Do Married And Settled People Realize That The Overturning Of Roe Affects Them, Too? In Ways One Might Not Have Thought Of? (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

Really. A question for the right here. Are you willing to potentially watch your wife die if she gets accidentally pregnant at the age of forty or forty-five (assuming an unplanned pregnancy) and you happen to live in a state that outlaws abortion even in the event of life-threatening pregnancy? 

Have we thought about our tribal affiliations long and hard enough to sacrifice our wives, potentially, to a state system that knows no bounds and will indeed affect some of us in the future? 

 

[Da Guru]

Really. A question for the right here. Are you willing to watch your wife due if accidentally pregnant at the age of forty or forty-five (assuming an unplanned pregnancy) if you happen to live in a state that outlaws abortion even in the event of life-threatening pregnancy? 

Have we thought about our tribal affiliations long and hard enough to sacrifice our wives, potentially, to a state system that knows no bounds and will indeed affect some of us in the future? 

Not for this decision at all. 

Not sure it is all tribal though.  I went to Catholic Schools and know many Catholic Dems who have been on board ever since the leak. Know many GOP people who are against it.

 

[rockaction]

I went to Catholic Schools and know many Catholic Dems who have been on board ever since the leak. Know many GOP people who are against it.

Fair enough. I'm asking if we've really thought it through...Have we really thought about the implications for civil rights and enforcement of these new laws that will hit the books in many states? 

I don't think we have. This just seems like an old wound with the band-aid ripping off the scab. It's revealing something absolutely atrocious, if you ask me. 

 

[TheMagus]

It's very Handmaid's Tale. Some of these draconian laws I've seen proposed make it clear that the only important thing is the fetus and the women are just vessels.

I think we can rack this up to years of disinformation about abortions performed, especially in the third trimester as if women are changing their minds and having abortions late into pregnancy and this act is all out of convenience as a particular poster posts here over and over.

 

[Dickies]

I think there are going to be a lot more unwanted children straining our already lacking social safety nets and the effects will ripple through society in a variety of ways.

 

[Stoneworker]

Really. A question for the right here. Are you willing to watch your wife due if accidentally pregnant at the age of forty or forty-five (assuming an unplanned pregnancy) if you happen to live in a state that outlaws abortion even in the event of life-threatening pregnancy? 

Have we thought about our tribal affiliations long and hard enough to sacrifice our wives, potentially, to a state system that knows no bounds and will indeed affect some of us in the future? 

If I were king I wouldn't have reversed it because we are a democracy and the vast majority (71%) of citizens nationwide support abortion "rights."

But we are also a nation of laws and not a single person all day has presented anything remotely close to a solid legal argument (or even logical) against the SC's ruling.

The SC was not designed to issue rulings based on whether their 45 y/o spouse would or would not be affected. And they haven't.

So if the citizenry doesn't like it, change the laws at the federal level. Not the state/federal judicial and legislative system that has proven itself effective over centuries.

Democracy is sometimes messy.

 

[cockroach]

You always hear the fear mongering about aborted fetal cells being in vaccines or cosmetics, but I wonder if this could have the unintended consequences of slowing how long it takes us to come up with a cure for cancer or other medical breakthroughs.  

 

[Jayrod]

My best friend is facing this exact situation.

Baby #4 (a boy) is due in a week or so to a 45 yr old mother and a 44 yr old father.

They are both teachers and their oldest is 17 and next youngest is 12. It will strap them financially and they will be old parents, but that kid is going to be loved and raised by 5 people who love him.

If my wife and I (both turn 45 this year) were suddenly pregnant, we'd do the same.

Move to a smaller house, cancel the entertainment, go down to 1 car, go on foodstamps, whatever it takes.

 

[ekbeats]

It's very Handmaid's Tale. Some of these draconian laws I've seen proposed make it clear that the only important thing is the fetus and the women are just vessels.

I think we can rack this up to years of disinformation about abortions performed, especially in the third trimester as if women are changing their minds and having abortions late into pregnancy and this act is all out of convenience as a particular poster posts here over and over.

It’s not disinformation at all.  There are approximately 6,000 late term abortions performed a year.  That’s from https://www.guttmacher.org/.  They are the definitive source of abortion info, and they are also Liberal.  The Federal Government doesn’t do a good job mandating the exact reasons for these abortions, which is insane if you ask me.  But we do know there are many states that allow late term abortions for “the health of the mother” and this is loosely defined.  Fact is, late term abortions are performed where all the woman has to do is claim she is mentally stressed.  That’s a fact.

 

[Ilov80s]

If I were king I wouldn't have reversed it because we are a democracy and the vast majority (71%) of citizens nationwide support abortion "rights."

But we are also a nation of laws and not a single person all day has presented anything remotely close to a solid legal argument (or even logical) against the SC's ruling.

The SC was not designed to issue rulings based on whether their 45 y/o spouse would or would not be affected. And they haven't.

So if the citizenry doesn't like it, change the laws at the federal level. Not the state/federal judicial and legislative system that has proven itself effective over centuries.

Democracy is sometimes messy.

Here is the thing, the SC didn't have to hear the case. They choose which cases to take knowing what the outcomes are likely to be. 

 

[Ilov80s]

My best friend is facing this exact situation.

Baby #4 (a boy) is due in a week or so to a 45 yr old mother and a 44 yr old father.

They are both teachers and their oldest is 17 and next youngest is 12. It will strap them financially and they will be old parents, but that kid is going to be loved and raised by 5 people who love him.

If my wife and I (both turn 45 this year) were suddenly pregnant, we'd do the same.

Move to a smaller house, cancel the entertainment, go down to 1 car, go on foodstamps, whatever it takes.

The pregnancy has been ruled life threatening? Quite a risk, I hope they all come out healthy. 

 

[ekbeats]

If I were king I wouldn't have reversed it because we are a democracy and the vast majority (71%) of citizens nationwide support abortion "rights."

And two-thirds of Americans oppose late term abortions.

This is where the Left lost me.  Governor Northam, the New York law, 7 states allowing abortion up until labor…. I’m ok with abortion up until viability.  But the Left went nuts and started allowing it up until birth, which the vast majority of people agree is infanticide.

 

[TheMagus]

It’s not disinformation at all.  There are approximately 6,000 late term abortions performed a year.  That’s from https://www.guttmacher.org/.  They are the definitive source of abortion info, and they are also Liberal.  The Federal Government doesn’t do a good job mandating the exact reasons for these abortions, which is insane if you ask me.  But we do know there are many states that allow late term abortions for “the health of the mother” and this is loosely defined.  Fact is, late term abortions are performed where all the woman has to do is claim she is mentally stressed.  That’s a fact.

You are right. Data is lacking. So can you tell me how many "late term" abortions are performed because the woman is mentally stressed vs a legitimate medical reason?

The misinformation is playing on emotions about what would be viewed as a barbaric practice of aborting a viable baby because you changed your mind. And by saying 6000 it is a huge number of innocent deaths of God's children. When its actually pretty small.

In my state late term abortions are not allowed and I have two close friends who were forced to carry their pregnancies to term after finding out there were severe birth defects and the babies would die within an hour of birth. And they did and it was all heart wrenching.

So percentage wise out of the 6000, how many of those do you think were because the woman changed her mind at the last minute vs medical reasons? 

 

[Manster]

My wife is breast CA survivor and subsequently, had her ovaries taken out.  We cannot have more children naturally.  

We had the option taken from us after two children in our 30's.  I think we would've had a 3rd child.

My understanding is if moms life is threatened you would be able to abort even in states that won't allow an abortion.......which is the only instance my wife and I think an abortion is ok......people who abort for inconvenience are sick, imo.

 

[Stoneworker]

Here is the thing, the SC didn't have to hear the case. They choose which cases to take knowing what the outcomes are likely to be. 

Here is the thing, RBG should have retired under Obama, the ruling would then have been 5-4 against, and we wouldn't be having this silly conversation

 

[tymarsas]

The Federal Government doesn’t do a good job mandating the exact reasons for these abortions, which is insane if you ask me.

This seems like a privacy issue to me. If abortions are legal, I really don't want the government collecting information about why women are having abortions.

 

[Ilov80s]

You are right. Data is lacking. So can you tell me how many "late term" abortions are performed because the woman is mentally stressed vs a legitimate medical reason?

The misinformation is playing on emotions about what would be viewed as a barbaric practice of aborting a viable baby because you changed your mind. And by saying 6000 it is a huge number of innocent deaths of God's children. When its actually pretty small.

In my state late term abortions are not allowed and I have two close friends who were forced to carry their pregnancies to term after finding out there were severe birth defects and the babies would die within an hour of birth. And they did and it was all heart wrenching.

So percentage wise out of the 6000, how many of those do you think were because the woman changed her mind at the last minute vs medical reasons? 

Yeah it is really hard for me to buy into this idea that so many woman are pregnant for 8-9 months and then just decide never mind. It also deeply scares me what type of mother they would be. 

 

[ekbeats]

You are right. Data is lacking. So can you tell me how many "late term" abortions are performed because the woman is mentally stressed vs a legitimate medical reason?

The misinformation is playing on emotions about what would be viewed as a barbaric practice of aborting a viable baby because you changed your mind. And by saying 6000 it is a huge number of innocent deaths of God's children. When its actually pretty small.

In my state late term abortions are not allowed and I have two close friends who were forced to carry their pregnancies to term after finding out there were severe birth defects and the babies would die within an hour of birth. And they did and it was all heart wrenching.

So percentage wise out of the 6000, how many of those do you think were because the woman changed her mind at the last minute vs medical reasons? 

We don’t know the exact numbers.  You just said it.  If I had to guess I’d say over 500.  The Left burns down cities when 21 unarmed blacks are shot by cops.  Bottom line - there should be no late term abortions unless there is documented medical evidence that the life of the mother is at serious risk.  Can we agree on that?

 

[Ilov80s]

Here is the thing, RBG should have retired under Obama, the ruling would then have been 5-4 against, and we wouldn't be having this silly conversation

It is a bit more complicated than a single woman didn't want to retire so now landmark Constitutional decisions have to be overturned. 

 

[Ilov80s]

This seems like a privacy issue to me. If abortions are legal, I really don't want the government collecting information about why women are having abortions.

Exactly what Rock is saying. It opens a huge can of worms. 

 

[Sand]

Really. A question for the right here. Are you willing to watch your wife due if accidentally pregnant at the age of forty or forty-five (assuming an unplanned pregnancy) if you happen to live in a state that outlaws abortion even in the event of life-threatening pregnancy?  

Absolutely yes.  There is a 0.0% chance my wife would entertain aborting said baby.

 

[ekbeats]

This seems like a privacy issue to me. If abortions are legal, I really don't want the government collecting information about why women are having abortions.

That’s a good point.  I think the next shoe to drop is going to be a SC decision brought on personhood, at which time the life of a viable fetus will be afforded protection.

 

[TheMagus]

We don’t know the exact numbers.  You just said it.  If I had to guess I’d say over 500.  The Left burns down cities when 21 unarmed blacks are shot by cops.  Bottom line - there should be no late term abortions unless there is documented medical evidence that the life of the mother is at serious risk.  Can we agree on that?

No I cannot agree to that. I do not think a woman should be forced to carry a fetus inside of her, feeling it kicking and moving, for 3 months knowing she has to go through the trauma of childbirth which is also dangerous, and the baby is going to die. Sorry if you can't understand that.

 

[ekbeats]

Really. A question for the right here. Are you willing to watch your wife due if accidentally pregnant at the age of forty or forty-five (assuming an unplanned pregnancy) if you happen to live in a state that outlaws abortion even in the event of life-threatening pregnancy? 

Have we thought about our tribal affiliations long and hard enough to sacrifice our wives, potentially, to a state system that knows no bounds and will indeed affect some of us in the future? 

My answer to this is yes.  My wife’s as well.

 

[tymarsas]

That’s a good point.  I think the next shoe to drop is going to be a SC decision brought on personhood, at which time the life of a viable fetus will be afforded protection.

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that if a fetus is considered a person then the government has the right to collect information on why they were killed?

 

[ekbeats]

No I cannot agree to that. I do not think a woman should be forced to carry a fetus inside of her, feeling it kicking and moving, for 3 months knowing she has to go through the trauma of childbirth which is also dangerous, and the baby is going to die. Sorry if you can't understand that.

I’d be ok making that exception, but it would have to be medically documented that there was a very high risk the baby would die. 

 

[ekbeats]

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that if a fetus is considered a person then the government has the right to collect information on why they were killed?

No, I’m saying that when the viable fetus is granted personhood - aborting that fetus will be illegal.

 

[TheMagus]

I’d be ok making that exception, but it would have to be medically documented that there was a very high risk the baby would die. 

Or maybe it's not any of our business and we let adults have the agency to do what is right with their own bodies and families.

 

[parasaurolophus]

The fact that this will increase my taxes is enough to not want it. 

And of course i have to listen to all the insanity. People saying some of the dumbest crap i have ever read. 

 

[ekbeats]

No I cannot agree to that. I do not think a woman should be forced to carry a fetus inside of her, feeling it kicking and moving, for 3 months knowing she has to go through the trauma of childbirth which is also dangerous, and the baby is going to die. Sorry if you can't understand that.

Do you think it is ok for a woman to have an abortion after 30 weeks when there are no physical health problems for the fetus or the mom?

 

[ekbeats]

Or maybe it's not any of our business and we let adults have the agency to do what is right with their own bodies and families.

Nope.  You don’t get to kill a viable fetus, with its own brain, heartbeat, and dna - just because it’s in your body.  And you are in the minority on this. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I think there are going to be a lot more unwanted children straining our already lacking social safety nets and the effects will ripple through society in a variety of ways.

Much better to kill them - and WE'RE the draconian ones?

 

[The General]

The fact that this will increase my taxes is enough to not want it. 

And of course i have to listen to all the insanity. People saying some of the dumbest crap i have ever read. 

Keep abortion rights untouched for the tax impact is a new angle I hadn’t heard. 

 

[tymarsas]

No, I’m saying that when the viable fetus is granted personhood - aborting that fetus will be illegal.

So you think the Supreme Court will make abortion illegal nationwide? Isn't that the opposite of this ruling? Which is that abortion is a states right? To be fair, I am not quite sure if that is the actual reason for this decision.

My original point was more about the collection of data. I'm obviously pro-choice because I believe abortion is a health care decision so I think it's also a privacy issue.

 

[TheMagus]

Do you think it is ok for a woman to have an abortion after 30 weeks when there are no physical health problems for the fetus or the mom?

Morally, no. I also think such a situation would be so rare that said woman would not even be able to find someone to perform the procedure. It's all propaganda of the pro-life movement to show how awful abortion is when the vast majority are performed when it is an embryo at less than 9 weeks (80% or so). I also don't think that if a woman decides to have an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy it's anyone's damn business why. Aren't conservatives the party of small government? If a woman and her doctor decide to do a late term abortion that is between them.

 

[ekbeats]

So you think the Supreme Court will make abortion illegal nationwide? Isn't that the opposite of this ruling? Which is that abortion is a states right? To be fair, I am not quite sure if that is the actual reason for this decision.

My original point was more about the collection of data. I'm obviously pro-choice because I believe abortion is a health care decision so I think it's also a privacy issue.

I don’t think they’ll make it illegal in all cases - just after the fetus becomes viable.  This was Rachel Maddow’s thought in her monologue tonight, which was excellent btw. 

 

[-OZ-]

Fair enough. I'm asking if we've really thought it through...Have we really thought about the implications for civil rights and enforcement of these new laws that will hit the books in many states? 

I don't think we have. This just seems like an old wound with the band-aid ripping off the scab. It's revealing something absolutely atrocious, if you ask me. 

sure we have. And if we got pregnant, we’d raise another child. The nationwide impact is far more important than any impact on us. Partly because unless it was life threatening, my wife wouldn’t get an abortion anyway. 

If I were king I wouldn't have reversed it because we are a democracy and the vast majority (71%) of citizens nationwide support abortion "rights."

But we are also a nation of laws and not a single person all day has presented anything remotely close to a solid legal argument (or even logical) against the SC's ruling.

The SC was not designed to issue rulings based on whether their 45 y/o spouse would or would not be affected. And they haven't.

So if the citizenry doesn't like it, change the laws at the federal level. Not the state/federal judicial and legislative system that has proven itself effective over centuries.

Democracy is sometimes messy.

If I were king, Congress would legislate (or wouldn’t really need to, as a body of experts would just advise me) and SCOTUS wouldn’t have had to issue Roe in the fist place. (Or if a state law conflicted with federal law, the decision would read differently)

 

[ekbeats]

Morally, no. I also think such a situation would be so rare that said woman would not even be able to find someone to perform the procedure. It's all propaganda of the pro-life movement to show how awful abortion is when the vast majority are performed when it is an embryo at less than 9 weeks (80% or so). I also don't think that if a woman decides to have an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy it's anyone's damn business why. Aren't conservatives the party of small government? If a woman and her doctor decide to do a late term abortion that is between them.

If you and the other Liberals think it is “so rare” then why not ban it?  Instead you codified its allowance.

 

[The General]

If you and the other Liberals think it is “so rare” then why not ban it?  Instead you codified it’s allowance.

It seems in that case we have just replaced one extreme with another. One which limits a personal liberty. 

 

[tymarsas]

I don’t think they’ll make it illegal in all cases - just after the fetus becomes viable.  This was Rachel Maddow’s thought in her monologue tonight, which was excellent btw. 

I guess that would make sense. I wouldn't be entirely opposed to that as long as they carve out exceptions for cases like it endangers the mother's health. The biggest problem is injecting government oversight into what is a healthcare decision. I would hate to see a woman or doctor have to go through a trial to prove that the abortion was necessary.

 

[TheMagus]

If you and the other Liberals think it is “so rare” then why not ban it?  Instead you codified it’s allowance.

I have no idea who the people you are talking about are. I certainly didn't codify convenience abortions at 30 weeks. I was trying to explain that there may be non-murderous reasons for that to be necessary and it's nobody's damn business.

 

[dkp993]

It is a bit more complicated than a single woman didn't want to retire so now landmark Constitutional decisions have to be overturned. 

Unfortunately at the end of the day it’s not.  

 

[TheMagus]

I guess that would make sense. I wouldn't be entirely opposed to that as long as they carve out exceptions for cases like it endangers the mother's health. The biggest problem is injecting government oversight into what is a healthcare decision. I would hate to see a woman or doctor have to go through a trial to prove that the abortion was necessary.

It shouldn't just be about the mother's health. If the fetus is not viable after birth a woman should not be forced to carry it either.

And agree on your comments about government interfering in medical decisions.

 

[ekbeats]

I have no idea who the people you are talking about are. I certainly didn't codify convenience abortions at 30 weeks. I was trying to explain that there may be non-murderous reasons for that to be necessary and it's nobody's damn business.

I’d say it’s also the viable fetus’s business.

hey - if you have evidence that there are only a few elective late term abortions out of that 6,000 - I’m all ears.  I’ve asked for it numerous times in here and I haven’t gotten any.  There’s a lot of evidence that elective abortions happen much more than you think.  Here are the words of one of the founding fathers of partial birth abortions - Dr. Martin Haskell - saying that 80% of them were elective.

Ot took me all of 5 minutes to find an abortionist in Colorado who does 3rd trimester abortions without restriction.  “Sometimes a woman presents at this stage for pregnancy termination because of her own severe medical illness or a psychiatric indication.”

 

[parasaurolophus]

Keep abortion rights untouched for the tax impact is a new angle I hadn’t heard. 

Tons of people are looking this from a "bottom line" approach.

Why do you think disney will pay for travel expenses to get an abortion? Because abortions with travel are cheaper than births and maternity leave. 

Dont you think wanting a better career is a big motivator for getting an abortion? 

How about the fact that the vast majority of down syndrome babies get aborted? Is that just an extra work issue, or do you think money factors in? 

 

[The General]

Tons of people are looking this from a "bottom line" approach.

Why do you think disney will pay for travel expenses to get an abortion? Because abortions with travel are cheaper than births and maternity leave. 

Dont you think wanting a better career is a big motivator for getting an abortion? 

I hadn’t heard your tax angle or corporations phrasing it in that manner (I could see that convo being had behind closed doors now that you mention it  perhaps but that is some dark thinking IMO).

A career or a woman or couple making this choice based on their finances definitely. 

 

[Dickies]

Much better to kill them - and WE'RE the draconian ones?

Nice talking with you too. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

I hadn’t heard your tax angle or corporations phrasing it in that manner (I could see that convo being had behind closed doors now that you mention it  perhaps but that is some dark thinking IMO).

A career or a woman or couple making this choice based on their finances definitely. 

Why is it dark? 

Once you get to "they are just cells" it isn't dark at all. 

 

[The General]

Why is it dark? 

Once you get to "they are just cells" it isn't dark at all. 

A company wanting to encourage abortions because they are cheaper than their employees having the child is dark. 

 

[Insein]

Really. A question for the right here. Are you willing to watch your wife due if accidentally pregnant at the age of forty or forty-five (assuming an unplanned pregnancy) if you happen to live in a state that outlaws abortion even in the event of life-threatening pregnancy? 

Have we thought about our tribal affiliations long and hard enough to sacrifice our wives, potentially, to a state system that knows no bounds and will indeed affect some of us in the future? 

Hey maybe politicians will quit being lazy ### grifters milking abortion as a hot button issue for the last 50 years on both sides. With RvW and Casey no longer able to keep them from doing their jobs and making a decision at the federal level, this is what the real outrage is about. Some of these politicians have been in office when RvW was decided and have made a fortune off of pandering to either side of it just to stay in power. God forbid they actually #### or get off the pot finally.