General Question

KNOWITALL's avatar

Do you think Missouri is protecting womens health or being discriminatory?

Asked by KNOWITALL (26111points) May 30th, 2019

Governor’s speech link below with details so you can answer the question if you choose.

Missouri will not renew Planned Parenthood’s license to perform abortions unless the clinic fully complies with the state’s requests, said Governor Mike Parson during a press conference Wednesday. The clinic is the last one performing abortions in the state and its license is set to expire at the end of this week.

The governor claimed, “Planned Parenthood has been actively and knowingly violating state law on numerous occasions.”

“Regardless of if you support abortion or not, Planned Parenthood should be able to meet the basic standards of health care under the law,” Parson said. “They should not receive any exceptions because they are one clinic.”

…Missouri will not renew Planned Parenthood’s license to perform abortions unless the clinic fully complies with the state’s requests, said Governor Mike Parson during a press conference Wednesday. The clinic is the last one performing abortions in the state and its license is set to expire at the end of this week.

The governor claimed, “Planned Parenthood has been actively and knowingly violating state law on numerous occasions.”

“Regardless of if you support abortion or not, Planned Parenthood should be able to meet the basic standards of health care under the law,” Parson said. “They should not receive any exceptions because they are one clinic.”

In a statement Tuesday, the clinic said Missouri’s health department is “refusing to renew” its annual license. If the license is not renewed by May 31, Missouri would become the first state without a functioning abortion clinic since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

148 Answers

LostInParadise's avatar

Without looking at the specific details, one has to ask, Why is Missouri different from every other state? Planned Parenthood has facilities everywhere else, but the rules in Missouri are apparently too draconian for them to operate even one facility.

hmmmmmm's avatar

There is really nothing more to say other than that abortion is healthcare, and women can’t get healthcare in Missouri.

Caravanfan's avatar

They are being discriminatory. They are not protecting women’s health.

gorillapaws's avatar

I’m curious how churches would feel if everyone was free to practice their faith, but some state decided to deny occupation permits to every location of born-again sects…

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Caravanfan Can you read this and tell me as a doctor you would truly have zero concerns for your patients? I’m really suprised, because to me it sounds disgusting.

The inspection last Wednesday found rust on the cabinets of suction machines, a condition that was also found Aug. 14. Inspectors also found a hose on a machine that appeared to have mold inside and another hose with residue that appeared to be bodily fluids, Koebel wrote.

The St Louis clinic—
“Parson said he couldn’t get into specifics of the ongoing investigation, but nevertheless laid out state claims that clinic physicians failed to follow Missouri regulations in performing abortions, botched three surgical abortions at the facility and had another patient taken to a hospital for emergency surgery.

In its lawsuit, Planned Parenthood argues that it has worked to correct issues and complied with every request it can.

A Department of Health news release Wednesday afternoon appeared to confirm some of that, saying that Planned Parenthood had agreed to change practices to comply with regulations concerning pelvic exams and informed consent for the procedure.

But the parties are at a stalemate over the department’s demand to interview several physicians, including medical residents and trainees, who are not Planned Parenthood employees.

“This is not about the pro-life issue at all,” Parson said. “This is about the standard of care for women in Missouri, whether it’s this clinic, any other clinic and any other hospital that should have to meet the same standards.”

The department also doubled down on its position.

”(The Department of Health and Senior Services) will continue to act in good faith to do our statutorily required duty to regulate facilities to help keep people safe and assure compliance with the law,” said Dr. Randall Williams, the department’s director, in a news release. “The unprecedented refusal by Planned Parenthood to fully cooperate as they have in the past heightens our regulators’ concerns about what their investigation has revealed to date.”

hmmmmmm's avatar

^ That’s horseshit.

But I am positive that abortions that will now have to be performed in people’s fucking kitchens will be far more to code. ~

Again, this is an attack on poor women, as rich women will just continue to travel to civilization to get healthcare. The rest will suffer.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@hmmmmmm So to be clear, you think mold and bodily fluids, etc…are false accusations by officials or just don’t matter?

As far as informed consent, that’s tricky and seems to vary by state in accuracy.

You all know how I feel about abortions, but I’m trying to understand why so many of you don’t have the same concerns.

hmmmmmm's avatar

@KNOWITALL: ”@hmmmmmm So to be clear, you think mold and bodily fluids, etc…are false accusations by officials or just don’t matter?”

Sure do. Not only that, but if Planned Parenthood in Missouri had the roof falling on top of women who went there for care, the response from Missouri should be to step in and help. If PP MO is the only remaining facility that provides reproductive care, it should be a complete embarrassment. The national guard should do something actually useful and storm that awful state and help women get to the care they need.

chyna's avatar

I’m finding this a little hard to believe. @caravanfan please correct me if I’m wrong. Working in a hospital, they have an inspection every year by the Joint Commission. If they found things like that in my hospital, the area would be closed down immediately and a re-inspection would take place within days.
Now maybe I misread what you stated @knowitall, but are you saying this condition was allowed to go on since last August?

stanleybmanly's avatar

There’s nothing to think about. The state is plainly attempting to use its health department to decertify its last remaining abortion clinic. Here’s hoping Planned Parenthood sues the shit out of the “hillbilly state” and recovers damages suitable to maintain the clinic for decades.

elbanditoroso's avatar

First off, the governor’s statement is a masterful line of bullshit and obfuscation. He is basically saying “We made up some fake rules and hoops for you to jump through that have no basis in science, and we’re going to make it as difficult as possible for you to meet our fake requirements.” The governor has no interest in safe abortions. He wants to outlaw them entirely and the method he is using is to make it as difficult as possible for providers to comply with his fake regulations.

Having that as background – @KNOWITALL ‘s statement of the question is incorrect. She asks us to make a choice between being discriminatory and helping women’s health. That’s not what the choice is.

The real choice – the real dichotomy – is between women having autonomy over themselves and government telling women what they can and cannot do.

Missouri’s governor wants to take away women’s autonomy over their own health and well being, and replace it with the government’s authority.

That has nothing to do with safety. It has very little to do with discrimination, unless the discrimination is against women.

Painting it any other way is misstating the issue.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@chyna The Columbia, MO PP clinic was shut down prior to any of this in St. Louis or the 8 week limit on abortions presented by the Governor.

Columbia was for the bodily fluids, etc… It has not re-opened and doesn’t look like it will. (Columbia is a very liberal city in the state btw)

The St Louis facility does sound a little like weaponizing red tape, but you do plan to leave a facility healthy, as we’ve discussed here a few times.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws I’m not a doctor, but I don’t understand the pelvic exam requirement.

Planned Parenthood says that to make it more onerous to provide abortions, the health department has created new rules and started enforcing others that have long been understood to be outdated. One rule would require that doctors perform two separate pelvic exams on surgical abortion patients, despite protests from doctors that such a requirement is medically unnecessary and could be traumatic for patients. Planned Parenthood says that the clinic will not agree to comply with all of the rules, and the group plans to sue the state over the matter.

Even Eisenberg acknowledges that “state regulations have long required pelvic exams prior to abortions,” Suntrup writes, but counters that the rules shouldn’t apply to medication (chemical) abortions.

Eisenberg told the Post-Dispatch that “even though pelvic exams were technically required for all abortions, the state had not cited Planned Parenthood for omitting the exams prior to medication abortions. That changed in March, Eisenberg said, when the DHSS cited Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region for not complying with the pelvic exam requirement.”

“Pelvic exams are very much a part of standard care for women receiving gynecological services,” Dr. Randall Williams, director of the DHSS and a board certified obstetrician with 30+ years of experience, told the Post-Dispatch. “We think that our job is to ensure the safety of women undergoing these procedures.”

Missouri has been in the forefront of passing legislation to protect the health and safety of women. That includes requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles; abortion clinics to meet the requirements of ambulatory surgical centers; and a regulation requiring that abortion providers performing chemical abortions have two Ob-Gyns on call 24/7 who have admitting privileges.

Zaku's avatar

I think it reeks of political abuse. If there were actual health concerns, the agency and the clinic would work together to resolve them, without any politicians needing to bluster about it.

I mean, it’s possible that the clinic really has actual health issues and have been incompetent in resolving them, but this seems most likely to be a pretense, to me. And it should be routine to correct it in any case.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Zaku Tbh, I agree.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL ”...but you do plan to leave a facility healthy,”

Well, shutting down their women’s health facilities isn’t really helping with that. Missouri ranks #42 out of 50 in maternal mortality rates.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@KNOWITALL Yes Missouri has been in the forefront of protecting women as well as other oppressed minorities. The state was really big at “protecting” black folks through restricting them to ghettos and offering inordinate protection through housing in the state’s jails and prisons.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Well at least @Zaku and @chyna were able to give reasonable, mature answers. More than I hoped for really.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Yes indeed. They were very “courteous” answers to a question on unreasonable and criminally regressive policies. It’s more than you SHOULD hope for if you aren’t stranded in 1953.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@KNOWITALL mine was a courteous answer. It just ran counter to your thinking. Do you feel that people who disagree with you are discourteous?

raum's avatar

@elbanditoroso She said reasonable and mature. Not discourteous.

I do think your answer was both reasonable and mature.

raum's avatar

To answer the question, I’d be less concerned about the specifics and more curious to know whether or not they have been coming down as hard on other types of medical clinics.

stanleybmanly's avatar

That’s what I hope will cost the state a bundle (again), and act as a check on this sort of thing.

Caravanfan's avatar

There is absolutely zero reason (that’s Z-E-R-O) reason why a provider providing abortion services to women need to have admitting privileges to a local hospital. The ONLY reason is as a political barrier to make women have forced births.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Caravanfan That’s why I posted the question, to see if it was reasonable or govt overreach.

@elbanditoroso Oh fine, but you could have put ‘perhaps the question could be re-phrased’ instead of implying I misstated the issue with the Question.

I mean, come on, you all know I NEVER post in General, I was genuinely curious and looking for serious answers. Just because I am Pro-Life, I don’t believe the ends always justify the means.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Caravanfan So just to follow up, what happens in the cases where the procedure goes really wrong? From the OP, you can see there were a few emergencies as well as a death.

So shouldn’t a doctor have local hospital privelages to take care of that situation? Seems like common sense to me.

And also, don’t you think that the bodily fluids, etc…is a real issue that needed addressed?

Caravanfan's avatar

@KNOWITALL Then the provider calls the hospital, gets an admitting physician, and they take care of the complication. Like literally every other outpatient procedure that is done.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Caravanfan Okay, that sounds reasonable. (Never had surgery or anything myself as an adult, so I don’t know lol)

Can you think of any reason why the state would feel the doctor who performs the abortion should be there to correct his mistake, or is that part of the ‘red tape/ bs’?

kritiper's avatar

They are not protecting women’s health, nor are they discriminating. They are protecting the lives of unborn children.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@kritiper Oh I know, I think the children matter, too. Everyone here is holding their breath, to see if PP will fold or not.

This article went around social media “Why would they lose money if abortions were only 3% of their services?” So either way, if they close STL, as well as Columbia staying closed, that really is a huge win for a conservative state.

As well as showing others how to do it in their state. Pretty interesting.

flo's avatar

What do some democrats think that Trump and his supporters are right about? One of them is re. abortion.
There are well known democrats and * the vast majority* (edited to correct that word) of republicans who acknowledge that there is an unborn person in the uterus on the day of conception. In fact I can’t imagine a republican who doesn’t acknowledge that we’re talking about an unborn person and not about womens’ health.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@flo Atheists, too.

flo's avatar

Edited above post by the way
@KNOWITALL Yes. So, how do you answer my question? Why do the pro abortion people talk about abortion as if there is no unborn person in there?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@flo They have to deny personhood to kill them with no guilt. Just like my grandfather did with barn cats. Like Nazis did to Jews. Like whites did to blacks. To me, its all the same dehumanizing process.

I said it before, there are people here who defend abortion that wouldnt even hurt a puppy or kitten. I know many good people who are Pro Choice.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I’ve said before that it is probably a good thing that abortion never be relegated to a trivial issue in our society. To my mind, there is a BIG difference between this one and for instance, the legalization of marijuana. Nevertheless, as distasteful as the procedure must be for those opposed, it is the law of the land, and it is fought for and battled to the hilt by WOMEN. In the end the argument boils down to the allegation of murder against the proposition that the state can force a woman to bear a child. For all the fervor of those opposed to abortion, I’m here to tell you that if you think the women who fought to escape those back alley coathangers are going to be pushed back to the good old days, you’re crazy. No law is going to achieve that. The actual effect of these attempts to corral women are doomed to failure if for no other reason than they fall EXCLUSIVELY on those without means. Such laws ultimately serve to further distinguish the dismal hinterlands as bastions of regression where those unable to escape concentrate in pursuit of 19th century norms. Good luck with that!

Caravanfan's avatar

See the NYT op Ed I linked to above.

hmmmmmm's avatar

This is one of those issues where so-called centrism is the extreme position. There is no middle ground, despite certain peoples’ assertions. From my perspective, any restriction on abortion is an attack on bodily autonomy and should be fought by any means necessary. It’s that critical. But from a fundamentalist position, this is a religious issue that requires fighting for the souls of God’s creation. There is no finding a middle ground here, and there shouldn’t. This is a battle that needs to be fought.

Either women have the right to control their bodies….and vote, and drive, etc or they don’t. And the fact is, Roe was insufficient to really address reproductive freedom anyway. We need universal single-payer healthcare that guarantees (at a federal level) full funding for abortion with no questions asked, period. Until then, these people will continue to peck away at rights until they mean nothing.

Zaku's avatar

@KNOWITALL “They have to deny personhood to kill them with no guilt. Just like my grandfather did with barn cats. Like Nazis did to Jews. Like whites did to blacks. To me, its all the same dehumanizing process.”
– No, it is not the same, at all.

The world is full of all sorts of living things, and they die all the time. Some of them are fully developed people with entire life experiences, people who know and love them, and huge amounts of investment of all kinds (emotional, material, energetic, resources, the lives of thousands or millions of other living things they have consumed as food, financial, etc) just in getting them to be the age where they might be pregnant in such unfortunate circumstances that that woman overcomes all her maternal feelings and commits to the choice to end the pregnancy.

In comparison to all that, what is the foetus? The foetus is an undeveloped proto-infant that has only lived inside a womb, never been known as a person, may well end due to miscarriage, and so on.

The difference in the value of the two, as measured in so many ways, is immeasurably huge. And the woman carrying the foetus has the most reason to value it, her bearing it is a huge risk and responsibility upon her, and if she could abort it right away (as in many cases, she can if she knows and has access to the means) it’s abortion will impact (or even be known to) practically no one else.

The only way I see to reverse those values and judge that the foetus’ value outweighs the mother, is to invoke a gigantic amount of misogyny, and a terrifying capacity to righteously negate other people’s ideas, experiences, rights and authority.

Yes, I value the lives of animals as far more significant and worthy of protection than the life of a foetus that the woman carrying it chooses to abort.

And, the pregnant woman carrying that foetus and who is so linked to the consequences of whatever happens to it, to me is clearly the ultimate owner of all moral authority about what to do about it.

Go ahead and call it alive.

Go ahead and call it person, but only if you also call animals people. I say animals are people, and they deserve more rights than foetuses!

To me, plants are too, and I feel they also deserve more rights than foetuses.

But it’s not really even about the rights of the foetuses, because who the heck are Republicans (especially male politicians) and backward priests and their flocks to presume to know the will of a foetus or zygote in a mother’s womb?

Perhaps the spirit of the foetus might prefer to be aborted if the woman carrying it feels that is the correct choice.

Who the heck are the backward Christians to claim to know the will of God about it? If God’s infinitely wise plan was for a woman to become pregnant via rape, what informs them that it’s not God’s infinitely wise plan to let the woman have an abortion?

Because if spiritual arguments are a part of it, I can point to cases where young children have told their parents that they remember being the spirit in the womb of a woman who lost or aborted their previous pregnancy. In spiritual thinking that I subscribe to, spirits choose the foetus they incarnate into, and if a pregnancy ends, the spirit isn’t destroyed.

Do we have freedom of religion in this country, or not?

To me, the anti-abortion position seems very backwards, an imposition of mistaken patriarchal-based ideas and weird religious notions that aims to overpower the rights of women to make a decision that is clearly theirs both morally and actually.

JLeslie's avatar

I think MO is definitely being discriminatory.

There is a chance that maybe the PP had some problems with cleanliness, and so that must be corrected, but to close down PP is an outrage. I don’t need to explain all of the services PP provides, and I know some people want us to believe that there are other clinics that can provide the same care, but in my experience a lot of women don’t have access to other places, and PP is known to want to help girls and women without judgment, and that just isn’t true for all medical facilities and not true for all doctors.

dabbler's avatar

Some good three-year-old analysis by John Oliver. The new requirements are not based on any problems, they are designed to drive the remaining clinics out of business.
The stated goal of ‘protecting women’s health’ is a new bogus sound bite coming out of the mouth of every anti-choice sycophant on TV.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@All What did you think would happen when all of us saw cheering in NY? Its naive to think conservative states wont retaliate. So here we are.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I’m not surprised everything is ramping up, but I’m not sure we can blame push for liberal abortion laws as the place it all started. Do you you know how many Republicans I know who never liked Trump, but voted for him in the end because of the Supreme Court? It has a lot to do with wanting to overturn Roe v Wade. Democrats do the same and vote for the Democrat who wins the primary, I’m not saying they don’t, and a portion of them also do it with the Supreme Court in mind.

Republicans for years have been chipping away at abortion rights making it harder and harder for women to get abortions.

The Republicans blocked Obama from putting in a 9th justice, which in my opinion is the biggest outrage of our time in politics. Seriously, I will never get over it. I’m guessing now and forever this will be pulled by both parties when they can do it. It’s horrible.

Do I think the NY law pushed things to the brink? I really don’t know, but I can tell you the law of the land was Roe v Wade, and Democrats were overall fine with legal abortion until viability, and I don’t think Democrats would have fought to expand it or clarify further at the state level in any way if Republicans just let it lie and complied with what the Supreme Court had decided. Most Democrats are just fine with the viability parameter, and prefer abortion be done early if it is going to be done.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@KNOWITALL The trouble with this “retaliation” of conservative states is that it is regressive. The thing about this that conservatives will deal with at their peril is that unlike other issues, this one is rather unique in that its dominated by antagonists who happen to be women. Those on the side of Roe view this (correctly) as a war over who is to have control of women’s bodies, and I can tell you whether you believe it or not, any answer other than the women who own those bodies will not be tolerated by those pissed off women. Those days are gone!

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL “They have to deny personhood to kill them with no guilt.”

It’s not that we’re denying something personhood, we’re saying that it never attained it in the first place. Would you ascribe personhood to menses? ejaculate? Any human cell that (is very much a living human cell) that has the potential to become an independent lifeforms via cloning? I think we would both agree that it would be silly to call those living human cells “people.” I believe that without higher brain function, those cells haven’t become people yet.

What about on the other side of the equation: a person who has become brain dead (permanent vegetative state with zero higher brain function)? Should they still be considered a person legally if they have no humanity left and require life support for their organs to continue to work? Should someone be called a murderer for “pulling the plug?” That question is very much relevant to answering the point you raised. Let’s say someone you loved were to become a vegetable and the technology existed to keep them alive for 50+ years on life support. How would you feel if someone told you that you weren’t allowed to make the choice allowing your loved one to die because their extremist interpretation of their religion regarded such action as murder and they had subverted the Constitution to get their views codified into law?

You are so certain that you’re right about this (that you’re willing to remove people’s rights to choose for themselves), I beg you to explain to all of us not just why we’re wrong, but why you’re so certain that you’re right that it’s not possible for others to get to make those decisions for themselves?

JLeslie's avatar

@stanleybmanly Don’t underestimate the outrage many people have regarding abortion. They look at it as murder of a person equal to or even more important than the woman carrying the fetus. They don’t care about the woman. You are looking at it through your lense.

Some take it further that it is their mission, from God, to stop abortion. I’m not talking about the fanatics that blow up abortion clinics, I’m talking about a lot of average religious people.

You have to hope the Supreme Court will come down on the right of an individual (in this case a woman) to be able to have domain over her own body. Let’s hope. I don’t feel as secure as you do.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@gorillapaws good answer above, especially your final paragraph. That’s the crux of the problem. I think the answer will be “Because it is, and you can’t question it”. Which is brainwashing.

gorillapaws's avatar

@JLeslie “Some take it further that it is their mission, from God, to stop abortion.”

This is especially ridiculous because the Bible EXPLICITLY REQUIRES women to take an abortifacient if they’ve been unfaithful to their husband: Numbers 5:27. The only rebuttal I’ve heard is that it’s not talking about an abortifacient but actually magic water that is somehow cursed by the priests. Even if this were the case that it was, in fact magic water, the fact that it causes abortions would still make it an abortifacient.

Anti-choice radicals aren’t even good at understanding their own religion.

kritiper's avatar

@Zaku To YOU it’s not the same. (The “barn cats, Nazi” response.)

JLeslie's avatar

@gorillapaws A line in the bible probably won’t matter. I’m pretty sure there are multiple lines of God talking about killing babies in the womb from what I have heard. I think some are from the New Testament, and not just the Old Testament. The way I see it, “thou shalt not kill” has now been applied to the fetus, and the rest is ignored.

Back hundreds and thousands of years ago babies were like property and came last. You know the saying don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, well, because the baby was bathed last in the dirty water after the adults. Infant mortality was huge. Miscarriage was probably similar to today, lets say 1 in 5 known pregnancies (it’s much higher really, because many miscarriages aren’t counted when they happen in the first weeks) and then deaths by age 5 were something like 2 in 5 children in the early 1800’s, some countries higher than others. 40%! So, having confidence in a fetus making it was not the same attitude as today for very good reason, and men and women were very aware of the perils of pregnancy, because maternal death happened more often too. My guess is back 5K years ago, or move forward from that to the time of Jesus, pregnancies and babies didn’t make it left and right, and were seen more as a matter of course. Most women got pregnant multiple times. Probably, some were happy when miscarriages happened between pregnancies to give themselves a break from going through another pregnancy.

Religion throughout time has been used as a tool to push ideas and curb behavior, and it just matters what the particular leader wants for how they use the particular religion.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws I’ll reply to you since you asked a direct question regarding a brain dead person.

For the most part, Pro-Lifers and many Christians, and others as well, do not believe it’s our right to turn off any kind of life support. If were up to us, a person in that state would be left alive permanently unless they legally made it clear that’s not what they wanted..

This is an odd analogy, but like marijuana legalization, state’s can assert rights that don’t follow Federal law. That’s simply what is happening with the conservative states right now.

@JLeslie I think you underestimate the number of people appalled by NY (etc) and the cheers and #SYA. Not just Christians and not just conservatives.

Caravanfan's avatar

Speaking as a Jew now, I’m really offended when pro forced birth people insist that removing a 6 week old embryo with no central nervous system from a uterus is the same as burning Jews.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Caravanfan Sorry if you’re offended, that wasn’t my intent, but the dehumanizing process is a real issue.
Liberals say Reps dehumanize Muslims and immigrants, and many conservatives feel the same about abortion. 40 million more babies have died since 1973 than the number of Jews that died in the Holocaust.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL “40 million more babies have died since 1973 than the number of Jews that died in the Holocaust.”

20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, the percent of miscarriages that happen before the pregnancy is known is estimated to be nearly 50%. That means either God is a monster who kills about 1 “baby” for every one that survives, or perhaps God doesn’t really consider them people yet either, which is why there are examples after examples of instances where fetuses aren’t treated the same as a person in the Bible.

Caravanfan's avatar

@knowitall you say “sorry if you’re offended” and then you go right ahead and do it again.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL “For the most part, Pro-Lifers and many Christians, and others as well, do not believe it’s our right to turn off any kind of life support.”

What if the technology becomes available to extend someone’s life for 500 years or more (10,000 years?)? Do you really believe God would want you to keep grandma alive to exist through her 486th birthday when she’s been a vegetable for centuries?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Caravanfan Of course, it’s my Question and you chose to participate. I’m not forcing you to read the posts or comment. The fact remains that there is no comparison when it comes to actual numbers, one you feel is a horrible tragedy (I assume) and one is fine. That’s not how many of us feel, both are horrible tragedies.

hmmmmmm's avatar

Still don’t know what all the fuss is about. One of our own here has cracked the puzzle and found a “middle ground” position as a solution to the whole abortion issue.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@hmmmmmm The fact is, there are two factions of people, one who consider the fetus a pre-born child, and one who considers it a clump of cells. That’s a pretty big difference to find middle ground on.

hmmmmmm's avatar

^ Absolutely. I was being sarcastic. As you probably recall from that thread, I argued with this “middle ground” advocate on how absurd the concept of middle ground is re: abortion.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@hmmmmmm Oh, hard to read sarcasm in the written form, sorry. I agree- far too much difference of opinion.

See this (doctors can be prosecuted, not the women)—-

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson on Friday signed a bill that bans abortions on or beyond the eighth week of pregnancy without exceptions for cases of rape or incest, making it among the most restrictive abortion policies in the nation.

Under the law that comes into force Aug. 28, doctors who violate the eight-week cutoff could face five to 15 years in prison. Women who terminate their pregnancies cannot be prosecuted. A legal challenge is expected, although it’s unclear when that might occur.

Caravanfan's avatar

@KNOWITALL “I’m not forcing you to read the posts or comment.”
Good point, I will unfollow.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Caravanfan Good choice, I have done so several times myself. This is not a safe space.

chyna's avatar

So does that mean the place wasn’t really filthy or does it mean they don’t care what the clinic conditions are? Or was it all lies?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@chyna It’s a temporary restraining order to keep it open and performing abortions, basically overriding the Health Dept.
The Columbia, MO clinic was shut down due to the bodily fluids, etc.. and cannot perform abortions now, but can provide womens health services.

STL was due to shut down today, so I assume with this ruling, they will remain open and able to provide all services.

St. Louis Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer ruled Friday, just hours before the St. Louis Planned Parenthood clinic’s license to perform abortions was set to expire. He issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Missouri from allowing the license to lapse.

“The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services had declined to renew the license. It cited concerns with “failed abortions,” compromised patient safety and legal violations at the clinic. Agency officials also wanted to interview additional physicians at the clinic.

Planned Parenthood officials had said that if the license lapsed, Missouri would become the first state without an abortion clinic since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision legalizing abortion nationwide.”

flo's avatar

Somehow I ended up in in someone else’s OP, (same topic) so I posted this answer there too before realizing it.
That’s a ton of posts since I posted so I haven’t read all of them.

This response is to “I know some good people who are “pro-choce” Not all good people do and say everything correct. And not all bad people say and do everything wrong. So, it’s neither here or there. If I hear a student say “2+2 is 5”, should I say “He/she is a 3rd grader.” to the people who are saying to her/him “No,“2+2 is 4”? No, because that would lead the student to think that being a 3rd grader adds credibility to his “2+2 is 5” The only thing there is about it is that it’s not 5 it’s 4.

MrGrimm888's avatar

It’s no different than any other extreme form of religious law. It is based solely on religion, and thusly, has no place in the modern world. It discriminates against females, and is basicallya disgrace to any progress the human race has made, in freeing itself from the bonds of organized religion.

ANY attempts to site women’s health, as a reason for ANYTHING pertaining to religion, should be seen for what it is. Hypocrisy, and an attempt at controlling, oppressing, and eventually practically enslaving females.

Sadly, this will NOT result in anything except illegal abortions, subject to zero oversight. This is a PROVEN fact, wordwide. The simple fact is that such outlawing, will ultimately lead to a dramatic decline in women’s health.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I probably didn’t write my answer well. I actually said at the time of the NY new law passing that I wish they had not done it, because it’s just antagonized people more. Suddenly, conservatives were screaming infanticide in bigger numbers than usual.

For a while now at least a few loud voices have been out there saying liberals want to abort 9 month babies and slaughter them (which is total bullshit and a horrible lie) but the NY law certainly helped ramp up the determination of the religious right to end abortion rights, I agree with you.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie Agreed, thats exactly what happened. We even had a protest yesterday in Springfield, police had to come. I hope violence doesnt increase but its likely to.

@MrGrimm Stl is right by Illinois, the abortions are done there, so probably not back alley quite yet. Also, its not just religious people against abortion, as mentioned either. But point taken.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL But, understand that liberals were, and still are, very nervous about what pro-life is trying to do, and pro-life has had some success. Many states had limited abortion rights before the NY law. Trump is putting in justices that will likely want to limit or get rid of abortion rights in America.

Maybe conservatives see Roe v Wade as the initial blow, and pro-life has been fighting against now for 40 years? Is that it? I think to liberals we see pro-life as the antagonizer, so then NY was a reaction to the fear that pro-life is making headway. NY was seen as a preemptive strike to protect women.

The POV on each side is very different I think. The perspective from each side’s own shoes.

chyna's avatar

One article I read said there was another clinic 10 miles away in the border state, so if this clinic is truly the filthy mess it is said to be, hopefully women will go to the nearby clinic for cleaner, safer healthcare.

jca2's avatar

When you think about it, if it gets to where you have to go to another state (not referring to the border of Missouri, more referring to people having to go farther, like to NY) or to another country, the poverty rate will go up. Who will be having abortions? People who can afford the trip to a far state or country, like Ireland. Who will be giving birth? Poor women who can’t afford to make that trip. Maybe women with substance abuse issues who rather spend the money on drugs than a trip to get the abortion.

JLeslie's avatar

@jca2 So true. The poor will have less access no question. That’s why it behooves the poor to be religious. A way to deal with their powerlessness.

I’m not saying there aren’t rich people who are religious too, there are many situations where all the money in the world doesn’t help, but the more money the more power over many situations.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Maybe we should just stone the females who become pregnant out of wedlock. Covering their faces, would probably make females less likely to have sex too. Probably making female circumcision mandatory, would be another step in the right direction.
We might want to consider just chaining females up. Then the men can decide all of the females decisions. After all, we can’t expect the lesser genders to think for themselves…

No. It isn’t just religious people who are opposed to abortions, but would these front lines for the fight against legal abortions be taking place in predominantly religious states, if not for religion? To ignore, or downplay the Christian role in this cause, is an indefensible position…

JLeslie's avatar

^^Married women get abortions too.

jca2's avatar

I used to work in a part of the government agency where we went out in the field with a public health nurse and assessed people who needed home care, in order to determine their eligibility for care and what they needed. These were Medicaid cases (which is why I, working for the government agency, was doing this). Most of these people were elderly, but there were children and adults with cerebral palsy and other things that made them bedbound or housebound. It was always upsetting to see the children, and see that this was about the most that their lives would ever become. In diapers, being suctioned, tube fed or maybe if they were lucky, being fed baby food on a spoon. Maybe getting some therapy so they could move their limbs or experience tactile sensations and the most basic of things.

These people needed 24/7 care. Moms and dads have to work, they can’t stay home and nurse the child. These people got 24/7 aides to supervise them and take care of their needs.

Thinking about this, and thinking about how states like to keep their costs down (as per my links on Missouri above), I hope they’re prepared for the rise in Medicaid costs to care for these most needy. It’s not just the 24/7 care, it’s the medical equipment, the medication (seizure medication, etc.), the special food, the transportation, the programs (for the lucky ones that get to go to a day program and would benefit from a day program).

Before working for this unit, I knew there were people in nursing homes, people of all ages, but I didn’t realize the quantity of infirm children and adults who are living at home with care like this.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@JLeslie . That is true. But, you’re missing the point altogether.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@jca2 . Sad, but true. Points often completely ignored by pro-lifers.

JLeslie's avatar

I’m reminded of what happened when my husband was working for a certain company that self insured healthcare after reading what @jca2 just wrote. The company used BCBS to administer the plan, but the company used only its own employees as the group that was paying in, it wasn’t part of a bigger BCBS group plan. Many companies do this, and many employees don’t realize it. So, what that means is if a procedure is denied, if challenged, ultimately the decision is actually the company the employee works for, not BCBS.

Ok, so anyway, what you said about costs rising because of people with disabilities, during the time my husband worked for a particular company there were two premie births in one year where the babies need extraordinary measures to be kept alive, which the parents chose to do, hospitalized for months, and the babies did live, but had extreme disabilities. It was a fortune. The premiums were raised on all of us because of it. Most employees didn’t know specifically why, and they shouldn’t in my opinion, but my husband was in charge of benefits so I know what happened.

I don’t judge the parents, and I was never angry about the increase in premiums, but I’m just saying this is a reality. These parents wanted to be pregnant, wanted their babies, and as far as I know in these cases the babies were just extremely early. However, there are plenty of times that we do know the fetus has a serious problem.

One set of parents opted not to get a feeding tube for their child even though it was recommended. The child was alive, even at 2 years old, but skeletal and small, and I felt like the parents maybe were ok if nature or God took her. It was very sad. Some people felt the parents were torturing the girl not feeding her through the tube where she could get more nutrition. I don’t know if the child is still alive, this was years ago and I’m not connected there anymore.

Ana Navarro, the political commentator, has a disabled brother, and a couple of months ago I was watching her and she seemed to be supporting women having the option to abort fetuses that have known problems. She’s a conservative, but as you probably know hates Trump.

flo's avatar

A new born doesn’t have xyz that 10 yr. old does have never mind what an adult has. But there is no such idea that babies should be subject to the wishes of the mother whether to let the baby exist or not, and that it’s about the health (mental or physical).

stanleybmanly's avatar

The thing is that you aren’t going to legislate abortion away. It’s like the fight against ru-486 – the so called abortion pill. It doesn’t matter how draconian the obstacles erected in this era where the “fixes” grow ever more convenient and available.

JLeslie's avatar

@flo Actually, when the baby is born with many things wrong, or extremely early, the parents can decide whether to take extreme measures. If the doctors disagree with the parents’ decisions the doctor can go for a court order. It probably varies by state.

flo's avatar

@JLeslie Ok I did’t think of that. But , does that help the pro abortion side? It seems to me the opposite.

JLeslie's avatar

@flo It does help the pro-choice side, because the reality for society, if we force women to have babies that are disabled, is it will cost society a fortune, and most people feel putting a human being through a life sentence of suffering is cruel. Most people feel they would rather not be born if it was they themselves, so they want to make that choice for their child.

The pro-life side often will not accept any financial responsibility for other people’s children, so they don’t care about arguments about what it costs society, because they think society shouldn’t be paying anyway. They all seem to believe it won’t happen to them. It won’t be their baby. You will find conservatives who are more lenient about abortion, and often they either have a relative who died from a back alley abortion (like Romney, although he has flip flopped on the issue) have disabled siblings or children, had a fetus that had severe defects, or want government out of as many things as possible.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Indeed. I find many similarities, in euthanasia, and some abortions. The decision is likely VERY hard, and is ultimately made to ease great suffering of a loved one…

JLeslie's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Difficult in different ways to different people. The people I know who ended their pregnancy because something was wrong with the baby were fairly sure about ending the pregnancy, they weren’t really debating whether to do it or not. What was hard was they wanted to have a baby. Luckily, now we can find out about problems with the fetus at an earlier stage. Some of these women would never abort a healthy baby, no matter what the timing or circumstance was in their life.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Agreed. I don’t think ANY females choose abortions, if they think that the child will have a chance at a good life…

I know of a couple, who tried to have children, in spite of circumstances. They eventually had twins. Due to complications, both children were born prematurely, and eventually died. They had funeral services for both, and it was a catastrophic event. They kept trying, and now have two healthy children. But several attempts resulted in heartbreaking “failed” attempts. The female, is a nurse. The male, is a doctor, whose specialty was in a fertilization clinic… They had at least two abortions, due to complications. I am very happy that they have children now, but they went through some amazing trials, and tribulations, to get to that point.

However, I don’t think that the abortion discussion, is focused on such couples. Or those with similar issues.

I don’t think that pro-lifers, get caught up in such grey areas. They are stuck on principles, not individual cases…

I personally think that ANY pregnancy, is a hard road. I think that ALL decisions regarding the pregnancy are largely overlooked/oversimplified, by those who vehemently oppose abortions. As is the quality of life of the potential child, or it’s needs…

KNOWITALL's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I guess what I see as a problem with your last post, is that many of us don’t feel you give our lives enough credit or value.

Whether it’s my friend who’s a rape baby who grew up to be a fine man, husband and father. Or my other friend who was in foster care (several actually) and have great lives and children of their own. People on the autism spectrum, or my cousin who has a Downs baby. Or even me, raised by a single mother- to us, our lives have value and all of your posts seem to automatically assume all of us are ‘better of dead’. It’s offensive.

You probably won’t ever understand from our pov as an ‘elective birth’ child, but many of us contribute to the world in many ways, trying to make it a better place. Only because our mothers chose LIFE for us, are we here today, so yes, it’s kind of a big deal to a lot of people.

JLeslie's avatar

@MrGrimm888 You’re wrong, plenty of women choose abortion because it isn’t a good time for them (the woman) to have a baby, or the baby will cause some sort of big complication in their own life. Pro-life people know it, and trying to state that women always abort for the child will have them tune out fast.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie I just sent that particular post to the Tidepool so you can see it. It’s very interesting.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL ” Only because our mothers chose LIFE for us, are we here today”

That’s the whole freaking point though isn’t it? The women who wanted to have a child despite the challenges will give that child the best possible future they can. That’s so important for CHOICE, it’s that people get to make those decisions for themselves. What you’re referring to is called the survivorship bias.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws Call it what you want, it’s reality. How many Einsteins have we killed already? How many future Presidents or politicians who could make the world a better place? Don’t you people ever think about what you’ve done and who these people may have been?

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL And how many Hitlers have been aborted? Why are you assuming that these zygotes will become Einsteins? The vast majority are going to be born into horrendous situations if their mothers are forced to carry unwanted fetuses to term. Many will have horrible developmental disorders and will die within the first year of life after costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. For what? It’s ridiculous (actually, disgusting is a more appropriate word) for you to say that you and your pals get to make the decision for that couple—all based on an inaccurate interpretation of the Bible. Oh and let’s not forget that the wealthy women will just hop on a plane and “get it taken care of” in whatever country it’s legal, while the most poor and desperate will still abort, just with underground back-alley coathangers and unlicensed creeps in unsterile conditions.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws Horrendous? Okay, who’s sensationalizing now…

Many will have developmental disorders, where did you find those stats, I’d love to see them.

No one has to raise a child they don’t want, leave it (legally!) at the Fire Dept, hospital or Police station and let others do it.

Maybe you don’t like a blind dog but someone else has been waiting for it. Don’t kill it just because YOU think it’s trash.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL ” Horrendous” Yes, horrendous. Poor moms being legally obligated to carry an unwanted fetus to term against her will is going to result in horrendous outcomes (it certainly used to). How many new Fire Deptments will we need to build every year, if we’re going to be adding about 1m unwanted infants to the population? Christ, our child services are notorious for doing a poor job keeping kids safe in the current system, can you imagine how much more “horrendous” things will get? How many crack-babies have you adopted by the way?

I don’t think blind dogs are trash. Not sure where the fuck you got that from? But if I had a dog that was pregnant and one of the fetuses in the litter had a severe deformity that was guaranteed to not survive past the first year, I think it would be the right thing to do to terminate it before it ever developed into a puppy that had to suffer.

Your inability to see the inconsistencies in your positions is really quite impressive. Hell, the Bible actually requires abortions in certain instances, and there are plenty of examples of fetuses being considered less than a person in the good book.

JLeslie's avatar

Not fond of the Hitler talk, but in the book Freakonomics the authors argue crime has gone done down significantly because abortion became legal. They note that crime went on a big decline about 18 years after it became legal, surmising that those kids that would have likely had less than ideal circumstances growing up, who might have been more at the mercy of bad living situations and bad rearing, were not born.

gorillapaws's avatar

@JLeslie “Not fond of the Hitler talk”

I’m not either, I simply brought it up in response to the “Einstein” talk. I think for every Einstein, you’re going to be more likely to have several horrible people based on statistics. As you mentioned, crime plummeted 18 years after Roe v. Wade.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws How many groceries do you buy for single mothers? When do grandma and grandpa become optional, too?

I use the dog analogy because you liberals seem to care more for animals than babies. Could you watch a puppy torn limb from limb or stick a scalpel in it’s skull? These are humans and deserve more compassion imo.

Also stop using the Christian adjective like it’s the only reason we care about babies. Plenty of atheists and secular folks in general oppose abortion, so stop using that same tired argument, we all know better.

@JLeslie You know it’s interesting that you and @Caravanfan get soooooo upset about the slaughter of 11 million Jews and we aren’t allowed to be upset about almost 50 million babies. I respect both of your opinions normally, but not in this.

JLeslie's avatar

Here is a link for anyone interested in reading the statistics they presented. Of course it can be said that it is coincidence or just a correlation and not causation, but it is interesting to see everything they looked at. I in no way am saying women should abort, I am only saying that if we are going to go down the road of whether we are aborting an Einstein or a Hitler, well, I just don’t think there is a way to really qualify that.

@KNOWITALL I wouldn’t say I am so upset, but yes, I see a difference between terminating pregnancies and killing 6 million Jews and 3 million others (including the disabled and people of other faiths who risked their lives trying to help Jews, and so many others). Most likely it was more than 9 million, your number is 11 million, and it might be that high, I have seen stories done on how it is believed that some of the mass killings might not be accounted for, but not likely 11 million Jews. Everyone counts. I try to always include all who were targeted and killed, not just the Jews. The Jews are significant because it was 30% of our population, and because we continue to be targets, but any group can be a target.

When people called Trump Hitler I took issue with that too, because Trump was not rounding up people and sending them to the ovens, and Trump is not actively trying to rid the earth of particular groups of people, even if people don’t like how he is treating certain groups. Let’s not forget what Hitler did, and that is why I don’t like to pull out Hitler unless it really compares. I understand that for you abortions are the same I guess, you feel it is killing a human being, so I am not angry at you for the comparison, I am just saying I don’t see it the same way.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie Yes, I find it eerily similar actually, and the sheer numbers prove it’s acceptable genocide on a larger scale.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I’m not going to try to change your point of view, but I find it very different. Abortions in America are not targeted at a particular group (even though some people are trying to promote that idea, now that I find reprehensible, but I realize it is basically a political move to try to get African Americans to be Republicans) abortions are the choice of the pregnant woman for her own baby that is at least in part the same race as herself. If she terminated the pregnancy are you saying she is like Hitler? Targeting a group for extermination?

Let’s not forget that historically groups and societies that control fertility do better. Fewer births usually means higher education levels, less poverty, better living conditions, less crime, etc.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie I’m saying, as I’ve said several times lately, that I fully believe that those who seek abortions and are screaming with delight at their murders, de-humanize the fetus so they can murder it without guilt. Oh well, just a fetus, just a zygote, just a clump of cells. No shame in my game, because it’s not a person.

With women it’s ‘skirts’, or blacks “the N word”, or Jews “shiksa” or “schvartze”, Chinese “chinks” or “Japs”, etc…. I’m just using derogatory terms for the similarities btw.

I’m certainly not trying to minimize the impact violence has had on other groups, but yes, I do find it quite upsettting that so few care.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL “How many groceries do you buy for single mothers?”

What does that have to do with being pro choice? I support a variety of political positions that help people in poverty, it’s Conservatives that are stomping on the poor (often Christian ironically)... let’s be real.

“When do grandma and grandpa become optional, too?”
When they don’t have higher brain function and aren’t able to have human experiences or thoughts. It’s pretty clear-cut. If you don’t have a mind, then you’re basically just a “shell” at that point. Likewise, if you haven’t developed a mind, then you’re also just a “shell.”

“Could you watch a puppy torn limb from limb or stick a scalpel in it’s skull?”
After it was born? No, that’s barbaric. If it was a Zygote, then I don’t have those same concerns. Let me ask you a question, have you ever euthanized a pet?

“Also stop using the Christian adjective like it’s the only reason we care about babies”
I think the “Christian adjective” is the only reason you’re trying to stretch the definition of “baby” to refer to organisms that are nothing like babies.

JLeslie's avatar

Delight is really pushing it. Saying something like that is going to make people tune out, just like I accused a jelly above who tries to say all women are concerned about the embryo.

I don’t see why people don’t understand at least to some extent the other point of view. I understand why the people who believe life begins at conception are so upset about abortion. It makes sense. That why I don’t argue about when life begins typically. If asked directly I’ll say my opinion on it, but I don’t argue that point.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie I’m certainly not meaning you, but yes some truly act delighted by their abortion, just erased their mistake and they moved right on. But some of the shout your abortion stories are pretty heartless and cold, one lady admitted to three because of her poor choices. She also said she is Pro Life now and has regrets.

@gorillapaws I think we’re talking around each other, so it’s not productive.

Basically, I practice what I preach. I help a lot of others and have many many times. If you really do, then I’m glad. Usually that’s left to Christians and the church to do by liberals.

See, you think it’s barbaric after their born, but they take on the appearance of a baby at 8 weeks. They shy away from the probes that will often end their lives. You may not want to acknowledge reality, but they are babies and the law says so, just ask Scott Peterson who killed his pregnant wife.

raum's avatar

Republicans are turning away immigrants using the argument that we need to take care of our own before bringing in more people.

Those people are already alive, yet they are denied some pretty basic human rights.

But let’s take away a women’s right to choose. Subject them to horrific medical conditions. Add millions of children into an infrastructure that can’t support them. And make 11-year-old rape victims relive their trauma for nine more months.

Sounds like a great plan.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL “appearance of a baby at 8 weeks”

So you’re now making the case that it’s the appearance that matters? I could make a statue that looked like a baby, and if I smashed it I would be a murderer? Your positions are totally illogical. Likewise, you could theoretically have a human brain in a vat with technology to help it communicate and we should treat it with as much respect as any other human person, despite it not looking like a human.

@JLeslie ”...when life begins…”

You’ll find no debate from me about when life begins. It begins even before conception. Sperm and egg cells are living human cells-that’s perfectly factual, and I don’t think any pro-choice supporter would ever debate that a zygote is a living organism. Human saliva contains living human cells too. It’s not the existence of life that’s profound, it’s the existence of higher-level cognition that gives a being a different kind of status that merits more consideration than saliva.

And yes, I would argue that dogs and other animals capable of higher level thought should be treated with a different level of consideration than simple organisms like bacteria, fungus, human saliva etc.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws Ahhhh, so you’re one of those jellies who asks a question, I respond and then you twist the question, got it.

You: I think the “Christian adjective” is the only reason you’re trying to stretch the definition of “baby” to refer to organisms that are nothing like babies.

Done with you, thanks for playing.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL I think you’re one of those jellies who gets called out the logical inconsistencies of their position and then runs away to their safe place. I think that it comes down to (mostly ignorant) Christians believing that zygotes get their “souls” at conception, and that’s the origin of all of the nonsense (By the way, I’m not talking about all Christians, there are plenty of intelligent ones who understand that the Bible doesn’t actually advocate for the anti-choice positon). They know they can’t argue rationally based on “souls” so they have to resort to middle-school debate tactics of abusing definitions for their emotional value to infuse properties into a lifeform that it doesn’t have. It’s a fallacy of definition.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL How about we go with indifferent rather than delight? They get it done and move forward. I have a friend from childhood (she’s just a fab friend now) who has had two. She says she sometimes thinks about how old they would be today. It’s more a statement about her loss of the possibility of what could have been, or might have been. So, it’s not like she never had another thought about the abortions, but she doesn’t regret it.

I have friends who regret aborting. A couple are Christians, fairly religious, and aborted because they were afraid their family would be angry for one reason or another if they found out they were pregnant, or found out who the father was. Another, who is also Christian, was in college, and her parents convinced her.

I know more people who have aborted, but I don’t know their thoughts about it. I remember a young jelly here asking us about abortion, which one to do, and she finally took the pill and seemed “happy” it went without much difficulty and she was “glad” it was taken care of. I guess those emotions could be described as delight from your perspective.

One friend of mine became pregnant, and she was pro-choice politically, but not for herself. Her family was Catholic. The pregnancy created some havoc for her, but she had a lot of support, and she did a quick wedding. She said to me, “when I thought about the possible option of abortion I realized it would be so easy, and then I’d be back to everything as I had planned.” She basically indicated she just never even had thought about it that way. So, maybe that fits with delight for you too. The women who just turn the clock back in what I guess you would say at their convenience. She didn’t abort, she never considered it, like I said, choice was for others, not for her. She has two kids and is still married to that same guy.

flo's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I haven’t fisnished reading all the posts after mine but re. “They are stuck on principles, not individual cases…” The first thing is what are the facts? Are we talking about a person (however invisible he/she is ) or not? The anti-abortion side doesn’t deny that fact that it’s a person. It’s anti science to deny that. Scientists are not supposed to have the conclusion first and then get the fact’s that would support that conclusion. Pro abortionists are anti science on this issue.

flo's avatar

What percentage of pro abortionists’ existance is because of anti-abortionist parent/s grandparents, aunts, uncles…?
What percentage of anti-abortionists’ existance is because of so called “pro-choicers”?

dabbler's avatar

There is no such thing as pro abortionist.

Pro corporal sovereignty.
Pro personal liberty.
Pro get the government out of my body.
They are pro having a safe option available for the women who make that choice.

The same people are pro effective sex ed and pro contraceptive education and availability.
Places where those programs are readily available have much lower abortion rates than places that pretend abstinence is all you should know about sex.

JLeslie's avatar

Pro abortion availability is valid in my opinion. If Democrats can argue black lives matter too then why be so bothered by the term pro abortion in terms of abortion rights?

flo's avatar

@dabbler Is the content of your post new to anyone? No. Which post does it repond to? Not the posts just above it.

dabbler's avatar

@flo That statement pertains to anyone who thinks there is such a thing as a pro abortionist.

flo's avatar

@dabbler 1) “What percentage….?” (in my previous to last post)
2)See @JLeslie‘s post just above your last post”…why be so bothered by the term pro abortion in terms of abortion rights?”

stanleybmanly's avatar

@flo No one can tell you how many people there are among us currently because their mothers could not obtain an abortion. But I can guarantee that the ONLY people in the future denied abortions will be those poor women incapable of escaping Missouri, Alabama or other wasteland locales. It isn’t and should NEVER be liberals making the decisions for women faced with unwanted pregnancies. You might pass such laws, but when the day arrives that pregnant women have the option of simply transferring said pregnancies to pro life wombs for gestation, the decision and responsibility must still rest exclusively with the woman so burdened. You just plain are NOT going to outlaw unwanted pregnancies any more than you can outlaw sex.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Anyone who uses the term “pro-abortion” is simply misstating the issues in a simplistic way, and is not being intellectually honest. No one is for abortion. I’m certainly not. But I am for women being able to make their own choice.

By the same token, anyone who compares abortion to Hitler’s Germany is guilty of living up to Godwin’s Law see explanation. and has lost the argument.

@flo calling people false names to make a dubious point…. that’s beneath you.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@flo . I’m not sure if I fully understand what you’re asking me, but I’ll attempt to clarify.

It seems that most pro-lifers, see every fetus, and every pregnant female, as the same. They seem hung up on that principle. But that is a vast oversimplification. Sometimes the female has a personal reason to opt for an abortion. Other times, the health of the fetus, and therefore it’s potentially poor quality of life, is the reason for the abortion.

Going in a different direction, I would offer the following.
There is a reason that the US is lenient on say, crimes committed by minors. There is a tacit understanding that younger people simply make errors in judgement, and that shouldn’t mean that they have to pay for such decisions forever. Nor should the country be burdened by having to impose, and enforce appropriate punishments.
I don’t have statistics in front of me, but given the fact that human females have a finite amount of years where they are fertile, I feel comfortable assuming that the majority of abortions are carried out on a mostly younger part of the female population.
I suppose I am saying that I am glad abortions are an option, so that younger females, and the children they may not be able to care for, are forced to endure the consequences of youthful acts of indiscretion.

@KNOWITALL . I am/consider myself, a realist. IMO, I am respecting life, by not forcing females to carry/raise unwanted children. I am also respecting the unwanted/unhealthy unborn, by not forcing it to endure a life of most likely hardship. I agree that some people overcome the obstacles that might have led them to be aborted in other circumstances. But to say that the majority will have a good quality of life, is disingenuous, and unrealistic. And, as I’ve said before, you are directly responsible for these children facing such an uphill battle, by voting for, and supporting Trump’s agenda. Trump is, after all, the same man who claims America is “full,” because he doesn’t want immigrants coming in and being subsidized by the US government. An opinion shared by many of his supporters. Yet, they want to force millions of children into an already overburdened system, without the resources to help them have quality of life.
You can find my “value” of unwanted/unhealthy-handicapped children as offensive, if you like. I find your “value” of the already living equally, or more offensive.
If you feel morally superior, by defending the unborn, but ignore the needs of the living, that’s a stance you made need to do some introspective thinking about.

Yes. People with birth defects, or handicaps, can make positive contributions to the world. But, I would wager their lives a much more frustrating, and involve more suffering than you appreciate. Throughout my time in school, there was a group (maybe 25, or so,) of kids with a variety of special needs. As I grew, so did they. I knew this group from when I was 9 years old, until I left high school. They did NOT have a good life. All were bullied, and laughed at, by other “normal” kids. All had health issues, ranging from eating gum out of the toilet, to severe disabilities, like the complete inability to do anything but lay in a chair, and look at the ceiling. If there was ever a more miserable group of people, I never knew if them. As we grew up, many of their conditions deteriorated, and most became more and more frustrated with life. By high school, some who used to at least be able to walk, were permanently wheelchair bound, and dealt with constant pain. Some of those kids slowly died. Others now live with family, or eek out miserable existences, with social security money giving them just enough to survive. Others are neglected, while their guardians cash SS checks, for their own needs.

There are an untold number of perfectly healthy kids, who grew up in extreme poverty, and ended up dead, or incarcerated.

Let me be clear, that I am not speaking for all pro-choice people. But my opinion, is that many of the people I just mentioned, would have rather never been born.

I believe that suffering, should be prevented, whenever possible. I also believe that a female should have the right to determine how to manage her own health, and that the living female’s rights supercede that of any unborn child.

Do I wish, that we lived in a different world, where all children would be healthy, and taken care of, and where people didn’t get raped, or have incestuous offspring? Yes. But that’s not the world we live in. If your God would like to use his universe creating power, to make it a better place, that’d be great… Then, we wouldn’t even have to have this conversation…

flo's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Whether it’s “If you feel morally superior, by defending the unborn….,” (your words) or _ _“If you feel morally superior, by defending the women….,” those statements don’t help make the debate enlightening.

Re. your response to @KNOWITALL, the suffering of the live handcapped people, I don’t even believe what I’m reading, considering what the conclusion would be.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I don’t believe that there is a morally superior side of the abortion debate. Nor do I see how the debate can be enlightening.

But there is such a thing, as being hypocritical. Defending the unborn, until they are born, is exactly that. For every reason @KNOWITALL wants to protect the unborn, she could/should be applying that logic to caring for the living. Caring about the living, is something not one Trump supporter can claim…

@KNOWITALL and I have respect for one another, but also have some things that we call each other out on. I hope that she is aware that I wouldn’t waste my time trying to pull her from the dark side, if I didn’t think she is a genuinely good person, who is simply better than some of her claimed beliefs. If I’m not mistaken, I conceded that some people who are less fortunate, health wise, can have positive impacts on this world. Which I thought was her point. I also added that ,by my observations, many have frustrating, and painful lives. I opined that many people in rough circumstances, would have rather not been born. I did not say that they should die, or should have been aborted.
My position on life, is that needless suffering is not necessary. In cases where a person is suffering, and/or has a very low quality of life, with no real ways to improve their situation, having been aborted may have been the “lesser of two evils.”..

If I learned that my unborn child, had some sort of defect, that would cause it suffering, I would prefer it never be born. Some females agree with that, and terminate their pregnancies, to keep their child from suffering. That is the only “conclusion, ” that I can speak of…

I’m not sure how enlightening my opinions are, but such issues as quality of life, are relevant to a discussion about abortions. If you have read even a small amount of my posts here, you already know that I don’t declare my positions on subjects, based on the popularity of the statements. I do apologize, if I offended you. But I find being disingenuous, more offensive, than being honest…

KNOWITALL's avatar

@MrGrimm888 The wonderful thing about our country is that we all get a vote based on our beliefs. And yes, we’ve disagreed before and will again, and that’s okay. I still like you even when we disagree. :)

Listen, I grew up poor, I grew up not having a dad in my home. My single mother wasn’t able to pay for cheerleading or summer camps or new clothes. I was angry and made some mistakes in my life, but at no point did I wish she had chosen death for me. At one point I decided to leave my past in the past and get off my butt to help make the world a better place instead of just taking up space, so I did and I continue to do so.

The point that I think many of you on the Pro-Choice side can’t seem to understand is that no matter how many struggles you have in life, or obstacles, for most of us, the will to survive and live is strong. Our contributions to society have value.

I do think it a little odd that @MrGrimm888 can argue all day about illegal immigrants rights in our country, and be Pro Choice but that’s his business.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I guess you personalize it. You feel it easily could have been you not here today.

A lot of people on the pro-choice side are talking about severe health issues, daily physical pain, not just not going to camp. I’m not trying to trivialize your experience, I’m only asking you if you see a difference between growing up poor on a single parent home, and being severely disabled and worse in pain. Could you watch your child in pain every day? Struggling to breath? Screaming when they were nearing the hospital, because they know the route? And, knowing they will likely die during childhood? There are different disabilities and different situations and each one deserves consideration and not a blanket law prohibiting acts of mercy.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie TBH, your post sounds condescending to me, a 46 yr old woman. I don’t appreciate it.
And yes, I take it very personally.

If you want to get visual, I can literally post the exact procedures step by step in an abortion, so you can see what you’re voting for.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I’m not wanting to be condescending. I’m sure you do see the situations as different, I know you aren’t stupid, but are you wanting to force that child to be born with the severe illness? Or, are you ok aborting that fetus? I don’t remember if you had exceptions or not when it comes to abortion. Some pro-life people do, some don’t.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie I thought it was odd you’d say that to me, thanks for clarifying.

And yes, I do actually personally believe in the adoption of exceptions such as rape or incest (with qualifiers such as age to prevent misuse), or some birth defects that are debilitating (not Downs, blindness, etc.., for example.)

Just understand I don’t talk about that much, especially here, because that’s less than 3% of all abortions performed statistically.

As far as abortions in general, I could list the reasons the PP in STL was not given a license by the Health Dept, such as out of date pills, etc…I simply don’t think any common sense reason will be accepted by liberals when it comes to abortion or PP, or the closing of these facilities. Even when I mentioned to a doctor here on this site, about bodily fluids from previous procedures being found in the machines, he did not say that is wrong or they should have been shut down, he decided to stop following the post instead of condemning practices he knew for a fact were documented and unsanitary!

It’s difficult to discuss with a group of people who won’t deal with the reality of the situation, and what these places are doing, all the ambulance calls in a one year period in St Louis, it’s staggering that Dems defend that and want them to stay open to ‘help’ women. Is an abortion worth dying for?

Here’s another interesting article:

Stache's avatar

^ Ben Shapiro. Really?


KNOWITALL's avatar

@Stache Really? Some liberals tolerate him, I thought it was a chance I’d take here…lol

He was nationally syndicated and wrote two books by the time he was 21, not a stupid man and the article is very interesting. I agree with him on several issues, although he does seem more Right than Libertarian at times.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I will agree that some people on both sides don’t want to give an inch, or admit when their own side is maybe in the wrong or being hypocritical.

The thing about allowing for exception with abortions is who decides which exceptions, and if doctors are worried about losing their license or going to jail who will be around to preform the procedures for the exceptions?

Will women be questioned when they miscarry? Do republicans really want to police pregnancies and births in that way? Will women not go to the doctor so the pregnancy isn’t documented? It definitely will drive abortion underground. Just the sheer numbers of abortions proves that there will still be tons of abortions.

flo's avatar

@MrGrimm888 How about the millionares, multi billionares, must feel soooo bad for the rest of us they should try to not have us around since we must be suffering, that it’s cruel /torturous to let us see how lucky the wealthy are.
Or the blond and blue eyed and tall should feel sooo bad for the rest of us….(same thing)

flo's avatar

We probably have come across people who are superior to us even with their handicap. There is a reason why the relatives of the victim are excluded from having a say in how the defendant should be dealt with in the legal system. How I feel about the fetus or the born with defects, should not get mixed up with whether or not they should get to live or not live.
Is it about me? I don’t know.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@flo But that’s just the point. The practical effects of anti abortion measures are barely an inconvenience to anyone with the ability to reach Iowa or Illinois. And you can bet that the abortion rates in those 2 states will climb to match ANY reductions obtained through this law. There is also the additional bonus already gearing up of economic boycotts spurred by hornet angry women nationwide. The repercussions of regressive measures from our 3rd world regions will achieve little in retarding the arrow of history. The world is moving on, and such places will in the end be drug along with it. For all I know, abortion may indeed be a great evil. But neither I nor the state of Missouri should have the right to force pregnancy on a woman.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@flo . I have attempted to clarify, that I have no say in a female’s decision to keep, or abort a child. But there are, to me, acceptable reasons for them choosing to abort their child.

As a man, I can only support a female’s right to make her own decisions, based on her own beliefs, and/or circumstances.
Making an abortion a non-option, is NOT a fair option. Not for the pregnant female, or for the potential child.

I will state my stance, once more. A pregnant female’s rights, should supercede the rights of an unborn child. And the NOBODY, should be able to take those rights from the females facing these difficult decisions.

I am not advocating that females should choose abortion, in ANY case. But I am advocating their right to choose, based on their circumstances, and/or beliefs…

flo's avatar

Do the last two posts address the 2 posts above it? No. Nothing about the analogy of the billionaires or the blond and blue eyed,...

@MrGrimm888 What inspired the following question?
It can probably get annoying for some to constantly be reminded how they are viewed.” Their handicap is how they are underestimated how they are looked down on…

By the way, “Nor do I see how the debate can be enlightening.” Generally, debates can be enlightening as long as no one is calling anyone names, etc.. It’s not everyone saying the same thing just in different words (echo chamber) that is enlightening is it?

flo's avatar

To expalin my post before (last sentence) “Is it about me? I don’t know.”, meaning, if I think that the fetus/ born person with defect would probably prefer to die could be about my feelings of not wanting to see imperfecton or “imperfection”.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@flo . I don’t recall ever calling anyone names. I certainly don’t have the faintest idea what “blond hair, blue eyes,” etc, has to do with anything. If you are somehow attempting to connect my opinions on abortions, with Hitler, I am afraid that we are having a massive communication error…

As far as imperfections, there is a world of difference between imperfection, and needless suffering.

flo's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Why do you think I’m referring to you with my “calling people names”? Re. , “I am afraid that we are having a massive communication error…” I would think you would have explained (since you would want me or anyone reading to see the light.) how it’s not about people who are considered the wrong kind (handicapped are suffering because I have decided that they must be suffering) because of how they are born or would be born (“something wrong with the fetus”) they are not Aryans.
Re. my word “imperfection”, I was using it for all the different levels of “imperfection” that some pro-abortionists see it as.

Would you like to address the biilionaires part in my post?

flo's avatar

…To edit part of the above. ”...because of how they are born or would be born (“something wrong with the fetus”) and that non Aryans they are not Aryans.”

MrGrimm888's avatar

I would be happy to address the “billionaires” part of your post. But I don’t understand it. Could you maybe articulate the question differently, or clear it up for me?..

Otherwise, you seem to be inferring that I think only Aryans, should be born. Which I can’t understand where you got that, from my posts…

flo's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I don’t think I can reword it.

Re. the Arayans thing I never indicated that yours or anyone else’s posts say so, at all. I was just bringing it up as in to say why stop there?

MrGrimm888's avatar

Ok. I think that’s a stretch, but point taken.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther