You can no longer get an abortion as of week 20

[RobDownSouth]

Good-fucking gawd...



Your link(s) are not peer-reviewed science.

The only "peer reviewed science" you will accept seems to be NRO or Murican Thinker.

 

[richard_daily]

Good-fucking gawd...



Your link(s) are not peer-reviewed science.

You believe in a fairy tale god living in candy land up in the clouds, whose son was a zombie savior.

YOU want to talk about links not being peer-reviewed science?

hahahahahahah

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why did you only start talking about the debt after the election of President Donald J. Trump?


All I remember is, "Don't blame President Barack Hussein Obama! He inherited a mess!"

Take that happy false equivalency horseshit elsewhere.

Obama was president during the depths of the Bush recession, where classic Keynesian government spending via the stimulus bill pulled the economy back into positive territory.

Trump inherited 8 solid years of economic growth, and it would be prudent to pay down the debt in times of robust economic growth. Instead, Trump wants to increase the debt to give tax breaks to the wealthiest 1%.

It's bad economic policy, your Von Mises blinders notwithstanding.

 

[KimGordon67]

adrina,

I hope I'm not ticking you off, because that's not my intention;

nor am I particularly trying to win an argument.

You want to win the argument? Fine. You win. Abortion should be a government funded right for every girl and woman in America and clinics should be within 10 km of everyone of them in America. In fact, doctors should be allowed to pierce the skulls of a fetuses whose heads are appearing; and Clinton's loss is the worse political travesty in politics in America in living memory.

You are victorious! You win!

You feel better?

You win what? The concession of some guy on the internet?


If I wanted to read a bunch of links, I'd go to Wikipedia.




Here we go around the fucking ranch again.

You post as if I'm disputing that assertion. I'm not; and I don't feel like reiterating my counter—I've already done it.




[Clap. clap. clap.] You did a fine job beating up that strawman.



If you're going to order me to do something, at least you could punctuate your order better.



round and round



I'm so fucking glad I'm not a woman and that I'll never, ever, suffer the torture of pregnancy. If I was a woman I'd immediately get my tubes tied to insure that I'd never, ever, get pregnant.



I acknowledge it: pregnancy seems to me to be pretty hard. I hear and read of morning sickness. Some say it's not restricted to mornings. There are hormonal swings. I heard of women crying during Hallmark greeting car commercials. There's the swelling, and 15 kg for a woman might be like double that for a man. There is childbirth itself. Dr. Sue says its not as bad as getting a tooth pulled. Others describe it as painful as getting a finger cut off. Madonna, if I remember correctly said it's the worse pain she ever had and she wouldn't do it again—though she did. There's hemmeroids and swollen feet—though I understand that often one gets a visit from the tit fairy. Then there's post-partum depression.

and this is all on top of the homework assignments you've given me.


Is this enough of an insulting display of my ignorance?

As for the universal health care you're implying: another issue.



First off, the body was going to change anyway. I can't seem to tell the difference—or much of one—between women who've been pregnant and those who haven't.



Another ad hominem: but hey, I can fire back. When was the last time YOU were pregnant?

Don't answer.

Were you ever pregnant?

Don't answer.

If no, then are you personally that much more informed about it than me?

Don't answer.

If yes, was it god-awful? Was giving birth the worse pain you ever experience? Did and do you wish it never happened?

Don't answer.




I hope you're not offended. Because one thing leftists seem pretty good at is being offended.



Yeah, all that stuff about concerns for fetal pain, for animal welfare, and women being allowed to have abortions up to 20 weeks and beyond if it's a health risk—and according to you such is the majority—and I'm not particularly disputing that.

A frickin' inhumane ignoramus: that's me.




I suppose I will in time; but what if I came to the same conclusion?










If you're going to back up adrina, could you please come up with something original? Whatever validity in adrina's arguments isn't augmented by you waving your hand and saying "me too!".

I was boiling her argument down because you don't seem to get it - sometimes rephrasing helps in those instances. And also giving Adrina's valiant effort some support.

Your 'as the woman is giving birth' limit case is just ridiculous. Quite clearly no one wants that. In spite of your assertions of being pro choice, that just aligns you with the people who think all women are callous, uncaring bitches. And in doing that, you're forgetting you may well be talking to women who have had an abortion.

And before you say 'obviously I don't think that' ... It's equally obvious no one is arguing for 40 week abortions either.

 

[KimGordon67]

OK, let's try using an actual example.

A while back, friends of mine got pregnant. There was much rejoicing, as they'd been trying for a long time, at no small expense. But in cruel ironic twist, at 20 weeks (and yes, I know that's convenient, but I just checked the timing and that's when it happened) the fetus was diagnosed with trisomy-18. The definition they were given was 'incompatible with life' - the fetus was still 'alive', and would like remain 'alive' through the pregnancy, but the likelihood of surviving more than a few hours after birth was extremely slim. Barely any live longer than that, and as far as I can work out, most are disabled to some extent.
Standard practice with this diagnosis is termination of the pregnancy, if there isn't a spontaneous miscarriage. They were offered this option, but choose to carry the pregnancy in the hope that they might hold their baby for a few hours, knowing they may never have another one. The baby died in childbirth.
I understand why they made that decision, but it was one of the most harrowing and heart-breaking things I've ever seen. Were I in their position, I'm 95% sure I would have gone with termination. But if you're arguing for no post-20 week terminations, you're basically saying to every couple in that situation 'bad luck - stay pregnant for another 20 weeks (with all the things that follow on from that), go through the birth (again, with all the related risks and just general unpleasantness), and deal with the consequences of that outcome'. Because the baby might feel pain.
I tell you what - my friends definitely felt pain. They made that choice, but I'm extremely glad it was a choice, and not something they were forced into.

Postscript - they spontaneously conceived a couple of years later and now have a lovely, if slightly over-indulged, child, and they're very happy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

And before you say 'obviously I don't think that' ... It's equally obvious no one is arguing for 40 week abortions either.

Abortions should be legal until the 5th grade....it's the only way to be sure.

 

[DMBFFF]

The deal is you repeated yourself......

[on and on and on and on]

You don't understand who gets these and why. You said the same damn thing.

You obviously don't care.....

You don't care to find......

Yes you are pissing me off. Because of your willful ignorance.

You think it's no big deal......

This laissez faire attitude causes needless suffering for women.

If you want to have an opinion based in willful ignorance I will give it the disdain it deserves.

You do realize that being pissed off at me is emotional energy wasted. I'm just some schmuck on the internet who using a CMNF pic as avatar he got from Wikicommons. You are probably better than that.

I said my piece, you said your piece—repeatedly in each case.

I hardly regard you the worse for it.

I'd say that we have a disagreement, but I find it hard to call it even that.

I readily admit to my ignorance on matters: as I suppose even many a scientist does. You make negative presumptions about me and for what? Holding contrary views? Not even that! I simply question things.

Now if we want this train wreck of an argument to continue, I'll indulge you for a while, though it might be less frequent. It's been kind of fun, and a bit educational, walking around this ranch with you several times, but I have a few other concerns IRL and I suppose it's the same with you. Until we intellectually spar—or what passes for sparing, again, a video: Combat Baby - METRIC

I was boiling her argument down......

......

...... ... It's equally obvious no one is arguing for 40 week abortions either.

Given your name, the ambiguity of your profile re: it, and my reference to sparring, another music video:
Peaches featuring Kim Gordon
(you might want to minimize the screen between 1:26 to 1:50 of the 3:30 video).

When quoting my more verbose posts, you might want to compress them a bit, as full quotes might, to use an aforementioned word, piss off, a few other readers here.



As for your post: it's much better than your one previous here.

"I was boiling her argument down because you don't seem to get it - sometimes rephrasing helps in those instances."

Fair enough



"And also giving Adrina's valiant effort some support."

That's nice: lots of internet clods likely giving her sexist BS.



"Your 'as the woman is giving birth' limit case is just ridiculous. Quite clearly no one wants that."

Agreed for the most part. Germaine Greer says she's against abortion but if you're going to do it, do it in a good manner—something like an abortion clinic. But the citing the extreme example is a good test. First, if it came to the crunch, would you support the right, or alleged right? Second, if not, where do you put the limit and/or what conditions do you set: a day before expected birth, 2 days? A week? A month? All but the first 20 weeks?

As for the example I gave, I heard such was sometimes done in China with their two-baby-limit policies. I betcha the majority of those fetuses that get killed in this manner are female—to raise another issue.


"In spite of your assertions of being pro choice, that just aligns you with the people who think all women are callous, uncaring bitches."

In this uncommon if not rare instance, yes, though not all in in the not-after-20-week group I've temporarily sided with think that way. The Pope, for instance, for all of his faults—and there are some—those he'd readily admit to and some he doesn't—probably doesn't regard all women as callous, uncaring—as per your word—bitches.



"And in doing that, you're forgetting you may well be talking to women who have had an abortion."

In a way I hope so, as well as those who got pregnant: both their views might be more interesting. I presume many women have gotten abortions. I mean look at the mathematics. If a 1000 normal well-adjusted heterosexual women with healthy sex lives engaged in a total of, say, 1 million acts of sexual intercourse between the ages of 18 to 43, there is a decent chance of conceptions in their bodies which left unchecked might result in several, maybe a few 10s, maybe a few hundred, maybe more, unwanted babies. One woman I meet at a church told/admitted to me she had an abortion in a chat we were having (the chat was likely at some fast food restaurant). She seemed a bit guilty about it. I regarded it as unimportant and if I remember correctly said as much. (We also ate some meat that day—likely factory farmed.)



"It's equally obvious no one is arguing for 40 week abortions either."

I've heard and read of no explicit denials. I read a lot of opposition to the 20 week limit. There's the possibility right there.

I know very late term abortions are rare, more humanoid life-forms in the US die from other causes, some quite stupid and mundane, but I raised it as an issue. When I first disagreed with adrina, I thought I'd say my bit, she hers, and that'd be pretty well it. I didn't expect it to go this far.

 

[Hypoxia]

Back to basics. An unborn embryo is part of a woman's body. The woman is a person; the embryo isn't.

But let's play legal games and officially declare embryos to be persons from the "moment of conception." Forget that conception is a process, not a momentary event; that blastula has all the legal rights of a... corporation, er I mean a corporate executive. More rights than an adult person charged with terrorism. But I digress.

To protect the rights of a person, we must be aware of their existence. Some women don't know they're pregnant until their water breaks. The only way to be SURE that an embryo exists is to implant pregnancy monitors in every human female of child-bearing age. That includes all residents, visitors, and transients, 7 to 70. (Yes, births happen in that age range.)

She has an LED in her ear. If it's green, fuck her. If it's red, she's preggers, and must now be excluded from any activity that could endanger her inner person, the embryo.​

"Pro-life" enthusiasts (often death-penalty supporters) who oppose technical means to "protect every embryo" are exposed as hypocrites. Fuck y'all. Oh, and guess what? Many laws cover the rights and responsibilities of 'persons'. Elevators have limits. Some fares and taxes are based on 'persons'. Anywhere she goes, she's double-occupancy. What, an embryo isn't "that kind" of person? Fucking hypocrites.

It boils down to: "Pro-life" enthusiasts don't much care what happens post-partum. Have they adopted? If not: hypocrites. The "embryo-protection" racket is about controlling women's bodies. That's it. Other excuses are lies.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

OK, let's try using an actual example.

A while back, friends of mine got pregnant. There was much rejoicing, as they'd been trying for a long time, at no small expense. But in cruel ironic twist, at 20 weeks (and yes, I know that's convenient, but I just checked the timing and that's when it happened) the fetus was diagnosed with trisomy-18. The definition they were given was 'incompatible with life' - the fetus was still 'alive', and would like remain 'alive' through the pregnancy, but the likelihood of surviving more than a few hours after birth was extremely slim. Barely any live longer than that, and as far as I can work out, most are disabled to some extent.
Standard practice with this diagnosis is termination of the pregnancy, if there isn't a spontaneous miscarriage. They were offered this option, but choose to carry the pregnancy in the hope that they might hold their baby for a few hours, knowing they may never have another one. The baby died in childbirth.
I understand why they made that decision, but it was one of the most harrowing and heart-breaking things I've ever seen. Were I in their position, I'm 95% sure I would have gone with termination. But if you're arguing for no post-20 week terminations, you're basically saying to every couple in that situation 'bad luck - stay pregnant for another 20 weeks (with all the things that follow on from that), go through the birth (again, with all the related risks and just general unpleasantness), and deal with the consequences of that outcome'. Because the baby might feel pain.
I tell you what - my friends definitely felt pain. They made that choice, but I'm extremely glad it was a choice, and not something they were forced into.

Postscript - they spontaneously conceived a couple of years later and now have a lovely, if slightly over-indulged, child, and they're very happy.

Wrong conclusion.

20 weeks is for voluntary abortions of convenience, not medical conditions.

I would like to point out that anecdotal evidence is what people like to do when they want to personalize the discussion so that any rebuttal is deemed a personal attack.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Back to basics. An unborn embryo is part of a woman's body. The woman is a person; the embryo isn't.

But let's play legal games and officially declare embryos to be persons from the "moment of conception." Forget that conception is a process, not a momentary event; that blastula has all the legal rights of a... corporation, er I mean a corporate executive. More rights than an adult person charged with terrorism. But I digress.

To protect the rights of a person, we must be aware of their existence. Some women don't know they're pregnant until their water breaks. The only way to be SURE that an embryo exists is to implant pregnancy monitors in every human female of child-bearing age. That includes all residents, visitors, and transients, 7 to 70. (Yes, births happen in that age range.)

She has an LED in her ear. If it's green, fuck her. If it's red, she's preggers, and must now be excluded from any activity that could endanger her inner person, the embryo.​

"Pro-life" enthusiasts (often death-penalty supporters) who oppose technical means to "protect every embryo" are exposed as hypocrites. Fuck y'all. Oh, and guess what? Many laws cover the rights and responsibilities of 'persons'. Elevators have limits. Some fares and taxes are based on 'persons'. Anywhere she goes, she's double-occupancy. What, an embryo isn't "that kind" of person? Fucking hypocrites.

It boils down to: "Pro-life" enthusiasts don't much care what happens post-partum. Have they adopted? If not: hypocrites. The "embryo-protection" racket is about controlling women's bodies. That's it. Other excuses are lies.

So when a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer cannot be charged with two murders?

 

[KimGordon67]

Wrong conclusion.

20 weeks is for voluntary abortions of convenience, not medical conditions.

I would like to point out that anecdotal evidence is what people like to do when they want to personalize the discussion so that any rebuttal is deemed a personal attack.

Can you please explain this - are you saying the legislation that's proposed only applies to 'abortions of 'convenience'' (whatever the fuck that means - I've yet to see a 'convenient' abortion), not to instances involving medical conditions?

 

[richard_daily]

So when a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer cannot be charged with two murders?

Why would it make a difference?

 

[KimGordon67]

Wrong conclusion.

20 weeks is for voluntary abortions of convenience, not medical conditions.

I would like to point out that anecdotal evidence is what people like to do when they want to personalize the discussion so that any rebuttal is deemed a personal attack.

Also, I was responding to a poster who seemed to be having problems with more generalised research.
I actually believe in this instance, along with statistical evidence, giving a face to the thing we're talking about is important. Otherwise people get caught up in this 'irresponsible women using abortions as birth control' trope. We're discussing something that, along with a health aspect, is also highly emotive - that's precisely the reason the anti-abortion rhetoric exists, it's precisely the reason the movement like to use images of fetuses etc. You can rebut this example all you want, but in my estimation, it provides pretty clear evidence for the need to access post-20 week terminations. I could give you a statistically significant numbers of cases if you want - let me know if you want that.
(Also, in my experience, when actual statistical evidence is provided in support of an argument on this board, it's very seldom responded to, and is usually ignored.)

 

[KimGordon67]

"Your 'as the woman is giving birth' limit case is just ridiculous. Quite clearly no one wants that."

Agreed for the most part. Germaine Greer says she's against abortion but if you're going to do it, do it in a good manner—something like an abortion clinic. But the citing the extreme example is a good test. First, if it came to the crunch, would you support the right, or alleged right? Second, if not, where do you put the limit and/or what conditions do you set: a day before expected birth, 2 days? A week? A month? All but the first 20 weeks?

As for the example I gave, I heard such was sometimes done in China with their two-baby-limit policies. I betcha the majority of those fetuses that get killed in this manner are female—to raise another issue.


"In spite of your assertions of being pro choice, that just aligns you with the people who think all women are callous, uncaring bitches."

In this uncommon if not rare instance, yes, though not all in in the not-after-20-week group I've temporarily sided with think that way. The Pope, for instance, for all of his faults—and there are some—those he'd readily admit to and some he doesn't—probably doesn't regard all women as callous, uncaring—as per your word—bitches.

"It's equally obvious no one is arguing for 40 week abortions either."

I've heard and read of no explicit denials. I read a lot of opposition to the 20 week limit. There's the possibility right there.

I know very late term abortions are rare, more humanoid life-forms in the US die from other causes, some quite stupid and mundane, but I raised it as an issue. When I first disagreed with adrina, I thought I'd say my bit, she hers, and that'd be pretty well it. I didn't expect it to go this far.

There don't have to be 'explicit denials' because it's just so self-evident it's not worth addressing.

If you want to do the whole devil's advocate thing with the 'how far would you go' argument ... how far back to you want to go the other way? If a woman misacarries, say in the first six weeks, should we hold an inquest to see if it was due to her own actions?

If you can find me one instance where a woman has carried a pregnancy to, say, 38 weeks and then gone 'oh, no, changed my mind, mission abort', I'd be interested to see it. I'd be massively surprised if there were even a significant number of women who said that at 21 weeks. But I'm happy to see the evidence.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Why would it make a difference?

Because equality under the law and logical consistency with regard to the law.

If a fetus is a legal person that you can murder in one case, it should/is supposed to be so in all cases or none at all. You can't prosecute some people for murdering a fetus, but not others.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Abortion threads need more death metal....


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2d/5e/e0/2d5ee08529a2f8db222aa9416f1c5802.jpg

 

[adrina]

Challenge:. Find actual cases of 20 week or after abortions that were not for fetal abnormalities or medical reasons.

That's what this entire BS hinges on - the stupid assumption that women are seeking abortions for reasons other than fetal abnormality or medical threat to the mother after 20 weeks.

I've given citations, references and personal stories of women in the position of needing an abortion after 20 weeks that supports what I am saying.

Find, cite and post examples of American women seeking abortions past 20 weeks for reasons of "convenience".

Otherwise, you're full of shit and beyond contempt.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Can you please explain this - are you saying the legislation that's proposed only applies to 'abortions of 'convenience'' (whatever the fuck that means - I've yet to see a 'convenient' abortion), not to instances involving medical conditions?

Elective abortion

Abortion performed as an after-the-fact contraception not because there is a medical necessity but because the woman simply wishes not to be pregnant.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview

20 weeks = 140 days ≈ 4.6 months.

In a nine month pregnancy, that's a big window.

How much more time do you need?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Challenge:. Find actual cases of 20 week or after abortions that were not for fetal abnormalities or medical reasons.

That's what this entire BS hinges on - the stupid assumption that women are seeking abortions for reasons other than fetal abnormality or medical threat to the mother after 20 weeks.

I've given citations, references and personal stories of women in the position of needing an abortion after 20 weeks that supports what I am saying.

Find, cite and post examples of American women seeking abortions past 20 weeks for reasons of "convenience".

Otherwise, you're full of shit and beyond contempt.

I suggest that you search on Tiller and Gosnell...

 

[KimGordon67]

I suggest that you search on Tiller and Gosnell...

Why don't you do the searching - it's your argument, so it's sort of incumbent on you to provide the evidence.

 

[KimGordon67]

Elective abortion

Abortion performed as an after-the-fact contraception not because there is a medical necessity but because the woman simply wishes not to be pregnant.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview

20 weeks = 140 days ≈ 4.6 months.

In a nine month pregnancy, that's a big window.

How much more time do you need?

So, to repeat my actual question, which wasn't about the definition of 'abortion of convenience' - that was just a side comment - "are you saying the legislation that's proposed only applies to 'abortions of 'convenience'' (...), not to instances involving medical conditions?"

 

[DMBFFF]

OK, let's try using an actual example.

......

......Postscript - they spontaneously conceived a couple of years later and now have a lovely, if slightly over-indulged, child, and they're very happy.

Another good point on your part: thank you.


Sad to read about the miscarriage.


I wouldn't blame you if you did. I'd have probably done it myself—assuming I-as-a-man-in-a-woman's body wouldn't take great precautions not to get pregnant and aborting as a matter of course as early as possible in the first place. Maybe give the fetus a burial—as somewhat per a custom in Japan I read was the case—somewhat like burying a pet cat or dog.


"But if you're arguing for no post-20 week terminations, you're basically saying to every couple in that situation 'bad luck - stay pregnant for another 20 weeks (with all the things that follow on from that), go through the birth (again, with all the related risks and just general unpleasantness), and deal with the consequences of that outcome'. Because the baby might feel pain."

Which is something adrina might have referred to in earlier texts and I could-have-but-didn't read as the fog machine was on near-full blast—I'll likely read her stuff later.


Again, I (think I) began my posts not with concerns for sentient life but semi-sentient life feeling pain, and I was comparing fetal life with animal life, at least (what we currently consider) higher forms of animal life—and I'm wasn't even supporting the legislation, just being somewhat indifferent to it or a presumed form of it: a ban on abortions in +20 week pregnancies where the woman's life wasn't in danger.


Now you have introduced something I didn't previously think of: should a woman be made to go through a pregnancy with a defected fetus even if the pregnancy would otherwise be normal.

Hmmm.

Well given my concern for reducing the possible pain a later fetus might suffer in abortions,

as abortions are currently done—I'd would oppose abortions even less if the fetus could be humanely killed beforehand—maybe an overdose-for-the-fetus injection of a painkiller and maybe a little potassium chloride,

the hassle of pregnancy and the suffering in childbirth,

and the inconvenience of raising a handicapped child—perhaps severely handicapped,

I'd most likely side with abortion.

I'd guess adrina and you would definitely side with abortion.

If so, that would be the difference between us: likely versus definitely.


"I tell you what - my friends definitely felt pain. They made that choice, but I'm extremely glad it was a choice, and not something they were forced into."

I hope some good came/will come from it, FWIW.



"Postscript - they spontaneously conceived a couple of years later and now have a lovely, if slightly over-indulged, child, and they're very happy."

There don't have to be 'explicit denials' because it's just so self-evident it's not worth addressing.

In a country of over 300 million in 50 slightly autonomous states in a world of over 7 billion? I'm not so sure of that.

I presume your, and adrina's, feminism is not just national but global in outlook.

If you want to do the whole devil's advocate thing with the 'how far would you go' argument ... how far back to you want to go the other way? If a woman misacarries, say in the first six weeks, should we hold an inquest to see if it was due to her own actions?

22 Minutes: Babe Bennett - Frozen Eggs
1:47
"I'm just goofing around, that's all."

Six weeks isn't twenty and presumably (most) miscarriages are involuntary.

But to answer the gist of your question: probably not, at least no more than someone disposing of dead rats having to prove the killing wasn't inhumane.

If you can find me one instance where a woman has carried a pregnancy to, say, 38 weeks and then gone 'oh, no, changed my mind, mission abort', I'd be interested to see it. I'd be massively surprised if there were even a significant number of women who said that at 21 weeks. But I'm happy to see the evidence.

Me too (the evidence of if such happened, that is).

I was playing with statistics.

I was fishing YouTube for instances, and typical of videos on this charged issue, the pickings were slim.

I got this:
Inhuman: Undercover in America's Late-Term Abortion Industry - Arizona
7:30

I'm sure it's intended as a pro-life POV. It seems to indicate post-20 week abortions are common—but maybe the doctor was playing it calm to ease the prospective patient. The reference to killing the fetus before the abortion, if anything, kind of reassures me of it not unduly suffering, though I am a little concerned about not resuscitating moving fetuses—but again, my argument was not about murder but fetal pain.

So when a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer cannot be charged with two murders?

Murder and perhaps an additional charge of inflicting suffering on a semi-sentient life-form: something like murdering a person and killing his/her cat or dog (though as most cats and dogs eat factory farm meat, such might be a good thing).

Also, I was responding to a poster who seemed to be having problems with more generalised research. ......

I actually believe in this instance, along with statistical evidence, giving a face to the thing we're talking about is important. Otherwise people get caught up in this 'irresponsible women using abortions as birth control' trope.

Generally agree.

 

[DMBFFF]

I was just checking some of the past pages of this thread, and indeed adrina made mention of fetal health—likely numerous times.

I'll give it the reading it deserves, but later—possibly even a few weeks.

I'm reasonably sure this thread will still be around.

Again, I'm a newbie here—about a week: still figuring out the apparatus and people.

 

[KimGordon67]

I'll respond to the other points when I'm not on a phone. But 're this:
"Sad to read about the miscarriage.


I wouldn't blame you if you did. I'd have probably done it myself—assuming I-as-a-man-in-a-woman's body wouldn't take great precautions not to get pregnant and aborting as a matter of course as early as possible in the first place. Maybe give the fetus a burial—as somewhat per a custom in Japan I read was the case—somewhat like burying a pet cat or dog."

I think you've misread the post. The pregnancy wasn't a result of not taking precautions - it was an IVF conception.
They didn't miscarry - the baby died during the birth.
And they weren't facing the possibility of raising a handicapped child - it was 'incompatible with life'. There was next to no chance of her surviving beyond a week or two.

Also, you seem to be implying it's the woman's job to 'take precautions'. You do understand how pregnancy happens?

 

[Hypoxia]

To anti-choice enthusiasts, self-labeled as 'pro-life' but usually supporting death penalties, police violence, and wars, women's bodies are owned by the state, especially by the men running things. A cell cluster is a person with rights but a woman isn't. That's what it boils down to.