Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (2 Viewers)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[Saintamaniac]

I pretty strongly disagree and would say at that point she needs to give birth/have physician induce at appropriate time

I'm not sure what your disagreement is. The "appropriate time" is the moment when the fetus can survive outside of the womb. If that is judged to not be an appropriate time then they are truly trying to control medical decisions by women. @Taurus clearly stated a live birth. Medical technology has evolved to the point that babies routinely survive in incubators.

A woman, if she is forced to carry a fetus, should have the right to birth it at the moment it can survive outside of her body, especially if she has made the decision to give it up for adoption. If that's not the case, then the state is forcing additional medical costs and health risks on a woman due to moral, not legal, decisions.

 

[bdb13]

I'm not sure what your disagreement is. The "appropriate time" is the moment when the fetus can survive outside of the womb. If that is judged to not be an appropriate time then they are truly trying to control medical decisions by women. @Taurus clearly stated a live birth. Medical technology has evolved to the point that babies routinely survive in incubators.

A woman, if she is forced to carry a fetus, should have the right to birth it at the moment it can survive outside of her body, especially if she has made the decision to give it up for adoption. If that's not the case, then the state is forcing additional medical costs and health risks on a woman due to moral, not legal, decisions.

I may be misunderstanding. If the physician has deemed that the "live birth" at eight months poses no additional risk to the chances that the fetus will survive compared to the odds of survival at full term then I have no issue.

But basically what y'all are saying is that abortion in the traditional sense doesn't apply to my example. Understood.

At what point do they deem that it must be a "live birth"? Once viability is believed to have been reached?

 

[Saintamaniac]

At what point do they deem that it must be a "live birth"? Once viability is believed to have been reached?

Who is the "they" in your question? Live birth would preclude a charge of abortion. If the fetus/baby is "alive" at birth then there is no abortion. There is simply a woman exercising one of her remaining rights of giving up her unwanted child for adoption.

Are you advocating for forcing a women to carry an unwanted child longer than a point that the baby could survive outside of the womb? I mean that would require a redefining of the meaning of "term". I can't imagine a law that forces a woman to keep a fetus inside her body past a time that it could survive outside of her body. The only question to a physician should be "can the fetus survive outside of the woman's body?" That's a yes or no question.

 

[bdb13]

Who is the "they" in your question? Live birth would preclude a charge of abortion. If the fetus/baby is "alive" at birth then there is no abortion. There is simply a woman exercising one of her remaining rights of giving up her unwanted child for adoption.

I was curious as to how @Taurus knew from my example that a live birth would be ethically required and whose ethics require the doctor to do so? Is it that an eight month old fetus cannot be aborted by traditional manners because it just won't work the same way as it would earlier in the pregnancy?

Are you advocating for forcing a women to carry an unwanted child longer than a point that the baby could survive outside of the womb? I mean that would require a redefining of the meaning of "term". I can't imagine a law that forces a woman to keep a fetus inside her body past a time that it could survive outside of her body.

I am pro-choice and up to a certain point believe it is fully a women's individual decision to make. At some point however - and I personally tie it closely to viability leaning more towards cognizance of pain - I believe a threshold is crossed and, sans the presence of "life of the mother" or other exempting circumstances that have been discussed here, the decisions should no longer solely be the pregnant woman's to make as they're no longer solely impactful to her (I guess within that I'm judging that the crossing of that threshold makes the fetus a person and therefore things are different.)

 

[V Chip]

Just trying to understand.. are you saying there should be no limitations and that if, let's say, a perfectly healthy woman is eight months pregnant with a perfectly healthy fetus.. that an abortion should be an option available to her assuming she can find a doctor willing to perform it?

Such a woman does not exist. No woman carries a fetus eight months then decides on a whim to abort the healthy fetus.

 

[bdb13]

Such a woman does not exist. No woman carries a fetus eight months then decides on a whim to abort the healthy fetus.

Fair enough (though I'd just add, as I know you know, there are exceptions to everything and it wouldn't necessarily have to be on a whim). Was really just trying to get his view on it pinned down and that was the (poor) example I chose.

 

[V Chip]

Fair enough (though I'd just add, as I know you know, there are exceptions to everything and it wouldn't necessarily have to be on a whim). Was really just trying to get his view on it pinned down and that was the (poor) example I chose.

I understand, but the point remains: this idea of "late term abortions" occurring willy-nilly is a complete fiction created by the extremist anti-abortion movement. They don't happen for reasons of "eh, I don't want to have a baby. Yeah I carried it for 8 months, but now I don't want it so I'm going to have an elective abortion of convenience." Every abortion at that late stage is because of the health of the mother or viability of the fetus (assuming the fetus isn't already lifeless -- it's still called an abortion if the fetus is dead). Again, this decision isn't a change of heart it is an agonizing one for the woman (and her partner if any) and the doctor; elected legislators should have absolutely NO part in that decision or in limiting the options, especially one based on a lie.

 

[bdb13]

I understand, but the point remains: this idea of "late term abortions" occurring willy-nilly is a complete fiction created by the extremist anti-abortion movement. They don't happen for reasons of "eh, I don't want to have a baby. Yeah I carried it for 8 months, but now I don't want it so I'm going to have an elective abortion of convenience." Every abortion at that late stage is because of the health of the mother or viability of the fetus (assuming the fetus isn't already lifeless -- it's still called an abortion if the fetus is dead). Again, this decision isn't a change of heart it is an agonizing one for the woman (and her partner if any) and the doctor; elected legislators should have absolutely NO part in that decision or in limiting the options, especially one based on a lie.

Understand and was not intending to come at it from that angle.

 

[MT15]

I pretty strongly disagree and would say at that point she needs to give birth/have physician induce at appropriate time or whatever and give it up for adoption or whatever she chooses to do.

Pardon my ignorance on this but what is it that ethically constrains the doctor to "deliver" the fetus there as opposed to directly aborting it? Are they constrained to doing that after a certain number of weeks?

It’s their oath that they take upon becoming a doctor. If the fetus is viable the doctor would keep it alive as I understand it. If the fetus isn’t viable, of course, this doesn’t apply.

edit to add: anti-abortion types lie about this all the time. physicians aren’t just killing viable babies on a whim of the mother.

As for the idea that women should have labor induced as early as possible because they were denied an abortion, I don’t think you would find any ethical doctor to do that either. Nor would very many women opt for that after carrying the fetus for 6-7 months. These extremely early births almost always have significant health problems that last their whole life. I think that would also violate the Hippocratic Oath that doctor’s take.

 

[bdb13]

It’s their oath that they take upon becoming a doctor. If the fetus is viable the doctor would keep it alive as I understand it. If the fetus isn’t viable, of course, this doesn’t apply.

edit to add: anti-abortion types lie about this all the time. physicians aren’t just killing viable babies on a whim of the mother.

As for the idea that women should have labor induced as early as possible because they were denied an abortion, I don’t think you would find any ethical doctor to do that either. Nor would very many women opt for that after carrying the fetus for 6-7 months. These extremely early births almost always have significant hearth problems that last their whole life. I think that would also violate the Hippocratic Oath that doctor’s take.

Thank you.

 

[MT15]

I’ve seen a lot of talk lately that the reason deep down that the Evangelical churches have entered the anti-abortion camp is tied up in white fear of demographic changes (a version of the replacement theory). I can’t remember if the point was made earlier in the thread, but Evangelical churches were by and large supportive of Roe when it was decided. It’s only been in the last few years (10-20?) that they have done a 180 on abortion. I’m open to hearing other reasons, but this one makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[bdb13]

It’s their oath that they take upon becoming a doctor. If the fetus is viable the doctor would keep it alive as I understand it. If the fetus isn’t viable, of course, this doesn’t apply.

edit to add: anti-abortion types lie about this all the time. physicians aren’t just killing viable babies on a whim of the mother.

As for the idea that women should have labor induced as early as possible because they were denied an abortion, I don’t think you would find any ethical doctor to do that either. Nor would very many women opt for that after carrying the fetus for 6-7 months. These extremely early births almost always have significant health problems that last their whole life. I think that would also violate the Hippocratic Oath that doctor’s take.

Just to add, I should know more on this stuff in general than I do, especially now, but I've not held any impression as to what the anti-abortion side says regarding this because I've not paid any attention to what they say.

Just trying to understand and have things worked out a little better and more defined in my head while coming at the issue as a strong supporter of a woman's right to choose but genuinely interested in discussing things like we're talking about here.. while also understanding that the right is fully under attack in and across this country at this very moment due to the religious zealots placed into power by the right.

 

[Taurus]

Fair enough (though I'd just add, as I know you know, there are exceptions to everything and it wouldn't necessarily have to be on a whim). Was really just trying to get his view on it pinned down and that was the (poor) example I chose.

My position is that a woman has the right to decide she no longer wants to be pregnant. She withdraws her consent to providing shelter and sustenance to the fetus.
When she approaches a doctor to provide that service, it's up to the physician as to how to go about it.
Dilation and curettage? MVA? Some other procedure? Like with any other "ectomy" or "otomy" the doctor's training, experience and ethics guide the final method.

 

[superchuck500]

It’s their oath that they take upon becoming a doctor. If the fetus is viable the doctor would keep it alive as I understand it. If the fetus isn’t viable, of course, this doesn’t apply.

edit to add: anti-abortion types lie about this all the time. physicians aren’t just killing viable babies on a whim of the mother.

As for the idea that women should have labor induced as early as possible because they were denied an abortion, I don’t think you would find any ethical doctor to do that either. Nor would very many women opt for that after carrying the fetus for 6-7 months. These extremely early births almost always have significant health problems that last their whole life. I think that would also violate the Hippocratic Oath that doctor’s take.

Just to add to the discussion, under existing law, only seven states allow "late term" abortion - which is usually defined as either the beginning of the third trimester (28 weeks) or at viability, which apparently varies in definition but typically between 24 and 28 weeks. It is not legal in the other 43 states with statutory exceptions, most commonly where the life of the mother is endangered.

Late Term Abortion Laws by State 2024

worldpopulationreview.com

 

[SaintForLife]

The

Am just now reading that in the draft opinion it is pointed out that “the domestic supply of infants” to adopt will be a real plus from this ruling. I don’t know what to say, other than they view women who will be impacted by this as just convenient sources for the adoption industry.

Meanwhile 400,000 children are in foster care and tens of thousands age out every year having never been adopted. And studies show that most of the time when a mother can’t care for her baby it is taken in by relatives. So let’s violate the rights of women all over the US so that we can provide “infants” as a commodity.

The "domestic supply of infants" was quoting a 2008 CDC document on adoption data.

 

[bird]

The

The "domestic supply of infants" was quoting a 2008 CDC document on adoption data.

Context is everything. Alito was writing from a Catholic religionist viewpoint. Even so, such a phrase is nonsense no matter it’s origin or who appropriates it. It happens to mesh with the fear driven Replacement Theory espoused by the Reich Wing.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

The

The "domestic supply of infants" was quoting a 2008 CDC document on adoption data.

I prefer to quote Jonathan Swift on this one.

 

[MT15]

The

The "domestic supply of infants" was quoting a 2008 CDC document on adoption data.

Yes, and?