abortion classic or dud?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1424 of them)

I don't consider "when life begins" to be relevant at all to whether or not abortion should be available. Not least of all because it's distinctly unlikely that any consensus on "when life begins" is going to occur.

I firmly believe that abortion should be freely available to those who want it, those who don't believe in abortions needn't have them. The exception to this being that if the father wants the foetus aborted then I don't believe the woman should be allowed to carry on with the pregnancy.

I do understand than many anti-abortionists feel that they must protect the rights of the foetus because it cannot protect itself - even if the parents believe in abortion, *perhaps* the foetus doesn't?? This is where I have to partially agree with Martin - I don't consider the foetus's "live" status to be important but I do not believe that a foetus has any rights. The main difference between Martin & my beliefs is that "when it can survive independently of its mother" doesn't do it for me. Foetuses can survive from less than 20 weeks old with medical support these days. I'd say "when it can survive without any more assistance than the average full-term baby" or something like that - although that would be a bit of a compromise because I don't think a woman who gives birth to a full-term baby and kills/attempts to kill it straight away has done anything wrong.

As for abortion as birth-control, I reckon this almost doesn't exist, even amongst women who say that is what they have done/will do. I'd say most of them are actually in total denial of their fertility status - which is really a psychological problem that may have "abortion as birth-control" as a resultant symptom, or they have a lot of difficulty with birth-control for maybe physical or non-compliant partner reasons. Especially when a woman is in a compromised state due to depression & other mental problems, drug-abuse, physical or psychological abuse, etc. responsibiliby for fertility control can be beyond her abilities. I know quite a few people who've had multiple abortions and not one of them considers it to be a "form of birth control" but rather an unpleasant but thankfully available last resort.

For a woman who uses the rhythm or billings methods for birth-control then perhaps 3 abortions in 20 years would be far more acceptable than being on the pill or depo-provera or whatever (let's say she is intolerant to hormonal contraceptives, gets urinary tract infections from using the diaphragm and is allergic to the spermicide, can't use an IUD and is or has a partner who is allergic to latex or a partner who is too well hung for condoms or refuses to use them due to decrease in sensation) - especially seeing as women who are using the pill/diaphragm/IUDs etc also get pregnant every so often.

― toraneko (toraneko), Sunday, 29 September 2002 05:48 (twenty-three years ago)

The right to abortion must exist so long as birth control is not one hundred percent perfect (which it is not) and more importantly is not readily and simply available to all who need it (which it is not). This is a point I simply cannot and will not shrink from -- I am greatly sympathetic to a stance like Michelangelo's, to be sure. Abortion as, dare I say it, 'casual' birth control strikes me as fundamentally horrifying -- but the larger issues override what potential abuse may exist, and those issues are ones of privacy (as established in Roe vs. Wade), self-decision and much more besides. I think of all my friends who are female and imagine what they would be faced with if they found themselves with an unplanned pregnancy -- in that case, they, and they alone, must make the decision.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 29 September 2002 08:07 (twenty-three years ago)

By my definition, one needs to be sentient to be a human being.

As I see it (and have studied it), you're not sentient until at least 3 months (but I suspect it's more like 6 months). Thus, by my definition, a 2-month-old foetus is not human. I give not a scrap for 'potential human beings', the same way I don't worry about potential car accidents.

If it has not and will not happen, then those involved (including the 'potential' itself) are not harmed.

I dislike the way anti-abortionists are labelled 'pro-life'. In my eyes, abortion is pro-life. It's pro the lives of the parents, or those who would have to care for an 'unwanted' child.

― Andrew (enneff), Sunday, 29 September 2002 09:01 (twenty-three years ago)

"I don't think a woman who gives birth to a full-term baby and kills/attempts to kill it straight away has done anything wrong."

Ah Im not really surprised at this type of thinking but it still horrifies me... but I guess my views must be as offensive to others as this is to me.

Torankeo

"Classic, not least of all because if the body is able to decide to spontaneously abort a foetus for whatever (frequently physical) reason, then when the mind decides that it wants to abort one for whatever physical, social, economical, psychological, etc. reason then it should also be able to follow through with its decision."

This to me is perhaps the most interesting point you make, still I find it difficult to accept as logical- any way I think about it.
Let me see if Im reading you right. Bear with me Ill try and extend your logic.

If we kill someone in self defense that gives us the right to murder *innocent*others?

If cancer or other diseases kill people then we should allowed to murder *innocent * others?

What you have avoided is intent.There is a crucial distinction between an unavoidable physical process taking place, and someone actually using his or her *will* to cause the death of another. Wrongdoing takes place in the will, whether in acting, or not acting.

― Kiwi, Sunday, 29 September 2002 09:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Bear with me Ill try and extend your logic.

Why is it that this sentence is never followed up with an extrapolation that supports the original speaker?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Sunday, 29 September 2002 11:05 (twenty-three years ago)

if i were able to conceive, i'd like be aborting all over the place. I mean, it's just like shitting, but out of another hole.

― Queen G (Queeng), Sunday, 29 September 2002 14:52 (twenty-three years ago)

i think also that talk of abortion as birth control is a little silly, because it's generally a painful, stressful, and expensive enough procedure that i don't really think most women would be eager to use it casually.

as lyra said, emergency contraception is a big part of this. it needs to be readily available to women who want it.

― ginny, Sunday, 29 September 2002 15:58 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't get it - wasn't Kiwi all, like, "Let's bomb the shit out of Iraq' on some other thread? And now he's getting all worried about abortion?

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Sunday, 29 September 2002 16:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Have you read Philip Roth's Nixon/Nam novel Our Gang, Andrew? It has a debate there about whether it's okay to massacre Vietnamese villagers if it then turns out that one was pregnant, and therefore the soldiers have performed an abortion. It's a hilarious debate, or possibly an hilarious debate.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 29 September 2002 16:14 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm inclined to count it as a separate life from its mother when it can survive independently of its mother.

me too. mind you...

http://www.theonion.com/onion3119/stupidbabies.html

― mbosa, Sunday, 29 September 2002 19:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Hmmm I knew this would get a bit personal- Ill stick to what Anthony asked for a "little rational discussion of this topic".

Andrew Im not sure what gives you the right to create a whole new defintion of a human being. I would venture my guess but that would be uncharitable of me. No honest biologist would agree with you.

A "human being" is defined by objective reality -- i.e., someone existing [a "being"] and consisting of at least one living cell that contains "human" chromosomes. The term "human being" can't be defined by a political, arbitrary formula based on convenience to you.

Even pro-death courts admit that there are non-sentient "human beings" (both born and pre-born).

― Kiwi, Sunday, 29 September 2002 22:16 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm vehemently pro-abortion.

& kiwi - yr third paragraph makes no sense/contradicts itself!

― I R Secular Eschatologist (esskay), Sunday, 29 September 2002 22:56 (twenty-three years ago)

There's this method called "the golden catapult" which...no, best stop....I can't believe this is even a debate.

― Matt (Matt), Sunday, 29 September 2002 23:20 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm pretty much of the same mind as Ned. (Thank you for putting your opinion so eloquently.)

I think it's completely tragic, too, that the 'using it as birth control' idea is so often bandied about by the antichoicers -- women who do that are probably a bit less mythic than the 'welfare queens' so often invoked by anti-public assistance politicians.

Also the high percentage of in-power antichoice types who are male = total dud to the umpteenth degree, because like they've ever had to deal with worrying over a missed period, or not having the money to feed and care for a baby if it comes to term? (Note how the antichoice and anti-public assistance politicans frequently walk in the same personae?) And how many of those placard-wavers have funded abortions of wives, daughters, mistressesof theirs, anyway? I suspect the answer to that question is not "zero."

― maura (maura), Sunday, 29 September 2002 23:42 (twenty-three years ago)

actually i DO know someone who uses abortion as a method of contraception. i don't know why - its bloody illogical, you're not okay with condoms but you ARE okay with abortion??!!

other than that, i think abortion is classic, for exactly the reasons ned said. i also think that someone who has never and will never carry fetuses inside them has a downright gall to decide that abortion is wrong period. if you are the biological father of the child maybe you have some say but ultimately it is a womans choice because a woman plays a much greater role in childbearing than a man. i agree with toraneko that arguments when about when life begins are not productive. even if they were, defining what life is by using medical definitions of death is pretty faulty. what is not death != life.

― di smith (lucylurex), Sunday, 29 September 2002 23:56 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm pretty much of the same mind as Ned. (Thank you for putting your opinion so eloquently.)

*blush* To you and to Di both, thanks. :-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 30 September 2002 00:10 (twenty-three years ago)

you're not okay with condoms but you ARE okay with abortion??!!
meaning person who uses abortion aas casual method of contraception.

― di smith (lucylurex), Monday, 30 September 2002 00:37 (twenty-three years ago)

Kiwi, I said "my definition", not "the definition". What you're arguing now is a matter of semantics.

All I was trying to illustrate (however muddily, and I apologise), is that I don't have any problem with destroying something that isn't sentient.

(unless it was once sentient, in the case of someone in a coma or some such, and has the potential to become sentient again. Obviously the destruction of such a future-sentient being would be detrimental to those who loved it in it's previous sentience.)

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 04:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Fair enough Andrew. Di your reply is not worth commenting on other than to ask do you hate all men or just the ones who have a penis? I think Ill bow out of this one before it grows into an atomic kitten sized debacle.

― Kiwi, Monday, 30 September 2002 04:27 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't see how you can interperet Di's comments as man-hating. All she did was highlight the fact that the discussion is one that should be of much more concern to women than men.

You're the only one who'll nurture this discussion into an "atomic kitten sized debacle" with blatantly provocative comments like "do you hate all men or just the ones who have a penis?"

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 04:58 (twenty-three years ago)

Not only that, but Di also quite rightly illustrated that it is quite unfair for a man to all-out condemn abortion. No man can make that decision, and is never expected to, and thus has misplaced intentions in condemning the women who do.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 05:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Andrew

A man and a woman make a fetus, the father needs some say.

― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 30 September 2002 05:08 (twenty-three years ago)

the father needs some say

I don't agree with this, for any number of personal reasons. Your body is your own, not your partner's (or anyone else's for that matter).

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Monday, 30 September 2002 05:16 (twenty-three years ago)

well we are not talking about one body, we are talking about a biological process that requires two

― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 30 September 2002 05:31 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm not saying that the man has no say, I'm just saying he has no right to flatly condemn the practice.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:12 (twenty-three years ago)

And more specifically, to flatly condemn the practice when referring to potential people that they aren't fathering themselves!

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:13 (twenty-three years ago)

Men have no say.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:20 (twenty-three years ago)

To an aside:

The decision to abort a child is, ultimately, the mother's.

However, if a man and a woman are in a relationship together, and the woman becomes pregnant, obviously the two will have to have lengthly discussion, and arrive at a mutual decision, before any action is taken.

From the male point of view:

I would not want a child that is 'half me' being born without my consent, especially if I wouldn't be able to care for the child directly. I would expect many to react with sympathy for me on this issue.

On the other hand, were I anti-abortion, and were I wanting my partner (or ex-partner) to have this child on my behalf, I would expect people to react negatively towards me. I have no right to force someone else to have a child.

I guess the bottom line is this: before sleeping with someone you should find out how they feel about abortion. If you're not comfortable with their views, then don't fuck. End of story.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Di your reply is not worth commenting on other than to ask do you hate all men or just the ones who have a penis?

translate: you feminist bitch, shut your mouth, how dare you make valid criticisms of my flimsy arguments?

― di smith (lucylurex), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:46 (twenty-three years ago)

I realize that this is considered the "logical" way of looking at pregnancy, but unfortunately it is wrong wrong wrong. A women HAS to DO NOTHING (and should not have to DO ANYTHING). She does not have to inform her husband. No mutual decision need be arrived at. No lengthy discussions either. A women wants to end a pregnancy, she does. No man, no other woman, no government, no religious organization should be able to decide whether or not the pregnancy is carried to term. End of story.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 30 September 2002 07:23 (twenty-three years ago)

Okay.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 07:33 (twenty-three years ago)

It's hard to say classic, because of the whole "Yay, give me some of that salty fetus soup" side of things, but i think it is important for abortion to be available, for reasons bought up above.

Additionally how pleasant is life likely to be if your parents resent you before you are even born.

Also, the morning after pill isn't "a simple fix", it's a bloody painful one

― Sofa King Alternative (Sofa King Alternative), Monday, 30 September 2002 11:11 (twenty-three years ago)

Sofa writes:

"Additionally how pleasant is life likely to be if your parents resent you before you are even born."

I would guess that having my parents "resent" me would be slightly more pleasant than the alternative of having my parents "terminate" me before I was born. :-(

I wonder how many people here would rather not be living today because their parents weren't perfect.

― El Catracho, Monday, 30 September 2002 14:38 (twenty-three years ago)

There are millions of factors that could have resulted in my never existing, though - I am no more happy that my mother didn't abort me than I am that she didn't stay in London in the late 1960s and not meet my Dad. Common to both scenarios is that the "I" would not have been formed and so cannot be said to be better off or otherwise i.e. me being happy or sad about them would be stupid. Whereas knowing my mother wanted to terminate the pregnancy that resulted in me, but couldn't, would I'm sure affect me deeply.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 30 September 2002 14:43 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom writes: "I am no more happy that my mother didn't abort me than I am that she didn't stay in London in the late 1960s and not meet my Dad."

I suppose that you could be severely injured by either an accidental car crash or an intentional car crash; but you view both as morally equivalent events. Is life just a big game of chance? Is moral ambivalence the answer? That solution seems a bit defeatist.

― El Catracho, Monday, 30 September 2002 15:01 (twenty-three years ago)

It's not about moral equivalence - it's about the impossibility of a non-existent being speculating on the reasons for their non-existence.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 30 September 2002 15:03 (twenty-three years ago)

this is quite interesting. what if two people decide not to have sex but to just be friends. a 'potential life' has been lost hasn't it? this sounds facetious, but i do not mean it to be. they turned away, intentionally, from realising a life. yes, it may be further up the line than abortion, but the same idea? after all, surely this is catholicisms take on contraception, which also stops the realisation of a life. is

― gareth (gareth), Monday, 30 September 2002 15:06 (twenty-three years ago)

fwiw, i am not stating an 'opinion' as such here, its just an interesting idea. i'm afraid i don't really see it as my place to tell anyone what they should do with their body. i'm not necessarily saying other people shouldn't tell other people. but i could never tell a woman what she do with her own body, i would find that quite hard

― gareth (gareth), Monday, 30 September 2002 15:09 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom writes: "It's not about moral equivalence - it's about the impossibility of a non-existent being speculating on the reasons for their non-existence."

Looking at your argument, if your parents never met, you are correct: you would never have existed. If your mother chose to abort you, you would most certainly have existed. If you argue that you "didn't exist" in the second case, it's funny that pro-choice doctrines even claim that the baby of a pregnant woman doesn't "exist."

It seems that you want to tie personhood to consciousness--a "person" only exists when he/she is self-aware. Following this logic, murder is only wrong if the person killed "knows" that she has been killed. Would it be OK to kill someone in her sleep because she wouldn't realize that she was killed? She couldn't speculate on the reasons for her non-existence. So is this the new litmus test for murder: the victim must know that she has been murdered?

Gareth, you write: "what if two people decide not to have sex but to just be friends. a 'potential life' has been lost hasn't it?"

Gareth, I guess some would argue that a potential "opportunity" for life has been lost. But, in your hypothetical, no life has been lost, because no life had been created.

Enjoy

― El Catracho, Monday, 30 September 2002 15:53 (twenty-three years ago)

it is not that people are connecting personhood with consciousness (however you like to think about that word), but I think most people here (unlike yourself) would not identify a grown person with the earlier fetus/embryo/egg that they developed from. at some point most people would say, OK, they are not the same person.

― Alan (Alan), Monday, 30 September 2002 15:58 (twenty-three years ago)

No, El Catracho - what I am saying is that speculating on the reasons for non-existence from the perspective of the non-existent is pointless. If I was hit by a falling girder and killed, the point at which I was killed is the point at which it would cease to matter *to me* whether the girder's fall was accidental or intentional, because (though this is a matter of belief I grant you) after death the dead cannot be said to have preferences or opinions. *Before* death the living do have preferences - and the law assumes that said preference is to live, to the point of denying any claims otherwise. Hence to knowingly end a life is a crime.

This is obviously not a pro-choice argument, and I never said it was - I was just pointing out that "how would you like it if you had been aborted?" doesnt work as an argument.

(I am pro-choice as it happens for the simple reason that I think the mother has a right to decide whether or not a pregnancy should be brought to term. I think this does, morally, involve classification of foetuses as 'not-alive', and I'm willing to do that.)

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 30 September 2002 16:10 (twenty-three years ago)

there *are* feminist anti-abortionists, but the political movements who dominate that wing of the argument on the whole tend not to regard women as fully qualified people (unless they're still foetuses = reserve army of uncanvassable voters); the record on — for example — principled anti-war activism is mixed

"it has life = it is sacred" is not a position most christians adhere to: the get-out clause is of course the exchange of the "soul" (unquantifiable argument-winner) for "consciousness"

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 30 September 2002 16:19 (twenty-three years ago)

I hate the idea that men have no right to have an opinion. To even say that you have to start out thinking that it's an acceptable choice. And if the matter of choice is an important moral issue than you cannot shut most people off from the entire debate (I mean discussing abortion in general, not making specific decisions for specific women).

― Maria (Maria), Monday, 30 September 2002 20:07 (twenty-three years ago)

The "men have no say" argument is half-ridiculous: "half" insofar as abortion as an issue is a legal and a legislative one. The half in which it's absolutely true, at least in the U.S., is that the legal basis for allowing it is a privacy one -- your womb, your business, tenancy and evictions alike. In this respect there really can't be a legal basis for granting a father "rights" of decision without overturning the entire rationale for allowing the procedure in the first place. Beyond which there's no reason to grant that autonomy: a man can impregnate any consenting female he wants, but there's absolutely no rational basis for arguing that she's then beholden to finish the process. The only argument that gets made there is that, well, the father might have strong beliefs about abortion, which is an incredibly dangerous argument: it essentially posits that abortion is right/wrong depending upon the beliefs of the parents, which is well beyond any rational or workable legal standard (not to mention insane).

Kiwi's definition of a "human being," above, would include the hangy bit of skin I just picked off of my pinky and flicked into the trash.

El Catracho doesn't get at what Gareth is pointing to, how purpose-laden the Catholic idea of sex is: i.e., if two people are going to copulate, they're not to do anything at all to try and prevent a live birth from resulting. (I'm still not certain where the great "rhythm"-type loopholes come from, as they seems to violate the overarching spirit of the doctrine.)

I think this issue comes down even more to religion than people like to think -- which is to say, I don't think it's so much a matter of asking at what point a fertilized cell becomes a murderable "person" as it is about a lot of people who have a sort of non-biological idea of "souls" lurking behind their thinking. (See El Catracho's questions to Tom.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 30 September 2002 21:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Pardon me, I didn't mean to put "autonomy" where it was in that first sentence. (I was thinking that the legal division of rights is based on the autonomy of both partners. The only place where this becomes a bit of an issue is the one area of non-autonomy: both parents are required to provide for the offspring, even if they had differing opinions as to whether it should have been carried to term. I seem to remember some locality discussing a really contentious way to circumvent this: if the father registered at some point during the first X weeks of a pregnancy and formally avowed his fathership and his preference for abortion or adoption, he could be released from those obligations -- I think some wanted this to be with or without the mother's consent.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 30 September 2002 21:06 (twenty-three years ago)

The option of abortion should be freely available to all women. I guess I agree with Alex that ultimately the choice should be the woman's also, in the case of the 'parents' being completely estranged - conception from rape or whatever.
As the choice is the woman's I guess the responsibility is also, ie if she does decide the carry the child against the father's wishes she should be ready to take full responsibility for it.
I would hope that if I ever am in this situation I would tell the man involved and get his opinion before making any decisions, not because one is obliged to by being pregnant, but because to be in a relationship you need to talk about that kind of thing, not just pop off to the Dr's one morning.

― isadora, Monday, 30 September 2002 21:26 (twenty-three years ago)

And not only that, as a woman getting an abortion surely you'd need as much emotional support as possible.

― Andrew (enneff), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 01:36 (twenty-three years ago)

Bullshit. Don't speak for everyone, Andrew. Not all (and maybe not even MOST) women are traumatized by abortion. This is another one of the RIGHT's BIG FUCKING LIES designed to make WOMEN feel bad about doing something which really NO ONE should feel bad about.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 01:39 (twenty-three years ago)

Not all (and maybe not even MOST) women are traumatized by abortion.

IIRC, the most important factor affecting a woman's attitude after an abortion is the nature of support she receives (if any) from her family and friends, and most women report feeling relieved afterwards.

― j.lu (j.lu), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 01:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Thanks for proving my point, J.Lu.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 1 October 2002 02:29 (twenty-three years ago)

Skipping 1324 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

Dayglo Abortions - really classic

― Neanderthal, Friday, 23 October 2020 23:33 (five years ago)

i think that i dont have a vulva, and therefore its not really my business.

odd choice of body part, but fair

― superdeep borehole (harbl), Friday, 23 October 2020 23:50 (five years ago)

i think that i dont have a vulva

better be sure

― Neanderthal, Friday, 23 October 2020 23:54 (five years ago)

btw there was a positive end to the Baby Roe case mentioned last year

https://www.al.com/news/2019/08/judge-tosses-baby-roe-abortion-lawsuit-filed-against-huntsville-clinic.html

― Neanderthal, Friday, 23 October 2020 23:57 (five years ago)

Poland last week made it illegal for women to seek abortions for cases where the foetus has a serious birth defect. Situations where the baby would be born unable to sustain life, where a woman would have to carry a child to term knowing it wouldn’t live outside the womb.

Polish citizens have been protesting the past few days. A friend of mine there says everyone’s out, not just the usual groups who go to protests.

I’m not sure we ever went as hard as disrupting Mass in Ireland, but this is significant from a country where the institutional regard for the Church has lingered.

At the weekend protesters in several towns and cities picketed and in some instances disrupted church services, amid signs that the anger felt by many Poles about the the Catholic church’s role in public life was spilling over into open confrontation.

At the Church of the Holy Cross in central Warsaw on Sunday, pro-choice protesters clashed with far-right activists, and one woman was taken away in an ambulance after allegedly being thrown down the steps in front of the church.

The far-right leader Robert Bąkiewicz announced that nationalist groups would create a “national guard” to defend churches from the protesters.

(From this article.)

Some of the protestors:

The table says "We are sorry for the inconvenience. We have a government to overthrow".
Hundreds of thousands of Poles in all cities have blocked the streets today. The traffic is being stopped. The protests get bigger and longer every day. #Poland #AbortionBan pic.twitter.com/cDo6BnUyHD
— Katarzyna Knapik (@ciotkarewolucji) October 26, 2020

‼️ Trasa Łazienkowska. Ruch w stronę crntrum blokują taksówkarze. Są logotypy wszystkich warszawskich korporacji, kilkadziesiąt samochodów. pic.twitter.com/HwO4gcru7Q
— Bartłomiej Eider (@bk_eider) October 26, 2020

On the 5th day of protests against anti-abortion rulling of Constitutional Tribunal, a lot of #Polish cities were blocked! Not only the biggest ones, also smaller like my hometown #Żywiec, city of 30,000 people ❤🖤 And I was one of the oldest! Get the fuck off, fundamentalists! pic.twitter.com/hPqCAUARhb
— Magda Dropek (@magdadropek) October 26, 2020

― scampus milne (gyac), Monday, 26 October 2020 21:18 (five years ago)

best of luck, Poland. god, fuck the Duda administration

― Neanderthal, Monday, 26 October 2020 21:26 (five years ago)

Spontaneous protest in support of #StrajkKobiet in #London against #Poland's new #abortion laws. Only a handful of Police officers, masks everywhere. pic.twitter.com/XIkig5iQPr
— Kasia Madera (@BBCKasiaMadera) October 26, 2020

― scampus milne (gyac), Monday, 26 October 2020 21:41 (five years ago)

WATCH: Something extraordinary is happening in Poland

This story has not got the attention it deserves, night after night of protests, big crowds after a court ruling that further limited its restrictive abortion laws pic.twitter.com/R6o5VK19e6
— Darren McCaffrey (@DarrenEuronews) October 30, 2020

― liberté, égalité, scampé (gyac), Friday, 30 October 2020 19:44 (five years ago)

classic

― Give me a Chad Smith-type feel (map), Friday, 30 October 2020 19:45 (five years ago)

Polish ban delayed:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/03/poland-stalls-abortion-ban-amid-nationwide-protests

― it bangs for thee (Simon H.), Wednesday, 4 November 2020 13:33 (five years ago)

Yes, great for everyone who got there, but they have to keep pushing.

― liberté, égalité, scampé (gyac), Wednesday, 4 November 2020 13:35 (five years ago)

US needs to take note.

― the colour out of space (is the place) (PBKR), Wednesday, 4 November 2020 21:38 (five years ago)

two months pass...

Looks like the fash scum government won out in the end:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/27/poland-to-implement-near-total-ban-on-abortion-imminently

― pomenitul, Wednesday, 27 January 2021 22:18 (five years ago)

Travelling abroad is the only option and it’s one they don’t have at the moment. Support and donate to the Abortion Support Network and to the organisations listed at the end of this article, and never ever take your rights for granted.

― scampish inquisition (gyac), Wednesday, 27 January 2021 22:25 (five years ago)

one month passes...

Great job y'all:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/09/arkansas-abortion-ban-supreme-court-roe-v-wade

― pomenitul, Wednesday, 10 March 2021 03:51 (five years ago)

fucking gross.

― Red Nerussi (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 10 March 2021 04:05 (five years ago)

wtf is wrong with these people? I'm so angry right now

― kinder, Wednesday, 10 March 2021 09:18 (five years ago)

I think in some cases the age of timing of legal abortion should rise to fit the circumstance.
How old is Ted Cruz again?

― Stevolende, Wednesday, 10 March 2021 13:18 (five years ago)

five months pass...

looks like dr. ligma is about to lose medical license no. 8008135

So… apparently Texas has passed some asinine anti-abortion law where private citizens can claim a fucking bounty for spying on their neighbours, and someone setup this site to take reports from anyone on which women to persecutehttps://t.co/FpQ8HimpaV
— Claire Ryan (@aetherlev) August 21, 2021

― criminally negligible (harbl), Monday, 23 August 2021 16:17 (four years ago)

also C. Ray Oneater, M.D.

― peace, man, Monday, 23 August 2021 21:13 (four years ago)

one month passes...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/politics/texas-abortion-ban-federal-judge-order-block/index.html

but thanks to SCOTUS punting, some facilities hesitant to re-open considering Texas has appealed already

― Gardyloominati (Neanderthal), Thursday, 7 October 2021 22:37 (four years ago)

eight months pass...

was on leave when this email went out, but apparently my company is reimbursing colleagues who have to travel 50 or more miles for an abortion (though apparently this was already in place, unbeknownst to me, and is continuing and more visible now).

anybody else's company have policies like this? I am kind of smiling thinking of the pro-life assholes who probably got angry at this email and are putting in their 2 weeks notice.

― Doop Snogg (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 6 July 2022 13:58 (three years ago)

I really thought our CEO would make an announcement like that last week or at least by this week. They were so on the money regarding the pandemic. And people working at our Mississippi distribution center are already living under an abortion ban.

There was an email soon after the decision, mentioning ‘divisive issues’ and ‘respecting others’ beliefs’ and that kind of crap. I heard that wasn’t gonna be THE announcement. But since then… nothing.

― covidsbundlertanze op. 6 (Jon not Jon), Wednesday, 6 July 2022 20:45 (three years ago)

one year passes...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/health/otc-birth-control-pill.html

― scott seward, Thursday, 13 July 2023 13:39 (two years ago)

i didn't see that coming...

― scott seward, Thursday, 13 July 2023 13:40 (two years ago)

four months pass...

Paxton and Texas SCOTUS are fucking inhuman ghouls

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/us/texas-woman-leaves-state-abortion/index.html

― STUPID CRAP FACE (Neanderthal), Monday, 11 December 2023 22:35 (two years ago)

Kate cox is a hero. Voluntarily signed up for weeks of expense and scrutiny and risk to her health, and probably years of harassment, to get them on the record.

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Tuesday, 12 December 2023 02:54 (two years ago)

Definitely

― STUPID CRAP FACE (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 12 December 2023 03:42 (two years ago)

Highly recommend reading the Texas Supreme Court decision for the rage factor alone: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457645/230994pc.pdf.

It's like the Dred Scott decision, the same kind of viciousness disguised by dry judicial reasoning. And so hypocritical — they're like, "Hey, the law leaves it up to doctors, not judges." Not acknowledging at all that a doctor risks prosecution themselves by having to meet a standard that is both exacting and vague. Just so so awful. This is where we are just 18 months after Dobbs.

― a man often referred to in the news media as the Duke of Saxony (tipsy mothra), Tuesday, 12 December 2023 04:11 (two years ago)

and of course, we know not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to go to another state for the procedure, or might not be willing to go through the scrutiny in the same way.

this is what they wanted. literal control over women at the granular level.

― STUPID CRAP FACE (Neanderthal), Tuesday, 12 December 2023 06:39 (two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.