Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
aztek

Abortion exceptions

99 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

aztek

Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Yet the battle over exceptions for both has garnered outsized attention in the national abortion debate. 

Debate over the exceptions has dominated headlines and ignited Twitter wars. But Mary Ziegler, a professor at Florida State University College of Law who specializes in the legal history of reproduction, says exceptions for rape and incest are much more "symbolic than they are relevant," given that they don't apply to the majority of women having abortions. She said abortion opponents have never felt these exceptions were justified, but they were long seen as a political third rail. Now the anti-abortion movement is betting that's no longer the case.

More than 70% of voters do not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, according to a 2018 poll from the non-partisan public opinion research firm PerryUndem. Half of Republican women agree.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rape-incest-account-hardly-abortions-143724925.html

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
Posted (edited)

I always assumed it was a low amount.

I still think abortions should be allowed regardless.

In a purely practical sense abortions are just better for society. 

When someone can't handel having a kid how do you think that kid will turn out?

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

............

When someone can't handel having a kid how do you think that kid will turn out?

yes, i absolutely agree, however such approach turns abortions into birth control.   another point when do  you realize you can't handle a kid?  6 weeks is enough to spot late period and do a test, then take a pill,  if having a kid is something you do not want to do. you pay attention to signs.   if  something changed in your life and you figured you do not want to have a kid after 5 mo. of pregnancy, abortion means you'd be killing a live unborn baby, you could always leave a kid in a hospital and give it up,  as much as many think this law is wrong i see no practical reason to think so,  it is obvious to me, it is overblown for political purposes.

Edited by aztek
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stiff

Personally I think it should be up to the mother, and also the father. But... if they don't both agree then it gets exponentially more complex. Bit tricky that one. Ultimately though, the mother is the host so I guess she holds all the cards.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry Gallo
1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

I always assumed it was a low amount.

I still think abortions should be allowed regardless.

In a purely practical sense abortions are just better for society. 

When someone can't handel having a kid how do you think that kid will turn out?

Kinda like taking that first drink, toke or hit. If you can't handle the responsibility of your actions, probably should take hard pass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Stiff said:

Personally I think it should be up to the mother, and also the father. But... if they don't both agree then it gets exponentially more complex. Bit tricky that one. Ultimately though, the mother is the host so I guess she holds all the cards.

it is also up to mother and father to  make sure it wont happen,  it is not hard at all, if you care not to get pregnant,  there are many ways. and if it does happen, 6 weeks is plenty to deal with it.

i agree, mother should have 90% of the say at least.   and if mother wants abortion, aka to kill a baby, and father insist on having a baby,  let her give birth and give father 100% custody.  she wanted the kid dead anyway, so she should not care if father has  the baby and mother never sees either of them, i have little doubt, if fathers are given this option many will back out, especially if all legal and financial responsibility for the kid is on him.  

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
strunk64

What about unwanted children being brought into an overpopulated world, spending most or all of their lives in the system. Not wanted, not loved. People don't seem to want to adopt anything but a baby. The older children are passed around in foster homes that mostly only want the extra money from the state. I think abortions should not be illegal, just have a reasonable time limit on elective procedures. 6 weeks is too short considering a lot of women don't receive regular medical care. 10 weeks might be more reasonable. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in abortions. I had a late baby at the age of 37, when my other kids were almost grown up. A second family. I would never have aborted my son. But I do believe women should have some choice in the decision of whether to have a child or not. Some women can't take birth control because of side effects and their men won't do anything, like a rubber would kill them or something. Some women don't get regular medical care because they don't have insurance because they can't afford it and arn't poor enough to get Medicaid. Some pregnancies are dangerous to the woman. I once knew a woman who wanted her child but it died in utero and they made her carry her dead baby till she went in labor and gave birth to it. I knew a young lady that got pregnant and the man didn't want it so he beat her so bad she miscarried. There are good reasons to keep this as an alternative for women.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
21 minutes ago, strunk64 said:

What about unwanted children being brought into an overpopulated world, spending most or all of their lives in the system. Not wanted, not loved. People don't seem to want to adopt anything but a baby. The older children are passed around in foster homes that mostly only want the extra money from the state. I think abortions should not be illegal, just have a reasonable time limit on elective procedures. 6 weeks is too short considering a lot of women don't receive regular medical care. 10 weeks might be more reasonable. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in abortions. I had a late baby at the age of 37, when my other kids were almost grown up. A second family. I would never have aborted my son. But I do believe women should have some choice in the decision of whether to have a child or not. Some women can't take birth control because of side effects and their men won't do anything, like a rubber would kill them or something. Some women don't get regular medical care because they don't have insurance because they can't afford it and arn't poor enough to get Medicaid. Some pregnancies are dangerous to the woman. I once knew a woman who wanted her child but it died in utero and they made her carry her dead baby till she went in labor and gave birth to it. I knew a young lady that got pregnant and the man didn't want it so he beat her so bad she miscarried. There are good reasons to keep this as an alternative for women.

6 weeks is sufficient, they do not need medical care to find out, every pharmacy sells tests, they cost less than a pack of cigarettes. all they need is to test when their period is not when it should be.

so how are they getting abortions then, if  they can't afford a test or a pill? abortions are more expensive,  

i do not see how your examples prove much, can you elaborate? seems like  early pill abortion  would benefit them.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog

People just cannot use common sense....

1) you don't wan't a kid = you work hard to not make it happen in the first place... you know contraceptive solutions exists....

2) If it happen, 6 weeks is enough most of the time to use the pill solution. Maybe giving better course to young people so they can see the signs faster could help... if not, it's probably an incest case...

3) If the baby have a chance to survive, i don't see how you can have the right to abort beside a case of unsurvivable deformity. If the baby have a chance, at least take it out with cesarean section after 22 weeks, don't cut him in piece to get him out, it's just awful.

Less than 22 weeks is close to zero chance of survival.
22 weeks is around 10%
24 weeks is around 60%
27 weeks is around 89%
31 weeks is around 95%
34 weeks is equivalent to a baby born at full term

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
glorybebe
8 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I always assumed it was a low amount.

I still think abortions should be allowed regardless.

In a purely practical sense abortions are just better for society. 

When someone can't handel having a kid how do you think that kid will turn out?

Exactly.  ALSO, a stressed out unhappy pregnant woman can affect the future emotional and mental health of the fetus.  We already have a society over loaded with emotional and mental health issues.  Do we need to add more?  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

This is gonna continue to fall in and out of popularity, and people who give a crap about it one way or the other are going to continue to be tools for those with other agendas to push.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

It's not as if anyone of means ever has to worry about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim

I don't understand why rape has to be an exception.  You know immediately when it has happened.  A crime report and evidence is taken so why not just include a morning after pill in each rape kit?  Or at least a referral to Planned Parenthood.  No need to wait to find out if you're pregnant and certainly no need to wait until a full abortion is necessary.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
10 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I always assumed it was a low amount.

I still think abortions should be allowed regardless.

In a purely practical sense abortions are just better for society. 

When someone can't handel having a kid how do you think that kid will turn out?

So lives that are created carelessly are worthy of being snuffed out because they're inconvenient or a burden?  There is some truth to what you say about the quality of life that an unwanted child would have.  Perhaps if people were FORCED to be responsible for their actions they'd stop being so damned careless?  Let's face it, a LOT of women these days use abortion as birth control and it is an abomination.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
8 hours ago, and then said:

Let's face it, a LOT of women these days use abortion as birth control and it is an abomination.

Not just these days.  Back in the 80's my wife worked for a company that processed employer medical insurance plans.  It was not uncommon for women to have several abortions a year.  It was clearly being used as birth control and it occurs to me that it might have been based on simple economics if the abortions were covered at a full rate and the birth control prescriptions were not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry Gallo

Interesting that in 1972, the year before abortion was "legal", there were over a half million abortions. Percentage of back alley, rusty coat hanger abortions that ended in death of the mother was .03%. Not 30%, not 3%, net even three-tenths of a percent. Three hundredths of a percent. Neither of those statistics support the rhetoric we so often hear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
9 hours ago, and then said:

So lives that are created carelessly are worthy of being snuffed out because they're inconvenient or a burden?  There is some truth to what you say about the quality of life that an unwanted child would have.  Perhaps if people were FORCED to be responsible for their actions they'd stop being so damned careless?  Let's face it, a LOT of women these days use abortion as birth control and it is an abomination.

How do you force someone to be responsible? If someone does not want to raise a child you can't force them to be a good parent. 

Ask children services, they try to force people to be at least the minimal responsible parent you can be to keep your kid and that's parents that WANT their kids. How do you motivate someone that dosent even want it?

Someone who will use a coathanger, drop it off at a dumpster, in front of the firestation, or at the side of the highway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 hour ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Interesting that in 1972, the year before abortion was "legal", there were over a half million abortions. Percentage of back alley, rusty coat hanger abortions that ended in death of the mother was .03%. Not 30%, not 3%, net even three-tenths of a percent. Three hundredths of a percent. Neither of those statistics support the rhetoric we so often hear.

Yeah, it was just a couple thousand deaths a year.  But then again most of them didn't die- they even had special hospital wards called "septic abortion wards" to treat the women who botched it up.  Back alley abortions were as complex back then as the illegal drug manufacturing trade is now, I would have to say.  Only the truly desperate would have been using the coat hanger method.

I would imagine it would go back to being the same if Roe vs Wade got appealed.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
11 hours ago, Big Jim said:

I don't understand why rape has to be an exception.  You know immediately when it has happened.  A crime report and evidence is taken so why not just include a morning after pill in each rape kit?  Or at least a referral to Planned Parenthood.  No need to wait to find out if you're pregnant and certainly no need to wait until a full abortion is necessary.

For those types of rapes the morning after pill is typically administered.  A step father repeatedly raping his 11 year old daughter, not so much.  Most rapes aren't even reported.  Also some anti-abortion bills have wording to ban the morning after pill because they view that as a form of chemical abortion.  I know the republicans in Iowa tried to put the kabosh on it when they wanted to do state-wide dispensers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry Gallo
3 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Yeah, it was just a couple thousand deaths a year.  But then again most of them didn't die- they even had special hospital wards called "septic abortion wards" to treat the women who botched it up.  Back alley abortions were as complex back then as the illegal drug manufacturing trade is now, I would have to say.  Only the truly desperate would have been using the coat hanger method.

I would imagine it would go back to being the same if Roe vs Wade got appealed.  

Lady in the article you linked said 200 per year, which is why I mentioned it. The half million number prior to Roe was from a data sheet on the other link you posted. I wonder if they had these type of wards for women who contracted AIDS or various other lifelong STD's? I wonder why they never do any studies that track how many babies carried to term are given up for adoption or end up in foster care for various reasons. Or how many thought it was dire, accepted the responsibility and had kids who went on to do great things. I think we can agree there is a lot of pro-active marketing for abortion by using the fringe stuff as if it represents the majority of abortions, but seldom do proponents for abortion admit that yes, more often than not, it is a form of birth control and nothing more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Lady in the article you linked said 200 per year, which is why I mentioned it. The half million number prior to Roe was from a data sheet on the other link you posted. I wonder if they had these type of wards for women who contracted AIDS or various other lifelong STD's? I wonder why they never do any studies that track how many babies carried to term are given up for adoption or end up in foster care for various reasons. Or how many thought it was dire, accepted the responsibility and had kids who went on to do great things. I think we can agree there is a lot of pro-active marketing for abortion by using the fringe stuff as if it represents the majority of abortions, but seldom do proponents for abortion admit that yes, more often than not, it is a form of birth control and nothing more. 

It's absolutely a form of birth control.  Abortion= no birth.  The abortion rates are half what they were twenty years ago because of better birth control policies.  Sex Ed, access to birth control, and getting rid of abstinence only training would go a lot farther reducing abortion rates that merely passing a law.  All that is going to do is criminalize it. 

No on the AIDs wards.  AIDS is relatively new and started off in the gay men community.  No one even really paid attention to it till the 80's.  As for other STDs - they can cause infertility of complications with pregnancy.  Don't really need to put anyone in a ward to treat them either.  Give them some antibiotics and send them home.  The reason for the wards back then was because there was often residual tissue that started to go septic left behind or other damage that required hospitalization to be treated. 

Edit to add:  I don't think anyone really cares about kids put up for adoption or in foster homes, hence the lack of data. 

Edited by Gromdor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry Gallo
2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

It's absolutely a form of birth control.  Abortion= no birth.  The abortion rates are half what they were twenty years ago because of better birth control policies.  Sex Ed, access to birth control, and getting rid of abstinence only training would go a lot farther reducing abortion rates that merely passing a law.  All that is going to do is criminalize it. 

No on the AIDs wards.  AIDS is relatively new and started off in the gay men community.  No one even really paid attention to it till the 80's.  As for other STDs - they can cause infertility of complications with pregnancy.  Don't really need to put anyone in a ward to treat them either.  Give them some antibiotics and send them home.  The reason for the wards back then was because there was often residual tissue that started to go septic left behind or other damage that required hospitalization to be treated. 

Edit to add:  I don't think anyone really cares about kids put up for adoption or in foster homes, hence the lack of data. 

I am encouraged by the drop in number of abortions, but there are still too many. Women are welcome to do what they want with their bodies, but what is the obligation to deal with the results? Do we pay for treatment when they contract AIDS/HIV or other STD's when they cavalierly have unprotected sex, often with strangers? My point about the wards is that those are things that treat the results that could have been avoided. It's great to see the cause addressed with the education, the access to meds, and the meds themselves. Still, we know that no matter what is available, some will still ignore practicality and get pregnant because, "meh, I can just have a doctor kill the baby". 

What does it say about us as a society when we don't value a life inside the womb with a beating heart, a functioning brain that detects pain, a baby kicking in response to mommy's voice? Similar to Obamacare, laws can be made to deal with exceptions as opposed to an all-encompassing one that allows people to have abortions over and over again. It's the taking of the next step to partial birth, day of due date, or post-birth abortion that has started this fight. So how important is first trimester abortion to those who support it, enough to oppose the radicals wanting no limits at all?

On the stats, I fail to understand how we can have a meaningful conversation about abortion and pregnancy in 2019 without knowing ALL the information. It's been 46 years since they passed the law by fiat, the least someone (CDC perhaps) could do is tell us how many mothers birthed children who ended up in foster care and how many carried to term and gave up for adoption to couples seeking a baby. At least that way I don't have to read anecdotal dogma about it in every discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

Who actually personally knows someone who has unprotected sex frequently with the idea that they will just get an abortion?

I have never met a person like that. I'm sure there are some super trashy individuals out there but that's a small minority. 

The idea keeps getting thrown around that that is a normal thing but I find it unlikely.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
44 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

It's the taking of the next step to partial birth, day of due date, or post-birth abortion that has started this fight.

Hold on Jerry, how do you have a post-birth abortion?  Isn't that infanticide?  If you kill an 8 year old child, is that post-birth abortion?  If you turn off life support for a 95 year old man consumed by cancer, is that post birth abortion?  Is this a philosophical way to equate an infant at birth with a recently fertilized egg? 

From what I get out of the press, this question arose considering the fate of a fetus that cannot survive.  The question then becomes one of do the parents "wrap it in a blanket nicely" and love it and comfort it until it dies or choose to take Herculean efforts to hook the infant to machines and keep its body tissue living whether it has consciousness or not?  Does giving pain alleviating medication constitute murder? Is murder giving a drug that will stop the heart?  I don't know what is actually done.

Yeah there are some deep moral dilemmas here and they naturally lead to emotion.  

My wife had a miscarriage of a second child we really wanted to have.  It took us a long time, especially my wife to overcome that sadness.   My best friend's third child died immediately after birth.   His wife was destroyed.  Fifteen years later, she has not recovered.   I do not want to put myself in the place of judging the actions of a parent who brought a child to term and finds it cannot survive.  Do you ease its pain and let it go or cause it to stay and suffer?  I don't know an answer that would satisfy all cases.

 

Just as an aside, it takes two people, a male and a female both having unprotected sex for conception to occur.  Men need to take more responsibility.  Why would a man who does not believe in abortion or have any intention of being a father to a child he is about to conceive ever have unprotected sex?  Responsible men should not rely solely on women to take precautions.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.