U.S. Supreme Court Blocks 'Abortion by Mail,' as Amy Coney Barrett Sides with 6-3 Majority
By: Michael Foust
One small step for man kind, one giant leap for pre born humanity. This is a good small step ruling. It simply leaves in place precedent dating to Clinton and Obama. It prevents yet another expansion of the ability to selfishly for the sake of money and or convenience to take a human life and prevent that life from being able to chose life.
U.S. Supreme Court Blocks 'Abortion by Mail,' as Amy Coney Barrett Sides with 6-3 Majority
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a victory to pro-lifers Tuesday when it blocked a lower court decision and ruled the Food and Drug Administration can require pregnant women during the pandemic to visit a doctor before acquiring pills for a medical abortion.
At issue are FDA rules that require mifepristone – one of the two drugs involved in the abortion pill procedure – to be dispensed in-person “by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.”
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang last year said the FDA rules imposed a “substantial obstacle” to women during a pandemic. He allowed the pills to be mailed to women, without a doctor’s visit.
But on Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted a request from the FDA and issued a stay on Chuang’s decision. The FDA rules date back to the Clinton administration’s FDA, which approved the abortion pill in 2000. The Bush, Obama and Trump administrations maintained the doctor’s visit requirements.
Pro-life groups called the Supreme Court decision a victory, although the incoming Biden administration could reverse the rule.
The court’s conservative bloc remained intact in the 6-3 decision, with new Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the majority. It was her first abortion-related case. The court’s liberal bloc – Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor – dissented.
“We are pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the serious nature of chemical abortions and the need for the FDA to have protocols in place to protect women from potentially life-threatening and devastating side effects,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life.
National Right to Life said the FDA’s own “record of nearly two dozen deaths and thousands of complications” -- including severe hemorrhage and the rupture of undiscovered ectopic pregnancies -- “has proved” that the FDA restrictions are necessary to protect women.
“Chemical abortions put at risk healthy women who are pregnant with healthy babies,” Tobias said. “Women are not guinea pigs and putting them at risk so abortion activists can score political points is abhorrent.”
The abortion pill includes two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. Mifepristone blocks the hormone progesterone, causing the lining of the uterus to break down in order to kill the unborn baby. Misoprostol sparks contractions and a delivery of the dead child. They can be taken only early in the pregnancy, up to 48 hours apart.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurring opinion .
“The question before us is not whether the requirements for dispensing mifepristone impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion as a general matter,” Roberts wrote. “The question is instead whether the District Court properly ordered the Food and Drug Administration to lift those established requirements because of the court’s own evaluation of the impact of the COVID–19 pandemic. Here as in related contexts concerning government responses to the pandemic, my view is that courts owe significant deference to the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’
“... In light of those considerations,” Roberts wrote, “I do not see a sufficient basis here for the District Court to compel the FDA to alter the regimen for medical abortion.”
Related:
Pro-Choicers Urge Trump to Permit 'Abortion by Mail' during COVID-19
Photo courtesy: Bill Mason/Unsplash
Michael Foust has covered the intersection of faith and news for 20 years. His stories have appeared in Baptist Press, Christianity Today , The Christian Po st , the Leaf-Chronicle , the Toronto Star and the Knoxville News-Sentinel .
Remember also that once having taken the first abortion drug it’s still possible to change your mind and reverse that drug with a lot of Progesterone.
https://pwhcenters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ABPillReversal_CDM_040618.pdf
Young people are pro life too!
https://www.instagram.com/p/CKFelNfrcdz/?igshid=15ybknw6apzx5
Women’s rights begin in the womb!
59% of democrats support some limits on abortion.
We will still stand 4 life! Arlington. Va. Jan. 29, 2021!
https://www.instagram.com/p/CKF0G0rrUZe/?igshid=fm7knr87tkon
And women have the right to remove the contents of their womb should they choose to do so!
There are already limits on abortion.
Meanwhile, abortion remains legal and will probably remain so.
Thank God for the Supreme Court!
People are required to consult with a doctor before receiving all sorts of medicines, many of which tend to be associated with less severe complications and side effects than the drugs considered here.
And even the Clinton and Obama regimes believed that. We shall see if Biden caves to the pro abort mob and rewrites the Clinton regulation now that the Supreme Court upheld it.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CKEy06koyyW/?igshid=1d4ln7zojlopq
Chemical abortion by mail doesn’t seem safe for the mother. How would they know the gestation period?
They are not. It’s just the first step in making this form of human life ending an over the counter medication.
This is such dishonest intentionally inflammatory bullshit. There is no "child" being aborted between 0 and 8 weeks when these two drugs can be used. A zygote the size and shape of a kidney bean is not "a child".
Child: noun - a young person especially between infancy and puberty.
Anti-choice zealots using such language is beyond dishonest. Just because you think, against all facts, reality and the law, that a fertilized egg is a person, doesn't mean it is. That's simply some emotional bullshit dumb fucks opinion and should NEVER be used to strip others of their rights.
Thankfully, this ruling doesn't actually stop the use of these drugs or alter their current availability, it simply continues the requirement that they be administered “by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.” But you can tell by the joyous reaction from anti-choice nut jobs that they believe this is somehow a step towards banning abortion even though its just keeping the status quo of having these drugs available at clinics and from doctors with enough backbone and empathy to make them available to their patients regardless of what the psycho religious zealots believe.
It is a human being from the moment of conception onward. A real human baby. The person conceived at conception is never anything other than another human being with a right to life.
Nope. I was pleased by them and glad those people were terminated before Biden becomes president. At least they can vote for him now. These people were guilty of the worst crimes and got the sentences they deserved carried out. A human baby 👶 🍼 is the most innocent form of human life. That is my big reason why I have reservations about abortion for incest and rape. It is effectively visiting capital punishment upon a baby for the very evil sins of her or his father.
True MAGA.
What has the unborn ever done?
A single or clump of cells is not a baby or a person. Try again!
Become an inconvenience for a selfish adult...
Capital punishment by government for the committing of certain heinous crimes is justified. Killing an innocent pre born human is almost never justified. To save the life of the mother in self defense is the exception to that. The hypocrisy resides in those defending the life of adult criminals for committing the worst of crimes from death while allowing that fate to fall upon the most innocent and defenseless. That’s double standard hypocrisy, not my viewpoint.
Yes she/he most certainly is. We can have been nothing else at that stage of our human growth and development.
Nope. Still wrong. You don't even know if it's a he/she until 16 weeks gestation. And it still doesn't change the fact that the woman can choose to have it removed of she wants for whatever reason she wants. So your attempts at emotional appeals is meaningless.
You managed to dance around the human part. The DNA is the DNA. It is a developing human.
Still a human child from the moment of conception on no matter how you want to rationalize or defend or make excuses for the termination of that human son or daughter. Calling a human a clump of cells or a zygote or anything else does not ease the true guilt and shame that must be faced for selfishly ending that life however you see it for choice and convenience.
Not at all. DNA is just a blueprint. "Developing" does not equal actual. A car on the assembly line is not a car until it comes off the assembly line.
And that is the bottom line here...a developing human that never was anything but that.
The assembly happens at conception. Nothing is added or assembled after that. We humans like any other mammal simply keep growing and developing what was already there from conception on.
And you're still wrong! It's a child once it's born. I make no rationalization. Just fact. You however seem to want to make emotional based "arguments."
Is calling it for what it actually is. Perhaps you should study embryology a little.
A sweeping generalization. Not everyone feels guilt or shame and shouldn't have to, much less be shamed or made to feel guilty by others who don't agree with their choice or reasons. Not that it's your or anyone else's business either.
But we're not yet assembled. To use a very simple analogy, it's like Lego pieces. You can have all the pieces you need. But until it's assembled, it's not what it's supposed to be on the box.
Meaning what? A zygote could turn into a garden shed? Even a zygote is a human organism.
And so if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a wagon, right?
lol
Meaning DNA alone does not a human make. Every cell in the body has DNA. But we don't refer to cells as human as an entire individual.
Wheelchair bound would be my first guess.
Why not? It's either human DNA or it's not.
Yes. And in a human body, it's human DNA. Is there a point to stating the obvious?
You keep changing terms. I won't be drawn down rabbit holes over arbitrary terms like "baby" or "individual."
The point of all this for me is whether or not the thing inside a pregnant woman is a human life that has worth and value and is deserving of protection. That's a moral question I can't answer for you. However, trying to justify abortion based on the assertion that there isn't a developing human life in the womb is either dishonest or ignorance of science. There may be valid grounds for tolerating abortion, but they can't be that there isn't a human life in there.
Because a blueprint is not a finished building.
See previous statement.
No, I use appropriate terms and properly apply them too. You're the one who thinks DNA alone is an actual individual.
Then you're free to be wrong! You don't get make up your own terms or definitions. You seem to put emphasis on DNA alone.
That's not for you to decide for anyone else!
Good, since I have not brought up morality.
No one is saying it isn't developing. But it's certainly not a "baby" or an individual, as some want to claim. So making such claims is dishonest and ignorant.
Yes, there is. That's why it's legal, as it should be.
Which is irrelevant to the abortion argument.
Is a human being ever "finished?"
That is a common method for identifying an individual, so I'm not the only one.
It might be.
Is that different from it being a human being? That's the only thing I have been defending. You're the one hung up on whether or not it's a baby or an individual (whatever that means). Why would it matter?
You don't think concern for human life having value is relevant?
Yes.
But an embryo or fetus is not yet an individual.
Nope. You don't get to tell people what they can or cannot decide.
By your logic, every cell in the body is a human individual. Clearly, a single cell is not the same as an actual human. What's your point of focusing on DNA? That does not determine whether abortion is or should be legal or a choice or not.
Not in the context of your argument.
That there is a human life in there is the whole abortion argument. Nothing else matters besides protecting that humans life.
So the life of the woman is forfeit..Not on your life. Not your body, not your business. Not your medical decision, not your choice.
A fetus will never have rights that supersede that of the woman carrying said fetus.
How so? It is human life with a unique DNA (unless twins). It is distinguishable from all other humans. That sounds pretty individual. I guess I still don't understand what you mean by "an individual" or why it's important.
That's silly. We have thousands and thousands (maybe millions) of laws that tell people what they can or cannot decide.
No, I think that does not follow. But if you want to go with that, then tell me when it is an individual.
It's not born or autonomous and not legally considered an individual. The abortion argument and rights is not based on DNA.
And the law says women get to decide for themselves if they want to have an abortion or not.
Then the DNA argument is flawed.
I suppose that's why abortion opponents have nearly always lost in the courts when it came to abortion rights and arguments.
I'm not hearing why those distinctions matter. I'm also still not hearing clarification for any other terms like "autonomous" or "individual." Born, I understand, but if that's an important distinction, then abortion would be ok up until the very last minute, and that is generally not allowed.
Legally, that's true. It's based on "viability," which is an ever-changing standard as medical science advances; and is itself based the medieval concept of "quickening." A quick fetus is one that the mother can feel moving. As it turns out, though, motion is present even before the mother can feel it, making the quickening standard entirely dependent on the mother's sensitivity, and not on what's actually happening in the womb.
All of these lines are - in my opinion - arbitrary, but I think it's important to acknowledge that the medical science supporting a viability standard traces back centuries to a far more primitive understanding of human reproduction and development.
It is modern medical technology like ultrasound, in utero cameras, and DNA that inform a lot of the more modern concerns surrounding abortion. Markers of life like heart beats and brain function can be detected in the early weeks of gestation. Modern science allows us to see that even though the mother detects no movement, a distinct human being is present.
I'm not going to rest on what the legal standard is and say that therefore that's the standard that should be in place. That's not just lazy; it avoids actually grappling with the problem. Many standards exist in law, but the fact they are legal does not make them the right thing to do.
The law sets the limit at "viability" which means the fetus can survive outside the womb without the need for it's former host. That means it's not so much "born" but "able to be born".
Because "viability" isn't strictly defined and can be as early as 20 weeks in some cases and as late as 24 weeks in others I believe the courts intentionally left that up to the doctors.
I disagree. The definition of "arbitrary" is "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". I do not believe that most doctors are making a "random choice" or "personal whim" when deciding viability, they are using their years of medical knowledge and experience to make such difficult decisions.
And that's your right to have that opinion and apply that in your life and that of the people close to you or those willing to listen to your opinion over that of doctors or the supreme court. But why should that give you the right to "arbitrarily" make those decisions for others?
Adultery is legal, does that make it right? Of course not. Does that mean we should ban it and penalize adulterers like they did in the past? Of course not, just keep your nose out of others personal lives and respect their right to privacy. If you disagree with them and think they are 'sinners' then avoid them and don't invite them over to your house, that's your right. Trying to force them to adhere to your morals and personal opinions is also wrong. It's that simple.
From a legal standpoint, especially where individual rights are concerned, it matters.
In later gestation, an induced birth or C-section (if necessary) is performed rather than an actual abortion. However, abortion is generally allowed up to the point of viability.
That's what matters and is applicable.
No, it has not changed. Medical science advancements improved the survivability rates for pre-term births at or after viability. But it has not significantly altered the point of viability.
That usually occurs around 13-16 weeks gestation. Viability is around 23 weeks gestation.
Quickening does not equate to viability and is irrelevant to the abortion argument.
Better to go by modern medical knowledge.
Those are just diagnostic tools. Still irrelevant where abortion rights is concerned.
What problem? I see no problem. A woman wants an abortion, she can have it, legally elective before viability.
Whether it's right or wrong is a matter of opinion. Clearly not everyone is going to agree on either (including matters regarding abortion). That's why we must go by an established legal standard.
I agree that the assessment of viability is not arbitrary. A fetus is either viable or it isn't. However, drawing the line at a certain week for all pregnancies is somewhat arbitrary in the same way that we say 21 is "old enough" to drink or 18 is the age a person can consent. But it seems to me that there is greater arbitrariness in simply deciding that viability itself is a critical dividing line. Why should that be the line instead of conception - or even birth at the other end of the spectrum?
I wouldn't be the one making the decision. Government and the courts would be. And we do that for all sorts of things. Right this second, I can't get a Covid vaccine because government has decided I shouldn't be able to get one yet. And the "why" of it is kind of arbitrary.
Take a different scenario. Your neighbor is having sex with his 12 year old daughter. She's not complaining. Should we keep our noses out of it or respect their privacy?
I think you know the answer. We intervene on behalf of the girl even if she doesn't think she needs the help. We ignore any claims her sick father might have about privacy. We do what we think is right to protect someone we have decided needs protecting, whether she wants the protection or not.
You think the man in my hypo will be able to argue that we should not force him to adhere to our morals and personal opinions?
It's not irrelevant. If you study the history of abortion jurisprudence, you will find that the viability standard derives directly from the quickening standard. It is discussed at length in Roe v Wade, and its history in common law was highly persuasive for the Court.
OK, you pretty clearly are just throwing up blinders at this point. You aren't interested in addressing the issue and just want to hide behind the law. What will you say when there is a law you don't like? No point in trying to change it because it's the law? No point in thinking about right and wrong because it's the law?
Slavery was the law, once upon a time. Women couldn't vote. Black and white couldn't marry. Jim Crow was everywhere. Thousand of Japanese American citizens had their property stolen and were incarcerated based on their ancestry. All of it was legal.
And legal abortion in most cases is just as morally bad as all those old laws were.
Current legal precedent (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992) allows for abortion up to the point of viability. Viability is medically defined at approximately 23 weeks gestation.
Not at all. I'm simply stating fact and trying to keep personal feelings and emotion out of the discussion. The "issue" has been discussed ad nauseum by both sides over the years. But the law is the law and it still stands.
If one wants a law changed, there is a procedure to do so. Frequent attempts have been made to make or change abortion laws (usually against abortion rights), but have had little success in the courts.
Indeed. And now through political and/or judicial processes, that is no longer the case. The same goes for abortion, only the opposite way. Abortion was once illegal. But through due process, it is now legal. The difference is, your examples demonstrate where individuals had no rights or had rights forcibly revoked or otherwise in effect made people second class citizens. Abortion rights expanded women's rights. A shame some want to repeat history and revoke established rights.
Morality is subjective and cannot (or should not) be legislated into law. If you have a moral issue with abortion, that's your problem. Others do not have such qualms about it.
Exactly. Without said woman, that fetus [which in reality is a parasite] could never exist.
It depends on your perspective. Slave owners saw their right to own people as property being destroyed. The slaves obviously saw it differently. Today, bigoted bakers think that their rights are being revoked when the government tells them they have to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The contrary perspective, held by the gay couple to be wed is that their rights are being expanded and protected.
Similarly, with abortion, a woman's right to choose is infringed with every limit on abortion, but the rights of the unborn human are expanded and protected.
Again, if one has an issue with abortion, they can make their case against it.
And cases were made for and against in those situations too. We know how it all turned out.
That unborn do not have rights.
If that were true, there would be no point to the viability standard or any of the other restrictions on abortion.
What identified or established rights do the unborn have? Where in the lawbooks is it stated? Restrictions on abortion are largely based on "state interests," whatever that is?
Isn’t it just interesting to see the things that pro life people say that gets taken down because it’s supposedly inflammatory to the widdle feelers of the pro abortion gang and might just make them angry and yet it doesn’t matter what pro abortionists say that might make us pro lifers angry but hey we are pro life and as such our feelings and anger simply don’t matter to the pro abortionists side. So typical of so many people who are pro choice. If they didn’t have double standards they would have none at all.
Viability is no issue for me. The child is a human being from the moment of conception forward and can never be or become anything else.
Wrong! And that's not viability is.
Yep it is a human species.
👍👏👶
So what else could we have become after our parents conceived us?
A zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus.
All forms of our human development from conception to natural death. Never in any of our stages of development were we anything but human life worthy of protected human status.
But we are not individuals when gestating and otherwise irrelevant when it comes to abortion.
Mere opinion and obviously incorrect.
"protected human status"?
Do you mean in the value system of Christian tunnel vision, God doesn't value all life equally?
S/He favors conception by countries?
S/He favors human births into a nation with 390 million guns?
A nation with a 20 billion industry that kills birds, rodents, ants with poisons and traps.
A nation that willingly practices animal husbandry through surgery and pharmaceuticals?
It's a flawed belief system.
Belief is inherently flawed.
Apparently to some, that doesn't apply to the pregnant woman. Some want to make women second class citizens by restricting or eliminating their right to choose.
So then why do about 20% of known pregnancies (some studies show up to 50% of all fertilized eggs) end in miscarriage? Apparently the God you claim to worship doesn't agree that all "human life" is "worthy of protected human status", and if he has anything to do with it then he's the largest abortion provider on the planet.
"10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage . But the actual number is likely higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't realize she's pregnant."
" Thirty-one percent of all conceptions end in miscarriage , usually in the early months of pregnancy and often before women even know they are pregnant, according to a new study."
"Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before or during the process of implantation "
So why not just take your own opinions of God and abortion, apply them in your own life and leave everyone else the fuck alone? There is no difference between religious zealots who believe abortion is murder and militant PETA members who believe meat is murder or fur is murder. You're welcome to your own opinion to not eat meat, wear fur or get an abortion. You are not welcome to force your opinions on others by trying to ban the eating of meat, the wearing of fur or allowing safe and legal access to abortion.
Because something has gone wrong. In a healthy mother with a healthy developing embryo or fetus - and barring accidents - a baby will come out eventually. It's inevitable.
In people who are born - from infancy to old age - something can go wrong with their health. I don't know what the percentage is of born people who go to the hospital at some point in their lives, but I bet it's pretty high. I bet it's higher than 20%. And if they don't get help, they might even die. So we value them and we help them.
My point is the fact that pregnancies go wrong is not grounds to say the the growing life doesn't matter and it doesn't justify abortion. As I have said elsewhere, there might be valid grounds, but the fact that pregnancies can go wrong doesn't seem to be it.
I agree, that's nature, completely separate from any religious beliefs of what some claim their unproven deity thinks about the sanctity of a fertilized egg. So why try to force a largely religious belief of sacred or "worthy" on anyone else? Why not simply apply those beliefs in your own life and keep your nose out of other peoples right to privacy?
The fact is "nature" (something going wrong) happens all the time, so why get your panties in a bunch over a woman choosing to add one more fertilized egg to the massive number of natural miscarriages, especially if she is not ready to have children and would not be able to take care of that child or would be traumatized by being forced to give birth to their rapists child?
I disagree. I think the fact that millions of fertilized eggs end in miscarriage gives a perfect example for how fertilized eggs are not humans with human rights, they are a growth inside a born and grown human with both human rights and a right to privacy. To take away a woman's choice simply because you want to give rights to an unthinking fertilized egg is violating her rights.
There are, others just think there are more valid grounds than you apparently believe in, and that's their right just as it is your right to disagree, the only thing that matters is whether they are breaking any of our actual laws, which they aren't, so it's nobody else's business but theirs. You stick to your "valid grounds" and they'll stick to theirs, as long as it's legal and available to all who want to make that choice then we can all live in peace.
I have often said there is no way to grant the unborn rights without taking away already established rights of the woman in question. To do so would set a very dangerous precedent.
To some anti-choicers, that is not good enough. They are not interested in "peace" unless they get their way.
I can't speak to that. My concerns and questions about abortion do not stem from religious belief.
Being legal doesn't make it right. There have been many examples. I listed just a few @4.1.32.
And sometimes legal is right. But if one deems a law to be "wrong," then one can challenge it through due process and make their case. Others have tried to argue abortion or abortion rights are wrong many times now and all such arguments fell flat.
I didn't say otherwise. What I am saying is that a thing is not "right" because it's legal.
One of the reasons for that is the way our courts rely on precedent. The viability standard derives from English common law, as do so do many of our judicial standards. The matter of in utero life, its value, and possible rights are not really considered de novo. We do it this way because this is how it's always been done, not necessarily because it's the right choice.
And I am saying it can be "right" too when it is legal.
Yes, and with each precedent, abortion rights have only been reaffirmed and expanded upon.
No, it derives from medical science. Medical science and technology was acknowledged when rendering the viability point.
You're injecting your own idea of right and wrong into the argument.
Believe what you like. I have only told you historical fact.
No, we haven't even gotten to what I think is right or wrong. Again, I am only describing what has happened. No spin. No opinion.
And I have told you legal fact, including established precedent. That is what's most applicable here.
Then why question whether something is right or not, regardless of legality? " What I am saying is that a thing is not "right" because it's legal." Your statement implies that you view legal abortion as something that is not right, despite its legal standing. If I am wrong in my assessment, then please clarify what you mean and your position regarding the right or wrongness of abortion laws.
I'm exploring the issue on its own merits, as opposed to just accepting it because it's legal. That exploration includes an examination of how it got to be legal along with the consideration that those initial justifications may no longer be valid. Or to put it more generally, I have an open mind.
No, that's your own inference. My statement means only what it said. A thing is not right just because it's legal. And many things that are legal - like abortion - derive their legal status by building on little more than legal precedent, which was itself built on a very limited (and sometimes dead wrong) understanding of the fatcs. Many legal things, upon a fresh examination may be found to be wrong. Abortion in some form may be the right way to go, but my opinion is that much of the current justification for it is flawed.
So all you're offering then is opinion?
How it got to be legal is not quite as important that it is legal.
How are they not valid?
On what grounds are you determining if something is right or not?
The legal status of abortion was based on an interpretation of the Constitution by the SCOTUS. That and subsequent legal precedents only affirmed and expanded abortion rights. Legal precedents are a cornerstone of jurisprudence.
Facts have only been expanded on over the years and applied to subsequent abortion cases. Our understanding and available facts is much greater than it previously was.
The are few issues legally examined or addressed more than abortion. And such examinations have not found anything wrong.
Oh, so it is just your opinion then? Got it. I prefer actual medical and legal facts to go by. Both have been used to justify abortion rights. Arguments against abortion tend to be more emotionally based.
non sequitur
Exactly. Our understanding of what happens in the womb is much greater than it used to be when these standards were developed.
I gave you both and you either disregard or deny them. Your mind is obviously closed to the issue.
Arguments in favor of abortion are often emotional. I have neither an opinion in favor or against, but I am open to analyzing the issue. It appears you are not.
Since our understanding of embryology is greater than in the past, the abortion issue has been revisited multiple times and legal rulings have reflected the new information. That's why elective abortion is permitted until viability, which is not some arbitrary number but rather a scientific determination.
Arguments against undue abortion restrictions have been based on medical science and established precedent. Arguments for abortion restrictions have not, which has been demonstrated time and again. That's why abortion opponents have largely lost on the issue over & over.
Pro aborts are so emotionally challenged about the issue that they make special rules as to what can be said to or about them but are free to say anything they want about pro life people. They have lots of guilt issues they don’t want to be confronted about on the issue.
Again, it’s a human life from conception onward so viability outside the womb changes nothing. We don’t suddenly and magically become human beings at that point because we were never anything else i the first place. There is no point in our development where abortion is not the killing of a human being
Sure it does. Until viability, it's a parasite.
Again, that's irrelevant as abortion is not determined by whether it's a "human life" (it's more of a parasite), but rather when viability is reached. Viability changes everything, and established legal precedent affirms that! Anything else is just emotionally driven rhetoric.
It's a parasite even after viability. It's just a larger parasite that one is stuck with.
You presume way too much and still don't know what you're talking about. I don't know anyone who has ever had guilt about abortion, either from having the procedure itself or from their position on it. I have no issue with it. That seems more reserved for prolifers. After all, they're the ones who always seem up in arms about it.
I suppose that's pretty true. My kids are still sucking the life out of me and they're 12, 17, and 19.
I know women that feel guilt, sadness, regret, and several "what if" questions. Not all of them, but certainly some.
No doubt that would be the case. But the implication that everyone would feel guilt over abortion is presumptuous and dishonest.
That is not what a parasite is. You might describe the relationship in a very general way as parasitic, but to do so, you have to discard all context. True parasites are a distinct species from the host. What you are calling a parasite is simply how this species procreates. Calling it a parasite so that abortion can be justified is a misuse of science.
What are you referring to?
Agreed. My mother felt no guilt whatsoever.
I think that's probably true. They make the argument that they aren't ending a human life, but I think that in their hearts, some part of them feels differently about it.
Subsequent court cases since Roe.
I think most people would understand calling it a parasite is using the term in a general sense. But it's not meant as a justification for abortion, as no justification is needed for elective abortions.
Merriam-Webster's definition of parasite:
That's just conjecture.
Pregnancy can sometimes downright dangerous to a woman's health. There are a lot of complications that can occur.
And that's why I have no siblings. My mother and I both almost died while she was pregnant with me.
Yes. "While pregnant."
But that isn't the end of the relationship, is it? The "parasite" inside you continues to grow and eventually leaves your body naturally. You get your body chemistry back at that time, but the relationship continues. Part of that relationship might be that the two of you become friends and love one another. The offspring might take care of you when you're sick or old. Biologically, your genetic line is extended through that individual. So you ultimately do get some benefit from it. That makes it more symbiotic than parasitic.
The kind of parasite you are describing is typically a foreign organism of a different species that harmfully invades a host, lives there until either it or the host dies. Your own fetus is not a parasite, and is not generally recognized as such by scientists.
You create the fetus. It doesn't invade you. If you had a real parasite, your body would fight to isolate it or remove it. With a fetus, your body is designed to create a comfortable environment for it and it does exactly that. Pregnancy is considered a healthy condition.
You called it a parasite, but you could also compare pregnancy to exercise. When I work out, it's a strain on my body, and I might have pain for a few days because of micro tears in the muscle fibers. I could call that an "injury" if I ignored context. But as my body responds to the strain, it not only repairs the muscle, but rebuilds it even bigger than before, resulting in an improved, more healthy condition. So: not an injury.
Then why do you guys bother calling it a parasite?
That doesn't make it wrong and I'm not hearing an argument that it is.
That doesn't make it right either. But i doubt anyone would know how someone else feels without them telling you.
Because in effect, it is. MsAubrey already explained it.
Very simply, by observing their words or actions. That's what I have done here. And again, I'm still not hearing the argument that I'm wrong.
Just as you observe some here, others might observe the opposite elsewhere. But again, unless someone actually explains their feelings, you can't know for sure.
No. Body chemistry does NOT go back to what it was prior to a pregnancy.
A fetus can in fact harm the mother... and it lives there until the mother kills it (whether purposefully or not) or expels it. Parasitic worms are also often expelled by the body.
Botfly larvae are considered to be parasites, but when they become flies, they leave the host... sound familiar?
Sure. In an unhealthy pregnancy. In a pregnancy where something is going wrong.
You know in your heart that your continued attempt to equate a healthy pregnancy with a parasitic infection is ridiculous.
Yes and no.
Pregnancy causes the heart and kidneys to work harder, due to increased blood volume necessary to support the fetus, as well as increased pressure on the heart due to the size of the pregnant uterus. Women who are pregnant are at risk of blood clots, and continue to be so for about 6 weeks after delivery. Pregnancy suppresses the immune system, leaving pregnant women more susceptible to infection. Pregnant women often have digestive issues, such as nausea and constipation, due to both pregnancy hormones and the displacement of digestive organs caused by the pregnant uterus. Pregnancy can induce diabetes in women who were not diabetic before conception. Pregnancy-induced hypertension can be fatal.
Pregnant women are more prone to injury, due to their altered center of gravity and loosening of ligaments in preparation for childbirth.
Pregnant women are susceptible to nutritional deficiencies, even while consuming what would normally be an adequate diet. Same for breastfeeding women. That demonstrates the parasitic nature of pregnancy - the fetus grows at the mother's expense, biologically.
Being pregnant is dangerous enough that a properly performed abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering.
It takes an extraordinary amount of bile and pure contempt of and hate for ones own child to call him or her a parasite and treat the person accordingly. Utterly shameful.
For sure...
Are any of them reading this discussion?
Such emotional rhetoric.
Thanks for the backup Sandy!
And all of those things occur in HEALTHY pregnancies.
And you never have to endure such changes to the body. Wonderful for you.
My children have never been upset by our discussions about pregnancy and my opinion of the fetus being a parasite. With the things taught in science, they laughed and said, "You're right mom! We were all parasites at one time." In reality, I'm saying that every single human being was a parasite at one time... including myself. And as I've said before... I've never had an abortion and never will, so your theory of treating a fetus as a parasite by "ridding" of it, isn't something I've ever done. I don't have contempt or hate for my children. We're honest with each other, but have nothing but unconditional love for each other. My kids are awesome.
Apparently some are considering I keep getting replies.
[removed]
Having these names and attacks directed at me by the pro abortion side for my pro life position and values is truly a badge of honor for me and those who have pro life values. Thank you for validating me and my values!
Considering your inability to understand the simple fact that there is no "pro abortion side" you are labeling yourself. To believe such ridiculous nonsense is truly delusional, and it's very sad that anyone would consider being delusional a "badge of honor".
I believe in the right of a homeowner to use deadly force if someone breaks in and threatens them or their families lives. I think Americans should have the choice to own a deadly weapon and use it in such a situation, yet I'm not "pro killing", I think it's a right that I hope I nor anyone ever has to use. But I'm glad that choice is there if I did have to make that choice. Does that at all help you understand the very simple concept of pro choice Americans who are definitely NOT pro abortion?
[Deleted]
You call us anti choice I will call your side pro abortion deal with it. Perhaps you can get admin to write it into the coc to make it a violation to call your side pro abortion while allowing you to call us anti choice. Until then tit for tat. Pro abortion. Deal with it!
Do you view a pre born baby child equivalent to breaking in and threatening your family’s lives?
You don't want women to have a choice to terminate a pregnancy, that makes you anti-choice by definition. I wish no woman would ever have to have an abortion, but I want them to have the choice if they feel that is the best decision for they or their family, thus I am pro choice, not pro abortion regardless of what you want to ignorantly claim.
But many would lump that shooting into gun violence and would like to take that choice away from you.
If you are for choice on abortion, then you are not just neutral. Pro choice means you should want abortions to be available so you certainly are not against it.
I have disagreed with MAGA on this. Safe abortions should be available to women. We shouldn’t dehumanize our own species though as many do.
Some are against all gun ownership but they are few and far between. Most progressives and liberals simply want common sense gun regulation, universal background checks and some sensible bans on weapons of war intended for killing mass numbers of people that aren't just for home self defense, hunting or sport shooting at gun ranges.
I'm not neutral, I've never claimed to be, I'm pro choice. That doesn't mean I want women to get abortions, I simply recognize it's not my right to infringe on the privacy of others who do feel that is the best choice for themselves.
I want that choice to be available but I certainly don't "want abortions". I wish every person to use contraceptives or other child birth prevention if they are not ready to have a baby. But I also understand that even families that want to have children at times end up with a terrifying choice to make late in the pregnancy of severe deformity or likely terminal pregnancies' or the mothers life being at put at risk if there wasn't the option for termination. I certainly don't think that position, while not neutral, could ever be considered "pro abortion" thus those using that term are either extremely ignorant or worthless scum bag liars.
What you are saying is that there are reasons to have an abortion and they should be legal and available.
I would say that is pro-abortion
or do you think that legal abortions are a negative?
Calling it for what it is!
You're free to be wrong then, as you so often are! But I doubt anyone really cares what you want to erroneously call someone. It makes no difference.
It can be argued using a disingenuous and erroneous term to describe someone can be considered libel.
That's a matter of individual perspective.
I support the use of abortion to save the life of the mother on self defense grounds. I support abortion in the case of a severe defect that causes no quality of life where a child will suffer and die within hours of birth. I do not support abortion for any other reason. I do not oppose abortion in the case of forced incest or rape. I would prefer adoption in these cases since abortion visits capital punishment upon the baby for the horrible sins of the father, but abortion is at least understandable in these cases. Otherwise no not ever and if child is not wanted for any reason at all, adopt him or her out and move on.
Pro-choice means women should have the right to choose if they want an abortion or not. It has nothing to do with telling them if they should or should not have an abortion, much less forcefully removing their rights.
Agreed.
An appeal to emotion. It really doesn't make a difference.
Except it is not. See first statement.
It is neither positive or negative.
That's your prerogative. But you don't get to make that determination for anyone else!
Why not? That seems hypocritical.
"Capital punishment?" That's a little melodramatic. And legally erroneous.
See first statement!
Pro Choice =
1. Birth and keep
2. Birth and adopt out
3. Abortion
LETTING THE INDIVIDUAL WOMAN DECIDE WHICH CHOICE IS BEST FOR HER.
NOT FORCING A CHOICE ON AN INDIVIDUAL WOMAN
NOT pro-abortion
Since you are responding to me, I am assuming you feel I said this. Where did I say that people should or shouldn’t tell others to have an abortion?
It isn’t an appeal. I really don’t care how you feel. It is an opinion about rhetoric.
Then why are people labeled with the prefixes pro or anti?
And where are the words in my comments that said it was?
Again where did I say pro-abortion was forcing a choice?
I look forward to you posting such comments
Here's the first part of my reply you failed to include in your quote, which establishes the context of pro-choice, "Pro-choice means women should have the right to choose if they want an abortion or not." Put that together with the second half of my reply and it explains the concept of pro-choice.
Then what's the point of your statement, "We shouldn’t dehumanize our own species though as many do?" Rhetoric doesn't mean much.
pro or anti does not equate with positive or negative.
It is irrelevant.
I never said pro-choice was forcing women to make a decision or telling them they should or should not have an abortion which you claimed I did. Your comment to me....It has nothing to do with telling them if they should or should not have an abortion, much less forcefully removing their rights. 4.4.11. And still you have not provided where I said anything about forcing individuals to have abortions is pro-choice. How you can confuse availability in my comment below with force is perplexing.
The point is to express an opinion which is one of the purposes of this site. Why do you care? What is your problem with it? Did I hit a nerve?
I would say pro is for something and it could be construed as a positive, and the same for anti could be against something as a negative. But I really don't care either way.
Once again, I was explaining what pro-choice means. Once again, you don't get it.
Once again, as stated previously, I don’t see why you felt the need to direct an explanation of pro choice to me when I never claimed anything in your explanation.
You are the one confused.
I already explained it. If you still cannot understand, then I can't help you any further.
You didn’t explain anything.
Does he ever?
Like I said in my example of using deadly force for self defense, I think that should be legal. Does that mean I'm pro killing another human? Of course not, and I don't think those who are in the situation where they have to make that choice enjoy themselves, many are traumatized by it and have PTSD but they know they did the right thing to protect their own life or that of their family.
I am pro choice, I am not pro abortion. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. It's that simple.
So then you're pro choice, just like you're an atheist when it comes to every other God but the one you've chosen to believe in.
I agree with everything you've stated, but it's not my right nor is it yours to say whether or not someone else can or cannot have an abortion for any other reason than you've mentioned. In cases of incest, the health [mental and physical] of the one born is likely jeopardized. In cases of rape, unless you know the type of Hell the mother goes through, you wouldn't completely understand... even though you said that you don't oppose it in those situations.
There is no difference between pro abortion and pro choice. They are interchangeable terms meaning the same conclusion.
Wrong and wrong! As usual!
Actually I’m Right and right as always!
Delusions of grandeur doesn't make you right.
We have a winner here!
Why not? All the arguments here amount to the feeling that it's no big deal, which is fine. But I think it's bizarre that people argue that abortion creates no moral issue of ending a life, and that it's an innocuous medical procedure affecting only the woman, etc.; but simultaneously they are horrified at the suggestion that they might be "pro" abortion. If it's such a benign procedure, why object to the label?
In that scenario, though, everyone acknowledges that a human life is being ended. Here, people are making the argument that abortion doesn't do that and therefore there is no need for hoping to never have to do it.
The label "pro-abortion" is used disingenuously and often erroneously equated with pro-choice. Abortion is a medical procedure. Whether someone has moral hangups about it or not is up to the individual. Some might and some might not.
I can only speak to myself and my thoughts. In my opinion, morality is relative. It's not an innocuous medical procedure. I would never get one and now, I would never have the "need" to; however, that does NOT give me [or you, or the government] the right to tell someone else that their reasons are invalid or immoral.
Even though I would never get an abortion, I still support the CHOICE for other women to have an abortion. There's a big difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice. If I were pro-abortion, my son wouldn't be here, but I am pro-choice, therefore, my son is here.
Well, since you don't have any hangups about it, then you won't mind being thought of as "pro-abortion."
I've been called that and worse. It's still an erroneous use and misunderstanding of the word.
Are you saying there is a scenario in which you would not support an abortion?
I support a woman's right to choose. It's not my business or place to say when, if, or how a woman wants an abortion or not.