Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade

What is you're opinion on abortion ?

  • Fully pro-life, including Embryo

    Votes: 15 2.5%
  • Pro-life but exceptions for morning after pill and IUDs

    Votes: 22 3.7%
  • Pro-choice but up until heartbeat limit of 6-weeks

    Votes: 59 9.9%
  • Pro-choice up to pre-viability limit (based on local legislation)

    Votes: 405 68.2%
  • Fully pro-choice until birth

    Votes: 93 15.7%

  • Total voters
    594
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
13,958
Ok so you have the same position as me, you aren't pro-choice. So for people who are who say it's their body and their choice, then surely that position doesn't stop at viability, otherwise that's not really the argument because the baby is still in their body. There are definitely people with extreme views that you doubt exist, such as there are people with I would argue the less extreme view that life begins at conception

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that "pro-choice" doesn't automatically mean advocating for "abortion until birth under any circumstances".

Indeed, the poll for this thread has three "pro-choice" options.

Perhaps agreeing definitions before debating the subject would be useful here?
 
Associate
Joined
9 Feb 2004
Posts
951
Ok so you have the same position as me, you aren't pro-choice. So for people who are who say it's their body and their choice, then surely that position doesn't stop at viability, otherwise that's not really the argument because the baby is still in their body. There are definitely people with extreme views that you doubt exist, such as there are people with I would argue with the less extreme view that life begins at conception

So my saying "allow them the choice up to a pre-determined viability limit" translates in your mind to "not pro-choice" ?

Surely the giveaway is in the word "choice" in my description. I even highlighted it for you to make it easier :)

Also your argument that "surely that position doesn't just stop at viability" is a very flawed one. If you were to remove the "gestating embryo" prior to viability (say, 10 weeks for an arbitrary number) it has 0 chances of survival outside the womb, it has 0 chance of life. There is a huge difference between 10 week abortion and your hysterical comments about aborting 8 month and 3 week old babies.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that "pro-choice" doesn't automatically mean advocating for "abortion until birth under any circumstances".

Indeed, the poll for this thread has three "pro-choice" options.

Perhaps agreeing definitions before debating the subject would be useful here?

Exactly this. The idea that "pro-choice" automatically means you're a hideous baby killing monster that rips 8month and 3 week old babies out of mothers is utterly ludicrous, hysterical nonsense peddled by people whom are looking to incite (and possibly suffering from) emotive reactions from people in an attempt to subvert their more rational reasoning. - Sadly it seems those most susceptible to emotionally charged / driven responses are also the ones most likely to use emotionally charged, hysterical exaggerations in an attempt to elicit a similar response in others...
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
8,172
Location
Leeds
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that "pro-choice" doesn't automatically mean advocating for "abortion until birth under any circumstances".

Indeed, the poll for this thread has three "pro-choice" options.

Perhaps agreeing definitions before debating the subject would be useful here?

It's not really the "pro-choice" label I'm debating though, it's the argument that it's "their body, their choice", if you believe that statement then surely it doesn't stop being their body and their choice at 4, 5, 6 or 8 months. If you think that you shouldn't be able to abort a healthy baby at 8 months then you don't think it is the woman's body and her choice, which is fine.
 
Associate
Joined
24 Jun 2021
Posts
1,095
Location
UK
It's just the USA taking everything to the extremes. There are half a dozen different options in this debate, at least. But politics in USA is red v blue, so they need to present people with 2 options only.
 
Associate
Joined
9 Feb 2004
Posts
951
It's not really the "pro-choice" label I'm debating though, it's the argument that it's "their body, their choice", if you believe that statement then surely it doesn't stop being their body and their choice at 4, 5, 6 or 8 months. If you think that you shouldn't be able to abort a healthy baby at 8 months then you don't think it is the woman's body and her choice, which is fine.

Again with your "then surely" assumption. NO, you are incorrect. just because a bunch of post-fertilized cells exist inside a woman, does NOT make it the same as a viable human life, it is nonsense to claim it does since it has 0 viability outside the womb.

You seem to be having difficulty with the idea that people can still have a choice *UNTIL* the gestating embryo reaches a stage where it would be viable outside the womb, at which point their choice would not *only* affect them, but a viable human baby also - making it no longer just "their body"
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
8,172
Location
Leeds
Again with your "then surely" assumption. NO, you are incorrect. just because a bunch of post-fertilized cells exist inside a woman, does NOT make it the same as a viable human life, it is nonsense to claim it does since it has 0 viability outside the womb.

You seem to be having difficulty with the idea that people can still have a choice *UNTIL* the gestating embryo reaches a stage where it would be viable outside the womb, at which point their choice would not *only* affect them, but a viable human baby also - making it no longer just "their body"

Ok, so pretty much we all agree the same thing then. I'm just not making silly arguments like women are in charge of their own body because it ceases to be purely their choice when a baby could survive outside of their body, I also think men do have a say in this since terminating viable babies is a human issue not a woman only issue.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
6,729
Location
Norfolk.
Just to confirm, repealing Roe vs Wade doesn't make abortion illegal, it just drops the requirement to the individual states to decide.

So for women who are considering an abortion, if "your" state prevents it you can currently still have it done in another state.

I'm not sure what "new" laws may/may not be approved regarding making this practice (using another state) illegal or not.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Posts
12,017
Just to confirm, repealing Roe vs Wade doesn't make abortion illegal, it just drops the requirement to the individual states to decide.

So for women who are considering an abortion, if "your" state prevents it you can currently still have it done in another state.

I'm not sure what "new" laws may/may not be approved regarding making this practice (using another state) illegal or not.
Poor people. Look at NI.
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
30,961
Location
Panting like a fiend
Just to confirm, repealing Roe vs Wade doesn't make abortion illegal, it just drops the requirement to the individual states to decide.

So for women who are considering an abortion, if "your" state prevents it you can currently still have it done in another state.

I'm not sure what "new" laws may/may not be approved regarding making this practice (using another state) illegal or not.
Except that for many women it'll mean they can't get one, because whilst it may be legal in the next state over, it might mean taking several days off work/going out of town for several days to even reach the nearest legal facility.
Then there is the whole thing where the likes of Texas are trying to make it so that anyone that helps a woman get an abortion is liable for civil action from random people, so if say you give someone a lift to a state where it is still legal, or loan them some money for the train/air/gas you can be "fined" a huge amount and even if you succeed in defending yourself in court you've still got all the court costs.

Then there are the states where potentially your neighbouring states will also have a ban, so for a legal and safe proceedure you've got to travel to a third state.

Roe vs Wade helped ensure that the poorer, and less well off people still had access, do away with it and you can bet that many of those who have been loudest about wanting it banned will still get them because they can afford to go where it's still legal, but that's all right as they've got a "good reason" for it, unlike anyone else.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
6,729
Location
Norfolk.
Except that for many women it'll mean they can't get one, because whilst it may be legal in the next state over, it might mean taking several days off work/going out of town for several days to even reach the nearest legal facility.
Then there is the whole thing where the likes of Texas are trying to make it so that anyone that helps a woman get an abortion is liable for civil action from random people, so if say you give someone a lift to a state where it is still legal, or loan them some money for the train/air/gas you can be "fined" a huge amount and even if you succeed in defending yourself in court you've still got all the court costs.

Then there are the states where potentially your neighbouring states will also have a ban, so for a legal and safe proceedure you've got to travel to a third state.

Roe vs Wade helped ensure that the poorer, and less well off people still had access, do away with it and you can bet that many of those who have been loudest about wanting it banned will still get them because they can afford to go where it's still legal, but that's all right as they've got a "good reason" for it, unlike anyone else.

"Potentially this.............., potentially that.........................., Trying to make................. etc" my post dealt with current reality, not an imaginary world in the future, I even said that in my post. Can things change in the future, of course, and when they do we'll know what the "current" reality will be at that point, but simply guessing about what may/may not happen in the future and then basing your objections on that complete guesswork feels fairly asinine to me.

Also, if an abortion isn't classed as important enough for a person to miss a few days work, or even risk being sacked, is abortion really the right thing for that person to be going through, as you're making it sound more like an inconvenience rather than the calculated decision to terminate a pregnancy that it should be?
 
Soldato
Joined
23 May 2006
Posts
3,040
I think werewolf makes a good point. it WILL punish the poor more than the affluent.

and it is absolutely true that some people are happy to make rules but then decide it does not apply to them (and we do not need to look far to see examples of that on our doorstep)

your blasé comment about getting sacked as well appears to show a lack of understanding of how bad it may be for some people who are already on the verge of homelessness whilst potentially trying to feed their actual children.

where as for some people (and I include myself as one of the lucky ones) hypothetically even flying to a different continent WOULD just be an inconvenience.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,787
Location
England
This may well go down in history as the worst decision the supreme court makes in the 21st century.

The idea that an impoverished 16 year old girl is just going to be able to travel to another state and pay for an abortion is absurd.
 
Associate
Joined
1 Jun 2004
Posts
592
Location
Chryston, Glasgow
Let me ask you, what was your favourite part of being foetus?

Pro-choice all the way till birth, your body, your choice.
Grim - what was your favourite part of being a toddler?

Bring back the baby wells - throw them away for whatever reason until they can fend for themselves.

What’s wrong with expecting woman and their partner to make a decision by 20 weeks (with a few exceptions)?
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
8,172
Location
Leeds
I think werewolf makes a good point. it WILL punish the poor more than the affluent.

and it is absolutely true that some people are happy to make rules but then decide it does not apply to them (and we do not need to look far to see examples of that on our doorstep)

your blasé comment about getting sacked as well appears to show a lack of understanding of how bad it may be for some people who are already on the verge of homelessness whilst potentially trying to feed their actual children.

where as for some people (and I include myself as one of the lucky ones) hypothetically even flying to a different continent WOULD just be an inconvenience.

If you are that poor though, it is pretty easy not to have children, contraceptive is cheap and readily available. People are absolutely accountable for their life choices and some of you absolutely cannot stand that fact for some reason.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Posts
12,017
(with a few exceptions)?
hmm

If you are that poor though, it is pretty easy not to have children, contraceptive is cheap and readily available. People are absolutely accountable for their life choices and some of you absolutely cannot stand that fact for some reason.
lol. Poor isn't just describing money in the wallet - are you really this socially unaware?
 
Top Bottom