4 ms·

But it is legal to kill women suffering sepsis from having to keep a fetus that has died without getting a D&C. It's legal to force a raped child to carry a pr

by rswail 4y ago

But it is legal to kill women suffering sepsis from having to keep a fetus that has died without getting a D&C. It's legal to force a raped child to carry a pregnancy to term even if they will suffer lifetime damage or fatal injuries. It's legal to force a raped child or woman to carry to term a child that is the result of incest and may suffer a lifetime of genetic damage and disability. It's a nonsense argument that is premised of the falsity that a fertilized ovum is somehow a "child". It is not.

mildmotive 4y ago
The reality is that the vast majority of abortions are not done because of rape or incest. > smaller proportions of women in 2004 than in 1987 said that having a baby would interfere with their job or career (38% vs. 50%), that they were not mature enough (22% vs. 27%), that their husband or partner wanted them to have an abortion (14% vs. 24%), and that they and their partner could not or did not want to get married (12% vs. 30%). In both surveys, 1% indicated that they had been victims of rape, and less than half a percent said they became pregnant as a result of incest. [1] The large number of unborn children that have been killed because of them being perceived as an economical burden, or other personal reasons cannot be ignored. But you ignore all this injustice and make it seem like abortion is all about dealing with rape and incest, while these in reality only account for ca 1% of all abortion cases. I’m saying killed because we still have a large portion of abortions happening in the second (10-15% worldwide [2]) and third trimesters. The point here is that a woman’s freedom does not override her child’s right to live. But you seem to think otherwise. [1] https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-wom... [2] https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-second-trimester-pregnancy-termination/print https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-second-trimest...
trashtester 4y ago
The positions above are extreme. Now I'm pro choice to begin with, but I imagine that MOST people on the right, even a lot of normally Pro Life people, think that it's not fair to deny abortions in situations as above. (Even if they do think the fetus is "somewhat" a child.) If the Pro Choice movement starts a campaign aimed specifically at changing federal law to allow abortions in the situations above, I believe they have a fair chance of getting 60% within 1-2 election cycles.

by rswail 4y ago

mildmotive 4y ago

The reality is that the vast majority of abortions are not done because of rape or incest. > smaller proportions of women in 2004 than in 1987 said that having a baby would interfere with their job or career (38% vs. 50%), that they were not mature enough (22% vs. 27%), that their husband or partner wanted them to have an abortion (14% vs. 24%), and that they and their partner could not or did not want to get married (12% vs. 30%). In both surveys, 1% indicated that they had been victims of rape, and less than half a percent said they became pregnant as a result of incest. [1] The large number of unborn children that have been killed because of them being perceived as an economical burden, or other personal reasons cannot be ignored. But you ignore all this injustice and make it seem like abortion is all about dealing with rape and incest, while these in reality only account for ca 1% of all abortion cases. I’m saying killed because we still have a large portion of abortions happening in the second (10-15% worldwide [2]) and third trimesters. The point here is that a woman’s freedom does not override her child’s right to live. But you seem to think otherwise. [1] https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-wom... [2] https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-second-trimester-pregnancy-termination/print https://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-second-trimest...

trashtester 4y ago

The positions above are extreme. Now I'm pro choice to begin with, but I imagine that MOST people on the right, even a lot of normally Pro Life people, think that it's not fair to deny abortions in situations as above. (Even if they do think the fetus is "somewhat" a child.) If the Pro Choice movement starts a campaign aimed specifically at changing federal law to allow abortions in the situations above, I believe they have a fair chance of getting 60% within 1-2 election cycles.