OK, Google: Why are you still pointing women at fake abortion clinics? Google is still effectively directing women seeking abortions to anti-abortion centers that masquerade as legit abortion clinics. This is despite the internet giant's wider efforts to convince us it's committed to protecting reproductive rights in post-Roe America. According to a Tech Transparency Project (TTP) report …
I am always fascinated that the phrase "reproductive rights" always means non-reproduction: abortion, contraception and sterilsation.
Have you ever seen it mean any kind of fertility help?
Feminism remains hopelessly wed to the idea that woman are oppressed and will have their lives ruined by having babies and they need lots of help to stop it.
(then they could lead meaningful lives as middle managers in Meta like men do)
This post has been deleted by its author
There is nothing "God bothering" about the desire to have children.
My wife was pressured to have a coil fitted. They recommended to not discuss it with me beforehand - so I was informed after the event. (well after - when it came time to say anything about it, my wife realised it was a total betrayal of my trust)
As she was 39, the nett result was that she didn't get to have the 3rd child she wanted, and didn't have the chance to have a daughter. She still talks about it today, 16 years later. (I have to hold my tongue)
If she had discussed it with me I would have pointed out that the clock was ticking, and after two years the chance for another child would be very low (she has miscarriages too) - because I knew what she wanted, and I look out for her happiness.
I have 3 kids anyway, so I'm all good - 2 with her was totally convenient for me, this is only about her hopes.
The doctor was _not_ working for my wife's reproductive rights, nor her happiness or her best interest.
She was grinding an axe, and hiding behind medical confidentiality to do so. She also conspired to snatch away my reproductive rights.
So AC was not party to a confidential medical consultation between a woman (his wife) and her medical specialist. In retrospect both he and his wife have regrets, but on the face of AC's history, he would seem to have more regrets about it than she does.
All such medical decisions are predicated on consent, otherwise they are assault. Reproductive ones particularly so. Consent must be informed, comprehensive, specific, competent and free, otherwise it's not actually consent.
Informed means the risks and benefits are explained and the understanding of both is confirmed.
Comprehensive means other possibilities are discussed and information about the risks and benefits of these is also made available.
Specific means tailored to the individual and the medical particularities of that person's situation.
Competent means that the person being offered treatment (or refusal thereof) has the ability to understand and make the decision.
Free means, among other things, not coerced. It also means that second opinions are made available if sought.
Reproductive consent gets complicated especially because two people have to live with the consequences. But AC might reflect on all of the aspects of consent and how they might have related to the decision before reducing it to someone being pressured to do something.
Why someone says they made a choice and why they actually did aren't always the same thing.
As to his rights: what are they, exactly?
As to God-bothering: Jesus never said anything about abortion or contraception. So why is there presumed to be a monolithic Christian view on the subjects?
"Reproductive consent gets complicated especially because two people have to live with the consequences."
Yes, and the woman might be under pressure to have more children than she would like to while she may otherwise be happy with her husband in every other respect. Being able to have long term contraception that isn't disclosed or particularly discoverable by her husband is a good thing. One party may be disappointed in not having a large family and the other relieved.
"Being able to have long term contraception that isn't disclosed or particularly discoverable by her husband is a good thing."
What a disgustingly toxic approach. If the couple cannot agree on having children then they should not be together. I would consider this as toxic as a man getting a vasectomy without disclosing it to their partner who wants children.
It wastes each others time and can lead to serious resentment for being severely untrustworthy in a relationship.
" ... As to his rights: what are they, exactly? ... "
HIS "reproductive rights"?
Lol. He has none. He can't reproduce.
His only contribution to reproduction is ............... A single sperm. A single, solitary, fucking sperm. That's it. And she doesn't even need him to get it.
She really doesn't need his "permission" one way or the other.
Sorry to to burst the bubble of the men out there that think that they have any "reproductive rights".
YOU DON'T.
Period. Her body, her choice. Fucking end of discussion.
And if you have a problem with it? Tough shit. Reality doesn't have any fucks to give on the subject.
You can't reproduce, you have no reproductive rights.
" ... She also conspired to snatch away my reproductive rights. ... "
What?
Huh?
I'm sorry. What is it that you don't seem capable of fucking understanding?
YOU CAN"T reproduce. You have no "reproductive rights". All you contribute to reproduction is .........ONE single fucking sperm. That's it.
And she doesn't need YOU to get it. She doesn't need your "permission" one way or the other. Reproductive rights are her rights and ONLY her rights. Her CHOICE, and only her choice.
If you think anything else ................. sorry, you're fucking mistaken. And reality just doesn't give a single fuck what you think.
When YOU can actually do the job of reproducing ( ie: actually becoming pregnant and giving birth ), come back and we will discus YOUR reproductive rights.
Until then ................... Just fuck off.
"YOU CAN"T reproduce. You have no "reproductive rights". All you contribute to reproduction is .........ONE single fucking sperm. That's it."
To be a little pedantic you prove wrong your statement that he cannot reproduce when you explain his contribution to reproduction. Fertility being a requirement of the man and the woman being necessary for the conception.
Also male fertility is longer lasting than female fertility.
"And she doesn't need YOU to get it. She doesn't need your "permission" one way or the other. Reproductive rights are her rights and ONLY her rights. Her CHOICE, and only her choice."
From what I read of the AC's story it was the woman who wanted another kid but was persuaded to take a form of contraception which was long lasting and took away the possibility of the child she wanted. Sounds like he now has to listen to the regret of his wife while he himself being content with the kids he has (not sure if he has 3 in total or 3 prior + 2 with her).
"When YOU can actually do the job of reproducing ( ie: actually becoming pregnant and giving birth ), come back and we will discus YOUR reproductive rights."
This is fantastic and I wish you all the best in bashing out that message. That would be a top notch argument against child support. The man has no rights and cant reproduce (in your opinion) therefore its not his problem unless he agrees to it.
Feminism remains hopelessly wed to the idea that woman are oppressed and will have their lives ruined by having babies and they need lots of help to stop it.
Some US states are conflating a fertilised cell as a human being that can be murdered. I suggest you look at the process of IVF where any infertile couple wanting a child have to discard hundreds of viable babies, effectively mass murder.
also want to outlaw ANY form of contraception that wasn't given by god. No condoms for the men either.
But... with zero parental leave after birth in most of those states, the woman is caught between a rock and a hard place. Add to that zero post-natal help for the mother and you have a disaster in the making.
Google does whatever is best for its bottom line. Those fake clinics pay to be top of the search rankings no matter how distasteful that is to many of us.
IMHO, don't use google for search. I don't and neither should anyone else.
"But... with zero parental leave after birth in most of those states, the woman is caught between a rock and a hard place. Add to that zero post-natal help for the mother and you have a disaster in the making."
The arguments are strong on both sides. I'm for a limited amount of leave, but some places want a year or more. Holding a position open for somebody or guaranteeing they will have a job whenever they decide to come back is very difficult for most businesses. A lot of sacrifices have to be made to have children. It's not like the world is in desperate need of more people right now and with increased automation, ML and AI, it may be past time to start winding populations down even if it means abandoning the infinite-growth economic models.
I believe that it’s everyone’s right to decide what they do with their body. And that includes the right to decide that you don’t want a cluster of non-sentient cells growing in it. I am very happy for scientists (actual people who’ve done research) to decide where the boundary is between cluster of cells and person.
I am utterly perplexed that those (largely fundamental religious and largely right wing) people who oppose that position are so steadfast in their dogma that they oppose all termination. Including termination for rape (and by extension incest, paedophilic abuse, spousal abuse etc) or debilitating genetic conditions which would mean that the baby, if it survives to term, would live its life in significant pain and enjoy no quality of life.
The position of denying a woman the right to choose is appallingly inhumane.
That depends entirely on your definition of "someone". After even a few weeks, I'd argue a fetus IS someone/a person/a human being.
This article mostly lays out the arguments though I disagree on the adoption argument. As it's very often not a good option nor a substitute in the way it's laid out there.
imho, there can only ever be an argument made for abortions in case of incest, rape or (potentially but more arguably) minors. In all other cases, if you're not ready to have a baby, don't have sex. It's not going to kill you, it's not even hard to do.
don't have sex. It's not going to kill you, it's not even hard to do.
I’d imagine that it’s especially not hard to do if you insist on treating your partner like mindless chattel - and hence have difficulty getting someone to hop into bed with you.
Sex isn’t just about procreation. It’s about building relationships. It’s about love. It’s about the whole damn sticky fun of it.
And thankfully we do have birth control (and morning after pill and etc etc) because otherwise there’d be a whole townful of my offspring - and no one wants that! This planet is already overcrowded enough!
"Buhhuhuh you must be an incel ad hominem". Real original....
If you've got a partner in a stable enough relationship that one can risk potentially having a baby (if all other defensive measures fail), fine, have all the fun you want. Having sex risks having a baby. If you can't bear the slight risk that it might happen if other measures fail, don't have sex.
Report the "crime" immediately, go to the hospital, they will administer medication that will prevent pregnancy.
This whole argument is about giving people the right to terminate a life because they were irresponsible!
Incest is more complicated. 1st incest is a crime that should be punishable be DEATH! That should give the creeps something to think about. 2nd, I'd allow slightly more leeway in these cases.
@Cliffwilliams44
Report the "crime" immediately, go to the hospital
The inverted commas around crime suggest you don't consider rape to be a crime. It is. There are numerous reasons woman can't react immediately to any pregnancy, from not realising they are pregnant to, in extrimis, Elisabeth Fritzl.
"This whole argument is about giving people the right to terminate a life because they were irresponsible!"
No, it's mostly about people being able to handle the unexpected.
Yes, there are cases where a woman gets pregnant deliberately in order to try 'trapping' the alleged father into marriage: When things don't go their way, they look to aborting the pregnancy instead. These aren't as common as some might believe.
Where there are claims of rape, some women go into denial about the rape and so won't report it or seek medical aid for days, weeks, even months later and by then the morning after pill won't work at all - and it may be too late for the abortion pill to work, either. Remember, rape can be very traumatic to the victim so they may not act rationally.
Plus the victim may not know it's happened, especially if they were unconscious at the time and there were no obvious signs something had happened when they woke.
However, it's more common for circumstances to change that can call for a rethink about a family: War, famine, economic change, death in the family: There are many reasons why a planned pregnancy might suddenly become a problem: A risk that would better be avoided. Adapting to that isn't irresponsible: It's being responsible to ensure the baby has a reasonable start in life: A stable environment rather than patents stressed out trying to make ends meet.
It can also be due to ignorance or bad advice: A woman on the pill is prescribed medication for something else but isn't advised that this other medication interferes with the effectiveness of the pill resulting in an unexpected, unplanned and unwanted pregnancy as an example.
It could be due to a problem with the pregnancy: That there's a risk to the mother, or the baby, or to both (so the abortion is on medical advice).
But the worst case: That the partner runs off when the pregnancy is announced, even if they'd previously stated they wanted a baby. That one happens way too often, and mostly when they're not married and he sees it as a chance to get out of child support.
As to incest: It's only a crime if you know you're doing it. If you don't, it's not a crime (in most places - the UK and US for example). Yes, there have been cases where siblings were separated when young and subsequently met, fallen in love, started to date, even had a child only to THEN find out they're related, which then raises the question of how many don't find out. No, their children won't be inbred monsters: It takes generations of inbreeding before that happens.
"No, their children won't be inbred monsters: It takes generations of inbreeding before that happens."
It can happen depending on genetics without requiring generations of same. A reinforcement of a genetic tendency for something like Cystic Fibrosis could show up right away.
More often than brother-sister might be first cousins. It could also be brothers and sisters if they already have a condition such as Down's and aren't capable of understanding that what feels so pleasurable is a wrong thing.
No, their children won't be inbred monsters: It takes generations of inbreeding before that happens.
If they happen to be carriers of rare recessive traits, or both carry a single copy of a defective gene, it can happen in one generation. The parents can appear to be fit and healthy, because the functioning copy of the gene continues as normal. If they both carry the same defective gene, then there is a 25% chance of the offspring carrying two copies of that gene, and a 50% chance of them carrying one copy. Those are pretty high odds, and any individual is likely to carry a number of such genetic defects, meaning that children born with "oddities" of one sort or another are close to a sure-thing.
Report the "crime" immediately, go to the hospital, they will administer medication that will prevent pregnancy.
Or not, if this is a Catholic hospital. Or a Baptist hospital. Or the administrator, or ER head is a fundamentalist whackjob and refuses (or simply omits) administering such medication. Or...
Or, you are in Tejas. Or Indiana, Or Ohio. Or.........
" ... This whole argument is about giving people the right to terminate a life because they were irresponsible! ... "
Complete and utter bullshit.
And I have a whole lot to add to that, but I won't. Because it might offend you and your parents if I did.
"What if you get raped?"
What if the child will be severely retarded?
What if the child is severely deformed physically?
What if the child is going to inherit a genetic abnormality?
What if the father abandons the mother or dies in an accident?
What if there is no detected problem, but the mother is alcoholic or a drugs user?
In many of the above cases it's the taxpayers that are on the hook for that child's care for as long as they live. A fetus diagnosed with Down's syndrome usually will have major heart defects as well. They seem to go together for some reason. That means exceptionally expensive heart surgery within days of birth. If the child had the chance to go on to be the next JC Maxwell or Jason Priestly, the cost might be bourn easily but there is zero chance in those cases.
Whenever the government inserts itself between the doctor and patient, it's never going to lead to a good outcome. I've heard of the arguments that get dragged out when somebody says that, but it then becomes somebody else that is demanding to make themselves and their beliefs a part of the discussion. Thank you, no.
Dunno Sir. I just blurted it out Sir. Sorry Sir.
…but. I suppose if I really had to answer that question, analyse what I was thinking…
An argument frequently given to support some racist claptrap (MAGA, Brexit, you name it) is that the country in which the argument is being made is already full.
Selfishly, I like seeing different people. I like hearing different languages. I want to live in a world where people are free to move, live, love and settle where they choose. But if we’re too full for that to happen then having fewer children seems to be an effective way of getting the population down. It would seem to be a more civilised answer than telling people who’d like to come here to F off.
" ... Sex isn’t just about procreation. It’s about building relationships. It’s about love. It’s about the whole damn sticky fun of it. ... "
DING! DING! DING!
We have us a winner! Johnie, tell them what they've won!
" ... because otherwise there’d be a whole townful of my offspring ..,. "
And an honest person at that.
" ... I'd argue a fetus IS someone/a person/a human being. ... "
Okay. Then let me ask you this.
Can that "someone/a person/a human being" exist/survive on it's own ( without human intervention ) survive outside of the womb? Can it breath, take sustenance on it's own?
No? Then I would have to disagree with YOUR definition.
Now I am not arguing that the premature, naturally born should be allowed to die because they can't. Just arguing about WHEN a fetus becomes someone/a person/a human being.
And if IRC when it comes to religion, the Christian Bible doesn't have anything to say about abortion or when life begins. While if IRC the Old Testament does. Something about a first breath. At which time it gets a soul.
Here is what I believe ..........
Her body, her choice. Period.
My opinion is therefore not relevant. CHOICE. Hers and hers alone. Period.
Abortion isn't "killing someone"
At four weeks? Absolutely not killing somewone. At sixteen weeks? Probably not. At twenty four weeks? Getting trickier. After contractions have started (and there are those who call for abortion on demand at any point before birth? Yes, almost certainly killing.
It's a very, very difficult line to draw.
I would be very unhappy for this particular line to be drawn by medics or scientists, because it's an ethical/philosophical line, not a medical/scientific one. Sure, the science will advise, but it's up to society to put an upper limit and for individuals to decide how close to that they personally want to go.
But ... draws breath, patiently ... yet again, medical expertise is not appropriate here. It's an ethical decision which should be made in the light of scientific evidence but which depends on far more than scientific evidence.
Would you trust doctors to decide which fetuses must (as opposed to may) be aborted?
"Would you trust doctors to decide which fetuses must (as opposed to may) be aborted?"
With universal unlimited healthcare paid for through the government, that could come to pass. If an abnormality is detected during pregnancy, the State might first deny benefits. It could then come to a point where an abortion is mandated if the system is so weighed down with providing care and benefits to the culls. With more and more agitation to legalize more and more powerful drugs, this could become a bigger problem. Fetal alcohol syndrome is a known condition, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that mothers that frequently smoke pot also leads to sub-standard kids. Perhaps with pot being legal in more places, more research might be done although women may not admit to any drug use as they could be put in prison for endangering their child.
Modern health care is a two edged sword in this arena. The incidence of the baby's or mother's death during pregnancy and childbirth has been lowered in the first world to be the last thought in a couple's minds. 100 years ago, deaths and severe complications were a much larger reality. This has lead to more children being born and surviving that would have had very little chance previously. We are beating back natures way of preserving a species. While it's tragic to lose a child, it's even more so to lose the mother. It's also a burden on society to require the whole village pay to support children with little to no chance of making any sort of contribution or are unwanted and wind up becoming the next generation of prison population (or fill cemeteries).
"With universal unlimited healthcare paid for through the government, that could come to pass. If an abnormality is detected during pregnancy, the State might first deny benefits. It could then come to a point where an abortion is mandated if the system is so weighed down with providing care and benefits to the culls. "
Thats probably the least convincing argument against universal healthcare I've ever seen. What are you Americans (I assume you're American and right wing with that attitude) so afraid of? We have, like most of the civilised world, universal healthcare that's free at the point of service (and have had since 1948) and yet nobody has been dictated to by anyone.
"Thats probably the least convincing argument against universal healthcare I've ever seen."
My point was more along the lines that the State will start mandating limits on care and services for defective babies that are taken to term. It's not a statement against universal healthcare, it's what might have to be put in place to keep it solvent that people may not be too happy about. Not that I'm for the government to be in the health insurance business, but that's another argument.
" ... Would you trust doctors to decide which fetuses must (as opposed to may) be aborted? ... "
Okay, so we shouldn't trust doctors at all? for anything?
Oh wait, we don't. We trust them to give us their considered medical opinion. We trust them to give us choices. And for us to then make informed choices for ourselves.
Which in many places in the US, is something that can no longer be done. Because old men and religious fanatics, who don't have a fucking clue, are making that choice for everyone.
So yes, trust doctors and the person making the decision.
It's her choice. Period.
" ... but it's up to society ... "
Then let "society" actually decide. Oh wait. you can't do that. Because we know what society would decide.
In the US, society, by a majority, quit a large one, is against the overturn of Roe v. Wade. And we can't have society decide. No, no. Can't have that.
" ... for individuals to decide how close to that they personally want to go. ... "
So her body, her choice?
No shit.
"It's a very, very difficult line to draw."
Not really: It's not exact but at around a certain point in a pregnancy, the foetus will have developed enough to meet whatever standard the medical professionals have determined to be an independent life form. At that point it should be murder to terminate that life except under exceptional circumstances.
However, with medical advances, it's becoming easier to detect if the foetus has met the criteria without relying on the passage of time.
The real argument then is: At what point is the foetus considered to be a person? Is it when there's a heart beat? Or brain activity? Movement? An active nervous system? Then they draw independent breath? That's for the medical community to argue over, not the peanut gallery.
Saying that: I need to restock on peanuts!
Not really: It's not exact but at around a certain point in a pregnancy, the foetus will have developed enough to meet whatever standard the medical professionals have determined to be an independent life form.
That's an ethical judgement, not a medical one. The track record of medical professionals deciding who has a worthwhile life is not great, and runs on a line through Tiergarten 4 through Tuskagee to the abortion of fetuses with Down's Syndrome and the blanket DNRs issued for autistic people during COVID.
Doctors simply are not trained to make these decisions.
" ... Doctors simply are not trained to make these decisions. ... "
And you are?
Then there's the actual oath that doctors take. One that is actually all about ethics.
" ... within that oath is "first, do no harm" (or "primum non nocere) ... "
How much more ethical can you get?
The question on whether or when a foetus becomes a person is the main issue.
Roe v Wade inferred that the answer was "never", although most people would disagree with SCOTUS on that.
The yelling and mudslinging back and forth between the various camps will never yield a positive outcome until the question of whether/when personhood applies is answered.
Convince the pro-lifers that a 20-week-old foetus is not a person (based on medical arguments) and they might join the other camp.
Then work your way up from there until you're back at the 40 or so weeks that Roe v Wade allowed and a similar ruling may pave the way again in the future.
" ... Convince the pro-lifers that a 20-week-old foetus is not a person (based on medical arguments) ... "
Let them try to convince anyone, that a 20-week-old fetus CAN survive outside of the womb without extreme human/medical intervention. Proof? Just go to any Hospital, to where newborns are, or to the NICU and see just how many premature babies there are that are much older the 20 weeks there are that can't.
I don't need to prove anything or anyone. Reality does that. And reality gives no fucks at all to what anyone "thinks".
Nope, it's a VERY easy line to draw.
Is it inside and acting as a parasite upon someone else? If no, then it's a person. If yes, it isn't.
It's absolute cake to draw the line. Abortion legal until ANY point before birth. Rights of pregnant person not infringed. Fetus is NOT person.
I'd go even further, and say that we should criminalize attempted interference with the absolute right of a pregnant person to terminate a pregnancy. Block somebody walking to an abortion clinic? Prison. Put up a website that tricks a pregnant person and delays an abortion? Prison. Attempt to pass a law interfering with the right to terminate a pregnancy? Life in prison.
To be fair, he has said a lot of stupid things, and that is not really the most stupid one. The comment he was replying to was the really stupid one, because abortion right up to the point of birth, for any reason, is also clearly wrong.
There are reasons why civilised countries set abortion limits, which are strict time limits, except for cases where there are extenuating circumstances, such as severe foetal abnormalities.
There are also reasons why the decisions about such things are made by sensible discussion by experts, and not on internet message boards, and, in civilised countries, not by priests and proselytisers.
"Is it inside and acting as a parasite upon someone else"
Please take the time to look up what a parasite is.
"Abortion legal until ANY point before birth"
Only extreme lunatics would consider that as an option except under very extreme circumstances. What about premature babies that, while requiring medical intervention to survive, nevertheless can and do grow into people? (Please note I am NOT saying all premature births are viable)
"Block somebody walking to an abortion clinic? Prison. Put up a website that tricks a pregnant person and delays an abortion? Prison. Attempt to pass a law interfering with the right to terminate a pregnancy? Life in prison."
Idiotic comment.
If the only argument you have in support of your position is an off-the-chart extremization, then you don't have much of a position.
I'm not saying that taking-to-the-extreme doesn't have a place in a healthy discussion, and slippery slopes do exist, but if that's literally the only support your thesis have... eh, sorry, it's not enough.
Basically, we have a gray area around a few months in a woman's uterus. That is what everybody is talking about. The gray area does not extend beyond that.
Now, instead of trying to get clarity inside the gray area, you are attempting to make it much bigger, make it extend all the way to adult life. We're all trying to help each other see what we see, so that between everyone maybe we can some day figure out what's in the gray area, and here you are throwing a rhetorical smoke bomb. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other, and it makes the entire discussion more difficult.
Just don't, okay? Find an argument that's actually helpful. If you can't find one, I suggest you think about why you can't find one. There might be something interesting down that path.
" ... So I'll ask you, too. At what point during the birth process ... "
FFS!
I don't need to answer that question. Because YOU DID!
Hint: Key word ......................... BIRTH.
Now if you are actually asking at what point do I believe that a fetus shouldn't be terminated, then I have two answers.
1) If in fact it were up to me. When the fetus can survive outside the womb, without extreme human/medical intervention ( and a tube that allows a machine to breathe for them because they can't on their own, nor can they take sustenance on their own, IS extreme intervention ).
2) It's not up to me to decide. I'm just not qualified to.
And my opinion is irrelevant. As is yours
If you want to go biblical - 3 days after birth. That's when babies were circumcised and named.
If you want to keep the discussion on a rational basis - It doesn't really matter. No one is deciding "I'm bored with pregnancy at 7 months - just kill it." The late term abortions that are being used to whip up the unknowing/unthinking are not optional; no-one wants them, the recipients need them.
But to avoid dodging the question, if asked my (completely un-earned) opinion, I would say on severance of the umbilicus.
I you argue that something with feet (complete with toes), hands (complete with fingers including unique fingerprints), an identifiable heartbeat and provable brainwave patterns and all other organs to be found in a human isn't a person then when does it start being one? Only after it's born? Because if that's your argument I'd say you're the bigger idiot.
"I you argue that something with feet (complete with toes), hands (complete with fingers including unique fingerprints), an identifiable heartbeat"
At 6 weeks an embryo has some of those (no fingers let alone fingerprints). It doesn't have eyes, ears or nostrils. It has a tail, It's about the size of a lentil.
At 9 weeks it has fingers, toes, a vestigial tail, a fully functioning heart. It's about the size of a grape and weighs a couple of grams. Fingerprints begin to form after 10 weeks, when the foetus is about an inch long.
This is not a person. It's a person in potentia, yes, but that's all.
Yes, I am in fact saying that.
Can a 6 to 9 week fetus survive outside the womb?
Can a 20 week old fetus survive outside the womb without extreme human/medical intervention?
And a tube that allows a machine to breath for them IS extreme intervention. Because it is the ONLY thing keeping it alive.
So again, yes. Yes I am saying that.
Does that make me cold and inhuman? Nope. It's reality. And reality doesn't have any fucks to give what you or I think.
I wouldn't look at the downvotes. The die-hards will downvote anyone who doesn't agree a woman should be allowed to kill her baby just about until the contractions start.
There seem to be even more diehards who think that as soon as a small clump of cells within an embryo starts twitching regularly you should issue them with a social security number.
"The thumbs down are interesting, but I'd be more interest to know how many people here think that a six week embryo and a very-nearly-full-term fetus should have the same rights, or lack of them."
I think that's because your comment is ambiguous - it's not clear what you are referencing. It would be easier if you quoted the point you were answering.
(and yes, obviously a nearly term baby is not the same as a 6, 8 or 10 week old embryo/foetus)
That’s what the research is for. To determine the boundary between cluster of cells and person. To determine the boundary between a life which will be one of pain, and with no quality to it, and one that will be viable.
Furthermore, murder is very emotive (and hence unhelpful) language. Honestly, I have no problem with taking life to take pain away - whether abortion or euthanasia (thinking of people suffering from a terminal and painful illness now). It’s the humane thing to do.
Furthermore, murder is very emotive (and hence unhelpful) language.
Agreed. "Murder" really only means "non-permitted killing".
Honestly, I have no problem with taking life to take pain away - whether abortion or euthanasia (thinking of people suffering from a terminal and painful illness now). It’s the humane thing to do.
What if the person in pain or the terminal illness doesn't want to die - still OK then? What if it's impossible to tell whether they want to die or not, perhaps because of a disability or traumatic injury?
Choice.
The choice of the terminally ill.
Because they can make an informed decision.
And if they can't, is there a DNR or and other advanced medical directive?
I have both. If I'm dead, go the fuck away. And if I'm that bad off, help me fucking end it. And I have someone that can and will enforce those decisions.
It's not a hard concept to understand. Nor was it a hard decision for me to make.
Once you have decided that "quality of life" is sufficient reason to kill someone, and the judgement is entirely subjective, what right have you to criminalize murder?
My wife and I have been trying for a child for several years. Last year, she was delighted to find she was pregnant. That delight turned to sadness after her first scan, when we discovered the foetus had an abnormality. This turned out to be a trisomy (Edward's Syndrome). If the foetus had survived to term, the baby would have had a very short, and very painful existence. We made the very hard decision to have a termination, which, thankfully, is legal in this country (for now, we can't trust the current government at all). As it happens, my wife miscarried* at 16 weeks anyway. The whole thing was extremely traumatic for everyone involved, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
This is the reality of abortion. When a woman chooses an abortion, it could be for any number of reasons, and it could be, to her, an easy, or a hard choice. It should, however, always be her choice. Not yours.
If you want to call my wife a murderer to her face, I can't be held responsible for whether or not she breaks your nose, but one thing I know for sure, you can fuck right off, you repellent excuse for a human being.
*There are those in the US, and elsewhere who would criminalise a woman for having a miscarriage as well.
"As it happens, my wife miscarried* at 16 weeks anyway. "
This is often what would happen a number of years ago. A difference now is many of those types of cases will go to term if given all sorts of medical support. I see this as the same as an old person receiving heroic amounts of medical intervention to extend their life when there is no hope of "getting better". Is it any sort of benefit to the person or society? The bigger issue is where not getting those interventions or doctors/hospitals not applying them turns into a crime.
Absolute bollocks.
Babies with Edward's syndrome can, and do, survive to term, and then die. Painfully.
Look it up, educate yourself with some actual medical science, rather than religious bigotry.
This is why my wife had to make the absolutely soul-crushing decision to abort the foetus, because neither she, not I are the sort of people who want to inflict the chance of that sort of suffering on the world.
Arseholes on the religious right, however, are all about controlling women, and don't give a shit about the copious amounts of very left-wing that their messiah purportedly said. It's almost as if they only read the bits of their "holy book" that agree with them and ignore the other 99.99%
"a cluster of non-sentient cells"
Past aprox. 6 weeks it's not a "non sentient cluster of cells". A fetus by that stage has a detectable heartbeat, brainwaves, fingers (including unique finger prints). By nine weeks it'll have every single organ it's going to have for the rest of it's life. If your line is at "a non sentient cluster of cells" you're talking about pre roughly 4 weeks. Ie, before most women even know they are pregnant.
"A fetus by that stage has a detectable heartbeat,"
No, it has a cluster of cardiac muscle cells that will begin to pulsate and continue to grow and form a heart. I don't recall the approximate gustation time before there is a fully formed and functioning heart, but it's not 6 weeks. Even when a developing child has a heart that is doing something useful, it's long before the child is viable outside the womb. If any test is going to be applied, viability outside the womb with a high percentage of survival without lots of medical support would be better. There are still issues that can occur late in development that can make a pregnancy unwise to continue. Given the state of medicine today, unless that problem is so severe that the doctor thinks immediate intervention is required, they may want to let the pregnancy to continue as so things do sort themselves out. The problem might then become the lawyers. If anything happens where there is any inkling beforehand, the doctor can wind up sued into oblivion. This is why OB/GYN insurance is so expensive. Juries take joy in handing out massive awards. It's also why some US states such as Nevada found themselves without a single practicing full-time OB/Gyn. The single part time one had office hours one or two days a week with most of their practice being in California.
"Past aprox. 6 weeks it's not a "non sentient cluster of cells". A fetus by that stage has a detectable heartbeat, brainwaves, fingers (including unique finger prints). By nine weeks it'll have every single organ it's going to have for the rest of it's life."
I refer you to my previous comment. You could of course look up some actual facts rather than simply repeat the same inane drivel. (at 6 weeks an embryo doesn't even have fingers, by the way.)
Ah, yes the same old "one groups rights is more important than another".
A life takes 2 people to create, it does not happen by accident. it is a deliberate act. In a world where contraceptives are 99.9999% effective we are saying that someone has the right to terminate a life because it is "inconvenient".* But that is only 1 of the parties involved rights, what of the other participant, "he" has no rights, "he" cannot prevent the child from being terminated, "he" also does not have that same "right" to say "I do not want this inconvenient child". The 1st party, if they so desire, can force the second to provide 21 years of support if "she" decides to keep the child. "He" has no right to refuse! This IS NOT equal protection under the law!
Also, this article is, as usual, misleading (or should I say misinformation), in the fact that no woman, anywhere in the US will be persecuted for having an abortion, the one who will be prosecuted will be the physician.
*This was not the case in the days before contraception. In that time there was a real case for legalizing abortions, Women were forced by their husbands to bare many children (children we of value and a family could expect expect to lose 1/3 of their children before adulthood) to the point of this becoming a serious health hazard to the woman. That is not the case today. Birth control is widely and inexpensively available today. And even in the rare chance it fails there are abortive medication available that can be used within a few days after the act to prevent pregnancy. IN the case of rape, report the crime, go to the hospital, they will administer the drugs to prevent pregnancy.
In a world where contraceptives are 99.9999% effective
What world would that be? Because it's certainly not the Earth.
Oral Contraceptive (aka "the pill"): Normal use: 91%, Perfect use: 99.7%
Copper IUD: 99.2%
Female condom (tm: "Femidom"): Normal use: 79%. Perfect use: 95%
Male condom: Normal use: 82%, Perfect use 98%
Diaphragm plus spermicide: Normal use: 88%. Perfect use: 94%
Female sterilization: 99.5%
Male sterilization: 99.85%
"Perfect use" means "Used consistently and correctly" which in the heat of real life is seldom the case.
There is no contraction method that's even 99.9% let alone 99.9999%
citation: https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/contraception-assessment/background-information/comparative-effectiveness-of-contraceptive-methods/
They aren't quite that effective, though. And, because sex is a very widespread activity, even a few percentage points of contraception failure can and do result in quite a lot of unplanned pregnancies.
Also, dealing with rape is not that easy. First, it can be extremely traumatic; being able to act entirely rationally within a few days is not at all a given. Secondly, it's frequently associated with a sharp power differential, i.e. the rapist is often your father, your boss, your partner who is also the only source of income, your partner who might hurt your kids, or someone who otherwise has leverage, making reporting more difficult (even if it's the right thing to do).
"And even in the rare chance it fails there are abortive medication available that can be used within a few days after the act to prevent pregnancy. "
Those medications are fine if you know that contraception has failed (condom broke, diaphragm showed a puncture, whoops). If neither party detected a problem, and that is very likely, the "morning after pill" isn't going to be sought. I've never closely examined a condom for leaks afterwards. It would take away from the mood/after-glow/some word like that.
Abortion is a medical procedure, why are you bringing feminism into the conversation?
Women who seek abortion don't do it because they are worried it may lead to oppression.
If we're that concerned about the rights of the unborn children why aren't the father's of these children paying maintenance for them?
The unborn child is the perfect person for you to care about. As soon as they pop out they're on their fucking own, but while they're in there they're way more important that the human carrying them.
Extend this to it's natural conclusion and sterilise all unmarried males if you genuinely want to stop unwanted pregnancies.
> I am always fascinated that the phrase "reproductive rights" always means non-reproduction: abortion, contraception and sterilsation.
> Have you ever seen it mean any kind of fertility help?
Why would you say that? There are plenty of fights going on around the right to access reproductive techniques that are forbidden to you. I'm thinking homosexual couples, singles, people with genetic disorders, and more. There are lots of places where if you can't reproduce just by sticking a penis in a vagina, then you can't reproduce at all even though technical fixes may exist, and people who challenge that.
There's quite a lot of heated discussion even within feminism on things such as third-party pregnancy, for example. And then there's the issue of the sheer cost of reproductive aid, even for heterosexual couples. That's also a discussion.
Abortion gets more spotlight, especially now because of contingent events in the USA. But it's by no means the only discussion going on about reproductive rights.
> Feminism remains hopelessly wed to the idea that woman are oppressed and will have their lives ruined by having babies and they need lots of help to stop it.
That's not true. The vast majority of feminists feel that women are oppressed by lack of agency on reproduction. Not by too much or too little reproduction. That means that women should be able to get an abortion if they are pregnant and don't want to be pregnant, as well as getting reproductive aid if they are not pregnant and they want to be pregnant. At the very least, the State should not legislate to restrict their agency in either way (and it would be even nicer if it actively enabled agency).
You hear more about abortion because in many places it's much more difficult to get an abortion, than to get fertility therapy, and people tend to fight for things they don't already have. But that's by no means the only problem feminists care about.
Part of enabling agency is that you should get clarifying advice so you can be helped making the decision that best reflects your own values, and not confusing or adversarial advice designed to encourage a decision that reflects someone else's values. That's why falsely posing as an abortion clinic is highly problematic. There's zero chance that advice given through deception is helpful.
Also curious that so many people refer to some strange idea that doesn't exist.
If you happen to be pregnant and don't want to be the bible can deal with that, Numbers 5:11-31, called 'bitter waters', that indicates this is not a crime.
If you happen to think that conception equals baby then the bible says you are wrong, Genesis 2:7, Job 33:4, Ezekiel 37:5&6, all these indicate that you are not alive until your God has breathed your first breath into you and infused you with the holy spirit.
Lastly Jesus confirmed that the old testament was divinely inspired, the veritable word of God and cannot be broken, John 10:35.
So if you are genuinely a Christian and support the false prophets of "Pro-Life" then you had better get back to your bibles and read them properly. Your Lord God expected 1/3 of pregnancies to terminate in the first trimester and some more in the second trimester.
For the simple people amongst you I'll say it louder
YOUR GOD SAYS THAT ABORTION IS NOT A CRIME AND JESUS AGREED WITH HIM.
...back to your bibles and read them properly...
You must be joking, the bible is full of leftist pinko crap, I mean:
"Blessed are the cheesemakers" (that one might be a transcription error)
"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." - Ever seen a meek evangelist?
"If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." - How that will fly against vengeful hate filled American "Christians" is a mystery.
If American Christians believe a fetus is a person then surely the fetus has the right to guns. Stick a wee Glock up there and they can defend themselves against doctors.
Some twin fetuses will devour/absorb their twin - surely they should face the death penalty when they emerge. Why does the right to life end at the vagina?
IVF discards millions of fetuses, mass feticide, so those parents should face war crime trials.
Off topic, please rate this song from 1 to 5 as suitable for work: Foetus - Sick Man
"We have clear and longstanding policies that govern abortion-related ads on our platforms, which we apply consistently to all advertisers," the spokesman told The Register.
"If they pay us money, we run the ads," the spokesman would have said if they were being honest.
"common practice across the entire web. Once there they are simply saying what they believe. If you disagree, go elsewhere"
So, you would be ok with a search for, say, a history of socialism, you click on a link that says "a history of socialism" but ends up taking you to a pro-fascist website? (this is a hypothetical example, just in case you don't get it)
Or searching for help with the latest MS OS takes you to an Apple page despite it being advertised as a Microsoft one?
It's exactly the same thing.
"A good example used to be to search G00000gle for [name of 'trusted' anti-virus software] and be hit with countless 'sponsored ads' for similarly named dodgy 'anti-virus' packages guaranteed to give false positives."
Or you are trying to look up a recipe for Spotted Dick and get a whole load of pr0n sites.
So, we have a website whose purpose is specifically to provide people with ethical advice.
And the ethical bar it's attempting to clear is located at the dizzying height of "it isn't illegal".
I'm not sure whether that is hilarious or sad or both.
I mean, that's a bit like a cooking blog opening up with "It's not poisonous!" - oh, good, great, but it doesn't make me want to try their recipes, you know?
True, but the article is about Google. The entire stated purpose of Google is to provide the user with the information they want.
If Google provides the user with information they do not want, and indeed they specifically want to avoid, and puts said unwanted information among the top results, it's failing at its stated purpose in the most extreme fashion (perhaps in service of their actual purpose, i.e. raking in advertising money, or perhaps not).
I mean, if Google decided to suddenly put wrong answers on top of my search results for computer problems, you can be damn sure I'd be highly irritated about it, and you can be damn sure The Register would publish several articles about it, and you can be damn sure that any comments on the lines of "well, it's not illegal to state that to fix that virus you have to delete all .exe files from system32, and you can always click on the link and read the whole thread to see that it's the wrong answer, it's your choice" would be sharply downvoted.
Not a reasonable comparison. Someone seeking abortion advice is likely to be emotional and conflicted, and may well be receptive to a well aimed persuasion attempt. That's why the ads are there.
The issue is that the ads, which are specifically designed for the service they are offering, which is perfectly legit as far as it goes, are purposely disguised as something quite different.
(Cue downvotes because this is a binary shouting match and there's no room for finesse or accuracy, but I think it's worth trying to good arguments rather than just any argument.)
It is not an even split, by any stretch of the imagination.
87% of Americans want access to safe and legal abortions to be protected in law. It's never been less than 79% since 1976.
There is disagreement on the exact circumstances, but not the basic premise.
(Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx)
A lot of people think access to abortion should be protected by law while at the same time thinking that abortions are morally wrong.
It's not an impossible contradiction either, For something similar, look at the Dutch attitude to cannabis: by and large people there believe that using pot is wrong but that it is not something on which the state should legislate.
The important point, though, is that it is not helpful to frame this as men vs women. It's authoritarians and their stooges vs the people.
Have a reputable organization provide them vetted lists of providers, so there is no SEO that can possibly game the system and allow searches to show scumbag "abortion counseling services" that are fronts for extremist religion organizations that use high pressure sales and brainwashing tactics to try to talk women out of abortion, and if that fails simply threaten them and their family.
Then you'll simply get organisations cropping up which can offer legitimate abortions - fully certified to do so - but still try to pressure people out of it.
What is needed is a lot more places that offer abortions, so real competition happens and word-of-mouth spreads regarding the good vs bad places to go.
Competition? I guess this is what happens when a country doesn't have a healthcare system available to all and proper laws protecting the rights of their citizens, from a country that's all about "freedumb" something of a massive yawning chasm of a lack of judgement.
If these Americans were "pro-life" then they'd lobby to have proper healthcare, gun controls, mental health provisions and provide help to those poorest in society who need it, but no they only care about abortion, once the child is born they don't give a shit its just more grist for the mill, they'll complain about their freedoms while they actively take them away.
Not likely. The kind of people who want to pressure women out of abortions would never offer abortions. They consider it a sin equal to murder.
But if such a thing existed, the trusted organization doing the vetting could still choose to drop them from the list, if their criteria was that an abortion provider could offer "counseling" that included making sure they are aware of their other options but not pressuring them in any way to choose those options.
The problem with hoarders is that they tend not keep track of what they have collected. Google, et al, hoover up everything they can but I'm guessing they don't immediately know just how many people have a passion mauve tank tops, green high heels with a welder's mask until they looked
(must stop searching PornHub... must stop searching PornHub...)
False advertising is sometimes hard to define.
A hamburger shop claiming to sell Michelin star level meals, is that false advertising or some delusional shop owner ?.
An advertisement for cheap cigarettes (none) from a clinic specialized on anti smoking treatment, is that false advertising ?.
False advertising for issues involving peoples well being or health should be punishable by law. Those women make appointments, maybe even have stress about it before they go there, just to find out they are effectively being trolled is just tragic. Not taking into account the travel expense.
Maybe google should attempt to behave a bit more useful and responsible towards the society in which it takes up such a dominant position, even when it is hard to manually filter this non-sense out the gigantic stream of automated ads their systems are processing.
These are pretty clear cut though.
If a place advertised itself as a hamburger shop, but when you went discovered that not only did they have no hamburgers, and have never sold hamburgers, but instead were in the business of trying to convince everyone never to eat hamburgers, what's that?
Fraud.
"Can't some of these places be prosecuted, closed down, banned from advertising?"
Yes. You can bring a direct case yourself if you have a year's wages sitting around that you can hand to an attorney to get started. You could file a report with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the next time they do a targeted crack down on that sort of thing, they'll have a look. Could be a few years.
Meanwhile the left thinks that having members of a privileged group dress up on TV as grotesque caricatures of an oppressed group is unacceptable when the targets are black but perfectly fine when the targets are women.
Woke is just a term used by the ignorant because they have no real argument against the subject that they accuse people of being woke of.
I've been accused of "woke" for things such as ........... same sex marriage. Because they can't actually argue against two consenting adults in a loving, caring, committed, long term relationship marrying.
Or equal pay.
Or the right to choose.
Or anything else that they are to damn stupid to understand.
As a "woke" person, I'm not afraid of being call names by the stupid, the hateful or the xenophobic.
As an example, I'm not afraid of your name calling. And yes "wake" is name calling, you're just not smart enough to know that it in fact is. Because you have zero rational, logical or fact based argument to backup your claims about "the woke".
And integrity? Lol. Now that's just to funny coming from you.
" ... throw gays off roofs and subjugate their women ... "
Lol. I am in fact "dealing" with both of those very things happening in the US right now.
Now go away and let the adults talk.
Returning authority to the states is a good thing.
That is the beauty of the United States. If you don't like the laws where you live, you are free to move to a different state. Or campaign to get the laws changed in the state you live in.
If I want to be a gun-toting 2nd Amendment supporter, I probably shouldn't live in California, Illinois, New York, or Hawaii. By the same token, if I want to abort a pregnancy, I probably shouldn't live in Texas, Nebraska, or Arizona.
> If you don't like the laws where you live, you are free to move to a different state.
*IF* you can afford to (and if the state authorities aren't actively trying to prevent women of childbearing age leaving the state).
> Or campaign to get the laws changed in the state you live in.
Both options, as so often in the US, come down to money. Fuck the poor, eh?
"In America, it's ALWAYS about fuck the poor."
Poor people have poor choices, but they still have choices. If they've chosen to box themselves in so they can't move out of a really bad neighborhood, who's to blame.
Survival of the fittest is a concept that can apply on many different levels. I'm by no definition poor, but I'm nowhere near "rich" either. I've been poor more than once. I've lived in my car briefly a couple of times. That's taught me to always be developing marketable skills and avoid getting trapped in a bad situation.
It's not about F the poor, but that some people just aren't ever going to see how their behavior is holding them back and will just stand there and claim it's so unfair that they can't "be themselves" and have an 80" big screen TV too, a nice house to put it in and a late model Mercedes in the driveway. Nobody they'd listen to every taught them that there is no such thing as "fair" in the real world.
Well, no, technically slavery was ended by a Constitutional Amendment, which can only be over-ridden by another Constitutional Amendment. If Congress wants to guarantee, beyond any doubt, the status of reproductive rights on a national level, they should do so via Constitutional Amendment. That's the only way to set it in stone (or near enough). Otherwise, it remains an issue for the States.
No. Technically it was by Executive Order of the sitting President the United States. The Emancipation Proclamation. And a war was fought over it ( And yes it was fought over that. If IRC both the President and the VP of the Confederacy both wrote that in fact was. ) You know, actual history and fact.
And then the majority of The Congress of the United States decided that it should be in the Constitution. And was ratified by the States. And is bullshit. It should have had to be.
And abortion should not have to be an Amendment to the Constitution. Choice already is. Choice is a human right. The right to control ones own body is a human right. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. And an amendment to protect those rights is insanity. Same for marriage.
Why do simple human rights need to be Amendments to the Constitution. Why should respect and dignity?
Your opinion is bullshit.
"Technically it was by Executive Order of the sitting President the United States. The Emancipation Proclamation."
Which, technically, could have been completely and entirely undone at the discretion of the next sitting President. Hence the absolute need for a Constitutional Amendment to guarantee its longevity.
Please, learn to think before your knee jerks again and gets you into further troubles.
In Europe, individual states legislated on abortion. Many people are against abortion but recognise the democratic legislative process. That did not happen in the USA, Roe-Wade was a judicial coup that claimed the Constitution gave abortion rights in a text that never mentions abortion and was written to give legal rights to people of colour. Ever since abortion and politics have been mixed up because of this.
This has now been reset and has returned back to the 1970's where it is up to the USA to correctly legislate on this issue in the same way as the vast majority of democratic countries have done.
" ... Returning authority to the states is a good thing. ... "
But it's not actually returning rights to them. If it was then states that are banning abortion would actually put it on the ballot and letting the people decide. But they wont. Because they know what that vote would be.
Example: Kansas. The people just voted against a Constitutional amendment that would ban abortion.
While 13 other States aren't allowing their citizens to decide.
Oh and my Stated voted FOR term limits for those elected to represent us. Guess what, that's not the right of the citizens of my State to do.
Another example. Gun rights. Several States have voted for restrictions on gun ownership. You know sane laws. Like not letting children to buy assault style weapons. Or allow people with mental health issues ( I have such issues. And you do really not want to have a gun.).
Or how about marriage? Or adoption. You know, rights of "the gays".
And just so you know, CHOICE is a human right that is a Constitutionally protected right of women. And should NOT be decided by States. Fuck the religious radical right members of the SCotUS.
"States rights" is nothing but bullshit. It's not about rights, and States deciding them. It's about power. And a few not letting the people decide.
Put shit on the ballot, and let the people decide!
OK, Google: Why are you still pointing women at fake abortion clinics?
Because they don't legally have to give you the proper results and the fine print is good enough from a legal standpoint.
What are you going to do? Deleted your Google account? That is not happening and Google knows it.
It doesn't just find web pages, it ranks them, and it ranks them according to unknown rules... well apart from the fundamental rule that you can 'bribe' them to get to the top of the listing... then there are SEO practitioners who claim to know those unknown (and unknowable) rules and claim to be able to get you to the top of the list
Nobody seems to care about the slugs and snails. Even vegans care about chickens and cows and sheep and stuff, but don't care about the slugs and snails. It's apparently OK to kill slugs and snails.
On what level is an undeveloped human fetus more sentient and valuable than a fully developed living slug or snail?
Come to think of it, what about those chickens, cows, sheep and stuff?
I'm not trying to make people feel guilty about killing chickens, cows, sheep, and snails and stuff. It sort of feels like the elephant in the room though, that's all, given the beef over abortion.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
