News Roe v Wade

[Nah]

You want to attack religion, when we written the constitution based upon religion.

Religion is the cornerstone of the United States whether you like it or not.

This is....factually incorrect and always has been.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-amendment-i
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art11

A majority of the population being part of a religion =/= the nation being founded or based upon on said religion.

Moving on from that, banning abortion will just, as has already been said, do little/nothing to stop abortion from happening and instead just push more people toward unsafe abortion practices. Making something illegal has not always been effective at stopping it. Theft has been illegal in societies across the world for thousands of years, yet it still occurs all the time. The prohibition amendment is the only amendment in the US Constitution to be repealed, because of how poorly it worked. Legal abortion is safe abortion, and it's better to have something and not need it than to need it and not have it.

You are right that our government is (and has long been) garbage, that both of our major political parties are shit, and that there are things that need to be put into place that would happen to decrease the number of abortions. But by that same token, you should also be aware that none of those things are going to happen. It's very common for people who are anti-abortion to not support things like cheaper and easier access to contraceptives, better sex education, universal paid family leave, more childcare services, a change in how society views sex, marriage, and having children. There is not going to be a push from the federal government or the states that have or will ban abortion to do these things, not at all.
And exceptions for rape, incest, and medical issues? There was once a time where allowing abortion in those cases was commonplace amongst the anti-abortion crowd, but over the years it's becoming increasingly common to not allow literally any exceptions at all.

And that's before getting to some of the other stuff

 

[Hermione Granger]

You are right that our government is (and has long been) garbage, that both of our major political parties are shit, and that there are things that need to be put into place that would happen to decrease the number of abortions. But by that same token, you should also be aware that none of those things are going to happen. It's very common for people who are anti-abortion to not support things like cheaper and easier access to contraceptives, better sex education, universal paid family leave, more childcare services, a change in how society views sex, marriage, and having children. There is not going to be a push from the federal government or the states that have or will ban abortion to do these things, not at all.
And exceptions for rape, incest, and medical issues? There was once a time where allowing abortion in those cases was commonplace amongst the anti-abortion crowd, but over the years it's becoming increasingly common to not allow literally any exceptions at all.

And that's before getting to some of the other stuff

I can say that I would support exceptions, like I said I can tolerate abortions on rape, incest, and health issues. I might be pro life and I'm probably making mistakes in how I worded stuff in my posts, but I mainly was posting with points for a post roe vs wade world that was my main reason I posted. I know people might not agree on religion even though that has played a pivotal role in politics even if you don't want religion in politics. Oh and I know you posted that from the constitution, the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but some of our constitutional amendments were indeed based on religious values without actually being against that sentiment. So I was not factually wrong that religion hasn't been a pivotal role in the formation of the constitution. And really religion plays a part in our lives whether you actually realize it or not, and even atheists' are religious without them even realizing it.

I do hope birth control can be improved to be 100% effective for those taking that who might want children in the future. If a women don't want children I want to see some sort of action to make the procedure that can prevent pregnancy be readily available for no cost for all women of any background and I'm trying not to be stereotyping anyone. I think everyone should agree we should take steps to try to prevent the need of abortions. And I'm not trying to actually weaponize religion like the post above had stated, but like I said I probably misworded my posts, I'm also disabled and post what comes to mind without thinking on how I should word stuff. .

While abortion might be murder, like I said in my first sentence I do see merit it having some sort of exception. I don't agree with republican led states not putting some form of exception in their bills. I want better sex education, and I didn't even get that when I was in school. I want easier access to birth control. You are pointing out things that I would want out of our government, and yeah you might be right on them not giving us what we need or want. All I care about is decreasing the amount of abortions, but I can say there is one positive it actually seems what I heard that abortion has been decreasing in numbers year after year. If we can find a way to decrease the amounts of abortions to not be more than what the cdc reports in deaths for heart disease that would be a win in my books, maybe even lower than what the lowest reported number from cdc would be a even bigger win.

All I know there will be a day that there will be zero abortions and that is probably going to take place after what I learned in church called the tribulation period, and Christians should be taken out of this place before then.

 

[Harmonie]

The founding fathers were full of issues and their beliefs should not be taken as gospel or anything, BUT one thing many of them understood is that the separation of church and state is essential. This is as clear as day if you do the research.

It's sad how people from the 18th century understood this better than people today. Perhaps it's because Christian theocracies were all around them. In fact, even the colonies were rife with this and it was clear how disastrous it was.

We have the 50s to thank for this largely, where US officials decided that they should play up the high religiosity of the US versus the Soviets because of the Cold War. The motto of the US was changed to "In God We Trust", and "One Nation Under God" was added to the pledge. If you ask a random stranger on the street, would they even know all of that was a result of the 1950s and wasn't originally there? I doubt it, I know people I have talked to don't. And that's a huge problem. And people quote these all around to justify that America is and always has been a "Christian nation". The erosion of the reality of which the US was founded on has only been made worse by false historian David Barton spreading blatant lies and fabrications. This is now mainstream, and very scary.

The end result of this is not and can never be pretty. The Cold War may have done more damage to us than we first realized. Protect separation of church and state. It protects us all.

 

[Corrin]

Also before you dare bash me, I can tolerate abortions over rape, incest, and legit health issues. I just don't tolerate abortions over easily avoidable pregnancies which seems to be the majority of abortions.

If I may, I don't think any woman would want a whole surgical procedure unless it was her last choice. I don't believe anyone gets an abortion as birth control, like many believe.
Free birth control would be best though, as well as access to things like Plan B.

I had a D&C once and I was laid out all day. I just can't see someone choosing something like that.

If you feel like someone is treating you unfairly, simply report the post in question. I'm on every day.

 

[Tsutarja]

let me just say that i myself am a christian so it's hard for me to say where i stand on roe from a moral perspective.

one thing i will definitely not be afraid to speak out on is that i firmly believe the government has no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do to her body. it's despicable as well that legislation in many states (like florida) barring abortions were written by men.

 

[Orcaline]

All I know there will be a day that there will be zero abortions and that is probably going to take place after what I learned in church called the tribulation period, and Christians should be taken out of this place before then.

There is a marked difference in arguing for religion informing policy and then this kind of wildly unhinged statement. Religion and state should be separate, regardless of whatever skewed views of the constitution people might have, and attitudes on abortion should absolutely not be informed by wild end times prophecies lmfao (it's also the Great Tribulation if we're being technical)

When it comes to abortion, regardless of anyone's moral standing on it, nobody else should have any say in what women do with their bodies other than themselves. Making abortion illegal is insanely harmful and isn't going to stop abortion from happening. If you don't want one, or don't support them - that's fine! But that does not in any case mean you should have the ability to take that right to abortions away from others, nor get to decide what is or isn't an acceptable scenario for someone to have one.

 

[Corrin]

Please keep onto the topic at hand, and be respectful. If you wish to discuss Christianity and the church, you can absolutely make a new thread!

 

[Hermione Granger]

There is a marked difference in arguing for religion informing policy and then this kind of wildly unhinged statement. Religion and state should be separate, regardless of whatever skewed views of the constitution people might have, and attitudes on abortion should absolutely not be informed by wild end times prophecies lmfao (it's also the Great Tribulation if we're being technical)

When it comes to abortion, regardless of anyone's moral standing on it, nobody else should have any say in what women do with their bodies other than themselves. Making abortion illegal is insanely harmful and isn't going to stop abortion from happening. If you don't want one, or don't support them - that's fine! But that does not in any case mean you should have the ability to take that right to abortions away from others, nor get to decide what is or isn't an acceptable scenario for someone to have one.

What I can't celebrate the time when there is no abortions taking place or mention when no abortions is going to take place? I'm looking forward to the time after the tribulation period. The day that the abortion count hits zero is a good day. So specifically quoting that is very questionable since your mis-contextualizing that quote since you only quoted that.

And yes I don't support abortion, because I don't support murder. But I have a mind of not minding it in the form of rape, incest, or legit health issue. Those are three things I could tolerate as a pro life human being. It seems people keep ignoring that fact. And people should be using birth control in the first place and I think the religions who don't support it needs some stern talking to that birth control isn't a bad thing.

We need to get women access to birth control badly as a nation, if we can prevent pregnancy it would be a good thing. I know I would be campaigning for affordable birth control for all women.

 

[gimmepie]

I don't agree with abortion either for the most part. Not as a matter of religion - I'm agnostic as hell (heh). I just don't think it's particularly ethical under most circumstances. It's something that should be reserved for extreme situations. But, I'm not going to go into my thoughts on that here right now. I've done so numerous times and I think at this point we should all know I'm not about to change my mind and I don't expect to change anyone else's.

The reason I bring this up is because, despite this, I still disagree with the decision to overturn Roe v Wade. Advocating for restriction is one thing, but outright banning - and even fully criminalising in many states I believe - is several steps too far. There are several circumstances where abortion is a reasonable thing to consider, essentially if the life of the mother is at risk or the child can't expect a humane quality of life. Exactly where the line is on that last one, I can't say I 100% know. But the point is, outright banning this service isn't just going after people who make bad decisions, it's risking lives and its propagating suffering. It's an unreasonable and illogical choice that is being made because of dedication to a religion that the judges probably don't even fully understand, outdated moral standards and a shocking level of bias.

Above all, the hypocrisy in the ruling and subsequent laws being passed at state levels is infuriating. You can't tell me it's about the children when your party is responsible for millions of children getting piss poor educations, living in completely avoidable poverty or suffering and dying because you have a for-profit healthcare system. Don't get me started on the mistreatment of children who belong to ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ+ or the work that needs to be done on the foster/adoption system either. You can't tell me you want to reduce abortions if you also want to restrict access to contraceptives and refuse to provide adequate sexual education in school. You can't tell me that you're pro-life when you're making choices that are sentencing people to death all the time - this is just another one.

That's all without getting into the clear attempts to attack the LGBTQ+ or set a precedent to go after the rights of other groups.

So yeah. I've never really identified particularly strongly with either the pro-choice or pro-life camps. I find that both sides' stances are too extreme and are built on poor and illogical arguments. But regardless of my own views, it is plain as day to me that overturning Roe v Wade is going to do a lot more harm than good and, honestly, you have to wonder if maybe that's the point. Even as someone who doesn't really identify with either camp, it pisses me off to see people who are so willing to let millions suffer and die when they could prevent it claim to be "pro-life". You're not pro-life. You're either buying into conservative propaganda or you're disseminating that propaganda to further your own power-hungry agenda. It disgusts me.

If any of those politicians actually wanted to save lives, this isn't where they would be starting and it's not how they'd be going about it.

 

[Corrin]

What I can't celebrate the time when there is no abortions taking place or mention when no abortions is going to take place? I'm looking forward to the time after the tribulation period.

And that's fine! But this thread about the law and not the biblical end times. Disagreeing with abortion because of your faith is your choice and in no way against the rules but many feel this is a bit too far.

However, I agree that calling someone unhinged is taking it a bit too far, please remain civil everyone.

 

[Devalue]

Had an interesting thought. Might sound a little sensational by itself. Requires a bit of lead-in.

1. Costs a lot to for any medical procedure in the United States. Found an article from FAIR Health in 2018. Averages $12,290 for a vaginal delivery and $16,907 for a cesarean section across the nation. (Varies by location, of course.) How many people, especially those without insurance, can afford that cost? Struggles with medical debt in the country as-is.

In addition, what about the physical side of things? Performed a cesarean section for 31.7% of all births in 2019, according to CDC data. May take a while to recover. Estimates about six weeks to recover from a cesarean section. Cannot expect paid leave during that time. Hurts to lose that much in wages, especially given the hospital bill.

2. Imperfections of contraception. Works relatively well when used perfectly. Drops considerably with typical use. Misses a dose or uses it incorrectly sometimes. Pulled some numbers from the NHS:
- Contraceptive Injection: >99% effective with perfect use. 94% with typical use. (Means less than 1 pregnancy and 6 pregnancies per 100 women in one year, respectively.)
- Combined Contraceptive Pill: >99% effective with perfect use. 91% with typical use.
- Male Condoms: 98% with perfect use. 82% with typical use.
- Female Condoms: 95% with perfect use. 79% with typical use.

- Female sterilisation: >99% effective. Places it at 1 in 200 women becoming pregnant in their lifetime. (Note the timeframe switch.)
- Male sterilisation or vasectomy: >99% effective. Regains fertility in their lifetime at 1 in 2000.

Hoped for per sexual encounter rates. Understands the difficulty of obtaining data like that, though.

Focuses in on the male condom stat for a moment. Avoids a pregnancy 82% of the time per year. How long does it take to become a 50-50? Let y = years.
.5 = (.82)^y
ln(.5) = y * ln(.82)
y = ln(.5) / ln(.82)
y = 3.4928

Becomes a coin-flip after about 3.5 years with typical use. (Jumps to 34.3 years with consistent perfect use, for anyone wondering.) Tracks with the Guttmacher Institute's data of 45% of the pregnancies in the United States being unplanned in 2011.
____________

With those in mind, is it possible to become too poor to have sex with abortion becoming illegal? Faces a significant financial burden, on top of other risks. Cannot place sufficient trust in more common contraception methods. Seems reasonably likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy in a sexually-active person's lifetime. Probably stands a better chance of that than getting hit by a one-off Fissure. (Absolutely uses Pokemon analogies on a Pokemon forum.)

Sort of reads like a Swiftian essay topic. Welcomes people to write it.

 

[Fairy]

why haven't those women gotten the operation to prevent pregnancy, that should be a priority getting those women the procedure.

*Raises hand*

Yeah, hi, this would be me. I've been on an injection birth control since I hit puberty. I know I don't want children and I've known my entire life. I'm now 31. Do you have any idea how long I've been trying to get an operation, ANY operation, that will permanently render me infertile? How many clinics I've been to? Doctors I've talked to? How much time and effort I've put into finding any kind of option out there that's within my financial limits? You're disregarding how hard it actually is for women to get "an operation to prevent pregnancy" - because it's about as hard as finding a safe abortion clinic in this political sphere. And I really don't appreciate this flagrant, dismissive attitude of "why don't these women just...!" coming from someone who would prefer to see my life ruined with child despite every single measure I've taken to remove that as a possibility.

With every attempt I've made to contact organizations, hospitals, clinics, independent practitioners, I'm always told that: well, it is possible... but you're much too young to make such a drastic, life altering decision about your reproductive health! What if you change your mind?? Again, I'm 31.

I've been trying to get some kind of surgery for YEARS. And with no hesitation I get confronted by people who feel it their personal imperative to remind me that I'm not getting any younger! Your biological clock is ticking! You're more likely to have complications during pregnancy the longer you wait!

Quite simply, it is a priority for me to have an operation that will completely dissolve my reproductive organs. But it's these same pro-life philosophies that prevent me from actually being able to make that choice. Because my value as a biological female is reduced to my ability to procreate. None of this is about "preventing genocide", it's about policing what women can and cannot do with their own bodies.

But hey, what do I know? If it's such an easy and readily available solution for women to get sterilized wherever you live than, please, give me a number to call. My biological clock isn't fast enough for me, thanks.

 

[Corrin]

*Raises hand*

Yeah, hi, this would be me. I've been on an injection birth control since I hit puberty. I know I don't want children and I've known my entire life. I'm now 31. Do you have any idea how long I've been trying to get an operation, ANY operation, that will permanently render me infertile? How many clinics I've been to? Doctors I've talked to? How much time and effort I've put into finding any kind of option out there that's within my financial limits? You're disregarding how hard it actually is for women to get "an operation to prevent pregnancy" - because it's about as hard as finding a safe abortion clinic in this political sphere. And I really don't appreciate this flagrant, dismissive attitude of "why don't these women just...!" coming from someone who would prefer to see my life ruined with child despite every single measure I've taken to remove that as a possibility.

With every attempt I've made to contact organizations, hospitals, clinics, independent practitioners, I'm always told that: well, it is possible... but you're much too young to make such a drastic, life altering decision about your reproductive health! What if you change your mind?? Again, I'm 31.

I've been trying to get some kind of surgery for YEARS. And with no hesitation I get confronted by people who feel it their personal imperative to remind me that I'm not getting any younger! Your biological clock is ticking! You're more likely to have complications during pregnancy the longer you wait!

Quite simply, it is a priority for me to have an operation that will completely dissolve my reproductive organs. But it's these same pro-life philosophies that prevent me from actually being able to make that choice. Because my value as a biological female is reduced to my ability to procreate. None of this is about "preventing genocide", it's about policing what women can and cannot do with their own bodies.

But hey, what do I know? If it's such an easy and readily available solution for women to get sterilized wherever you live than, please, give me a number to call. My biological clock isn't fast enough for me, thanks.

I suffer from issues with EXTREME heavy menstrual cycles, to the point of endangering my life. Even after I nearly died, I was denied a hysterotomy by every Gynecologist I saw because what if I want kids! I can't have kids, like physically. My grandmother died giving birth to my mother and my mother nearly died with me. They know this, and still said no. Mind, last time I asked I was 26.

 

[Fairy]

I suffer from issues with EXTREME heavy menstrual cycles, to the point of endangering my life. Even after I nearly died, I was denied a hysterotomy by every Gynecologist I saw because what if I want kids! I can't have kids, like physically. My grandmother died giving birth to my mother and my mother nearly died with me. They know this, and still said no. Mind, last time I asked I was 26.

Another excellent case in point. Women who experience life-threatening consequences as a result of just their body's natural hormonal cycle. Not to mention the things pregnancy does to alter the brain, body, and hormone production. Simply learning that you're pregnant can be perceived as a death sentence to some women.

It is certainly not people who are "pro-choice" turning Maera, myself, and most likely hundreds of women away from surgical options to permanently prevent pregnancy.

Thank god NJ has decided to not follow in the footsteps of other states and make sure sexual health services remain as available as possible for women. They also announced that they would not cooperate with any agency looking to punish a woman who enters the state explicitly for that reason, nor the doctors who perform the procedure, nor the taxi-drivers who brought her there, nor anyone who could possibly be construed as helping or participating in the abortion occurring.

 

[Corrin]

I have PCOS, most people with it are the same.
I live in a country where it's completely legal to get an abortion though, so I won't try and speak over those from the US.

 

[Simply Dunsparce]

One thing I'm worried about is that women that end up having miscarriages will be very easy to target as criminals. Especially considering laws such as the Texas one provide a financial incentive for people to target them.

 

[Corrin]

One thing I'm worried about is that women that end up having miscarriages will be very easy to target as criminals. Especially considering laws such as the Texas one provide a financial incentive for people to target them.

I saw a proposal like this. Like OK let me just tell my body to not miscarry it will listen to me!

 

[VisionofMilotic]

There are already some cases on record where women were targeted for having a miscarriage, if prosecutors felt like they did something irresponsible while pregnant. Women who have drug problems are sometimes prosecuted when their baby dies in the womb.

There was a teenage Native-American girl named Brittany Poolaw, who lived in Oklahoma, one of the states with the harshest abortion laws. She suffered a miscarriage, and when she went to the hospital, she admitted that she had used marijuana and methamphetamine during pregnancy, then got charged with manslaughter for the death of the foetus, and is still imprison as far as I am able to research.

It's not even clear that the reason for the miscarriage was her drug use. People can still miscarry sometimes no matter what they do. Even if it was the cause, it sounds like it was an accident, and more of a case of self-harm. Addiction is a kind of illness, and people suffering from it need treatment and support to help them get clean, instead of punishment.

There were some similar cases in California where women who were on drugs experienced stillbirths, and were charged with murder. One was Chelsea Baker, another was Adora Perez and Roseann Jaurigue. Unlike in the Oklahoma case the charges were rejected by judges in these cases, so none of the women are in jail. It's still disturbing though to see the waters being tested, even in a state with very liberal stances on abortion rights.

These news stories are pretty easy to look up, so I didn't post sources, but I can add links, if others are interested in reading more details.

 

[Corrin]

Suffering a miscarriage could be the worst moment in anyone's life, punishing someone for it shouldn't even be considered.

 

[Fairy]

It doesn't stop there. Filling prison systems with petty / NON offenders, especially those women who happen to have issues with substance abuse, will only serve to traumatize or desensitize, and increase the percentage of revolving door inmates. These women aren't criminals they have a disease and a parasite. Rehabilitation should be the first method of addressing such cases.

Or, you know, not punishing women for a tragic but still completely natural occurrence that's beyond their control? Or, even better, letting women have a choice in their sexual reproductive rights?

What about the expectant moms out there desperately trying and failing, and trying and failing, years upon years to get pregnant? Women who have taken hormone supplements, fertility drugs and regiments, taking out second mortgages, scheduled cryopreservation, tried IVF, and even been deluded into pseudoscience like transcendental meditation and ingesting suspicious tinctures to invigorate and align the mind-body elements of water-earth from within. Women doing everything possible (and sometimes impossible) they can to conceive a child that they want to raise in a loving, financially stable, household? Are those women who fail to bring an embryo to term murderesses? Shouldn't these women be considered serial killers, in fact? Knowingly and deliberately trying over and over and over to keep a fetus that her body ultimately rejects each time?

On, no, that's different! Since she wants a kid she can kill all the fetuses she needs to achieve her goal! Not like that scared teenager over there, who's own brain isn't fully developed, miscarrying because she didn't know alcohol consumption could have consequences to the child.

Did we ask if the teen wanted to keep the child? Of course not! She obviously murdered it. It's not our fault we cut Sex-Ed classes in high school and she might not have had access to proper education about pregnancy!