Abortion for 'medical reasons' 'legalised' in Tasmania

[Anxious Girl]

Honestly, whenever a person refers to pregnant woman as "mother", it sets off some bullshit alarms. It implies that they think women are mothers as soon as they get pregnant, which definitely skews their view away from reproductive choice. I loathe how the media in general always talks about exceptions for life/health of the mother. And when people take that terminology to heart, it makes me think that either they haven't thought it through very far, or they actually agree with the sentiment.

That coupled with the idea of giving men control over pregnant woman makes me wary of MrsS2004.

THIS. I love you. You deserve a like. Why don't we have a heart smilie? :crying-blue:

[Mama Mia]

Then the father can feel free to gestate. As I said, either the female owns her body, or the state owns it in the fetus's interest. Now you're introducing that the father owns it just because he wants a baby-- when paternity can't even be established to prove he is the father. You've just given a random male control over a woman's body. Here is a link that shows that actually yeah, paternity can be established in early pregnancy with a simple blood test - it took me all of 30 seconds on google to find.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/healt ... d=all&_r=0

How much more restrictive could late term abortion POSSIBLY be when it is illegal in 36+ states and accounts for 1% or less of abortions, per the CDC? http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5609.pdf

I understand that it is very rare, and generally for medical reasons, that is why I clearly stated, several times, that my objection is to elective late term abortions performed for non medical reasons. Many things in the world are rare, yet illegal

From the same CDC link, 28% of abortions take place before 6 weeks, and 60+% take place before 8 weeks. Therefore, "blob of cells" isn't an unfair description at all. Even 9 weeks is fairly alien-looking. You should really see the evidence for yourself. Yes, so what is the problem with giving accurate information ? That is why I said that I find the description of a 4 week embryo looking like a teeny-tiny baby JUST as objectionable as the description of a 14 week fetus looking like a glob of cells

So a fetus has a heartbeat at that point. So what? Fetal heartbeat is just myocite cells that demonstrate electrical impulse. I don't even think a 7 or 8-week fetal heart has valves yet. There is certainly no brain. You are misinformed. There actually is a brain. Here is a link with week by week development. A neutral medical site, so no bias. And, this lack of information on the most basic of aspects of fetal development is EXACTLY why I think accurate counseling should be given. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency ... 002398.htm

The problem with your proposed waiting periods is that, as a result of anti-choice legislation and funding cuts, clinics are near impossible to operate, so women have to travel-- sometimes even out of state-- which means gas, bus/train/plane tickets, hotels, and food in addition to the medical costs. The waiting period therefore creates the "undue burden" that Roe specifies cannot be created. As I stated earlier, I think that early abortion should be available, for free, throughout the country, and if there is a lack of availability that requires travel than the waiting requirement should be waived. As I have also stated, my beliefs are obviously partly based on my experience, where I live, where abortion is extremely easy to obtainWaiting periods disenfranchise people. Moreover, there does not appear to be any evidence suggesting they are effective. In fact, a study suggests they are NOT effective in changing minds. (here is a secondary source-- I cannot link the primary source when I am not at work--http://www.ibtimes.com/abortion-waiting-periods-counseling-do-not-sway-women-study-697688 ). Why don't waiting periods make women change their minds? Well, ummmm, possibly because they ALREADY know what they're "getting into"? Why would you assume that women are uninformed and unknowledgable? Again, reading the views of posters here regarding where fetuses are in their development is making me think people don't know what they are getting into, your views above would be a case in point Most women who have abortions already have children-- so you can be quite sure they know a thing or two. (here's a source for that: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presski ... facts.html ). Ergo... you're assuming women are uneducated. This is inherently flawed and misogynist thinking. Since you YOURSELF, just showed you are ignorant about the most basic, easily obtained information regarding fetal development, I would say that no, it is not flawed or misogynist thinking to assume women are not neccessarily aware of the what is going on

If you don't see by now, after my lengthy description, the difference between a legally defined person and a non-person, then you are being willfully ignorant. Because that distinction is the difference between late term abortion and driving a toddler into the lake.

By the way, these are the reasons women get late term abortions. It's not because they're flighty or "fucked up," as you put it.

http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/24W ... Story.aspx and http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/24Weeks/Delays.aspx

There are at least 5 more stories there if you would like to know what you're talking about.

You are completely misrepresenting my position. I stated, repeatedly, that I am not talking about late term abortion restrictions in cases of severe medical issues - I am talking about only elective reasons. To say that a FEW people would abort at or past viability for elective reasons is not at all the same as saying ALL women who would abort at that late stage do it for elective reasons. Quite obviously the vast majority of the very rare late term abortions are for extremely tragic reasons. I never said otherwise. It is the defense of ELECTIVE late term abortions, her on fj, that strengthened my view that this should not be legal. And again, something being rare, doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that it doesn't require a law prohibiting it

My responses are in the bolded sections above.

[Mama Mia]

I don't think MrsS2004 is a troll I just don't know how she thinks giving men rights over a fetus isn't giving men rights over the body the fetus is in. Unless she does think men should have rights over the body of a woman. I don't think she does, though, but that is the end result of giving men any sort of rights to a fetus. It isn't like a child who is born where they can share custody or even give up custody.

Thank you for saying I am not a troll. I do understand the problem with giving the father any sort of rights. I think IDEALLY maybe there would be some sort of arbitration or counseling or mediation that the father could request prior to the abortion if he wanted to take full responsibility for the child after it was born and the mother did not want to continue the pregnancy, so he could at least have the option of making his case in a neutral setting with professionals helping them to come to a resolution. This of course would be dependent on the mother even letting him know. Ultimately the final decision would need to be hers, as she does bare the medical risk, I acknowledge that.

[GodsKnickers]

Just a word to the wise on the AHC.com site. Please refrain from using the .com if you can - it was hijacked/stolen from the originators of the AHC site, last fall, by an offshore freak, who has used the site for personal gain ($$). I can't go into too many details about that but for further reference, use aheartbreakingchoice.net.

Anyway, the .net site is an excellent reference site and I have recommended them to several people, back before the .com was stolen. I have been friends with the woman who took over the site back in the early 2000s, after the first women who got it up and running, had to take a less invested role on the site, for personal reasons. I worked with her online for several years, and helped her get their forums up and running on ezBoard before they switched over to Yuku (christ, Yuku is suckage). I stepped back for a few years while dealing with medical issues with my kids and then stepped back in on a temporary basis last fall, when shit hit the fan with the wench that stole the site, to help her and several others get the new site set up.

[Ruby Slippers]

I have gone and messed up bold versus not bold, my replies versus yours. Too annoying to fix on ipad. Sowwy. Anyone who cares will figure it out. Lol.

[desertvixen]

You get posters who are adamant that there is no way you could determine the sex of the fetus just on ultrasound before 20 weeks - despite many people getting ultrasounds at 14 or 16 or 18 weeks where you can tell the sex -as an example. Just basic lack of any awareness of basic fetal development.

I don't think this one is such an issue of lack of knowledge, and more this is when insurance companies tend pay for the ultrasound to check the other stuff out. Personally, I find the 3D ultrasounds to be creepy, and I'm not sure about this whole trend to have more ultrasounds.

The rationale seems to be that all women will only do what is right, and of course no woman would choose to have an abortion that late unless there was a viability of infant/ life of mother issue.

No, the rationale is something more like, "what other women who are not me do with their bodies is none of my damn business" (for me, at least). I have my own threshold for what I would do, but every woman is not me.

As far as the father getting a say - while I do see the many problems with this - I have to say I find it appalling that many posters seem to treat the fetus as a possession that the father "earns" the right to spend time with / participate in it's life as long as the mother thinks he's good enough.

I can see what you mean, but there is not a practical way to set it up. It's too easy for men to commit, and then withdraw that commitment when it's too late for the woman to do anything. See your above statement about fucked up people.

Also, that test: Ravgen, a small company in Columbia, Md., has been offering its test on a limited basis and charges $950 to $1,650, depending on the circumstances, said Dr. Ravinder Dhallan, the chief executive.

Another test was developed by a company in Silicon Valley called Natera, and is marketed by DNA Diagnostics Center, a leading provider of conventional paternity tests. Thousands of the prenatal tests have been ordered since going on sale last August, executives say. The price is $1,775, compared with around $500 for a conventional postbirth paternity test.

And they aren't certified to be used in court paternity decisions.

Bottom line: It is wrong to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want, as wrong as it would be to force a woman to end a pregnancy she did want. If women do not control their own bodies, they control nothing.

edited once because I left out a word

[Ruby Slippers]

I think she is. She thinks that men should have a say in women's pregnancy and is upset with how pro-choices choose themselves over their fetuses. That's a troll to me. It's not that she has an opinion; but she has an opinion that she thinks should become a law/supports it if it becomes a law.

That doesn't make her a troll. It makes her a pretty garden-variety anti.

[Ruby Slippers]

Just a word to the wise on the AHC.com site. Please refrain from using the .com if you can - it was hijacked/stolen from the originators of the AHC site, last fall, by an offshore freak, who has used the site for personal gain ($$). I can't go into too many details about that but for further reference, use aheartbreakingchoice.net.

Anyway, the .net site is an excellent reference site and I have recommended them to several people, back before the .com was stolen. I have been friends with the woman who took over the site back in the early 2000s, after the first women who got it up and running, had to take a less invested role on the site, for personal reasons. I

worked with her online for several years, and helped her get their forums up and running on ezBoard before they switched over to Yuku (christ, Yuku is suckage). I stepped back for a few years while dealing with medical issues with my kids and then stepped back in on a temporary basis last fall, when shit hit the fan with the wench that stole the site, to help her and several others get the new site set up.

Oddly enough, I thought it was the other way around. Thank you.

[GodsKnickers]

No, it wasn't, C. :)

[Mama Mia]

That doesn't make her a troll. It makes her a pretty garden-variety anti.

Thank you for acknowledging I am not a troll.

I don't think that my view that abortion should be safe free and legal in early pregnancy, that impartial counseling with an emphasis on information and resources, and that abortion in later pregnancy should be allowed in cases of fetal non-viability/severe disability or life or health of the mother - would be considered "garden variety anti" by the vast majority of the population.

I think the majority view on fj that abortion should be legal for any reason whatsoever with no restrictions or requirements up to the point of delivery would be considered as extreme as the view that abortion should be illegal in all cases at all time.

Both of those ends of the spectrum are extreme.

[Mama Mia]

I think she is. She thinks that men should have a say in women's pregnancy and is upset with how pro-choices choose themselves over their fetuses. That's a troll to me. It's not that she has an opinion; but she has an opinion that she thinks should become a law/supports it if it becomes a law.

I don't think troll means what you think it means.

A troll is someone who comes on an internet board just to stir up shit and provoke outrage.

I would imagine that on virtually any board that discusses a wide range of topics you are not going to have universal consensus on every topic. In fact it would be pretty strange and boring if you did.

Someone might come on a board and argue with the views of 90% of the posters on 90% of the topics, that might be kind of shit stirring and drama inducing - and possibly, but not necessarily, trollish.

On this particular board I generally agree with most of the posters on most of the topics. Not on everything, obviously. My primary disagreement with the popular views here seem to be on abortion, and a few minor issues since not everyone will think exactly the same on any hot-button issue, or even on minor issues. My views, like anyone elses, are formed from a lifetime of my own experiences.

So - for examples -

my views on abortion are influenced by living in an area where it is very, very readily available and most people are eligible for a state subsidy if their insurance doesn't cover it - in my experience this sometimes leads to people having an abortion when they would have picked differently if they had more information.

This same area is over priced and crowded and I work in a job helping poor families - so my tolerance for crowded living conditions seems to be much higher than many other peoples here seem to be, this also causes me to be an extreme advocate of governmental supports for families.

It is also generally an extremely liberal area - so hearing descriptions of the extremely conservative practices that are common place in other areas is pretty shocking to me.

The severity of child physical abuse that appears to be legal and "normal' in some areas is also extremely surprising to me and makes my stomach turn.

I have a bunch of kids, and some of them have 'issues' so the wild behavior of the howlers doesn't bother me as much as it probably should.

I know many people, and have several family members, who are gay. I live in an area where this is generally acceptable, so it breaks my heart when they are not allowed to marry -it makes no sense to me.

Those are just examples of why, I, personally, have various random views that I have. Some of these agree with the majority here, a few don't. That doesn't make me a troll, that makes me a person.

[Anxious Girl]

Thank you for acknowledging I am not a troll.

I don't think that my view that abortion should be safe free and legal in early pregnancy, that impartial counseling with an emphasis on information and resources, and that abortion in later pregnancy should be allowed in cases of fetal non-viability/severe disability or life or health of the mother - would be considered "garden variety anti" by the vast majority of the population.

I think the majority view on fj that abortion should be legal for any reason whatsoever with no restrictions or requirements up to the point of delivery would be considered as extreme as the view that abortion should be illegal in all cases at all time. Both of those ends of the spectrum are extreme.

And now you're pulling the both sides are extreme card when Arkansas, Arizona, Kansas and North Dakota have anti-choice laws; anti-choicers aren't bombing abortion buildings and killing abortionists and anti-choicers don't feel the need to pressure women to feel depressed and guilty about their abortions. Try again, you're funny. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Ruby Slippers]

Thank you for acknowledging I am not a troll.

I don't think that my view that abortion should be safe free and legal in early pregnancy, that impartial counseling with an emphasis on information and resources, and that abortion in later pregnancy should be allowed in cases of fetal non-viability/severe disability or life or health of the mother - would be considered "garden variety anti" by the vast majority of the population.

I think the majority view on fj that abortion should be legal for any reason whatsoever with no restrictions or requirements up to the point of delivery would be considered as extreme as the view that abortion should be illegal in all cases at all time.

Both of those ends of the spectrum are extreme.

For the record, I've defended you three times.

And since the anti movement continually picks up its chains and moves them further right down the field, we need pro-choice extremists to pull the line back toward the middle. I trust anyone you're referring to here is willing to take the label "extremist" for the team.

[Anxious Girl]

I don't think troll means what you think it means.

A troll is someone who comes on an internet board just to stir up shit and provoke outrage.

I would imagine that on virtually any board that discusses a wide range of topics you are not going to have universal consensus on every topic. In fact it would be pretty strange and boring if you did.

Someone might come on a board and argue with the views of 90% of the posters on 90% of the topics, that might be kind of shit stirring and drama inducing - and possibly, but not necessarily, trollish.

On this particular board I generally agree with most of the posters on most of the topics. Not on everything, obviously. My primary disagreement with the popular views here seem to be on abortion, and a few minor issues since not everyone will think exactly the same on any hot-button issue, or even on minor issues. My views, like anyone elses, are formed from a lifetime of my own experiences.

So - for examples -

my views on abortion are influenced by living in an area where it is very, very readily available and most people are eligible for a state subsidy if their insurance doesn't cover it - in my experience this sometimes leads to people having an abortion when they would have picked differently if they had more information.

This same area is over priced and crowded and I work in a job helping poor families - so my tolerance for crowded living conditions seems to be much higher than many other peoples here seem to be, this also causes me to be an extreme advocate of governmental supports for families.

It is also generally an extremely liberal area - so hearing descriptions of the extremely conservative practices that are common place in other areas is pretty shocking to me.

The severity of child physical abuse that appears to be legal and "normal' in some areas is also extremely surprising to me and makes my stomach turn.

I have a bunch of kids, and some of them have 'issues' so the wild behavior of the howlers doesn't bother me as much as it probably should.

I know many people, and have several family members, who are gay. I live in an area where this is generally acceptable, so it breaks my heart when they are not allowed to marry -it makes no sense to me.

Those are just examples of why, I, personally, have various random views that I have. Some of these agree with the majority here, a few don't. That doesn't make me a troll, that makes me a person.

I do know what troll means. You're a troll because you think that woman should be pressured to go through with their pregnancies on a board that snarks on conservatives and fundies. If you're conservative who supports anti-choice laws and men getting custody of womens' fetuses even though they don't have to go through 9 months of pregnancy, then why are you on this forum? Your opinion won't change others who have their mind firmly pro-choice. They will not budge. Not all FJers will be tolerant of your opinions, and you need to deal with that.

[Ruby Slippers]

And now you're pulling the both sides are extreme card when Arkansas, Arizona, Kansas and North Dakota have anti-

choice laws; anti-choicers aren't bombing abortion buildings and killing abortionists and anti-choicers don't feel the need to pressure women to feel depressed and guilty about their abortions. Try again, you're funny. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wut?

[Anxious Girl]

Wut?

I'm telling her that I wont tolerate her intolerance because her pro-life opinions are already being used by others her label themselves as pro-life to put their opinoins into law which have an intrusive effect on pro-choicers and women. It's the same as Xtians in 'Murica saying not all Xtians are like that even though fundie Xtians label themselves as Xtians.

[Mama Mia]

And now you're pulling the both sides are extreme card when Arkansas, Arizona, Kansas and North Dakota have anti-choice laws; anti-choicers aren't bombing abortion buildings and killing abortionists and anti-choicers don't feel the need to pressure women to feel depressed and guilty about their abortions. Try again, you're funny. :lol: :lol: :lol:

How is it a "card" ? That doesn't even make any sense. How does one extreme side passing extreme laws in some places have anything to do with if the other "side" can be extreme in it's views ?

Obviously bombings and killings are horrible - again, how does one "side" doing something reprehensible have anything to do with the views of the other "side" ?

I agree women should not feel pressured to feel depressed and guilty about their abortions , but the same token it is pretty intellectually dishonest to pretend that women never feel depressed or guilty or full of regret about their abortions, or to say that the only reason they would is because of pressure. Both those extreme responses minimize women's experience and are extremely patronizing.

Also, just read your response to Ruby Slippers -- what are you trying to say ? I don't understand the "not all Christians are like that - but fundementalists are -- or whatever that was. What is the point you are trying to make ?

[desertvixen]

I think the majority view on fj that abortion should be legal for any reason whatsoever with no restrictions or requirements up to the point of delivery would be considered as extreme as the view that abortion should be illegal in all cases at all time.

Once you start putting restrictions on, though, then the slopes gets slippery fast.

Viability - where do we draw the line? We have micropreemies that survive at 23 and 24 weeks, but is that where we want to draw the line? Not to mention the fact that if personhood requirements were enacted for older fetuses, then we set up for more interference with women, delivery, etc. Call me extreme, but until that fetus becomes a child that is kicking and screaming outside the uterus, its rights to anything do not trump the woman's rights.

Also, I agree you are not a troll, just a minority viewpoint (here, at least).

[Anxious Girl]

How is it a "card" ? That doesn't even make any sense. How does one extreme side passing extreme laws in some places have anything to do with if the other "side" can be extreme in it's views ?

Obviously bombings and killings are horrible - again, how does one "side" doing something reprehensible have anything to do with the views of the other "side" ?

I agree women should not feel pressured to feel depressed and guilty about their abortions , but the same token it is pretty intellectually dishonest to pretend that women never feel depressed or guilty or full of regret about their abortions, or to say that the only reason they would is because of pressure. Both those extreme responses minimize women's experience and are extremely patronizing.

Also, just read your response to Ruby Slippers -- what are you trying to say ? I don't understand the "not all Christians are like that - but fundementalists are -- or whatever that was. What is the point you are trying to make ?

You're saying that both sides are extreme in America and that is not true. Pro-lifers take action and harass abortionists, abortion centers and clinics when they put they're opinion into action. They're destructive. Pro-choicers aren't.

[Mama Mia]

I do know what troll means. You're a troll because you think that woman should be pressured to go through with their pregnancies on a board that snarks on conservatives and fundies. If you're conservative who supports anti-choice laws and men getting custody of womens' fetuses even though they don't have to go through 9 months of pregnancy, then why are you on this forum? Your opinion won't change others who have their mind firmly pro-choice. They will not budge. Not all FJers will be tolerant of your opinions, and you need to deal with that.

Umm...no. If I was on a one issue board taking the opposite view of the purpose of the board ( i.e a board devoted solely to right-to-life or pro-choice ) - then I might be trolling. Or I might be trying to convince people of my viewpoint. If you are on a board with multiple topics , where people are free to discuss those topics when they arise - it is not trollish to not share the view of the majority. I could, of course, avoid any topics where I don't share the majority view, but having a bunch of sheeple just saying "yes I agree !" 24/7 on every topic that arises seems kind of silly and pointless. I understand not everyone will be tolerant of my opinions - I'm a grown-up, I can deal with that.

And fyi, not that it matters, but I'm not a conservative, nor am I a fundamentalist.

[Anxious Girl]

Umm...no. If I was on a one issue board taking the opposite view of the purpose of the board ( i.e a board devoted solely to right-to-life or pro-choice ) - then I might be trolling. Or I might be trying to convince people of my viewpoint. If you are on a board with multiple topics , where people are free to discuss those topics when they arise - it is not trollish to not share the view of the majority. I could, of course, avoid any topics where I don't share the majority view, but having a bunch of sheeple just saying "yes I agree !" 24/7 on every topic that arises seems kind of silly and pointless. I understand not everyone will be tolerant of my opinions - I'm a grown-up, I can deal with that.

And fyi, not that it matters, but I'm not a conservative, nor am I a fundamentalist.

I do not tolerate your opinions because you think that other women should acknowledge the men in abortion processes. Happy? Bullshit you're not conservative. A few posts ago you typed that you were getting more conservative.

[Minerva]

What has made me more conservative in my position, from reading on fj, is that there ARE so many people who spread the idea that fetuses aren't alive and aren't human- along with the 'blob of cells' statement far past the point where this is a remotely accurate description.

I'm honestly skeptical of the bolded. It is common fucking sense that something growing is alive and that something with human DNA is human. You don't even need to have taken biology to know that. I won't make excuses for Anxious Girl's post, but it is one of the only times I've seen someone unironically make that argument. Do people say that fetuses aren't human beings? All the time. And they're right; fetuses are exempt from many of the definitions of the term "human being". Do people say that fetuses aren't alive the same way that we are? Yes, I've heard it said. And it's true. We'd be brain dead if we had the brain activity that fetuses have before a certain point. Now you could, with enough determination, interpret those two statements to mean that fetuses aren't alive or human. But I assure you: most functional adults know better than that, and I do think you insult our intelligence by implying that we don't. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though. Find me someone on FJ who honestly believes that a fetus isn't alive or human. Go on.

As for the blob of cells? I've heard it tons of times. It's an apt physical description up until 8 weeks or so, at which point the fetus stops looking blob-y if you look close enough. After 8 weeks? It's still ridiculously small, squishy, and, most importantly, it's still just cells. There is no conscious entity in that squishy, alien-like little body. Also? If you have a miscarriage, a medical abortion, or a surgical abortion early in the pregnancy and you look at what came out of you, usually all you'll see is nasty blobs unless you dig through the stuff looking for the fetus. Does this explain the expression?

I stated when I first started reading here that this is what I had been told at planned parenthood, and that this is what many of my friends and relatives were told at planned parenthood. When I stated my experience, I was told that there is no way that planned parenthood counselors would ever say such a thing, and that of course everyone is aware that fetuses are actually alive, because you know, biology.

You know, I can't possibly imagine a) someone needing to ask if a fetus is alive and b) being told that it isn't, let alone several people who know each other being in this situation. It's bizarre to me. I can't ask you to prove it, and it would be unreasonable of me to expect you to recall the exact words the counsellor used, so I'm just going to say I'm sorry that happened. PP employees should be focused on giving the most exact information they can using the most accessible language they can.

But then I read over and over and over on here how many posters do use terms that suggest ( or even state ) that the fetus isn't alive, isn't human[...]

Looking forward to these quotes.

[...]and that it's basically a faceless glob until practically the moment of birth.

Please show me where this happened. Anywhere. Not just on FJ - please find me anyone who believes this.

You get posters who are adamant that there is no way you could determine the sex of the fetus just on ultrasound before 20 weeks - despite many people getting ultrasounds at 14 or 16 or 18 weeks where you can tell the sex -as an example.

You're right, people have said that. Though it is evidence of them knowing less than you about ultrasounds, not fetal development.

Just basic lack of any awareness of basic fetal development. I don't think this is any less biased or ludicrous than the ideas of many right-to-lifers who seem to think that a 2 week embryo looks and acts like a fully formed teeny tiny baby.

Yeah, no. Most of the people who participate in these abortion threads have had kids. The rest of us have been made to learn fetal development in school, have seen pictures of embryos in books, on TV, and on anti-choicers' signs, have seen our parents' and friends' and teachers' ultrasounds, have read articles about in utero surgery, have read cute blurbs about how fetuses react to sound in utero, etc. We spend hours snarking on anti-choice literature and image macros. There have been threads where we've looked at fundies' pictures of aborted or miscarried fetuses and compared their supposed gestational age to the fetal development info on sites like babycenter. Even if we somehow went through our pre-FJ lives without learning something about fetal development, there's no way we could not learn about it snarking on who we do.

This made me more conservative in my view that there should be counseling and resources and a waiting period before an abortion is performed - because women and girls should know exactly what they are getting into before they do it. And I don't think either planned parenthood or crises pregnancy centers do a good job of this -they are both too biased.

I'm not against counselling and resources being offered to people seeking abortion. Frankly, thinking they should be used doesn't make one "conservative". The issue with these mandatory counselling bills is that they're never about having a high quality counsellor consult every patient and having truthful and useful resources available should the patient choose to look at them. They're about pressuring people out of having the abortion, feeding them misinformation, or forcing information and/or visuals on them whether they want it or not. That's not ok.

I don't see how a mandatory waiting period helps people know what they're getting into. The argument is usually that people might make too rash of a decision if they can get an abortion on the same day they decided to have one, which is logical, as condescending as it is. The idea of the waiting period somehow making a person more informed about their fetus - not so much. I think people should be able to delay their abortion by a certain number of days if they choose to take more time to decide after reading the information that they've chosen to be given, and I don't think most clinics would accommodate such a request as it stands. I think making that wait mandatory is a waste of a lot of people's time, however.

I became more conservative regarding time limits after reading that many people seem to think that legally abortion should be legal, as an elective procedure, up to the point of delivery. The rationale seems to be that all women will only do what is right, and of course no woman would choose to have an abortion that late unless there was a viability of infant/ life of mother issue. Which is, I'm sure, true the vast, vast majority of the time. However it completely discounts the fact that there are fucked up people who do fucked up things for completely messed up reasons every damn day. That is why we make laws. Being pregnant or a mother doesn't exempt someone from doing monstrous things. Look at all the horrific child abuse and child murder stories you see every day. I don't see how having an elective late term abortion past the point of viability is any different than choosing to drive your toddlers into a lake because they are interfering with your love life. People defending having the option to choose abortion for non-emergency reasons past the point of viabilty made me think that there should be tighter limits on abortion availability when the fetus is near or at viability.

Fun fact: abortion is legal up until the point of delivery in Canada. Yet elective late-term abortions don't happen here. Because no OB/GYN is cool with killing a 3rd trimester fetus without a very good reason. In fact, you can get an elective abortion two weeks later in the US than in Canada. Besides anti-choice groups being annoyingly misleading about it, there is no down side. The up side is that, unlike in places where the law grants fetuses rights, you can't be arrested for having a homebirth, or for refusing a c-section, or for using drugs while pregnant. Babies are safer when their mothers have no reason to be afraid of medical professionals. When we make laws, they have to be as much about justice they are about keeping as many people as safe as possible. This is why the police are often required to give up chases when they become dangerous, even though it means letting the bad guy get away. And this is why fetal personhood shouldn't be law - because while it's almost literally unheard of for someone to kill their third trimester fetus, there are tons of people at any given time who are pregnant and less likely to seek prenatal care or even give birth in a supervised environment if their fetuses were suddenly given rights under the law. And because people have the right to make birth-related decisions without the police getting involved.

Are there people out there who genuinely have no problem with a 3rd trimester elective abortion? Yes. Does it make me uncomfortable? Yes. Am I concerned that someone of that opinion will go to med school, become an OB/GYN and take advantage of Canada's lack of an abortion law by moving here and offering 3rd trimester abortions? No. It makes sense to be concerned about this, but the rarity of the people who'd be comfortable performing that kind of procedure combined by the utter lack of a demand for it makes it an absolutely microscopic issue next to the problems caused by legislating fetal rights.

As far as the father getting a say - while I do see the many problems with this - I have to say I find it appalling that many posters seem to treat the fetus as a possession that the father "earns" the right to spend time with / participate in it's life as long as the mother thinks he's good enough. You can't do that with a born child -- unless one of the parents or dangerous or abuse - they get to be in their child's life. I do acknowledge that this would be very difficult to legislate in anyway because the mother does bare the health risks.

I agree with you that no one should have to suck up to their partner/ex in order to spend time with their kid. If fetuses were free-standing and could just chill in a petri dish for 9 months, there's no reason the same shouldn't apply to them. However, no one is entitled to have someone else go through pregnancy and childbirth for them. That's the difference.

But yeah, kids don't belong to mother anymore than to the father, and the attitude that they do makes me think even more that the father should have the option to raise the child themselves if the mother isn't interested.

I agree with you on that. But sometimes it's not about the pregnant person not wanting to raise a child. Sometimes it's about them not wanting to go through a pregnancy and give birth. And sometimes it's about them not wanting to go through the heartbreak of giving away their newborn. Saying "don't worry, the dad is willing to raise the baby alone" doesn't solve any of that.

In conclusion, now that you've explained how the pro-choicers of FJ have made you more conservative (and more "conservative"), it makes sense to me. The moves to conservatism, however, are based on very easily refuted arguments. I look forward to you providing the quotes I've asked for. And add me to the list of people who don't think you're a troll.

[Ruby Slippers]

I'm telling her that I wont tolerate her intolerance because her pro-life opinions are already being used by others her label themselves as pro-life to put their opinoins into law which have an intrusive effect on pro-choicers and women. It's the same as Xtians in 'Murica saying not all Xtians are like that even though fundie Xtians label themselves as Xtians.

I looked for an emoticon that would adequately express how much this post makes my head hurt, but I instead got distracted by the boning bananas. :nanner-sex:

[Anxious Girl]

I'm honestly skeptical of the bolded. It is common fucking sense that something growing is alive and that something with human DNA is human. You don't even need to have taken biology to know that. I won't make excuses for Anxious Girl's post, but it is one of the only times I've seen someone unironically make that argument. Do people say that fetuses aren't human beings? All the time. And they're right; fetuses are exempt from many of the definitions of the term "human being". Do people say that fetuses aren't alive the same way that we are? Yes, I've heard it said. And it's true. We'd be brain dead if we had the brain activity that fetuses have before a certain point. Now you could, with enough determination, interpret those two statements to mean that fetuses aren't alive or human. But I assure you: most functional adults know better than that, and I do think you insult our intelligence by implying that we don't. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though. Find me someone on FJ who honestly believes that a fetus isn't alive or human. Go on.

As for the blob of cells? I've heard it tons of times. It's an apt physical description up until 8 weeks or so, at which point the fetus stops looking blob-y if you look close enough. After 8 weeks? It's still ridiculously small, squishy, and, most importantly, it's still just cells. There is no conscious entity in that squishy, alien-like little body. Also? If you have a miscarriage, a medical abortion, or a surgical abortion early in the pregnancy and you look at what came out of you, usually all you'll see is nasty blobs unless you dig through the stuff looking for the fetus. Does this explain the expression?

You know, I can't possibly imagine a) someone needing to ask if a fetus is alive and b) being told that it isn't, let alone several people who know each other being in this situation. It's bizarre to me. I can't ask you to prove it, and it would be unreasonable of me to expect you to recall the exact words the counsellor used, so I'm just going to say I'm sorry that happened. PP employees should be focused on giving the most exact information they can using the most accessible language they can.

Looking forward to these quotes.

Please show me where this happened. Anywhere. Not just on FJ - please find me anyone who believes this.

You're right, people have said that. Though it is evidence of them knowing less than you about ultrasounds, not fetal development.

Yeah, no. Most of the people who participate in these abortion threads have had kids. The rest of us have been made to learn fetal development in school, have seen pictures of embryos in books, on TV, and on anti-choicers' signs, have seen our parents' and friends' and teachers' ultrasounds, have read articles about in utero surgery, have read cute blurbs about how fetuses react to sound in utero, etc. We spend hours snarking on anti-choice literature and image macros. There have been threads where we've looked at fundies' pictures of aborted or miscarried fetuses and compared their supposed gestational age to the fetal development info on sites like babycenter. Even if we somehow went through our pre-FJ lives without learning something about fetal development, there's no way we could not learn about it snarking on who we do.

I'm not against counselling and resources being offered to people seeking abortion. Frankly, thinking they should be used doesn't make one "conservative". The issue with these mandatory counselling bills is that they're never about having a high quality counsellor consult every patient and having truthful and useful resources available should the patient choose to look at them. They're about pressuring people out of having the abortion, feeding them misinformation, or forcing information and/or visuals on them whether they want it or not. That's not ok.

I don't see how a mandatory waiting period helps people know what they're getting into. The argument is usually that people might make too rash of a decision if they can get an abortion on the same day they decided to have one, which is logical, as condescending as it is. The idea of the waiting period somehow making a person more informed about their fetus - not so much. I think people should be able to delay their abortion by a certain number of days if they choose to take more time to decide after reading the information that they've chosen to be given, and I don't think most clinics would accommodate such a request as it stands. I think making that wait mandatory is a waste of a lot of people's time, however.

Fun fact: abortion is legal up until the point of delivery in Canada. Yet elective late-term abortions don't happen here. Because no OB/GYN is cool with killing a 3rd trimester fetus without a very good reason. In fact, you can get an elective abortion two weeks later in the US than in Canada. Besides anti-choice groups being annoyingly misleading about it, there is no down side. The up side is that, unlike in places where the law grants fetuses rights, you can't be arrested for having a homebirth, or for refusing a c-section, or for using drugs while pregnant. Babies are safer when their mothers have no reason to be afraid of medical professionals. When we make laws, they have to be as much about justice they are about keeping as many people as safe as possible. This is why the police are often required to give up chases when they become dangerous, even though it means letting the bad guy get away. And this is why fetal personhood shouldn't be law - because while it's almost literally unheard of for someone to kill their third trimester fetus, there are tons of people at any given time who are pregnant and less likely to seek prenatal care or even give birth in a supervised environment if their fetuses were suddenly given rights under the law. And because people have the right to make birth-related decisions without the police getting involved.

Are there people out there who genuinely have no problem with a 3rd trimester elective abortion? Yes. Does it make me uncomfortable? Yes. Am I concerned that someone of that opinion will go to med school, become an OB/GYN and take advantage of Canada's lack of an abortion law by moving here and offering 3rd trimester abortions? No. It makes sense to be concerned about this, but the rarity of the people who'd be comfortable performing that kind of procedure combined by the utter lack of a demand for it makes it an absolutely microscopic issue next to the problems caused by legislating fetal rights.

I agree with you that no one should have to suck up to their partner/ex in order to spend time with their kid. If fetuses were free-standing and could just chill in a petri dish for 9 months, there's no reason the same shouldn't apply to them. However, no one is entitled to have someone else go through pregnancy and childbirth for them. That's the difference.

I agree with you on that. But sometimes it's not about the pregnant person not wanting to raise a child. Sometimes it's about them not wanting to go through a pregnancy and give birth. And sometimes it's about them not wanting to go through the heartbreak of giving away their newborn. Saying "don't worry, the dad is willing to raise the baby alone" doesn't solve any of that.

In conclusion, now that you've explained how the pro-choicers of FJ have made you more conservative (and more "conservative"), it makes sense to me. The moves to conservatism, however, are based on very easily refuted arguments. I look forward to you providing the quotes I've asked for. And add me to the list of people who don't think you're a troll.

You typed what I wanted to so much better. I apologize to Mrs that I wasn't clear when I tried to explain myself.

[Minerva]

I do understand the problem with giving the father any sort of rights. I think IDEALLY maybe there would be some sort of arbitration or counseling or mediation that the father could request prior to the abortion if he wanted to take full responsibility for the child after it was born and the mother did not want to continue the pregnancy, so he could at least have the option of making his case in a neutral setting with professionals helping them to come to a resolution. This of course would be dependent on the mother even letting him know. Ultimately the final decision would need to be hers, as she does bare the medical risk, I acknowledge that.

I really don't see why a pregnant person should be forced by law to listen to their partner or ex ask them not to have an abortion. If I'm in a position where I'm not willing to hear my ex talk about my pregnancy, then forcing me to listen to him will do nothing except potentially pressure me into doing something I don't want to do. I think we can all agree that coerced pregnancy choices are bad. And if I'm in a place where I'm willing to listen to him, then there's no need to have a law forcing me. It's redundant.