posted May 23, 2021 11:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
Women are proud of their abortions now. Women will literally discuss their abortion fetishes, and the pros and cons of an intentionally temporary pregnancy for the sake of skincare. Women have abortions as an act of resistance.

---

posted May 23, 2021 11:40 AM            

Proponents of this Abortion bill ought to make all birth control covered by insurance, or medicare if a woman doesn't have insurance.

Now, even if all birth control is free, there will always be teenagers, girls who are still mentally and emotionally immature, who will engage in sex or be molested, and become pregnant. I do not want to see girls like this have kids they do not want.

There will always be the person who gets drunk or high on whatever, and engaged in drug fueled sex and gets pregnant. I do not want to see someone like that forced to bring the pregnancy to terms.

There will be victims of rape or incest.

posted May 23, 2021 11:48 AM            

Don't even wait until they reach puberty. Every student needs to get sexual education, however sexual education needs to have a special focus on the people who actually get pregnant, that is the women/girls and equip them with knowledge so they can prevent having to make a choice due to ignorance.

posted May 23, 2021 11:48 AM            

i said i see nothing wrong with a law that puts an early timestamp on it 🤷‍♀️ and then my own personal moral view is that it's wrong except for cases where the mother is at risk, the child has a severe defect, and while i personally would never rape

posted May 23, 2021 11:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
Instead of inflicting Critical Race Theory on children, how about they focus on explaining to young girls early on that intercourse leads to pregnancy? and the various ways of preventing pregnancy?

Every student needs to get sexual education, however sexual education needs to have a special focus on the people who actually get pregnant, that is the women, the girls in high schools, and equip them with knowledge so they can prevent having to make a choice due to ignorance.

---

eh even the catholic high school i was in had sex ed and free condoms and i was a freshman 20 years ago...

i do agree knowledge and accessibility of prevention should be pushed for and i'm not really understanding why anyone would want to instead focus on what should be a last resort and not a decision that gets made when the child is more developed

posted May 23, 2021 12:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chanterelle:
I do see these kinds of laws as kind of arrogant and paternalistic, and I don’t see how it does anything to encourage personal accountability. I mean, mandatory minimum sentencing didn’t win the “war on drugs,” did it? And this law is basically designed to allow private citizens to sue abortion providers out of existence, so the argument that there are all these other free, easy options doesn’t really hold up, because that’s not guaranteed. Personally, I think it would be wrong for anyone to think of abortion as “just a plan c” — but I seriously doubt that most women who have had abortions did so without giving serious consideration to what it would mean for them either way. I’m not quite sure how I feel about the relationship between law and personal morality, but I’m pretty much reflexively against any law that restricts freedom of choice or threatens the separation of church and state. That’s how I see the issue— not as a matter of what’s right and wrong, but who gets to decide for themselves and when. I mean, some places have laws about what you can name your kids... some places have laws about when a woman can decide to have her tubes tied... I knew someone who got married at 16 because she wanted out of her parents’ house and it was easier than petitioning the court to become an emancipated minor... I don’t know, I just think there’s a big difference between a crime and a sin and a bad idea, and this issue is definitely in the gray area. For example, the controversy around laws about whether a serious medical condition or chromosomal abnormality is a valid reason to have an abortion— I might think that’s wrong, but if so, I would want to make it as easy as possible for someone to do the “right thing” — i.e., make sure that families of children with disabilities have the support they need to give that child a good life, rather than telling them they’re horrible people for worrying about “am I capable of dedicating the rest of my life for caring for this child?”
This is what’s so weird to me about the both political parties— how can you get all worked up about personal freedom on some issues, but expect everyone to fall in line with your personal beliefs on others? (This is a general rhetorical you, not directed at anyone here.)

---

i don't expect people to fall in line with my moral views (though i have stated them here) that's why i never said abortion should be across the board illegal

but this thread's never been about abortion being 100% illegal it was just about putting a timeframe on how long someone can have it, it's still allowed with that bill

i think abortion is morally wrong, it's straight up intentional taking of a life, cognitive dissonance at its finest to consider it anything else (and we have laws against other kinds of premeditated murder no?)

however i'm reasonable enough to say there's a point where the government should not have a say and accept that morals are relative, as a result i would say if this law completely outlawed abortion it would be the government overstepping

this however didn't happen in texas instead what happened is a law was put into place that put limits on how long a woman has to get an abortion in regards to the fact that it isn't just her body and life in question and i see that as acceptable

drugs are very different, what i put in my body is a personal choice that affects me it does not kill anyone else if i smoke a joint then play guitar for a few hours in bed and sing with my bird

posted May 23, 2021 01:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chanterelle:
http://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/2021
Here’s what the bill says; I’m not gonna pretend that I understand everything it does, but it seems like it’s saying that anyone can sue medical providers who are suspected of performing abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. No consequences for the woman having the abortion, the only restriction on who can sue is that a rapist can’t use his victim as proof that an abortion occurred. $10,000 minimum fine if convicted, no court costs awarded to the defendant even if they’re acquitted. That’s why I say that the “plenty of other free, easy options” argument doesn’t hold water... if half the OB-GYNs in the state are tied up in court, who’s going to be prescribing those birth control pills and delivering those babies? I mean, I get that a lot of people feel very strongly about this issue, but the idea that anyone who wants to spend a fortune suing doctors to keep other women from having abortions should be free to do so? No, I just can’t see how that’s a good idea.

---

so you think there should be no limits on when a woman can abort?

posted May 23, 2021 01:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chanterelle:
No, I don’t think there should be no limits whatsoever. I’m just really cynical about the confluence of money, religion and politics.

---

so 8 months in a woman changes her mind that's cool with you? a week before due date a woman decides to just "terminate" the pregnancy and that's ok?

just making sure i understand right

edit: nevermind reread what you said, i'm tired and missed the double negative (also i'm from brooklyn originally and double negatives don't always mean **** 🤷‍♀️ lol) but the thing is when there are limits there's always the potential for people to be ****** about them or use them wrongly

so regardless of where that line is drawn these things can happen (what you said about lawsuits) unless it's like what i said where it legitimately does not matter as long as the child isn't born

posted May 23, 2021 02:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumuzi:
eh even the catholic high school i was in had sex ed and free condoms and i was a freshman 20 years ago...

---

I am only bringing this up because pro-abortion people will say that there are many teenagers who do not know that they are pregnant until 5, even 6 months into the pregnancy.

In a world where children are listening to WAP songs, it is hard to believe they are so ignorant of the human body, but apparently it happens more often than we think.

posted May 23, 2021 02:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
@ Dumuzi,

I think we can all agree that abortion at 8 months or at any time that the fetus/baby could be viable outside the womb (which is from 5 months on) is wrong on all counts. It is too late to get an abortion. I agree that there should be a time limit on abortion. But I don't agree with the heartbeat detection timing.

---

i'm tired and initially read "no limitations" lol that's why i corrected myself

i see nothing wrong with the heartbeat thing personally, but i can respect that you do because you at least call it what it is

i can agree to disagree with someone who doesn't gloss over what's going on with loads of bs 🤷‍♀️

@Chantarelle

i get where you're coming from though i honestly don't see this as a religious issue, i know it can be used as one but not being a follower of an abrahamic faith myself (in spite of being raised catholic) i'm failing to see how it's exclusive to religion to see it as morally wrong

posted May 23, 2021 02:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:

I am only bringing this up because pro-abortion people will say that there are many teenagers who do not know that they are pregnant until 5, even 6 months into the pregnancy.

In a world where children are listening to WAP songs, it is hard to believe they are so ignorant of the human body, but apparently it happens more often than we think.

---

lol yeah i get you, have to say things as carefully as possible for some people 😁

though that being said the kids who ended up with the nun sex ed teacher got told some whacked out **** alongside actual sex ed (i missed out and had a married guy, it was whoever taught your health class the first semester) about draining a baby's blood and replacing it with new blood if it didn't match the mom's blood type at birth and whatnot but still free condoms lol

posted May 23, 2021 03:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumuzi:
i'm failing to see how it's exclusive to religion to see it as morally wrong

---

posted May 23, 2021 03:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chanterelle:
It isn’t, and it shouldn’t be. Like I said, I’m just cynical about money, religion and politics. I guess I’d say that I basically lean towards a Libertarian stance on most social issues, as well. 🤷🏼‍♀️ Basically just seems like, if these legislators really care about the lives of children, this isn’t a particularly good way of showing it.

---

i think it ideally would come with a combination of things like education and more easy access to preventative measures

though your average woman getting an abortion statistically is in her 20's not some teenager, statistically speaking so i'm not entirely sure just how much that would actually help

if the statistics showed it being a higher incidence of teens than adult women that would probably do more

posted May 23, 2021 04:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chanterelle:
Well, yeah, that gets back to the insurance thing ... btw, you and Belage both got it mixed up... Medicare is for old people, Medicaid is for poor people, and most childless women in their 20s aren’t eligible for Medicaid, as far as I know. I guess it’s different in each state.

---

i always mix them up so i just assumed belage was right on that one lol thanks for correcting me

well **** like planned parenthood help even without insurance with stuff for free/at low cost and condoms in particular are very accessible, so that's part of the issue (should they be more accessible? sure)

though if these things did not exist abortion would be harder to come by along with them in all fairness and abortion can also be costly

posted May 23, 2021 04:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belage:
To say it is unanswerable is to conveniently evade the issue.

When a woman doesn't want the life that is growing inside of her, it is referred to as a "fetus".

When she wants it and welcomes it, it is always referred to as a "baby".

Think about it. That same life gets a different name depending on whether it is wanted or not. Does that make sense?

Supporters of abortion do not hold the moral ground. I am one such person but after decades of reflection, I have to admit it is not a morally and ethically high position. I will readily tell you that it is a position of expediency.

---

Whether it is deemed a clump of cells/fetus or a baby is dependent on whether the mother (not the "arrogant ******* " father) wants the baby. And this has been the progressive/feminist argument for many years. ie Its worth, its value, its rights are *entirely* subjective.

posted May 23, 2021 04:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chanterelle:
What’s the money excuse? Do you mean what I was saying about just being cynical about corruption/ulterior motives, or whether insurance should cover abortions, or something completely different?

---

i meant when people say that women abort due to the inability to financially provide for the child, that most of the women who can't actually just have the kid statistically speaking

posted May 23, 2021 08:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
Whether it is deemed a clump of cells/fetus or a baby is dependent on whether the mother (not the "arrogant ******* " father) wants the baby. And this has been the progressive/feminist argument for many years. ie Its worth, its value, its rights are *entirely* subjective.

There has been much discussion recently about "bodies" and their societal worth, about dehumanization and genocide, and what sort of psychological tricks allow us to rationalize these.

---

You are correct. The fetus/baby's worth has become entirely subjective and is based on how the mother feels about it, and the father has practically nothing to say.

In a way, because nature has chosen to design that life to grow inside the woman, not inside the man, it does become her decision, however unfair it seems.

I have said to the men who complain about the unfairness of it, pick carefully who you impregnate. Do not impregnate women whose values do not align with yours, no matter how horny you are.

If we are asking women to exercise foresight and caution in making sure they don't get pregnant, then we must also remind the men to exercise discernment in who they choose to have sex with. Too many men think with their penises.