Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Nobody said that, I literally manage risk for a living. Anecdotal reference is a logical fallacy - 'because my wife was fine bearing 4 children, ALL women are fine bearing children.' Abject nonsense.

Pop quiz: does PPD exist? How many women suffer from it? What are its detrimental health effects?

So the statements from your MD cousin are anecdotal as well?

Actually no, all factual. I'll just repost her comment here:

Excellent comment from my cousin, who is an OB-GYN (and her mother is a retired pediatrician as well):

“If this was really about babies, we would live in a completely different country with amenities that would make abortion unpalatable to almost any woman.

Simple things like universal coverage for pre and post-natal care, with or without complications. Simple things like universal coverage for pre-K and adequate capacity for daycare for working mothers. Simple things like universal health coverage until age 18. Simple things like guaranteed parental leave regardless of industry.

But we don’t live in that country”

Unless I know absolutely nothing about benefits and insurance and such after 20 years in my industry, her summation is spot-on.

That sounds anecdotal to me. Show me the facts and research, vs your cousins opinions and observations.

ltbewr wrote:

One important issue in the discussion of access to legal abortion is why a woman has or had one.

I disagree that its important, why should someone need to justify autonomy over their own body. It might be important for someone trying to justify their position in controlling someone else's body.

Fred

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

So the statements from your MD cousin are anecdotal as well?

Actually no, all factual. I'll just repost her comment here:

Excellent comment from my cousin, who is an OB-GYN (and her mother is a retired pediatrician as well):

“If this was really about babies, we would live in a completely different country with amenities that would make abortion unpalatable to almost any woman.

Simple things like universal coverage for pre and post-natal care, with or without complications. Simple things like universal coverage for pre-K and adequate capacity for daycare for working mothers. Simple things like universal health coverage until age 18. Simple things like guaranteed parental leave regardless of industry.

But we don’t live in that country”

Unless I know absolutely nothing about benefits and insurance and such after 20 years in my industry, her summation is spot-on.

That sounds anecdotal to me. Show me the facts and research, vs your cousins opinions and observations.

Huh, do we live in the same country/reality? No need to play coy - we all know those EU/Japan/Australia-style systems are not present here.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

So the statements from your MD cousin are anecdotal as well?

Actually no, all factual. I'll just repost her comment here:

Excellent comment from my cousin, who is an OB-GYN (and her mother is a retired pediatrician as well):

“If this was really about babies, we would live in a completely different country with amenities that would make abortion unpalatable to almost any woman.

Simple things like universal coverage for pre and post-natal care, with or without complications. Simple things like universal coverage for pre-K and adequate capacity for daycare for working mothers. Simple things like universal health coverage until age 18. Simple things like guaranteed parental leave regardless of industry.

But we don’t live in that country”

Unless I know absolutely nothing about benefits and insurance and such after 20 years in my industry, her summation is spot-on.

That sounds anecdotal to me. Show me the facts and research, vs your cousins opinions and observations.

Wait wait, you don't have the credentials you see. You can't opine because you ain't a doctor. So despite all you say, their anecdotes are real based since they went to medical school.

ltbewr wrote:

One important issue in the discussion of access to legal abortion is why a woman has or had one.I have linked a detailed study but basically it is rarely due to rape, incest, save the life of the mother or failure of birth control but for elective reasons..Usually the decision is for one or more reasons broadly, 'Not Financially prepared', 'Not right time to have a baby', 'Partner related reasons'. as well a health issues.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729671/
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/defaul ... 711005.pdf
In the USA, the lack of affordable health care in general, high price of birth control drugs, lack of government financial support for women who have children are part of the financial factors.Federal laws generally ban the use of Federal funds for abortion.
The rate of abortions in the USA has gone down from a decade ago but has slightly risen in more recent ones.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ ... tm#T1_down

Birth control being expensive is just an excuse. most birth control can be gotten free or low-cost. I have already posted links to sites that provide that in this thread.

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I can't believe we are continuing to engage someone who calls a fetus a parasite. I understand the definition of parasite, but you are saying that in a derogatory fashion. My kids can't survive without my recourses, does that make them parasites?

According to the CDC:

A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.

Unless your kids live in or you then no. Also your kids could survive with the resources of something/someone else.

Fred

https://byjus.com/biology/parasite-defi ... df257a8444

"A parasite is a plant or an animal that lives on, or with, or inside a larger species extracting nutrients."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... 2d638cc3e4

"an animal or plant that lives on or in another animal or plant of a different type and feeds from it:"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/parasite

"an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment

Are you going to try to force someone to use your definition of a word because you prefer a different one? There's a certain irony in that.

Fred

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Actually no, all factual. I'll just repost her comment here:

Excellent comment from my cousin, who is an OB-GYN (and her mother is a retired pediatrician as well):

“If this was really about babies, we would live in a completely different country with amenities that would make abortion unpalatable to almost any woman.

Simple things like universal coverage for pre and post-natal care, with or without complications. Simple things like universal coverage for pre-K and adequate capacity for daycare for working mothers. Simple things like universal health coverage until age 18. Simple things like guaranteed parental leave regardless of industry.

But we don’t live in that country”

Unless I know absolutely nothing about benefits and insurance and such after 20 years in my industry, her summation is spot-on.

That sounds anecdotal to me. Show me the facts and research, vs your cousins opinions and observations.

Huh, do we live in the same country/reality? No need to play coy - we all know those EU/Japan/Australia-style systems are not present here.

Lack of "universal" care doesn't not equal no care. Any women in the US who wants pre and post natal care can get it. Even the poor can get it via Medicaid. I am not saying our system is perfect, we could definitely improve a lot of things, but lets not pretend that the care doesn't exist.

https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-p ... 3721424140

AirWorthy99 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Actually no, all factual. I'll just repost her comment here:

Excellent comment from my cousin, who is an OB-GYN (and her mother is a retired pediatrician as well):

“If this was really about babies, we would live in a completely different country with amenities that would make abortion unpalatable to almost any woman.

Simple things like universal coverage for pre and post-natal care, with or without complications. Simple things like universal coverage for pre-K and adequate capacity for daycare for working mothers. Simple things like universal health coverage until age 18. Simple things like guaranteed parental leave regardless of industry.

But we don’t live in that country”

Unless I know absolutely nothing about benefits and insurance and such after 20 years in my industry, her summation is spot-on.

That sounds anecdotal to me. Show me the facts and research, vs your cousins opinions and observations.

Wait wait, you don't have the credentials you see. You can't opine because you ain't a doctor. So despite all you say, their anecdotes are real based since they went to medical school.

MD is not needed to know universal childcare coverage and pre/postnatal support for all women doesn't exist in the US.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Actually no, all factual. I'll just repost her comment here:

Excellent comment from my cousin, who is an OB-GYN (and her mother is a retired pediatrician as well):

“If this was really about babies, we would live in a completely different country with amenities that would make abortion unpalatable to almost any woman.

Simple things like universal coverage for pre and post-natal care, with or without complications. Simple things like universal coverage for pre-K and adequate capacity for daycare for working mothers. Simple things like universal health coverage until age 18. Simple things like guaranteed parental leave regardless of industry.

But we don’t live in that country”

Unless I know absolutely nothing about benefits and insurance and such after 20 years in my industry, her summation is spot-on.

That sounds anecdotal to me. Show me the facts and research, vs your cousins opinions and observations.

Wait wait, you don't have the credentials you see. You can't opine because you ain't a doctor. So despite all you say, their anecdotes are real based since they went to medical school.

Dang, you're right. I will go back and sit in the corner now.

bpatus297 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One important issue in the discussion of access to legal abortion is why a woman has or had one.I have linked a detailed study but basically it is rarely due to rape, incest, save the life of the mother or failure of birth control but for elective reasons..Usually the decision is for one or more reasons broadly, 'Not Financially prepared', 'Not right time to have a baby', 'Partner related reasons'. as well a health issues.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729671/
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/defaul ... 711005.pdf
In the USA, the lack of affordable health care in general, high price of birth control drugs, lack of government financial support for women who have children are part of the financial factors.Federal laws generally ban the use of Federal funds for abortion.
The rate of abortions in the USA has gone down from a decade ago but has slightly risen in more recent ones.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ ... tm#T1_down

Birth control being expensive is just an excuse. most birth control can be gotten free or low-cost. I have already posted links to sites that provide that in this thread.

And yet it is again on the woman to do it. Birth control is highly expensive. Especially for people with adverse drug reactions that need special ones. And the penalty for not being on it , is going to get really expensive thanks to a bunch of abusive frauds that are perpetuating a lie about saving lives.

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

According to the CDC:


Unless your kids live in or you then no. Also your kids could survive with the resources of something/someone else.

Fred

https://byjus.com/biology/parasite-defi ... df257a8444

"A parasite is a plant or an animal that lives on, or with, or inside a larger species extracting nutrients."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... 2d638cc3e4

"an animal or plant that lives on or in another animal or plant of a different type and feeds from it:"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/parasite

"an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment

Are you going to try to force someone to use your definition of a word because you prefer a different one? There's a certain irony in that.

Fred

No, just showing that what you are saying isn't an absolute, and the consensus of scientist is that its of a different species. It's really irrelevant, you are using parasite derogatory.

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

One important issue in the discussion of access to legal abortion is why a woman has or had one.I have linked a detailed study but basically it is rarely due to rape, incest, save the life of the mother or failure of birth control but for elective reasons..Usually the decision is for one or more reasons broadly, 'Not Financially prepared', 'Not right time to have a baby', 'Partner related reasons'. as well a health issues.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729671/
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/defaul ... 711005.pdf
In the USA, the lack of affordable health care in general, high price of birth control drugs, lack of government financial support for women who have children are part of the financial factors.Federal laws generally ban the use of Federal funds for abortion.
The rate of abortions in the USA has gone down from a decade ago but has slightly risen in more recent ones.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ ... tm#T1_down

Birth control being expensive is just an excuse. most birth control can be gotten free or low-cost. I have already posted links to sites that provide that in this thread.

And yet it is again on the woman to do it. Birth control is highly expensive. Especially for people with adverse drug reactions that need special ones. And the penalty for not being on it , is going to get really expensive thanks to a bunch of abusive frauds that are perpetuating a lie about saving lives.

Why does everyone want to keep using outlying examples? What you are describing is very rare.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

That sounds anecdotal to me. Show me the facts and research, vs your cousins opinions and observations.

Huh, do we live in the same country/reality? No need to play coy - we all know those EU/Japan/Australia-style systems are not present here.

Lack of "universal" care doesn't not equal no care. Any women in the US who wants pre and post natal care can get it. Even the poor can get it via Medicaid. I am not saying our system is perfect, we could definitely improve a lot of things, but lets not pretend that the care doesn't exist.

https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-p ... 3721424140

He never dared to ask his cousin, that despite Europeans having all of that he mentions, they still have same or even higher abortion rate than the US.

So, no, having all of that care for free, won't change anything.

Is a great myth the left says, you conservatives don't want abortion but don't want to care for the children. Well, Europe has according to the left the best social safety net in the world, yet they do more or the same of abortions than the US.

That takes down the cousin's premise. Yet what I just said isn't anecdote, is actual fact. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/11/11657174/ ... es-falling

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

That sounds anecdotal to me. Show me the facts and research, vs your cousins opinions and observations.

Huh, do we live in the same country/reality? No need to play coy - we all know those EU/Japan/Australia-style systems are not present here.

Lack of "universal" care doesn't not equal no care. Any women in the US who wants pre and post natal care can get it. Even the poor can get it via Medicaid. I am not saying our system is perfect, we could definitely improve a lot of things, but lets not pretend that the care doesn't exist.

https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-p ... 3721424140

Yay now that we're in my field of expertise let's read the fine print, from your link, shall we?

The general guidelines for eligibility for Medicaid are set by the Federal government; however, each state sets up their own specific requirements for eligibility and these can differ from state to state.

In the “categorically needy” group, this will cover pregnant women whose income level is at or below 133% of the Federal Poverty level. (Check with your Medicaid office to find out what this number is for your state.)

So as in most cases with benefits, this screws women who make around $40-$55K and can't hit that threshold. If the dad's already out of the picture, just tough it right? Or spend money trying to haul his ass into court, if he can be found...fun!

When receiving Medicaid benefits, you should be given a list of medical providers who accept Medicaid or given a website to look for a provider in your area. As long as you receive care from a Medicaid provider, your health care costs will be submitted through Medicaid and will be covered. (In accordance with certain Medicaid regulations and guidelines.)

And if it's a low-income area and the limited providers on such a list are already booked out, then what? Spend money traveling to somewhere appointments are available? Fun again!

Pregnant women are usually given priority in determining Medicaid eligibility. Most offices try to qualify a pregnant woman within about 2-4 weeks. If you need medical treatment before then, talk with your local office about a temporary card.

This is a problem women on *good* employer-based insurance will never have.

And people who make a middle-range income may qualify if they fit one of the qualifying groups and can fall back on options such as “share of cost” (which works like a deductible before full coverage begins.)

Oh gee, nothing that can go wrong here for the lucky women in the aforementioned $40-$55K group. Sucks to be them, I guess.

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

https://byjus.com/biology/parasite-defi ... df257a8444

"A parasite is a plant or an animal that lives on, or with, or inside a larger species extracting nutrients."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... 2d638cc3e4

"an animal or plant that lives on or in another animal or plant of a different type and feeds from it:"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/parasite

"an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment

Are you going to try to force someone to use your definition of a word because you prefer a different one? There's a certain irony in that.

Fred

No, just showing that what you are saying isn't an absolute, and the consensus of scientist is that its of a different species. It's really irrelevant, you are using parasite derogatory.

I will use it as I see fit, whether you interpret it as derogatory is on you. CDC vs dictionary.com certainly isn't exactly a good show of science vs non science.
An unwanted organism (same species or otherwise) utilizing someones nutrients certainly seems to fit the 'Spirit' of all the definition you posted

https://www.reading.ac.uk/news-archive/ ... r9938.html

Fred

AirWorthy99 wrote:

That takes down the cousin's premise. Yet what I just said isn't anecdote, is actual fact. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/11/11657174/ ... es-falling

Except she wasn't talking about Europe - she practices in the US. You keep conveniently leaving that part out. But oh well, facts be damned.

You want to talk about Europe because it deflects from the fact there are more low income communities in the US and abortion rates tend to be highest there.

A liberal PAC has released a video ad which represents a stinging representation of what the future of women's health care in America could look like once Roe is overturned - the criminalization of women who seek, or have had an abortion, and those who assist them.

It starts with a mother and daughter, both visibly shaken, driving at night in a car when they are pulled over by the police. 'Let me do the talking' the mother says. Two officers then approach the car, and note the daughter and mother are shaken and upset. After a few questions the officers ask 'Are you heading to the border?' and 'Are you pregnant?' before both are pulled out of the car by the police by force with the daughter yelling for her mother.

It is a powerful piece and ends with #GOPHandmaidsTale across the screen, a powerful message/hashtag which some will be able to relate to on account of the recent TV series.

Full ad can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g2CqOrFGak

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

That takes down the cousin's premise. Yet what I just said isn't anecdote, is actual fact. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/11/11657174/ ... es-falling

Except she wasn't talking about Europe - she practices in the US. You keep conveniently leaving that part out. But oh well, facts be damned.

You want to talk about Europe because it deflects from the fact there are more low income communities in the US and abortion rates tend to be highest there.

Nope, if your cousin's utopian dream is true, then in the utopian Europe they won't be having so many abortions.

And yes, they will lead the world in fertility, currently they are the lowest on earth. Despite that great social safety net.

So no even if what she thinks is true, people will still find a reason to have an abortion. No need to 'expect' or project, the proof is in Europe.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Birth control being expensive is just an excuse. most birth control can be gotten free or low-cost. I have already posted links to sites that provide that in this thread.

And yet it is again on the woman to do it. Birth control is highly expensive. Especially for people with adverse drug reactions that need special ones. And the penalty for not being on it , is going to get really expensive thanks to a bunch of abusive frauds that are perpetuating a lie about saving lives.

Why does everyone want to keep using outlying examples? What you are describing is very rare.

Abortions are rare. So please keep going.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/506 ... %20dollars.

526 million spent on birth control in 2020

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm


For 2019, a total of 629,898 abortions were reported to CDC by 49 areas. Of these reporting areas, 48 submitted data every year for 2010–2019, thus providing the information necessary for consistently reporting trends. Among these 48 areas, for 2019, the abortion rate was 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 195 abortions per 1,000 live births. From 2018 to 2019, the number of abortions increased 2%, the abortion rate increased 0.9%, and the abortion ratio increased 3%. Although the rate of reported abortions declined overall from 2010 to 2019, after reaching a historic low in 2017, the abortion rates increased overall between 2017 and 2019.


https://www.compasscare.info/health-inf ... ion-costs/

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the average cost for a first-trimester abortion is in the US is $508 (anywhere between $75 and $25001). The median cost for a second-trimester abortion is $1,195. Later term abortion can cost $3,000 or more.

The specific cost of an abortion depends on the type of procedure and the size of the baby, which are based on gestational age. The price rises as pregnancy progresses. Price also varies by provider; clinics and private practice abortionists typically offer lower costs than hospitals.

Abortions are rare, and actually not much higher than miscarriages. Only 62% of pregnancies end in a live birth.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/99fa ... stillbirth.

And the real issue with these laws is that they are designed to overwhelmingly destory young single women's lives.

Pregnancy outcome differs markedly by marital status. The birth rate for married women is almost 10 times their abortion rate. For unmarried women, birth and abortion rates are nearly equal. However, in recent years unmarried women were increasingly more likely to give birth and less likely to have an induced abortion.

Overall, U.S. women are currently averaging 2.0 live births, 0.7 induced abortions, and 0.5 miscarriages and stillbirths, or a total of 3.2 pregnancies each, of which only 1.8 are wanted births – that is, “wanted” by the woman when the child was conceived.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

That takes down the cousin's premise. Yet what I just said isn't anecdote, is actual fact. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/11/11657174/ ... es-falling

Except she wasn't talking about Europe - she practices in the US. You keep conveniently leaving that part out. But oh well, facts be damned.

You want to talk about Europe because it deflects from the fact there are more low income communities in the US and abortion rates tend to be highest there.

Nope, if your cousin's utopian dream is true, then in the utopian Europe they won't be having so many abortions.

And yes, they will lead the world in fertility, currently they are the lowest on earth. Despite that great social safety net.

So no even if what she thinks is true, people will still find a reason to have an abortion. No need to 'expect' or project, the proof is in Europe.

I guess culture doesn't matter in your world. How about Russia? Much less social safety net, similar culture to Europe, 3x the abortion rate. What explains that?

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Except she wasn't talking about Europe - she practices in the US. You keep conveniently leaving that part out. But oh well, facts be damned.

You want to talk about Europe because it deflects from the fact there are more low income communities in the US and abortion rates tend to be highest there.

Nope, if your cousin's utopian dream is true, then in the utopian Europe they won't be having so many abortions.

And yes, they will lead the world in fertility, currently they are the lowest on earth. Despite that great social safety net.

So no even if what she thinks is true, people will still find a reason to have an abortion. No need to 'expect' or project, the proof is in Europe.

I guess culture doesn't matter in your world. How about Russia? Much less social safety net, similar culture to Europe, 3x the abortion rate. What explains that?

I just debunked you and your cousin's premise and then all you have is to shift to Russia.

Those European nations don't have far worse economic situation nor much less social safety net than the US yet they have more abortions. That should settle your cousin's premise on abortion.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Nope, if your cousin's utopian dream is true, then in the utopian Europe they won't be having so many abortions.

And yes, they will lead the world in fertility, currently they are the lowest on earth. Despite that great social safety net.

So no even if what she thinks is true, people will still find a reason to have an abortion. No need to 'expect' or project, the proof is in Europe.

I guess culture doesn't matter in your world. How about Russia? Much less social safety net, similar culture to Europe, 3x the abortion rate. What explains that?

I just debunked you and your cousin's premise and then all you have is to shift to Russia.

Those European nations don't have far worse economic situation nor much less social safety net than the US yet they have more abortions. That should settle your cousin's premise on abortion.

There was no ‘shift’ to Russia - you were talking about Europe and it’s essentially the same culture. No need to play dumb just because your ‘debunk’ was debunked.

Very Interesting read about some of the persistent lies about abortion by the conservatives.

The death rate of abortions vs live births is very interesting given all the medical admission bills lately.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/10966761 ... ct-checked

skyservice_330 wrote:

A liberal PAC has released a video ad which represents a stinging representation of what the future of women's health care in America could look like once Roe is overturned - the criminalization of women who seek, or have had an abortion, and those who assist them.

It starts with a mother and daughter, both visibly shaken, driving at night in a car when they are pulled over by the police. 'Let me do the talking' the mother says. Two officers then approach the car, and note the daughter and mother are shaken and upset. After a few questions the officers ask 'Are you heading to the border?' and 'Are you pregnant?' before both are pulled out of the car by the police by force with the daughter yelling for her mother.

It is a powerful piece and ends with #GOPHandmaidsTale across the screen, a powerful message/hashtag which some will be able to relate to on account of the recent TV series.

Full ad can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g2CqOrFGak

So your brining in propaganda to this debate?

bpatus297 wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

A liberal PAC has released a video ad which represents a stinging representation of what the future of women's health care in America could look like once Roe is overturned - the criminalization of women who seek, or have had an abortion, and those who assist them.

It starts with a mother and daughter, both visibly shaken, driving at night in a car when they are pulled over by the police. 'Let me do the talking' the mother says. Two officers then approach the car, and note the daughter and mother are shaken and upset. After a few questions the officers ask 'Are you heading to the border?' and 'Are you pregnant?' before both are pulled out of the car by the police by force with the daughter yelling for her mother.

It is a powerful piece and ends with #GOPHandmaidsTale across the screen, a powerful message/hashtag which some will be able to relate to on account of the recent TV series.

Full ad can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g2CqOrFGak

So your brining in propaganda to this debate?

Are you suggesting there are not actually states with trigger laws that will criminalize such procedures? The level of cognitive dissonance around this discussion is really eye-popping at times.

And FWIW, we live in a capitalist society dominated by marketing. There's no way to fundraise around any issue without hyperemotional material like that, rightly or wrongly. If we were a society where the vast majority of people were mature, calm, an rational, maybe that wouldn't be needed all the time.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

A liberal PAC has released a video ad which represents a stinging representation of what the future of women's health care in America could look like once Roe is overturned - the criminalization of women who seek, or have had an abortion, and those who assist them.

It starts with a mother and daughter, both visibly shaken, driving at night in a car when they are pulled over by the police. 'Let me do the talking' the mother says. Two officers then approach the car, and note the daughter and mother are shaken and upset. After a few questions the officers ask 'Are you heading to the border?' and 'Are you pregnant?' before both are pulled out of the car by the police by force with the daughter yelling for her mother.

It is a powerful piece and ends with #GOPHandmaidsTale across the screen, a powerful message/hashtag which some will be able to relate to on account of the recent TV series.

Full ad can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g2CqOrFGak

So your brining in propaganda to this debate?

Are you suggesting there are not actually states with trigger laws that will criminalize such procedures? The level of cognitive dissonance around this discussion is really eye-popping at times.

And FWIW, we live in a capitalist society dominated by marketing. There's no way to fundraise around any issue without hyperemotional material like that, rightly or wrongly.

I guess this debate has digressed to accepting propaganda from PACs, got it.

bpatus297 wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

A liberal PAC has released a video ad which represents a stinging representation of what the future of women's health care in America could look like once Roe is overturned - the criminalization of women who seek, or have had an abortion, and those who assist them.

It starts with a mother and daughter, both visibly shaken, driving at night in a car when they are pulled over by the police. 'Let me do the talking' the mother says. Two officers then approach the car, and note the daughter and mother are shaken and upset. After a few questions the officers ask 'Are you heading to the border?' and 'Are you pregnant?' before both are pulled out of the car by the police by force with the daughter yelling for her mother.

It is a powerful piece and ends with #GOPHandmaidsTale across the screen, a powerful message/hashtag which some will be able to relate to on account of the recent TV series.

Full ad can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g2CqOrFGak

So your brining in propaganda to this debate?

What is propoganda about it?

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/1 ... i-00018539

Missouri lawmakers want to stop their residents from having abortions — even if they take place in another state.

The first-of-its-kind proposal would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident have an abortion — from the out-of-state physician who performs the procedure to whoever helps transport a person across state lines to a clinic, a major escalation in the national conservative push to restrict access to the procedure.

It's just another step in the Orwellian world of reduced parental rights and personal rights that the GOP has planned.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

So your brining in propaganda to this debate?

Are you suggesting there are not actually states with trigger laws that will criminalize such procedures? The level of cognitive dissonance around this discussion is really eye-popping at times.

And FWIW, we live in a capitalist society dominated by marketing. There's no way to fundraise around any issue without hyperemotional material like that, rightly or wrongly.

I guess this debate has digressed to accepting propaganda from PACs, got it.

You can be dismissive of my nuanced comments all you want, I'll let them stand. Hence, 'rightly or wrongly' - no judgment passed either way.

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Please show me how any American today cant get access to contraception, sex education, domestic abuse prevention, or planned parenthood? Any links you can find would be helpful. I am not saying we are prefect, but a quick internet search brings up a lot of sites for free to low cost birth control:

All in spite of conservatives--show me anywhere where conservatives are expanding and/or improving access? You can't. Instead they're gunning to ban contraception in LA--and other states are sure to follow--and including ectopic pregnancies in the scenarios of prohibited abortions.

Do you understand how batsh!t insane it is to punish women for ectopic pregnancies? Merely contemplating it should be license for a lifetime sentence in a padded cell.

So you cant show where conservatives are doing anything you are claiming.

You're going to tell me with a straight face that conservatives have expanded sex education and/or health care...anywhere?

bpatus297 wrote:

As far ectopic pregnancies, that would be a medically necessary abortion. The fetus cannot survive there, we are not talking about medically necessary abortions. Red herring much?

You really have no clue how off the rails crazy your party is.

Ohio bill orders doctors to ‘reimplant ectopic pregnancy’ or face 'abortion murder' charges
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -pregnancy

Missouri Bill Seeks to Make Abortions for Ectopic Pregnancies Illegal in Restrictive Legislation
https://people.com/health/missouri-bill ... s-illegal/

"In that debate, committee members characterized the notion that a person would be prosecuted for having a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy as farfetched, but a week later they passed legislation that could allow for just that."
https://www.wwno.org/2022-05-05/louisia ... t-barbaric

I simply shared a recently released ad which from a creative/messaging perspective, I thought was powerful. You are welcome to share ads from conservative PACs which outline the virtues of restricted abortion access.

My views on Roe v Wade are more moderate, but an interesting take on second- and third-order effects of overturning Roe v Wade.

Your Right to Privacy might be Gone - Supreme Court Leak 2022 Roe Vs Wade

Source: YouTube user Southwest Prepper Group

ltbewr wrote:

One important issue in the discussion of access to legal abortion is why a woman has or had one.I have linked a detailed study but basically it is rarely due to rape, incest, save the life of the mother or failure of birth control but for elective reasons..Usually the decision is for one or more reasons broadly, 'Not Financially prepared', 'Not right time to have a baby', 'Partner related reasons'. as well a health issues.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729671/
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/defaul ... 711005.pdf
In the USA, the lack of affordable health care in general, high price of birth control drugs, lack of government financial support for women who have children are part of the financial factors.Federal laws generally ban the use of Federal funds for abortion.
The rate of abortions in the USA has gone down from a decade ago but has slightly risen in more recent ones.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ ... tm#T1_down

So, again, if it were about "every life is sacred" women would have unfettered access to birth control and prenatal care and neonatal care and paid maternity leave and paid day care.

This will effect minority communities more, since they are less able to have the financial resources to plan for families. Someone on a left wing talk show yesterday pointed out Republicans wanted abortion and birth control because Black women were churning out babies but, now, they want abortion banned because Black women are having too many abortions.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Why only speak about this and not the rest. I don't criticize anyone for getting an education, I got one too, my wife too. Just saying, that the population who doesn't seem to care about money or quality of life, those who are less educated are having more kids. I kind of think we should look more to them despite not having those so important credentials, because they are doing it right.

So you mean it is bad for people learning about the responsibility they would face when bearing a children? Financial responsibility and educational responsibility.
Or do you simply admire those people in Chinese villages like those in Xuzhou, where they can simply kidnap whoever girls they like from cities back into their own village, and turn any of those they kidnapped into baby producing machine without any concern on their individual situation and will?

c933103 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Why only speak about this and not the rest. I don't criticize anyone for getting an education, I got one too, my wife too. Just saying, that the population who doesn't seem to care about money or quality of life, those who are less educated are having more kids. I kind of think we should look more to them despite not having those so important credentials, because they are doing it right.

So you mean it is bad for people learning about the responsibility they would face when bearing a children? Financial responsibility and educational responsibility.
Or do you simply admire those people in Chinese villages like those in Xuzhou, where they can simply kidnap whoever girls they like from cities back into their own village, and turn any of those they kidnapped into baby producing machine without any concern on their individual situation and will?

I thought you were different, that's why I have been entertaining your posts. But no, its straw man after straw man. Now you ask if I am in favor of kidnap and rape, instead of debating on the subject I thought you were interested in debating. Thanks!

AirWorthy99 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Why only speak about this and not the rest. I don't criticize anyone for getting an education, I got one too, my wife too. Just saying, that the population who doesn't seem to care about money or quality of life, those who are less educated are having more kids. I kind of think we should look more to them despite not having those so important credentials, because they are doing it right.

So you mean it is bad for people learning about the responsibility they would face when bearing a children? Financial responsibility and educational responsibility.
Or do you simply admire those people in Chinese villages like those in Xuzhou, where they can simply kidnap whoever girls they like from cities back into their own village, and turn any of those they kidnapped into baby producing machine without any concern on their individual situation and will?

I thought you were different, that's why I have been entertaining your posts. But no, its straw man after straw man. Now you ask if I am in favor of kidnap and rape, instead of debating on the subject I thought you were interested in debating. Thanks!

Impression matters - you have used huge generalities like ‘women should just adopt’, ‘the species won’t survive due to over-education’ and whatever.

What if a woman doesn’t agree with us about adoption being a good option, for her own reasons? What if over-education is not a factor in our species’ survival? Either way you would generally impose your lifestyle view on her, support criminalization of her decision, and remove her agency. That’s the impression.

My personal opinion is eventually abortion on demand up to the moment of birth won't be enough to satisfy the most militant pro choice advocates. Eventually they might demand a 24-72 hour cooling off period, similar to buyer's remorse laws when purchasing a new car. Tossing a newborn into a dumpster within X hours or days of birth will no longer be criminalized if done by the mother.

afcjets wrote:

My personal opinion is eventually abortion on demand up to the moment of birth won't be enough to satisfy the most militant pro choice advocates. Eventually they might demand a 24-72 hour cooling off period, similar to buyer's remorse laws when purchasing a new car. Tossing a newborn into a dumpster within X hours or days of birth will no longer be criminalized if done by the mother.

Making up things is fun!

AirWorthy99 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Huh, do we live in the same country/reality? No need to play coy - we all know those EU/Japan/Australia-style systems are not present here.

Lack of "universal" care doesn't not equal no care. Any women in the US who wants pre and post natal care can get it. Even the poor can get it via Medicaid. I am not saying our system is perfect, we could definitely improve a lot of things, but lets not pretend that the care doesn't exist.

https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-p ... 3721424140

He never dared to ask his cousin, that despite Europeans having all of that he mentions, they still have same or even higher abortion rate than the US.

So, no, having all of that care for free, won't change anything.

Is a great myth the left says, you conservatives don't want abortion but don't want to care for the children. Well, Europe has according to the left the best social safety net in the world, yet they do more or the same of abortions than the US.

That takes down the cousin's premise. Yet what I just said isn't anecdote, is actual fact. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/11/11657174/ ... es-falling

The simple fact is when a women has an unwanted pregnancy she should be free to do with it what she chooses. Even when there is plenty of help available women still don’t want a baby, that is there right.

c933103 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

There is no need to replace the population. With our technology and civilizational level, we could survive with 10 million people on the planet instead of 10 billion. And of course we would all have a much better life, and all other species too. The only downside would be a slower tech advancement as there would be much less scientific research because of less scientists overall.

Problems Japan is facing reflect numerous problem of this. Among other things, a society lacking young members mean it would be much harder for young voice to enter the mainstream and cause refresh and renewal of opinion in the society. The lack of a large youth group in society compares to the babyboomer generation, also have political consequence in many other countries.

But then I won't say abortion is the right issue to argue over this. It would almost be like cheating people into having babies amd that would not lead to healthy family.

These are transitory problems. With a stable population, women would have about 2.1 children on average, and there would be a healthy proportion of young people.

afcjets wrote:

My personal opinion is eventually abortion on demand up to the moment of birth won't be enough to satisfy the most militant pro choice advocates. Eventually they might demand a 24-72 hour cooling off period, similar to buyer's remorse laws when purchasing a new car. Tossing a newborn into a dumpster within X hours or days of birth will no longer be criminalized if done by the mother.

Wow, so you are worried about the most militant killing a baby after it is born?

I am worried about the most militant Anti-Abortionists killing a woman over birth control purchases.

Have to wonder which group is larger?

casinterest wrote:

afcjets wrote:

My personal opinion is eventually abortion on demand up to the moment of birth won't be enough to satisfy the most militant pro choice advocates. Eventually they might demand a 24-72 hour cooling off period, similar to buyer's remorse laws when purchasing a new car. Tossing a newborn into a dumpster within X hours or days of birth will no longer be criminalized if done by the mother.

Wow, so you are worried about the most militant killing a baby after it is born?

I am worried about the most militant Anti-Abortionists killing a woman over birth control purchases.

Have to wonder which group is larger?

That's easy, the first group is, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make and it's not something I am worried about now, as disturbing as it is. I'm sure most everyone here at least in the US has seen news stories of newborns found in dumpsters, but I have never once heard of a woman murdered over purchasing contraceptives, please send a link if I missed that.

What I am worried about is a far left politician eventually making the same argument for abortion. Just as a fetus isn't viable on it's own, a newborn isn't either, and Republicans are denying health care and welfare programs, why should a woman be "punished" by having to take care of a baby.

casinterest wrote:

Abortions are rare. So please keep going.

Rarer still are abortions due to rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's life. Fair-use excerpt:

https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_a ... tatistics/

In 2004, the Guttmacher Institute anonymously surveyed 1,209 post-abortive women from nine different abortion clinics across the country. Of the women surveyed, 957 provided a main reason for having an abortion. This table lists each reason and the percentage of respondents who chose it.

Percentage Reason
<0.5% Victim of rape
3% Fetal health problems
4% Physical health problems
4% Would interfere with education or career
7% Not mature enough to raise a child
8% Don't want to be a single mother
19% Done having children
23% Can't afford a baby
25% Not ready for a child
6% Other


The state of Florida records a reason for every abortion that occurs within its borders each year. In 2020, there were 74,868 abortions in Florida. This table lists each reason and the percentage of abortions that occurred because of it.

Percentage Reason
0.01% The pregnancy resulted from an incestuous relationship
0.15% The woman was raped
0.20% The woman's life was endangered by the pregnancy
0.98% There was a serious fetal abnormality
1.48% The woman's physical health was threatened by the pregnancy
1.88% The woman's psychological health was threatened by the pregnancy
20.4% The woman aborted for social or economic reasons
74.9% No reason (elective)

seb146 wrote:

So, again, if it were about "every life is sacred" ...

If that's what it was about there would be no death penalty. Every life is sacred, apart from the ones that aren't.

A question for those that are both against abortion and against universal healthcare. Why does your concern for human life drop significantly at the moment of birth? Is it because the actual cost to you is close to zero for the former but might actually hit you in the pocket for the latter?

casinterest wrote:

Abortions are rare. So please keep going.

Almost 1 out of 3 pregnancies ending in abortion would hardly be considered rare...

"Around 73 million induced abortions take place worldwide each year. Six out of 10 (61%) of all unintended pregnancies, and 3 out of 10 (29%) of all pregnancies, end in induced abortion (1)."

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... l/abortion

Virtual737 wrote:

A question for those that are both against abortion and against universal healthcare. Why does your concern for human life drop significantly at the moment of birth? Is it because the actual cost to you is close to zero for the former but might actually hit you in the pocket for the latter?

Yes, that's definitely part of the reason. But I can only speak for myself. However I'm against most healthcare as I feel the largest sector of healthcare by far, the pharmaceutical industry, is a racket but there are definitely exceptions. I am interested in shrinking the healthcare industry, not expanding it, but for everyone.

Virtual737 wrote:

A question for those that are both against abortion and against universal healthcare. Why does your concern for human life drop significantly at the moment of birth?

I'd suggest it's because we believe in personal accountability and responsibility. As the data I posted previously showed, the vast majority of abortions are elective in nature, with very few due to rape, incest, fetal anomaly, or to protect the life of the mother.

So abortion is used mainly as a convenience tool, or to avoid the inconvenience of being accountable for personal choices.


For the record, I'm pro-choice, but also believe it should only be for those rare instances I'd mentioned previously.

Kiwirob wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Lack of "universal" care doesn't not equal no care. Any women in the US who wants pre and post natal care can get it. Even the poor can get it via Medicaid. I am not saying our system is perfect, we could definitely improve a lot of things, but lets not pretend that the care doesn't exist.

https://americanpregnancy.org/healthy-p ... 3721424140

He never dared to ask his cousin, that despite Europeans having all of that he mentions, they still have same or even higher abortion rate than the US.

So, no, having all of that care for free, won't change anything.

Is a great myth the left says, you conservatives don't want abortion but don't want to care for the children. Well, Europe has according to the left the best social safety net in the world, yet they do more or the same of abortions than the US.

That takes down the cousin's premise. Yet what I just said isn't anecdote, is actual fact. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/11/11657174/ ... es-falling

The simple fact is when a women has an unwanted pregnancy she should be free to do with it what she chooses. Even when there is plenty of help available women still don’t want a baby, that is there right.

Australia has legal abortion in all jurisdictions.

The abortion rate is one of the lowest in the world.

This is about the GOP seeking to galvanise fundamentalist political support. This has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with care for sanctity of life.

To those of us outside the USA (I do also have resident family), this appears far, far too close to Gilead for any degree of comfort.

EA CO AS wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

A question for those that are both against abortion and against universal healthcare. Why does your concern for human life drop significantly at the moment of birth?

I'd suggest it's because we believe in personal accountability and responsibility. As the data I posted previously showed, the vast majority of abortions are elective in nature, with very few due to rape, incest, fetal anomaly, or to protect the life of the mother.

So abortion is used mainly as a convenience tool, or to avoid the inconvenience of being accountable for personal choices.


For the record, I'm pro-choice, but also believe it should only be for those rare instances I'd mentioned previously.

So extend that logic out a bit...we should abandon most cardiology visits as they are convenience tools. Only people who have mitral valve prolapse, A-fib or some other natural issue really need treatment, the rest are avoiding accountability for how they eat and live. If they want to pay for such treatment after the fact, that’s not up to them?