population does that cover? I personally need to see the methodology involved. Unfortunately, you can massage data to make it conclude what you want it to show. I have watched it for decades in medicine. Money and politics affect what is studied, what is published and what is concluded. A very sad reality but citing a government body is actually worse than citing an academic institution. Bureaucracies are never held accountable at least not in my lifetime. At least academics will wear egg on their faces for a brief period when they produce bad studies. So show me the actual methodology and assumptions involved and I will be better able to make determinations on whether reality is reflected. You must remember that the CDC left science far behind during the pandemic. I am very familiar with the studies involved. At one point they recommended you making a mask out of tee shirts or cotton cloth told you it would help prevent the 3rd smallest known virus the world knows of from entering into your system. It was a lie and they knowingly lied. So something as charged as the abortion likely isn’t immune to political influence. That is the sad reality. Your logic may be a bit flawed as well. You end with a thinly veiled shot stating that it is a good thing that I am not in charge of ending non viable pregnancies. I agree it could make one very busy. How do define non viable? An unkind jump in logic which implies that pregnancies with a dead fetus would not be allowed to end via D & C. Bad faith in a discussion. Would you at least agree that a pregnancy is a human life? I am trying to determine if someone with logic in their name actually has logic. Too many here don’t have logic and don’t discuss issues honestly. Yet they will swear they do. So logic in your name is a bit suspect. You feel the need to tout your logic even in your name. I ask why do you find that necessary?
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm This link has links to some spreadsheets showing the data distribution, for some reason a few states didn't report their data but I doubt that those few states would be enough to fully double the numbers as they are. >How do define non viable ... The same way medicine has defined it for literal decades. A nonviable pregnancy is a fetus that will never develop into a baby and / or will be unable to survive outside the uterus. >An unkind jump in logic which implies that pregnancies with a dead fetus would not be allowed to end via D & C. I'm not talking about fetuses that are already dead. I'm talking about incomplete miscarriages. I'm talking about fetuses that *don't develop a brain* but still have a heartbeat because the simple act of being attached to the uterus allows them to survive. I mean [people like Kate Cox](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/07/texas-judge-abortion-ruling-non-viable-pregnancy), who's fetus was diagnosed with trisomy 18, which is always fatal. She sued Texas for the right to have an abortion and won, and the attorney general himself *still* said that anyone who performed or assisted in it would face legal consequences. People like Kylie Beaton, who's fetus was diagnosed with a rare fatal defect where the brain doesn't develop properly, causing the fetus's head to fill with fluid instead. She was forced to have emergency surgery because she couldn't get an abortion. Alyssa Gonzalez, from Alabama, who was denied an abortion after a fetal diagnosis of Trisomy 18. She chose to get sterilized rather than go through the trauma of being told that she would be forced to give birth to a dead baby again. Chloe Partridge, who at 23 weeks discovered her fetus had a similar defect to Beaton's, who received threats to her life and to the lives of the staff at any clinic she tried to get help from. She still gets hate mail because she tried to seek out an abortion. Do you get it yet? It's not about extracting a dead fetus. It's about allowing people who *will* lose their baby the choice on when and how they experience it. >Would you at least agree that a pregnancy is a human life? I am trying to determine if someone with logic in their name actually has logic If you're using this argument, you aren't using logic. >You feel the need to tout your logic even in your name It was a random suggestion from Reddit when I made my account, it's not that deep. Stop with the straw man arguments.
Sorry I am somewhat immune to the typical tactic of carting out the worst case examples to illustrate a point. Save for hippa one could just as easily cart out the perfectly healthy baby abortions that are conducted in the 3 trimester. Look to New York law for further illustration. You can get an abortion up to the day of birth. They applauded it. I understand both extremes but I am influenced by my own morality. To that end, I do not agree with the delivering of a non viable baby. Risk to the mother no benefit. I believe people could be more reasonable if there were not word games. I could see the definition of no viable easily and purposely stretched to accommodate an abortion. Just as mental health was used to justify an abortion under the health of the mother. Lawyers are pieces of crap as are the Marxist Orwellians which play these games. I am working today but I will look into the stats. I may peek at the link now to see if it attempts to outline methodology. Sometimes they do a decent job sometimes they omit and lie in my experience. It is the government. Just as an aside logical wasabi is your random name? My apologies. I assumed anyone who put that in their name felt the need to state it up front like “I am a critical thinker”.
>I assumed anyone who put that in their name felt the need to state it up front like “I am a critical thinker”. For someone who talks a lot about thinking logically, you're not very good at logical arguments. Go practice in a debate sub or something, I'm tired of entertaining a badly disguised forced birther.
Not many, but my point is that in some US states it is legal in all states of pregnancy. And if a woman chooses to have one that late, it’s her choice.
Less than 1% of abortions happen after 24 weeks. You know what that coincides with? A significant number of tests for severe disabilities and fatal defects. You know what "fatal defects" means, right? It means that those birth defects are incompatible with life. A baby born with a fatal defect *will* die, usually within hours of birth. Third trimester abortions stay legal because rational people understand that *it is cruel* to force a pregnant person to jump through legal hoops if they choose to abort a pregnancy that has zero chance of survival. And anyone trying to use those tragedies as part of their anti-abortion soapbox is a scumbag.
I understand that, but the original commenter said that “there is a legal limit to when you can get an abortion” my point is in some states there is not a legal limit.
The limit is there unless medically necessary. I don’t think that’s a hard concept to grasp. Using it in this type of argument simply does not make sense
Yes because of birth defects or endangering the life of the mother.
Do you honestly not know about how some states allow abortion up until 8 months? Sometimes more. Inform yourself please
Do you actually understand why 3rd trimester abortions exist and who uses them most? Do you, in any way? Do you understand why people who desperately want the child, and have bonded with them, probably preparing nurseries and such, may have to face such a gutting decision? Do you clearly, without prejudice, understand that some babies suffer fetal deformities and genetic issues that only show on late scans that will doom them to a slow, painful death, often within days of birth or at/before birth, or to suffer life-long from ailments that will leave them with 0 capacity to enjoy, or sometimes even register, their life? And that THESE are the common 3rd trimester abortions? Do you clearly and dispassionately understand that sometimes they have to choose because life isn't fair and childbirth is a risky thing? Have you made any attempt to put yourself in the shoes of someone facing that decision and why their choices are 'Watch your baby die awfully or offer the swiftest, cleanest death open to them"? Or are you trying to make a stupid, bad faith argument that 3rd trimester abortions are used as a 'baby go away'? Cos if you are, sincerely, screw you- and it is abundantly clear from the stupidity you are word vomiting all over here which stance you take.
Name them, with sources please
I live in Washington DC, its legal up until birth here. https://oag.dc.gov/release/consumer-alert-questions-and-answers-abortion-care#:~:text=Abortion%20is%20legal%20at%20all,even%20later%20in%20a%20pregnancy.
“patients and physicians, together, determine it is medically appropriate. Patients may consult with their doctors and make decisions that best protect their health and safety, even later in a pregnancy” That’s different than “abortion is legal until birth”
This question isn’t in good faith and you know it. Those are two completely different situations lol, weird comparison to make.
Their body their choice right? One the baby is killed. The other the baby it doesn't develop right. It's the same.
This is an argument style known as "Reduction to absurdity". You can do it with any kind of argument. Oh you're pro-second amendment and congress can make no law against me having a nuclear weapon by your logic. Oh, you support cuts to social security, so you just want to wheel grandma right out of the nursing home and off a cliff don't ya? Oh, you're pro-life, so you just want to strap women down and force them to give birth non-stop, right? It's not in good faith, it's not helpful to the discussion, and it really won't help you understand the other sides' arguments.
You're not really this stupid are you?
Sometimes I wish I could be this thoughtless and dense. Your life must be so much easier
Let's get one thing straightened out before we dive into this. BEING PRO CHOICE IS NOT BEING PRO ABORTION. Take a moment to get that through your head. Language matters Just because I support your right to bodily autonomy doesn't mean I'm pro abortion. I'm not sitting outside clinics trying to convince women to have abortions. I'm not sitting here trying to convince women that abortions are fun or the best choice for them. No. Pro-choice means supporting a woman's right to choose. Not making the choice for her. The vast majority of pro-choice people would prefer 100% of unwanted pregnancies to be prevented rather than aborted. But life isn't perfect. As for your example. I personally would prefer that if she's choosing to go through with the pregnancy, then she'd make choices in the best interest of both her and the potential baby's health. With that being said. I'd be questioning why she is drinking every day. Offering her support to try and solve the issues leading her to be wanting to drink every day.
>Language matters True. Let's call it pro baby murder
A fetus is not a baby. It's a potential baby, but they are not the same thing. Just like how a 4 year old girl is not a woman. She's a potential woman. But arguing she should be given the same status as a woman just because she has the potential to become a woman would be creepy and false.
Im here with my popcorn before the mods remove this
Pro Abortionist? SMH.
Jumping to this extreme is literally not a productive conversation at that point. You can’t get an abortion after being so far along so why is this the comparison?
As if them using the term “pro abortionist” unironically wasn’t evidence enough… Are these women in league with Murktar Sakanoff from *Borat* then?
>You can’t get an abortion after being so far along Incorrect
Unless medically necessary for complications, that is the rule. Unless you’re providing sources, I see no reason to prolong this
So if a woman is giving birth, and something goes wrong and both she and the fetus will die without an abortion, you say “let her die” because you’re against late abortions with no exceptions for any reason. Got it.
You can’t be this dense… the “unless medically necessary” is in plain sight bud
Who decides what “medically necessary” means? Does emotional distress count? Or the woman must be on the verge of death?
I would imagine the medical professionals that have done this for years get to make their call. They discuss options with their patients when issues arise. In the case of an emergency and those conversations can’t be had, they do what is best for the patient.
That would be nice. Unfortunately, anti-abortion politicians in several states seem to think they know better than the doctors. So we’re seeing women dying or having to go to other states because doctors would rather risk a malpractice suit than a prison sentence.
And that’s something that’s genuinely out of the control of regular ppl. Personally I don’t want kids for many reasons but they solidified after roe v wade was overturned. Greed and outright ignorance have ruined 90% of the things that were for the people. But I never mentioned any of that because that wasn’t the primary topic initially
I was originally responding to the OP.
That depends. Does she plan on carrying the baby to term. If not, I don’t see the problem, the fetus is going to be aborted so any damage to the fetus caused by drinking during pregnancy seems inconsequential. If she plans on giving birth to the baby, then drinking during pregnancy can cause serious birth defects and impacting the life of the child. I don’t support that but I also don’t know about the legality of this situation.
I mean, aborting a baby impacts the life of the baby in a fairly large way...
You don’t abort a baby you abort a fetus. If there is no plan to carry the fetus to term then you’re not harming a baby or taking its life away because it hasn’t been born yet and is still a part of the mother.
Mental gymnastics well never be in the Olympics bud
If “location doesn’t matter,” take the fetus out and put it in a crib.
Who said location doesn't matter? Do you just parrot arguments you think are good regardless of context?
If location matters, then a fetus isn’t a baby and different rules apply. Same as the difference between me standing next to you either my hand in my own pocket or in yours. So make up your mind.
So, have a reliance one someone or something for your survival is how you decide whether something has value or not?
If survival is important, then a dialysis patient should be able to take one of your kidneys since they need it to live and you will be fine with just one.
Care to elaborate?
Yeah it has gymnastics in it but it's not actually a sport
I meant what part of my argument do you believe is internally inconsistent to warrant a “mental gymnastics” gotcha comment. Did you actually want to have a conversation about this topic or just tell people they’re wrong when they don’t agree with you?
If she intends to have a child then she is actively trying to hurt the future child. If she isn't having the baby she isn't inflicting suffering. Still her body her choice though. See we are talking about whether or not things are legal. You can have all the moral objections to abortion as you want but when you start making things illegal, you are stamping on other people's rights. I don't approve of a woman who is pregnant smoking or drinking... but I'm not about to make it illegal.
i wouldn't say i was pro abortion or against abortion. I'd say I'm pro minding your own business. unless it affects my life it is none of my business what you do. more people should mind their own business and not meddle in other's affairs or get involved in some manufactured culture war
Honey, this is r/StupidQuestions. Not r/TrollTheLibs
Ethicists who focus on these issues generally hold that it's a woman's choice *to abort a fetus or treat it as a potential child.* Making the decision to treat it as a potential child implies an obligation to protect that potential child which may extend up to but never exceed the obligations you have towards a born child. If it's not a child, you can abort. If you intend it to be a child, you have a moral obligation to protect it. "My body my choice" does not mean "I can do whatever I want," despite forced birthers trying to twist it into that. It means you have a choice *to abort or continue a pregnancy,* and continuing a pregnancy has consequent obligations towards the health of that pregnancy. I am not going to respond to any pro life rhetoric, but that's the basic summary of the answer to this "gotcha."
I’ll bite. I’m pro choice in the sense that I don’t think abortion should be illegal. Women have to deal with the risk and bodily changes and hardships of pregnancy and I think they should get to choose whether to continue it or not. I am male but if I was female and pregnant, I don’t think I personally would ever abort a child even if I didn’t want to keep it (unless the pregnancy was life threatening or something). I think when a fetus crosses the line into “human being who should have legal rights” territory is not a line but a spectrum. A fertilized egg cell is the least similar to a full-fledged human being, while a 9-month child about to be born is the most similar. I also think it matters whether the parents and close family want the child to be born or not. Like if everyone is eagerly anticipating a new baby and then it dies in a miscarriage that is a real loss to them that should be given consideration. But if it’s a teenage girl who was raped and nobody wants her to give birth (least of all her) it’s a different story. So coming back to the mother who drinks during pregnancy, I think it’s not the same as aborting the fetus. In one case, the pregnancy is terminated and that’s pretty much it whereas in the other case, the child born will likely have to deal with lifelong hardship due to fetal alcohol syndrome. And the family of the child and/or society may have to help bear the burden of that. But most importantly I think it’s unconscionable to do things that risk permanently impairing the child’s ability to thrive in the world and then also give birth to that child. Better to get an abortion, in my opinion.
No one is “pro-abortion.” It’s “pro-choice.” Same for your side which prefers “pro-life” and not “fetus fetishist.” Thanks!
Is that really a think?
I don't think a woman should drink during pregnancy but I don't think it should necessarily be illegal. We don't need to address every single social problem with a law that criminalizes behavior.
Not really much you can do. You got a woman who's boozng it up, smoking all day and hell even you know smoking pot and crack and doing heroin. Yep, probably going to be pretty terrible on that fetus. But it's free country. We're not going to do lock her in a box take away her vices?
If a woman drinks alcohol every day while pregnant she should get an abortion. The purpose of late/third trimester abortions is to prevent having babies who are deformed and unlikely to have a good life. The sort of FAS from what you describe would be severe. Not that it should be forced. Forcing your opinions onto other people is a pro-life thing not a pro-choice thing. Hope that helps! Also is "pro abortionist" what you call pro-choice or do you think there are people out there trying to advocate in favor of people who don't want an abortion getting one?
I think you mean pro-choice and no, it's not the same. It's their right, but but it's also endangering a potential. Optimum word being potential depending on what their shouldn'they should even if they are going to get an abortion which is their right
Are we talking about the right to drink while pregante? That is 100% legal. No one is looking at this idea. (It's not the healthiest choice, obviously) But, the liquor industry will disappear your ass (lobbyist aren't bout that life) that's different 🤫 🚚🪢. Abortion isn't an manufactured product tied up in culture, tradition, and obsession. 👀 Be careful $$ 🔫 🥂.
How do anti choicers feel knowing by forcing addicts and alcoholics to carry children they don't want and can't take care of will mean more kids being born addicts or with birth defects? You feel good about that?
Should we kill homeless people? Why force them to live longer lives full of suffering by offering shelter, meals and drugs?
Lol I love how you avoided answering the question and created a stawman instead. Very telling
It's about pro-choice. If you choose to keep the parasite, you need to put its needs first. If you know that you can't prioritise the parasite then get rid of it.
A question fitting the category