USA attacking women's abortion rights again.

[Lilith7]

But with luck, Biden may be able to halt this particular piece of idiocy.

 I wonder how many dead woman might satisfy these control freak zealots who call themselves pro lifers when what they are is nothing of the kind; they are pro forced birth.


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/10...rtion-pill


"The administration of United States President Joe Biden has filed an emergency motion to stay a decision that would suspend the sale of the abortion pill mifepristone, as part of an ongoing legal dispute that could affect access to reproductive healthcare for millions of Americans.



“The court’s sweeping nationwide relief was especially unwarranted given the balance of harms: If allowed to take effect, the court’s order would thwart FDA’s scientific judgment and severely harm women, particularly those for whom mifepristone is a medical or practical necessity,” the DOJ stated.



“This devastating ruling has no basis in law and will ban the most common method of abortion in EVERY single state,” Wyden tweeted on Friday, calling on the Biden administration to take strong action to override the ruling.





Mifepristone was approved by the FDA in 2000 as the first of two pills used in medication abortion, along with the drug misoprostol.
There is a strong scientific consensus that the pills are safe to use, and they account for more than half of all abortions in the US. Mifepristone is also used to treat Cushing’s syndrome, and misoprostol to prevent ulcers.


Already, some Democrat-led states, including Massachusetts and Washington, have announced that they would build emergency stockpiles of abortion medication.

California Governor Gavin Newsom posted on Twitter on Monday that his state had “secured up to 2 million pills” of misoprostol to ensure continued abortion access."

[dken31]

"...the pills are safe to use..."

For the mother perhaps, but not for the baby they conveniently kill.

[Lilith7]

Most abortions don't involve a baby. They're done so early that it amounts to some cells being removed; which have the potential to at a far later stage, develop into a foetus & later a baby.

These zealots are keen to murder women; actual living fully developed women whose deaths doesn't deter them. And still they claim to be 'pro life', lacking even the courage to be honest with themselves.

[dken31]

"Clump of cells", "foetus", "not actually a baby": these are all just obfuscations to desperately cling to the barbaric notion that it is OK to deliberately kill certain humans for the sake of convenience.

If abortion is OK because "its not yet a baby", why isn't it OK to kill an unwanted newborn baby because "it's not yet a child/adolescent/adult"?

And no "zealots are keen to murder woman". That is hyperbole bordering on the deliberately dishonest. Essentially no one would argue that a mother should have to go through with a pregnancy where doing so will result in the death of the mother and child (e.g. ectopic). And, if you're referring to potential deaths of mothers from dodgy illegal back-alley abortions, does that mean that if a home invader breaks his neck trying to climb through a second story window, they were "murdered" by the homeowner who wouldn't let them through the front door?

[Kenj]

I don't really have any views on this except that men should stay the hell out of this subject and women of the world should make decisions on their own bodies.

[king1]

imho, at 10 weeks gestation when mifepristone is used, you would only really be ending the possibility that a new life may develop in time. You can't be killing a person because a person doesn't yet exist i.e. there is no consciousness and no self awareness - to use a childish analogy it's like the bucket of lego on the floor waiting to be assembled into something great.
FWIW the church doesn't even recognize it has a soul until 16 weeks apparently

an interesting analysis on the debate of just when that cutoff point might be...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3713799/

[Lilith7]

"Clump of cells", "foetus", "not actually a baby": these are all just obfuscations to desperately cling to the barbaric notion that it is OK to deliberately kill certain humans for the sake of convenience.

If abortion is OK because "its not yet a baby", why isn't it OK to kill an unwanted newborn baby because "it's not yet a child/adolescent/adult"?

And no "zealots are keen to murder woman". That is hyperbole bordering on the deliberately dishonest.  Essentially no one would argue that a mother should have to go through with a pregnancy where doing so will result in the death of the mother and child (e.g. ectopic). And, if you're referring to potential deaths of mothers from dodgy illegal back-alley abortions, does that mean that if a home invader breaks his neck trying to climb through a second story window, they were "murdered" by the homeowner who wouldn't let them through the front door?

That is complete & utter BS. The facts are that in most abortions, a clump of cells is all that is removed. 

Right to birthers prefer to ignore that. 

Women will invariably die due to being forced to continue with a  pregnancy even if its likely to mean that the mother won't survive, & then there's the other fact in that article about the other uses of that particular drug which could also mean more deaths if women not needing an abortion but needing to access that particular drug are now unable to do so thanks to the zealots, who cannot fail to be aware of that.
 If that isn't condoning women dying then its an especially fine imitation of precisely that. They are despicable & dishonest people.

---

I don't really have any views on this except that men should stay the hell out of this subject and women of the world should make decisions on their own bodies.

Excellent idea...

[dken31]

The "men should stay the hell out" argument is akin to claiming that only Chinese people are allowed an opinion on the evils perpetrated by the CCP government. Whereas I think it is admirable to call out evil and injustice wherever it is, regardless of whether or not it directly affects you.

And at 10 weeks, the human being killed is most definitely very readily recognisable as human (little arms & legs with fingers & toes etc.), rather than being the human cell equivalent of a jumbled pile of Lego.

[Lilith7]

The "men should stay the hell out" argument is akin to claiming that only Chinese people are allowed an opinion on the evils perpetrated by the CCP government.  Whereas I think it is admirable to call out evil and injustice wherever it is, regardless of whether or not it directly affects you.

And at 10 weeks, the human being killed is most definitely very readily recognisable as human (little arms & legs with fingers & toes etc.), rather than being the human cell equivalent of a jumbled pile of Lego.

The very obvious point being that until men can become pregnant & give birth, they can have no genuine, realistic understanding of the process.

What an embryo/foetus looks like; 4, 5, 6, 7,8 & 9 weeks.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/o...ion-tissue

"Patients may come in for an abortion fearful at this stage, having read through forums or looked at images online. “They’re expecting to see a little fetus with hands – a developed, miniature baby.” Often, she says, “they feel they’ve been deceived.”
Finally, above is a number of gestational sacs on one petri dish, showing the progression in growth from five weeks of pregnancy to nine weeks. The sac grows 1mm a day.

Talking about why we don’t see these images more often, Dr Michele Gomez, who is part of the MYA Network, says: “I do think there are some clinicians who are concerned about patient’s reactions. But it’s not really our right or our responsibility to decide how people will respond to this. We’re just putting out the information and the facts to counter the misinformation. To say: this is not something that’s scary, or dangerous, or violent. It’s just a picture of something that’s in your body.”



Incidentally, while I believe that the option of a reversible vasectomy should be freely available to all those men who want one I don't believe anyone else has the right to oblige any man to have it done. HIS body, HIS business, it would be intrusive to make that mandatory.
And if it was up to me, then both men & women would be able to become pregnant & give birth once each - imagine the deeper understanding that would lead to.

[king1]

Thanks for that Lilith, very enlightening. i'm sure I could see that little 9 week old wiggling his fingers and toes

[dken31]

Your link must be the grossly dishonest article referred to in here https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.catholi...looks-like

And, I'll save you the trouble by saying that I already know you'll disregard my linked article due to it being from the Catholic News Agency (no, I'd never heard of them before either) but a quick Google of "what does a fetus look like at 9 weeks" makes it pretty clear which of the two opposing articles is more honest/accurate. Even mainstream sources such as the NHS report a readily recognisable human, with arms legs, beginnings or fingers/toes etc at 9 weeks.

But, just like slave holders vehemently de-humanised slaves to reconcile themselves with continuing such a vile practice, I'm sure you'll continue to do the same with unborn people to reconcile yourselves with the mass slaughter.

It sounds hyperbolic to call it "mass slaughter" but that's what it is. And I think it being so horrific is ironically part of what makes people like you so militantly in favour of it. Because admitting you've publicly supported something so evil is just a bridge too far, so instead you essentially shut your eyes, block your ears and shout "not a real human, not a real human".

---

Your choosing to post that Guardian link strongly supports my assertion in my last paragraph above. That you would either post that link knowing it wasn't accurate, or not even bother to perform the most basic, rudimentary of checks (which would have quickly shown you that it wasn't remotely accurate), shows that you desperately need to cling on to your alternate reality (albeit an alternate reality screamed and shouted by many, many others).

[king1]

yes I can see there is something not quite gelling with the article

I see this page here from a US department of health
https://ldh.la.gov/page/986

Which suggests they are a bit more developed by 10 weeks than that article suggests. Guardian isn't usually that careless...

I still don't agree with your position though dken31, I believe the greater good is served by allowing abortions if necessary. It will be a never ending debate...

[Lilith7]

Your link must be the grossly dishonest article referred to in here https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.catholi...looks-like

And, I'll save you the trouble by saying that I already know you'll disregard my linked article due to it being from the Catholic News Agency (no, I'd never heard of them before either) but a quick Google of "what does a fetus look like at 9 weeks" makes it pretty clear which of the two opposing articles is more honest/accurate.  Even mainstream sources such as the NHS report a readily recognisable human, with arms legs, beginnings or fingers/toes etc at 9 weeks.

But, just like slave holders vehemently de-humanised slaves to reconcile themselves with continuing such a vile practice, I'm sure you'll continue to do the same with unborn people to reconcile yourselves with the mass slaughter.

It sounds hyperbolic to call it "mass slaughter" but that's what it is. And I think it being so horrific is ironically part of what makes people like you so militantly in favour of it. Because admitting you've publicly supported something so evil is just a bridge too far, so instead you essentially shut your eyes, block your ears and shout "not a real human, not a real human".

---

Your choosing to post that Guardian link strongly supports my assertion in my last paragraph above. That you would either post that link knowing it wasn't accurate, or not even bother to perform the most basic, rudimentary of checks (which would have quickly shown you that it wasn't remotely accurate), shows that you desperately need to cling on to your alternate reality (albeit an alternate reality screamed and shouted by many, many others).

The Guardian is usually far more reliable; however given that various anti abortion groups have in the past been caught showing images of a foetus & claiming it to be far earlier than it actually was, they don't really have much room to complain about inaccuracy, especially the catholic groups.

So apparently your view is that women should have NO rights whatsoever over their own bodies  if they unfortunately become pregnant. 

Would you then require every pregnant woman to be imprisoned lest she dare to try to abort the 'sacred' embryo or foetus?

How about a solo parent who already has two children, would she & her children also be imprisoned to avoid an abortion?

Should any woman be permitted to have a tubal ligation to avoid a pregnancy, if there's a high risk which might cost her her life to her should she become pregnant?

And what about men - do they have no responsibility in avoiding any possible abortion, or  are they above reproach & really shouldn't have to concern themselves with avoiding an unwanted pregnancy?



The other aspect which right to birthers tend to shy away from is that of resources - how exactly our world which is already struggling with a large population could possibly manage to provide food, healthcare, housing, education for the many, many more people no abortions would realistically mean.




This is one of the best articles I've come across on the subject - written by a woman who is genuinely pro life & who works with poor women. its worth reading the whole article.

https://stfuconservatives.tumblr.com/post/9021225903

"When I say I’m pro-life…

It doesn’t mean I force women to give birth.
Because I never will.
Let me tell you some things.
I used to investigate child abuse and neglect. I can tell you how to stop the vast majority of abortion in the world.

First, make knowledge and access to contraception widely available. Start teaching kids before they hit puberty. Teach them about domestic violence and coercion, and teach them not to coerce and rape. Create a strong, loving community where women and girls feel safe and supported in times of need. Because guess what? They aren’t.

Abolish poverty. Do you have any idea how much childcare costs? Daycare can cost as much or more than monthly rent. They may be inadequately staffed. Getting a private nanny is a nice idea, but they don’t come cheap either. 

End rape. I know your type errs on the side of blaming the woman, but I’ve seen little girls who’ve barely gotten their periods pregnant because somebody thought raping preteens was an awesome idea

In each and every dark pit of desperation, I have never seen a pro-lifer. I ain’t never seen them babysitting, scrubbing floors, bringing over goods, handing mom $50 bucks a month or driving her to the pediatrician. I ain’t never seen them sitting up for hours with an autistic child who screams and rages so his mother can get some sleep while she rests up from working 14-hour days.

Aphids give birth, girl. It’s no miracle. You want to speak for the weak? Get off your high horse and get your hands dirty helping the poor, the isolated, the ill and mentally ill women and mothers and their children who already breathe the dirty air. You are doing nothing, absolutely nothing, for children. You don’t have a flea’s comprehension of injustice. You are not doing shit for life until you get in there and fight that darkness. Until you understand that abortion is salvation in a world like ours. Does that sound too hard? Do you really think suffering post-birth is more permissible, less worthy of outrage?


“[i][b]Pro-life” is simply a philosophy in which the only life worth saving is the one that can be saved by punishing a woman."[/b][/i]

[dken31]

You're quite a fan of straw-men aren't you. Anyway, to address your points:

1. The relative historical accuracy of The Guardian vs. "catholic groups" is irrelevant to the current debate. This particular Guardian article was demonstrably false.

2. What a ridiculous assertion. I likely agree with women being afforded 99.9% of the rights you agree with, with the singular exception being that I don't think they should have the right to kill the human being growing inside of them, purely because they want to. In the case of genuine medical necessity, i.e. the mother's life would truly otherwise be in danger (e.g. ectopic), even I think that abortion would sadly be required. And most mothers don't "unfortunately become pregnant" like it is some accident outside of their control. Where they become pregnant when they didn't want to, it is still usually due to their poor decision making, rather than being entirely outside their control. I don't think killing another human being should be a "right" to insulate us against our poor decision making. In the case of pregnancy from rape, that makes up a minute % of abortions, so isn't really all that relevant to the overall debate, however I don't think that one heinous act (rape) justifies another (killing a defenseless human being).

3. & 4. An even more ridiculous assertion. I'm guessing you agree that murdering another adult should continue to be illegal? Does that mean you think we should all be locked up to prevent us from murdering anyone? Should we all be locked up to prevent us committing all other potential crimes? Of course not, so why would I possibly think every pregnant mother should be locked up to prevent them having an abortion. I get it, you're attempting to paint me as a fringe, Handmaid's Tale-esque women-hater so that you don't need to acknowledge that I'm just a regular decent person that doesn't believe anyone should have the right to kill another human being purely for convenience.

5. What does tubal ligation have to do with abortion? A tubal ligation stops a mother getting pregnant and I've never remotely suggested I think that all women should be forced to have as many children as they can or even that they must be forced to take pot-luck every time they choose to have sex. Again, you're trying to make me appear a fringe fundamentalist, when that just isn't true.

6. And again, there you go trying to paint me as a "women need to be controlled, men should have all the control and be able to do what they like" type which is just completely baseless. If a man gets a women pregnant, I think he should be forced to take joint responsibility for the child. In my opinion, getting a woman pregnant and then ditching her and their child is despicable. I realise that the practicalities of tracking down and forcing the man to take responsibility can unfortunately be difficult in certain circumstances, however I still don't think that justifies allowing the mother to have the human being inside her killed. But it is no different to what the situation is if the child is 5 years old, i.e. if the dad walks out on his family and no longer helps to provide, I think he's the lowest of the low, but that still doesn't give the mum the right to kill the 5 year old just because continuing to care for them will become too difficult.

7. Resources and all that. Yep, I get that but it still isn't a valid justification for killing another human being. If it was, then it is just as applicable an argument for killing babies after birth or the disabled etc. Essentially, that argument is "there are too many people, so we need to kill some of them, so lets kill them before we need to actually look at them so that we can pretend they're not actually people". Yeah, nah.

Lastly, re. the link you posted. I get all that, re. alleviating poverty, ending rape etc. but it doesn't provide any valid justification for keeping abortion readily available to anyone who wants one until those other issues have been solve. Western society has made pretty good progress over the last few decades with regard to what is or isn't acceptable behavior by a man towards a women, however we're never going to "end rape" in the same way that we will sadly always have murderers and violent abusers. And again, I don't think that the evil of rape justifies the evil of killing a defenseless human (I'm undecided re. whether it justifies killing the rapist, with the risk of wrongful conviction swaying me towards sticking with imprisonment). "Create a strong, loving community where women and girls feel safe and supported in times of need". Yes to this many times over. I'm definitely doing all I can to ensure my daughters won't ever feel the need to put them in themselves in a position that could result in an unwanted pregnancy just because they're desperately searching for "love" and "validation". And I donate significant amounts to several charities that support girls/solo mothers who have been victims of abuse to rehabilitate them and equip them to support themselves so that they are able to escape the evils they've been subject to. And it is tragic that, as mush as anyone does, there will always still be the impoverished and abused among us. However, one final time, I still don't in any way see that as justifying the killing of another defenseless human being.

[king1]

@dken31

At what point in time after it is conceived would you consider it to be a human being, defenseless or otherwise.

Clearly there must be a point where it is just a bunch of cells and can not be considered a human being but more so perhaps potential for life. What age would you suggest that is? and would an abortion be OK before then...

[Lilith7]

You're quite a fan of straw-men aren't you.  Anyway, to address your points:

1. The relative historical accuracy of The Guardian vs. "catholic groups" is irrelevant to the current debate. This particular Guardian article was demonstrably false.

2. What a ridiculous assertion.  I likely agree with women being afforded 99.9% of the rights you agree with, with the singular exception being that I don't think they should have the right to kill the human being growing inside of them, purely because they want to.  In the case of genuine medical necessity, i.e. the mother's life would truly otherwise be in danger (e.g. ectopic), even I think that abortion would sadly be required.  And most mothers don't "unfortunately become pregnant" like it is some accident outside of their control.  Where they become pregnant when they didn't want to, it is still usually due to their poor decision making, rather than being entirely outside their control.  I don't think killing another human being should be a "right" to insulate us against our poor decision making.  In the case of pregnancy from rape, that makes up a minute % of abortions, so isn't really all that relevant to the overall debate, however I don't think that one heinous act (rape) justifies another (killing a defenseless human being).

3. & 4. An even more ridiculous assertion.  I'm guessing you agree that murdering another adult should continue to be illegal? Does that mean you think we should all be locked up to prevent us from murdering anyone?  Should we all be locked up to prevent us committing all other potential crimes?  Of course not, so why would I possibly think every pregnant mother should be locked up to prevent them having an abortion.  I get it, you're attempting to paint me as a fringe, Handmaid's Tale-esque women-hater so that you don't need to acknowledge that I'm just a regular decent person that doesn't believe anyone should have the right to kill another human being purely for convenience.

5. What does tubal ligation have to do with abortion? A tubal ligation stops a mother getting pregnant and I've never remotely suggested I think that all women should be forced to have as many children as they can or even that they must be forced to take pot-luck every time they choose to have sex.  Again, you're trying to make me appear a fringe fundamentalist, when that just isn't true.

6. And again, there you go trying to paint me as a "women need to be controlled, men should have all the control and be able to do what they like" type which is just completely baseless.  If a man gets a women pregnant, I think he should be forced to take joint responsibility for the child.  In my opinion, getting a woman pregnant and then ditching her and their child is despicable.  I realise that the practicalities of tracking down and forcing the man to take responsibility can unfortunately be difficult in certain circumstances, however I still don't think that justifies allowing the mother to have the human being inside her killed.  But it is no different to what the situation is if the child is 5 years old, i.e. if the dad walks out on his family and no longer helps to provide, I think he's the lowest of the low, but that still doesn't give the mum the right to kill the 5 year old just because continuing to care for them will become too difficult.

7. Resources and all that.  Yep, I get that but it still isn't a valid justification for killing another human being.  If it was, then it is just as applicable an argument for killing babies after birth or the disabled etc.  Essentially, that argument is "there are too many people, so we need to kill some of them, so lets kill them before we need to actually look at them so that we can pretend they're not actually people".  Yeah, nah.

Lastly, re. the link you posted.  I get all that, re. alleviating poverty, ending rape etc. but it doesn't provide any valid justification for keeping abortion readily available to anyone who wants one until those other issues have been solve.  Western society has made pretty good progress over the last few decades with regard to what is or isn't acceptable behavior by a man towards a women, however we're never going to "end rape" in the same way that we will sadly always have murderers and violent abusers.  And again, I don't think that the evil of rape justifies the evil of killing a defenseless human (I'm undecided re. whether it justifies killing the rapist, with the risk of wrongful conviction swaying me towards sticking with imprisonment).  "Create a strong, loving community where women and girls feel safe and supported in times of need".  Yes to this many times over.  I'm definitely doing all I can to ensure my daughters won't ever feel the need to put them in themselves in a position that could result in an unwanted pregnancy just because they're desperately searching for "love" and "validation".  And I donate significant amounts to several charities that support girls/solo mothers who have been victims of abuse to rehabilitate them and equip them to support themselves so that they are able to escape the evils they've been subject to.  And it is tragic that, as mush as anyone does, there will always still be the impoverished and abused among us.  However, one final time, I still don't in any way see that as justifying the killing of another defenseless human being.

2 And there it is. The idea that women use abortion 'purely because they want to' ; the favourite of the forced birth brigade. 
You manage to  at least acknowledge that to avoid the death of a woman sometimes it has to be abortion which is progress of a kind; there are those who would refuse to allow even that, claiming as usual that 'life is sacred'.

Interesting that you lay all responsibility for contraception solely on women when its far, far easier (& cheaper) for men to take responsibility, as well as less likely to cause them some of the problems women face when using various types of contraception. No, its all just women being irresponsible apparently & nothing to do with the imperfections of contraception.
  Or their 'poor decision making.'


Those were not assertions on my part - they were questions which I was asking to get some idea of your views since there's a variety of views within the forced birth groups, some of whom would ban all forms of contraceptives; though to be fair those tend to be mostly very right wing American groups.

6 That is often not possible - if a man gets someone pregnant & wants to take no responsibility, that isn't all that difficult & has been happening for centuries.

I so wish it was possible to somehow allow you - & all men,  to actually experience pregnancy & birth. The point I think is that if you don't approve of abortion then you never have to have one. No one will ever force you to do so against your will - but the forced birth groups will force women to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, & some of them even if that means the death of that woman.

No woman should ever be forced to have an unwanted abortion & no woman should ever be forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy.

[zqwerty]

Justice Department to take abortion pill fight to Supreme Court: Garland

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-...d=98558136

[king1]

Reminds me of this little number

[Lilith7]

I'm glad they'll take it to the supreme court; things are getting pretty bad over there & some states encourage people to report a woman if they think she might have had an abortion.

---

Reminds me of this little number

Exactly.