Serious question for Pro Life folks

[TMFT]

Fellow lefties, if you’re not going to contribute to this please just move along.

There is an article in the Star this morning about polling of Hoosiers about what, if any, exceptions to an abortion ban they’d agree with. As is common, rape, incest, and life of the mother are three that pill well. Others, not so much.

My question for you all is how do you or others you know reconcile those positions? Like, it seems contradictory to say that an embryo is a life and all life is precious and should be protected while also being agreeable to those exceptions. Maybe less so for life of the mother, but if they’re both lives, what makes one more valuable than the other?

I’ll hang up and listen.

 

[GuyDatHoo]

You are correct. Pro-life, except in cases of rape and incest is an untenable position.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

I don’t think they really are reconcilable, and I know a lot of people who feel that way.

But life isn’t always black and white.

Which is the greater crime-killing the fetus or forcing a woman who was impregnated against her will to carry that trauma all the way through?

For people who don’t consider the fetus human, that’s an easy question to answer.

 

[outside shooter]

Many people vastly underestimate

the frequency of miscarriage,

the frequency where the mother's body BEGINS to miscarry and doesn't complete the process, and so a surgical assist is necessary,

the frequency where the mother has a illness such as cancer that requires an abortion to greatly improve her chances of survival, although her death is not an immediate certainty in a legal sense,

A doctor and a patient need to decide, not a flowchart based on rules set by a legislative committee and concerns about legal penalities.

Most people except for the rabid pro-life-at-any-cost people can prioritize the well-being of the mother, a living, breathing, whole person, over the potential life that is indeed precious but is short of a full-fledged human being, certainly in the first trimester and perhaps some of the second.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Many people vastly underestimate

the frequency of miscarriage,

A miscarriage has nothing to do with abortion. From an anti-abortion/pro-life perspective you are basically saying "kids sometimes die of disease or other 'natural' causes so a Mother should be able to terminate her healthy child".

the frequency where the mother's body BEGINS to miscarry and doesn't complete the process, and so a surgical assist is necessary,

I am pretty far to the right on my abortion views and I have not come across anyone who believes a D&C performed because of a miscarriage is an abortion. My wife had one (a D&C) the "assist" was to remove our already dead daughter from the womb. You are making the same argument as above.

the frequency where the mother has a illness such as cancer that requires an abortion to greatly improve her chances of survival, although her death is not an immediate certainty in a legal sense,

This is life of mother and in true cases like this I believe it should be up to the family to decide (one of the few exceptions I believe is warranted).

A doctor and a patient need to decide, not a flowchart based on rules set by a legislative committee and concerns about legal penalities.

Disagree. From my POV this would be like deciding with your doctor that raising your 1 year old is hard so let's have her/him take this little cocktail and let you get back to being "free". That doesn't fly.

Most people except for the rabid pro-life-at-any-cost people can prioritize the well-being of the mother, a living, breathing, whole person, over the potential life that is indeed precious but is short of a full-fledged human being, certainly in the first trimester and perhaps some of the second.

And this is probably the point where TMFT says thanks for throwing a turd on my thread where I am trying to understand the position of someone I disagree with.

@TMFT this is probably where your question comes in. The reality is that the cases always brought up to argue against abortion restrictions are far and away the least common reasons that women have them. I am not going to go and pull the statistics for the umpteenth time but the overwhelming reason is basically boiled down to "I don't think I am ready". That can be because the fun ain't done, I don't want a baby with that guy, I do not feel economically ready, etc.

I think that following consistent logic that life of the mother is probably the only reason that you could make a consistently logical position. However, there is trauma involved with rape (and really the incest that gets tacked on is just a sub-category of rape, it is just intrafamilial) and that reason would account for so few of the actual abortions performed in the country that it makes sense from a policy building perspective to allow that exception early in a pregnancy. There is enough moral uncertitude around that one for me to put my logical feelings on the backburner and feel consistent in allowing that exception even if it logically does not seem to follow.

If I were a Republican, I would be pushing for a ban after 15 weeks in states where abortion is more accepted (because that really follows public opinion at the moment) and probably look to be more restrictive in states where it is less acceptable. The Democrat position is currently anytime and anywhere (if you can show me any movement among Democrat's to restrict it at all, I am all ears. If you can't, then that is the policy position.) and the GOP position appears to range from a straight up ban to allowed but restricted to around the 15 week or less mark depending on where you find those Republicans.

The current political winning play is most lilely a restriction after the first trimester. I think Democrat's probably mostly give up on the topic after that and then pro-life people start to slowly whittle away by making arguments based on heartbeat and things like that. Americans are super supportive of abortion as a nebulous thing, but when you get to details they tend to become more squeamish.

I am going to end there because this is way too long.

 

[secondasky]

Fellow lefties, if you’re not going to contribute to this please just move along.

There is an article in the Star this morning about polling of Hoosiers about what, if any, exceptions to an abortion ban they’d agree with. As is common, rape, incest, and life of the mother are three that pill well. Others, not so much.

My question for you all is how do you or others you know reconcile those positions? Like, it seems contradictory to say that an embryo is a life and all life is precious and should be protected while also being agreeable to those exceptions. Maybe less so for life of the mother, but if they’re both lives, what makes one more valuable than the other?

I’ll hang up and listen.

Life isn't always in absolutes. I think there has to be some compromise in order to accomplish a lot of things. If we can agree on some exceptions then we will have stopped a lot of babies being killed and at the same time the trauma of rape, etc, is reduced.

 

[outside shooter]

TLDR

This is life of mother and in true cases like this I believe it should be up to the family to decide (one of the few exceptions I believe is warranted).

Women have already been told that, for liability reasons, our hospital cannot do your D&C. Go somewhere else. Another state.

 

[IUCrazy2]

TLDR

Women have already been told that, for liability reasons, our hospital cannot do your D&C. Go somewhere else. Another state.

And that is why you need legislation to clarify. I think that is hospitals overreacting and in some instances overreacting to try and drive their political view.

 

[stollcpa]

Many people vastly underestimate

the frequency of miscarriage,

the frequency where the mother's body BEGINS to miscarry and doesn't complete the process, and so a surgical assist is necessary,

the frequency where the mother has a illness such as cancer that requires an abortion to greatly improve her chances of survival, although her death is not an immediate certainty in a legal sense,

A doctor and a patient need to decide, not a flowchart based on rules set by a legislative committee and concerns about legal penalities.

Most people except for the rabid pro-life-at-any-cost people can prioritize the well-being of the mother, a living, breathing, whole person, over the potential life that is indeed precious but is short of a full-fledged human being, certainly in the first trimester and perhaps some of the second.

First trimester and life on mother or some medical issue with baby after first trimester is where I think most people are at.

I may be missing something but it doesn’t seem that’s what democrats are saying. Abortion right up to and including delivery is what I hear from them.

 

[outside shooter]

I may be missing something but it doesn’t seem that’s what democrats are saying. Abortion right up to and including delivery is what I hear from them.

You are missing something and are only paying attention to the most radical voices. The mainstream Democratic position is to reinstate/protect/codify Roe, which is for all practical purposes a first trimester right to abortion, with all health decisions to be made by pregnant women and their doctors.

 

[TMFT]

Life isn't always in absolutes. I think there has to be some compromise in order to accomplish a lot of things. If we can agree on some exceptions then we will have stopped a lot of babies being killed and at the same time the trauma of rape, etc, is reduced.

That's where I'm having my disconnect though. Particularly while I agree that life isn't always absolutes, I feel that in situations of Life & Death, it's really an either/or situation.

It sounds like, in the case of the rape exception, "mother's mental health" is sufficient to commit what the Pro-Life side says is equivalent, if not out & out, murder.

I'm Pro-Choice AF, so I'm okay with a woman making her decisions with her own body. But it still seems incongruous.

 

[IUCrazy2]

You are missing something and are only paying attention to the most radical voices. The mainstream Democratic position is to reinstate/protect/codify Roe, which is for all practical purposes a first trimester right to abortion.

Only because people mix Roe and Casey up. It is like ordering a Coke in Georgia and being asked what kind. You have to clarify the Coke.

Democrats are saying they want Roe reinstated but all their rhetoric is centered around Casey. There is no widespread effort to institute bans after the first trimester.

 

[stollcpa]

You are missing something and are only paying attention to the most radical voices. The mainstream Democratic position is to reinstate/protect/codify Roe, which is for all practical purposes a first trimester right to abortion, with all health decisions to be made by pregnant women and their doctors.

“All health decisions by birthing person and thier doctor” is the slippery slope used to abort up to and including delivery.

 

[outside shooter]

Roe alone, from the very beginning, even before Casey, was a first trimester first to abortion. Read the NYT cover on the day it was ruled.

 

[IUCrazy2]

“All health decisions by birthing person and thier doctor” is the slippery slope used to abort up to and including delivery.

Remember that both of these laws were struck down because exactly what he is saying that Democrats are proposing was challenged when Mississippi tried to implement it.

Democrats (the political class) moved on from the legal but rare standard a long time ago.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Roe alone, from the very beginning, even before Casey, was a first trimester first to abortion. Read the NYT cover on the day it was ruled.

I know that and this is completely non-responsive to my point.

 

[TMFT]

“All health decisions by birthing person and thier doctor” is the slippery slope used to abort up to and including delivery.

For as much as we hear about the rarity of rape/incest pregnancies, do you have any stats on the number of women who choose to be pregnant for 8 1/2 months then have an elective abortion for no reason but convenience? Because I’d bet dollars to donuts the former is MUCH higher than the latter.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Many people vastly underestimate

the frequency of miscarriage,

the frequency where the mother's body BEGINS to miscarry and doesn't complete the process, and so a surgical assist is necessary,

the frequency where the mother has a illness such as cancer that requires an abortion to greatly improve her chances of survival, although her death is not an immediate certainty in a legal sense,

A doctor and a patient need to decide, not a flowchart based on rules set by a legislative committee and concerns about legal penalities.

Most people except for the rabid pro-life-at-any-cost people can prioritize the well-being of the mother, a living, breathing, whole person, over the potential life that is indeed precious but is short of a full-fledged human being, certainly in the first trimester and perhaps some of the second.

OP literally asked lefties to stay out and here comes OS flinging shit again

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

If I were a Republican, I would be pushing for a ban after 15 weeks in states where abortion is more accepted (because that really follows public opinion at the moment) and probably look to be more restrictive in states where it is less acceptable. The Democrat position is currently anytime and anywhere (if you can show me any movement among Democrat's to restrict it at all, I am all ears. If you can't, then that is the policy position.) and the GOP position appears to range from a straight up ban to allowed but restricted to around the 15 week or less mark depending on where you find those Republicans.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, somewhere between 20-23 weeks would be a great compromise for both sides. While I understand that many pro-life and even some pro-choicers wouldn't decide to have an abortion because of a fatal defect detected at the universal 20-week ultrasound, I find it hard to force that decision on any mother or couple that doesn't want to go through that.

I know both sides may not like that, but it seems like a down the middle compromise.

 

[Cortez88]

First trimester and life on mother or some medical issue with baby after first trimester is where I think most people are at.

I may be missing something but it doesn’t seem that’s what democrats are saying. Abortion right up to and including delivery is what I hear from them.

And what are you hearing from Republicans? I’m hearing that the model legislation has no exceptions.

I agree with the position in the first paragraph. I hope that’s where legislation comes down. However, you are being very myopic if you think this is the majority GOP position.

 

[outside shooter]

OP literally asked lefties to stay out and here comes OS flinging shit again

I'm pro life, pro Roe, make abortion rare and legal

 

[IUCrazy2]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, somewhere between 20-23 weeks would be a great compromise for both sides. While I understand that many pro-life and even some pro-choicers wouldn't decide to have an abortion because of a fatal defect detected at the universal 20-week ultrasound, I find it hard to force that decision on any mother or couple that doesn't want to go through that.

I know both sides may not like that, but it seems like a down the middle compromise.

To me the compromise is the 12 to 15 week period. I am not for that and it wouldn't make me happy but why give up to 20-23 weeks when poll after poll shows that support for abortion craters after the first trimester?

 

[Cortez88]

To me the compromise is the 12 to 15 week period. I am not for that and it wouldn't make me happy but why give up to 20-23 weeks when poll after poll shows that support for abortion craters after the first trimester?

I respect your willingness to compromise. This is a complicated issue. I also find the late term abortions repugnant except in extreme circumstances involving health of the mother and fetal viability. 12-15 weeks and ready access to pharmaceuticals is my preference.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

There is a big difference between being "Pro-life" (as we often get pigeon holed) vrs Anti Abortion as a contraception plan. 16 weeks seems enough compromise to me. If anyone couldn't be responsible enough to take a freakin at home pee test within 4 months of intercourse.... I could support them being aborted themselves, at that point.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

To me the compromise is the 12 to 15 week period. I am not for that and it wouldn't make me happy but why give up to 20-23 weeks when poll after poll shows that support for abortion craters after the first trimester?

Because serious diseases and birth defects are not detected until the 20 week ultrasound. It's that simple. I'm not implying that you should agree, but that is the sensible choice IF you think parents should have an ability to decide to end a pregnancy with one of the aforementioned ailments.

 

[stollcpa]

And what are you hearing from Republicans? I’m hearing that the model legislation has no exceptions.

I agree with the position in the first paragraph. I hope that’s where legislation comes down. However, you are being very myopic if you think this is the majority GOP position.

Call me naive but think the majority are in 12-15 week range.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I respect your willingness to compromise. This is a complicated issue. I also find the late term abortions repugnant except in extreme circumstances involving health of the mother and fetal viability. 12-15 weeks and ready access to pharmaceuticals is my preference.

I am not willing to compromise at that point, I will understand if my representatives in some areas choose to compromise at that level though. Something is better than nothing and if you got that something in a place like California, that would be a hell of a start. To me this is a long game. It took 50 years to overturn Roe and 30 to get rid of Casey. It takes awhile to get the default position shifted. In some areas the long game needs to be played and in others it does not.

I still think that rape, incest, and life of mother are the only 3 reasons and that the first two of those should be tightly controlled sometime within that 12 to 15 week period.

 

[outside shooter]

Anti Abortion as a contraception plan.

That is a myth. Virtually everyone on Earth is against abortion as a contraception plan.

 

[jsig]

Is George Castanza anti-life for treating his body like an amusement park and putting his mom in the hospital?

 

[stollcpa]

It appears Biden told this story with no proof. Today Ohio AG cannot find any evidence this happened. The folks with mops will be out cleaning up for Biden again soon.

If the WH knew this was true why weren’t they actively helping the 10 yearold instead using her for politics?

White House won’t say if Biden’s story about 10-year-old rape victim was verified

The White House has refused to offer proof to support President Biden’s claim that a 10-year-old rape victim was denied an abortion in Ohio and had to travel to Indiana for the procedure.

amp.washingtontimes.com

 

[IUNorth]

I am not willing to compromise at that point, I will understand if my representatives in some areas choose to compromise at that level though. Something is better than nothing and if you got that something in a place like California, that would be a hell of a start. To me this is a long game. It took 50 years to overturn Roe and 30 to get rid of Casey. It takes awhile to get the default position shifted. In some areas the long game needs to be played and in others it does not.

I still think that rape, incest, and life of mother are the only 3 reasons and that the first two of those should be tightly controlled sometime within that 12 to 15 week period.

Generally agree... though legislating and judging whether the first 2 have happened would be messy and difficult, to say the least.

My hangup on putting time frames on when its acceptable and when it isn't...is there a definable day when a fetus becomes a person? Some think conception, some think when the heart starts beating, some think when the brain is developed... to me its an incredibly difficult grey area to decide on and navigate through.

We take humans outside the womb off life support every single day, due to a lack of brain activity. Obviously not an apples to apples comparison...but it demonstrates the varying shades of grey here that are just very difficult to define and legislate.

I've never had enough conviction on this, as a man, to really hold a strong view. For the most part, I've been silently pro choice. But I'd have to admit that late term abortions bother me a great deal.

 

[outside shooter]

It appears Biden told this story with no proof.

He relied on a report by the Indianapolis Star, which while they stand by their story, will not provide more details. This is a very difficult story to check. The Star is firmly on the record as backing the account, but obtaining documents or other confirmation is all but impossible without details that would identify the locality where the rape occurred.

A Gannett spokeswoman provided a comment from Bro Krift, the newspaper’s executive editor: “The facts and sourcing about people crossing state lines into Indiana, including the 10-year-old girl, for abortions are clear. We have no additional comment at this time.”

Biden also prefaced the remark saying "it's been reported that..."

Would it be preferable that politicians demand a higher level of proof? yes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/09/one-source-story-about-10-year-old-an-abortion-goes-viral/

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

To me the compromise is the 12 to 15 week period. I am not for that and it wouldn't make me happy but why give up to 20-23 weeks when poll after poll shows that support for abortion craters after the first trimester?

A pregnancy lasts for 40 weeks. The old 50/50 line down the middle would be 20 weeks.

 

[IUclover]

A miscarriage has nothing to do with abortion. From an anti-abortion/pro-life perspective you are basically saying "kids sometimes die of disease or other 'natural' causes so a Mother should be able to terminate her healthy child".

I am pretty far to the right on my abortion views and I have not come across anyone who believes a D&C performed because of a miscarriage is an abortion. My wife had one (a D&C) the "assist" was to remove our already dead daughter from the womb. You are making the same argument as above.

This is life of mother and in true cases like this I believe it should be up to the family to decide (one of the few exceptions I believe is warranted).

Disagree. From my POV this would be like deciding with your doctor that raising your 1 year old is hard so let's have her/him take this little cocktail and let you get back to being "free". That doesn't fly.

And this is probably the point where TMFT says thanks for throwing a turd on my thread where I am trying to understand the position of someone I disagree with.

@TMFT this is probably where your question comes in. The reality is that the cases always brought up to argue against abortion restrictions are far and away the least common reasons that women have them. I am not going to go and pull the statistics for the umpteenth time but the overwhelming reason is basically boiled down to "I don't think I am ready". That can be because the fun ain't done, I don't want a baby with that guy, I do not feel economically ready, etc.

I think that following consistent logic that life of the mother is probably the only reason that you could make a consistently logical position. However, there is trauma involved with rape (and really the incest that gets tacked on is just a sub-category of rape, it is just intrafamilial) and that reason would account for so few of the actual abortions performed in the country that it makes sense from a policy building perspective to allow that exception early in a pregnancy. There is enough moral uncertitude around that one for me to put my logical feelings on the backburner and feel consistent in allowing that exception even if it logically does not seem to follow.

If I were a Republican, I would be pushing for a ban after 15 weeks in states where abortion is more accepted (because that really follows public opinion at the moment) and probably look to be more restrictive in states where it is less acceptable. The Democrat position is currently anytime and anywhere (if you can show me any movement among Democrat's to restrict it at all, I am all ears. If you can't, then that is the policy position.) and the GOP position appears to range from a straight up ban to allowed but restricted to around the 15 week or less mark depending on where you find those Republicans.

The current political winning play is most lilely a restriction after the first trimester. I think Democrat's probably mostly give up on the topic after that and then pro-life people start to slowly whittle away by making arguments based on heartbeat and things like that. Americans are super supportive of abortion as a nebulous thing, but when you get to details they tend to become more squeamish.

I am going to end there because this is way too long.

A question for you and everyone else. How does a person prove they were raped and who makes that determination? How long would it take to make that determination?

There are already grey areas with this issue. And does everyone expect every raped person to admit they were raped by X person or their uncle?

 

[snarlcakes]

Fellow lefties, if you’re not going to contribute to this please just move along.

There is an article in the Star this morning about polling of Hoosiers about what, if any, exceptions to an abortion ban they’d agree with. As is common, rape, incest, and life of the mother are three that pill well. Others, not so much.

My question for you all is how do you or others you know reconcile those positions? Like, it seems contradictory to say that an embryo is a life and all life is precious and should be protected while also being agreeable to those exceptions. Maybe less so for life of the mother, but if they’re both lives, what makes one more valuable than the other?

I’ll hang up and listen.

I doubt Pro-Lifers would claim me because I like the idea of kicking abortion back to the states and consider it a compromise between the two sides.

To answer your questions. I find it more cruel for the state to force a women into a pregnancy against her will in cases of rape. In those situations I think it’s appropriate to allow the women the choice to carry the child or not and her rights trump the unborn child’s rights.

When it comes to the life of the mother, I think you inadvertently make a good argument for why she should get to choose and not the state. Both lives are equally important and I don’t want the state choosing, which one lives and which one dies. Imagine being the Doctor and willing have to kill one of them because the state says so and it’s against the wishes of the mother or family?

Lastly, life isn’t black and white and I’m ok with their being some contradictions. If our goal is to have the least amount of contradictions then are choices would be zero abortions or abortions on demand up until birth. I think both of those positions are extreme and not best for a society.

 

[jet812]

Many people vastly underestimate

the frequency of miscarriage,

the frequency where the mother's body BEGINS to miscarry and doesn't complete the process, and so a surgical assist is necessary,

the frequency where the mother has a illness such as cancer that requires an abortion to greatly improve her chances of survival, although her death is not an immediate certainty in a legal sense,

A doctor and a patient need to decide, not a flowchart based on rules set by a legislative committee and concerns about legal penalities.

Most people except for the rabid pro-life-at-any-cost people can prioritize the well-being of the mother, a living, breathing, whole person, over the potential life that is indeed precious but is short of a full-fledged human being, certainly in the first trimester and perhaps some of the second.

As a “scientist”, how are you quantifying “vastly underestimate” - where is your data?

 

[outside shooter]

As a “scientist”, how are you quantifying “vastly underestimate” - where is your data?

My opinions rely on the life experiences of 3 primary care MDs in my family. Two are Republicans and one is a Democrat.

here's a detailed scientific study, though

A National Survey on Public Perceptions of Miscarriage

To assess attitudes and perceptions of United States survey respondents regarding prevalence, causes, and emotional effects of miscarriage.We used a questionnaire consisting of 33 questions, administered in January of 2013 to men and women across the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Respondents to our survey erroneously believed that miscarriage is a rare complication of pregnancy with majority believing that it occurred in 5% or less of all pregnancies. There were also widespread misconceptions about causes of miscarriage.

 

[jet812]

I'm pro life, pro Roe, make abortion rare and legal

Is 6-800,000 times per year rare?

 

[IUCrazy2]

A pregnancy lasts for 40 weeks. The old 50/50 line down the middle would be 20 weeks.

Only 34% of Americans (give or take) believe that abortion should occur in the second trimester. Even less believe they should occur in the third. Why would anyone who is mostly anti-abortion negotiate an additional 5 to 8 weeks (or more) away from their position when a solid 2/3's of the country do not support that?

The public at large has already arrived at the current compromise between the two extremes and that compromise draws the line in and around the first trimester.

 

[IUCrazy2]

A question for you and everyone else. How does a person prove they were raped and who makes that determination? How long would it take to make that determination?

How do people prove they are raped now? Since I know these are meant to be gotcha questions, how about when they show for an approved abortion and report it was because of rape it triggers police involvement. And if they are found to be lying after the fact, a penalty exists for that.

There are already grey areas with this issue. And does everyone expect every raped person to admit they were raped by X person or their uncle?

Yes. And I know that always follows with "women are afraid to report and social stigma" and what have you, but I am on the punish the rapists train as well. You can add that train to "baby daddies" having to actually be fathers if not in person, in economic terms.