Jump to content
sebasour

Alabama Abortion Ban

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mugtang said:

Banning abortion would cause a boom in black/brown babies being born.  You’re still not making sense how banning abortion supports a white supremacy agenda. 

To be fair, you're making an assumption that these nutjob groups Rocket is talking about are doing things because they have reasons that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mugtang said:

There are plenty of kids in foster care that can’t find homes.  Adoption is expensive. It can cost between $5,000 - $40k to adopt an American child. 

Hey, no abortion and less regulation, and we will be able to buy babies at the local kid store for the same price as a tv.  Supply and demand will be tipped so heavy to supply surplus, we will be handing them out and giving allowances to the adopters in a decade.  No more high cost, no more wondering where the hell can I find these babies.  Charlize and Angelina won't have to pick babies out of the dirt in Africa and Asia.  They can just pluck a couple down the block.  

:D

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, toonkee said:

Do two wrongs make a right?

 

Too many in this thread are equating severity of wrongs.  Not all wrongs are equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soupslam1 said:

Personally I’m pragmatic about the whole abortion issue. No matter how many anti abortion laws are put in place, women are still going to have abortions. It’s better they be done in a doctors office or hospital than in an alley with a coat hanger. 

This is correct.

Abortion laws don't stop abortions, they kill women.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soupslam1 said:

Personally I’m pragmatic about the whole abortion issue. No matter how many anti abortion laws are put in place, women are still going to have abortions. It’s better they be done in a doctors office or hospital than in an alley with a coat hanger. 

I find it difficult to be pragmatic about a human life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, toonkee said:

To be fair, you're making an assumption that these nutjob groups Rocket is talking about are doing things because they have reasons that makes sense.

I’d be more willing to listen to that position if:

1) Rocket didn’t make everything about white supremacism and blame everything on that. 

2) The math supported that position. 

I recognize racists are usually idiots but even they have to know banning abortion will cause more brown & black people to be born. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tspoke said:

This is correct.

Abortion laws don't stop abortions, they kill women.

So what do we do.  Kill babies or kill women?  I'm thinking there's got to be a better answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mugtang said:

 

I recognize racists are usually idiots but even they have to know banning abortion will cause more brown & black people to be born. 

While I agree with this statement, it's interesting to note that black and brown people are more pro life than white people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I’d be more willing to listen to that position if:

1) Rocket didn’t make everything about white supremacism and blame everything on that. 

2) The math supported that position. 

I recognize racists are usually idiots but even they have to know banning abortion will cause more brown & black people to be born. 

See, there you go again. By not making things about white supremacism, you've once again proven that this place is nothing more than Stormfront lite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Guttmacher studies I've come across this afternoon thus far are all admittedly limited by the limitations in the available data, and in at least one case (the only one that explicitly looks at abortions after 20 weeks) admits this outright in the introduction of the study. They basically admit that no one knows the percentage of women who get late abortions due to fetal anomalies / health of the mother vs. for other reasons. In another of the studies, it states that hospitals represent about 3-4% of abortions and most of those abortions are due to fetal anomalies / health of the mother, and also states that they collected less data from hospitals than from abortion clinics. Another only surveyed people at one abortion clinic.

The data isn't clear, and that's a basic fact. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

The Guttmacher studies I've come across this afternoon thus far are all admittedly limited by the limitations in the available data, and in at least one case (the only one that explicitly looks at abortions after 20 weeks) admits this outright in the introduction of the study. They basically admit that no one knows the percentage of women who get late abortions due to fetal anomalies / health of the mother vs. for other reasons. In another of the studies, it states that hospitals represent about 3-4% of abortions and most of those abortions are due to fetal anomalies / health of the mother, and also states that they collected less data from hospitals than from abortion clinics. Another only surveyed people at one abortion clinic.

The data isn't clear, and that's a basic fact. 

Most all studies include reasoned assumptions.  Data is gathered by most all healthcare facilities as is required by federal and state laws.  Data isn't required to be collected and reported for abortions, and this is what muddles up the data.  However, some pretty solid assumptions can be arrived at by simply correlating what is required to be reported vs. what isn't required to be reported.  Abortions without any reporting requirements are most likely done out of convenience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a study that may be of interest as well, for those who think that religious anti-abortion sentiment doesn't put women's lives at risk.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636458/

 

Abstract

As Catholic-owned hospitals merge with or take over other facilities, they impose restrictions on reproductive health services, including abortion and contraceptive services. Our interviews with US obstetrician–gynecologists working in Catholic-owned hospitals revealed that they are also restricted in managing miscarriages.

Catholic-owned hospital ethics committees denied approval of uterine evacuation while fetal heart tones were still present, forcing physicians to delay care or transport miscarrying patients to non–Catholic-owned facilities. Some physicians intentionally violated protocol because they felt patient safety was compromised.

Although Catholic doctrine officially deems abortion permissible to preserve the life of the woman, Catholic-owned hospital ethics committees differ in their interpretation of how much health risk constitutes a threat to a woman's life and therefore how much risk must be present before they approve the intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sebasour said:

That's the goal with legislation like this

Dude, no shite. We’re saying the court will never overturn it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Most all studies include reasoned assumptions.  Data is gathered by most all healthcare facilities as is required by federal and state laws.  Data isn't required to be collected and reported for abortions, and this is what muddles up the data.  However, some pretty solid assumptions can be arrived at by simply correlating what is required to be reported vs. what isn't required to be reported.  Abortions without any reporting requirements are most likely done out of convenience.

And yet the studies that are always referenced by conservatives to prove that most women who seek abortions after 20 weeks state the limitations of the data. 

Also, and this is an honest question - if there is an instance before viability where labor is induced and delivery is forced due to health of the mother, is that counted as an abortion or miscarriage?

Ironically, the further you get  away from the first trimester the more ambiguous the circumstances despite people who demagogue on "late-term abortions" which isn't even a medical category. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

And yet the studies that are always referenced by conservatives to prove that most women who seek abortions after 20 weeks state the limitations of the data. 

Also, and this is an honest question - if there is an instance before viability where labor is induced and delivery is forced due to health of the mother, is that counted as an abortion or miscarriage?

Ironically, the further you get  away from the first trimester the more ambiguous the circumstances despite people who demagogue on "late-term abortions" which isn't even a medical category. 

I believe a miscarriage is required to be reported.  I can ask my son, who is an MD but perhaps @NMpackalum can answer this.

I think I believe you have more clarity after the first trimester.  Life arguments become much stronger beginning in the 2nd trimester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

The Guttmacher studies I've come across this afternoon thus far are all admittedly limited by the limitations in the available data, and in at least one case (the only one that explicitly looks at abortions after 20 weeks) admits this outright in the introduction of the study. They basically admit that no one knows the percentage of women who get late abortions due to fetal anomalies / health of the mother vs. for other reasons. In another of the studies, it states that hospitals represent about 3-4% of abortions and most of those abortions are due to fetal anomalies / health of the mother, and also states that they collected less data from hospitals than from abortion clinics. Another only surveyed people at one abortion clinic.

The data isn't clear, and that's a basic fact. 

Bullshit:

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

I don’t read anywhere in their published study that the results are invalid because of the data.  This is a pro-abortion rights organization even.  No data is perfect, recognizing imperfections and downsides doesn’t automatically invalidate what can be gleaned from it.  You just don’t like that the results of their study show that the vast majority of abortions are for convenience.


RESULTS: The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

AKA...  convenience. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pokebball said:

I believe a miscarriage is required to be reported.

I think I believe you have more clarity after the first trimester.  Life arguments become much stronger beginning in the 2nd trimester.

Yes, that is true. And the presence of fetal conditions also emerge later that deem the pregnancy to futile, as do conditions like the ones mentioned above. Those pregnancies are wanted. That's why it's more ambiguous, dude. 

As for miscarriage, I wasn't asking if they're reported. I wanted to know if a pregnancy wherein labor is induced due to such conditions I'm referring to, are those clearly reported as abortions or miscarriages/stillbirths? It's not clear to me which it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this black girl on TV argue that abortion has basically been genocide for blacks and there would be so many more blacks in this country if they were born. I find that to be quite a joke.

Think about all the babies black or brown that were born in the inner city gang infested neighborhoods. The parents actually wanted these kids, and they still weren’t able to raise them the way they wanted because of so many challenges. Now think about what the inner city would look like if babies were born and the parents didn’t even want them. Holy crap, talk about gang violence and crime.

Think about how many more inner city gangs and bigger gangs would be out there killing, and sometimes killing innocent people by accident, or on purpose as an initiation requirement to join a gang. 

Anti abortion right wingers certainly are OK with self defense. In a totally un-PC but true way, in the inner city you could almost sell abortion to a right winger as a form of self defense when you think about the innocent people that would’ve been killed by the gang members had they been born. Obviously not every unwanted kid in the inner city would join a gang and be violent, but there would be a lot of them. 

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

And yet the studies that are always referenced by conservatives to prove that most women who seek abortions after 20 weeks state the limitations of the data. 

Also, and this is an honest question - if there is an instance before viability where labor is induced and delivery is forced due to health of the mother, is that counted as an abortion or miscarriage?

Ironically, the further you get  away from the first trimester the more ambiguous the circumstances despite people who demagogue on "late-term abortions" which isn't even a medical category. 

Medically speaking, phrases like late term abortions, partial birth abortions aren't used. Any pregnancy that is terminated is considered a therapeutic abortion. Definitions are important. A miscarriage is a spontaneous or missed abortion. Most of these terms are political in nature. Any pregnancy loss under 20 weeks is considered an abortion. As for reporting, almost all statistics are self reported so therefore probably not very accurate. All I know is that 23 weeks is commonly used as a cutoff for viability outside the womb. In nearly 29 years of residency and group practice >15,000 pregnancies, I've never seen a situation where the life of the mother depended on a therapeutic abortion. I have seen in 2 situations where we induced a pregnancy early to provide chemotherapy early. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

Yes, that is true. And the presence of fetal conditions also emerge later that deem the pregnancy to futile, as do conditions like the ones mentioned above. Those pregnancies are wanted. That's why it's more ambiguous, dude. 

As for miscarriage, I wasn't asking if they're reported. I wanted to know if a pregnancy wherein labor is induced due to such conditions I'm referring to, are those clearly reported as abortions or miscarriages/stillbirths? It's not clear to me which it is.

If they're required to be reported, then a miscarriage is a miscarriage.

Life removes ambiguity for me. What fetal conditions are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×