Leftist TERF Ana Kasparian comes out in favor of “some” abortion restrictions

[Communion]

43 minutes ago, Nights said:

They often cite moral reasons

People who have moral objections to medical abortions are not the voting base of the Democratic Party, which again undercuts and invalidates Ana's claim that liberals should "concede" ground to conservatives over laws on late term abortions in order to triangulate and expand their electoral prospects. It's even more nonsensical when remembering she is launching this attack of "losing the American voter by trying to be ideologically pure" against a Canadian. 

 

Why should a man from British Columbia care more about American religious delusions than the legal reality of his own nation where his view aligns with majority opinion and law?

Edited July 20, 2023 by Communion

[Rep2000]

42 minutes ago, TaggedGalaxy said:

Wait so leftists are supporting abortions at 9 months now? Like literally killing a healthy almost full term baby and you really made this thread as some kind of drag, seek help. Everyday ya'll stray further and further into the extreme and wonder why no one takes you seriously

Case in point.

[wastedpotential]

Yeah um I would be really, really surprised to hear about someone who carried a child 8 months and 3 weeks only to decide to abort it because they didn't want it 

[awesomepossum]

1 hour ago, Sergi91 said:

That’s giving birth 

Ana comes out against BIRTH. Get that hit thread sis!

[Summerboy95]

1 hour ago, Communion said:

A medical procedure is not a mexdcal issue? Why do you believe women don't deserve bodily autonomy?

Nine months... The 12-14 week debate is about the capacity of that potential life to feel pain. 

 

I swear you people need to start using critical thinking instead of thinking about rights expansion without any consequence. 

 

 

 

 

[Bloo]

Anyone that seriously expresses outrage and concern about 9-month abortions are arguing from a disingenuous place at best. Healthy 9-month abortions don’t happen so why should anyone argue about it?  

Accepting right wing propagandist framing to discuss policy is ridiculous. Ana shifting to the right wing talking points on this issue is such a glaring damnation of how much she’s abandoned her beliefs. She has to be grifting now. It was easy to believe the idea that she’s always been transphobic and now it’s just out there, but this is a major shift. 

[Communion]

9 minutes ago, Summerboy95 said:

The 12-14 week debate

A fetus doesn't even develop sentience until 24-28 weeks, which aligns with where Roe previously defined viability. During Roe's existence, only one state out of 50 explicitly banned third trimester abortions.

 

There is no "12-14 week debate". Anyone who thinks 3 months is some reasonable cut-off is a far-right radical not aligned with most Americans.

Edited July 21, 2023 by Communion

[Mike91]

3 hours ago, nostalgic said:

Can we stop with this late-term abortion hysteria? The only way a baby is getting "aborted" at 9 months is if the mother's life is in danger and there's no other choice. No woman is walking into a clinic at 9 months and having a D&E on a fully developed infant. 

Nothing else needs to be said. No one has an abortion that late unless they absolutely have to. 

[bad guy]

Well nobody gets an abortion at 9 months unless the mother’s life in compromised, which is already quite rare. And no doctor would ever do such a procedure on a healthy mother/child since that would be murder.

 

This is just right-wing hysteria.

[Summerboy95]

1 hour ago, Communion said:

A fetus doesn't even develop sentience until 24-28 weeks, which aligns with where Roe previously defined viability. During Roe's existence, only one state out of 50 explicitly banned third trimester abortions.

 

There is no "12-14 week debate". Anyone who thinks 3 months is some reasonable cut-off is a far-right radical not aligned with most Americans.

Well... The debate exists because most countries put the 12 week time limit. Not everything is united states related. Most americans (north-central-south American citizens).

 

What the tweet says is true. There's extremist people that think a 9 month baby could be killed if the mother says so. That's not how abortion works. 

[Communion]

3 minutes ago, Summerboy95 said:

The debate exists because most countries put the 12 week time limit.

Again, not America, and the person making the claim is an American media personality discussing / pushing a (dishonest) framing and claiming to do so in relation to electoral prospects of winning American elections.

 

Except most Americans aren't moved by the very things she claims will scare most voters away from her preferred politician party. So why is she fearmongering?

Edited July 21, 2023 by Communion

[XAMJ]

She’s right. No one has an abortion at 9 months unless it’s an emergency 

[Distantconstellation]

4 hours ago, TaggedGalaxy said:

Wait so leftists are supporting abortions at 9 months now? Like literally killing a healthy almost full term baby and you really made this thread as some kind of drag, seek help. Everyday ya'll stray further and further into the extreme and wonder why no one takes you seriously

Please stick to talking crap about female pop stars because when it comes to politics u are clueless af. No one is making 9 months abortion a thing. You are the Blaire White of AtRl. Constantly talking about issues that affects less than 1% of the population and making it a huge deal and existential crisis

Edited July 21, 2023 by Distantconstellation

[velocity]

Nobody who has an ounce of sanity left will support abortions at 9 months

 

[Harrier]

Some of yall are not making any sense on this issue. You say that 'no woman is having an abortion at 9 months' and calling the issue right-wing hysteria. It is true that it's not actually happening, even where it is theoretically legal. But refusing to make common sense, straightforward statements like 'it's wrong for a woman to abort a healthy pregnancy at 9 months' is what gives ammunition to the right wing. Ana is not playing into their rhetoric, you are. That's the point she is making about the serfs guy with the Tim Pool interview. She's reacting to the fact that that clip has been used to by the right wing to say - look, the leftists think it's okay to kill healthy fully grown babies when there is no risk to the mother.

 

Common sense, people. Obviously it should not be acceptable for a woman to abort a healthy pregnancy at 9 months. The argument that it should be legal because it doesn't actually happen doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There are any number of absurdly rare and specific things that we make illegal because it would be immoral, like I don't know, having sex with an emu. That isn't actually happening, but does that mean we should legalise it? Further, if it isn't happening, then what is the harm in making something obviously immoral illegal?

 

[Headlock]

5 minutes ago, Harrier said:

That isn't actually happening, but does that mean we should legalise it? Further, if it isn't happening, then what is the harm in making something obviously immoral illegal?

 

Because it invites the possibility of interference by non medical-personnel, like conservative anti-abortion judges, to make medical decisions ABOUT the exceptions when this does unfortunately happen due to concerns about the health of the fetus/mother. And when this does occur it is a medical emergency and requires fast decision making that can be held up about outside interference. The only people who should be making these decisions are the mother and their physician.

[Harrier]

7 minutes ago, Headlock said:

Because it invites the possibility of interference by non medical-personnel, like conservative anti-abortion judges, to make medical decisions ABOUT the exceptions when this does unfortunately happen due to concerns about the health of the fetus/mother. And when this does occur it is a medical emergency and requires fast decision making that can be held up about outside interference. The only people who should be making these decisions are the mother and their physician.

The argument is about a healthy pregnancy, not about cases where there is medical necessity. I of course support exceptions when the health of the mother becomes a consideration, as does Ana.

 

I can somewhat understand your argument in the context of a country where abortion rights are under constant attack, such as in the US.  But it is in essence a slippery slope argument, and I'm not sure it is really relevant in Canada in the same way, which is the country we are talking about. In a general, moral sense, thinking beyond just the context of the US, obviously it is unacceptable to abort a healthy 9 month pregnancy. The absolute stubbornness to say that is mind boggling to me.

[Headlock]

1 minute ago, Harrier said:

The argument is about a healthy pregnancy,

That ‘argument’ is a straw man fallacy. Bringing weight to it by legitimizing it as a real concern is doing exactly what you say we are doing: playing into conservative rhetoric.

 

2 minutes ago, Harrier said:

I can somewhat understand your argument in the context of a country where abortion rights are under constant attack, such as in the US.  But it is in essence a slippery slope argument, and I'm not sure it is really relevant in Canada in the same way, which is the country we are talking about. In a general, moral sense, thinking beyond just the context of the US, obviously it is unacceptable to abort a healthy 9 month pregnancy. The absolute stubbornness to say that is mind boggling to me.

Except we are not talking about Canada. Ana Kasparian is an American political commentator. We ARE discussing this in the context of the US, because that is the only context that is relevant for the person under discussion and the listeners of her podcast. The fact that she is (incorrectly) citing the words of a Canadian is the POINT, she is obfuscating the actual situation in the US and citing a Canadian as a boogeyman for the “slippery slope” of pro-choice legislation.

[Communion]

21 minutes ago, Harrier said:

The argument is about a healthy pregnancy

Who gets to define healthy - a liberal doctor or a conservative judge?

 

You're talking about common sense but yet Lance's view is the law within Canada. Why is Ana on the side of nazis like Tim Pool?

 

You're saying it's blatantly a moral failure when the reality is that there is not even a need to try and contextualize such a medical procedure within what are non-scientific contexts. Are knee replacement surgeries immoral? Are liver transplants immoral? Why does Ana give into the right by buying into propaganda that gender affirming care is a moral failure?

 

It suggests there's some universal scale of values society at large can agree upon. But medical science is not explored through values but measures of harm. And that has always been the sticking point with abortion that sees huge support for wide windows of access in places like America or Canada. That the violation of a mother's bodily autonomy may be greater of a harm than any conspiracy over when what we consider human life starts. 

 

The reason abortion is widely accessible up until 7 months and then requiring screenings and evaluations is to screen for reasons why someone may not be actually desiring to no longer be pregnant but feels forced to abort due to circumstances - not because we've bought into some moral position that at after 180 days of pregnancy the fetus suddenly is more valuable than the mother. 

 

if you wish to live in what you consider a liberal society, you have to at a point reconcile with the factually correct thing not being something you personally can stomach. Who gets to define a healthy pregnancy? Is it based on fetal health? On the mother's health? Is it only if the mother is physically sick? Are mother's who abort due to mental illness deserving of these lashings being advocated for? What if the woman wishes to abort due to socioeconomic reasons? How does tangling up access to medically necessary procures with fear-mongering legislation helping women?

Edited July 21, 2023 by Communion

[Arthoe]

14 hours ago, The Music Industry said:

Haven't watched Ana Kasparian in a while. Is she actually a TERF or is that something you made up? 

Nah, she ACTUALLY became a TERF this year. Had several transphobic breakdowns on Twitter over silly strawman arguments. Made cringeworthily inaccurate statements about the Black Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s in order to demonize trans people. (Not that exact verbiage but the essence was: "The blacks got their rights by being polite and nice, why are the transeses so violent and mean?")

[Harrier]

29 minutes ago, Communion said:

Who gets to define healthy - a liberal doctor or a conservat9ve judge?

 

You're talking about common sense but yet Lance's view is the law within Canada. Why is Ana on the side of nazis like Tim Pool?

 

You're saying it's blatantly a moral failure when the reality is that there is not even a need to try and contextualize such a medical procedure within what are non-scientific contexts. Are knee replacement surgeries immoral? Are liver transplants immoral? Why does Ana give into the right by buying into propaganda that gender affirming care is a moral failure?

 

It suggests there's some universal scale of values society at large can agree upon. But medical science not explored through values but measures of harm. And that has always been the sticking point with abortion that sees huge support for wide windows of access in places like America or Canada. That the violation of a mother's bodily autonomy may be greater of a harm than any conspiracy over when what we consider human life starts. 

 

The reason abortion is widely accessible up until 7 months and then requiring screenings and evaluations is to screen for reasons why someone may not be actually desiring to no longer be pregnant but feels forced to abort due to circumstances - not because we've bought into some moral position that at after 180 days of pregnancy the fetus suddenly is more valuable than the mother. 

 

if you wish to live in what you consider a liberal society, you have to at point reconcile with the factually correct thing not being something you personally can stomach. Who gets to define a healthy pregnancy? Is it based on fetal health? On the mother's health? Is it only if the mother is physically sick? Are mother's who abort due to mental illness deserving of these lashings You're advocating for? What if the woman wishes to abort due to socioeconomic reasons?

If we are talking at 9 months, then yes, period. A healthy fetus at 9 months is viable outside of the uterus. Aborting it in a non-emergency is in essence, robbing the fetus of its life.  It's not about what I can personally stomach, it's about what is morally acceptable as we collectively decide as a society. I believe that it what we should do in a democracy. Simply put, you are out of touch with not only most Americans but most people in general by suggesting that a difficult to measure, amporphus 'harm' such as in the case of socioeconomic difficulty or mental health outweigh the value of an emergent human life. You tacitly acknowledge the moral questionablility in the way you talk about it - insisting on using the impersonal language of 'medical procedure' to distance what would actually need to happen in this theoretical situation we're discussing.

 

I realise that I am in essence, making a pro-life argument for 9 month old fetuses, but I am comfortable doing so. I am in support of common sense abortion laws as in my country which allow for full access to abortion up to around 24 weeks, and then access with approval of a medical professional after that. To answer you other questions - I believe it should be liscenced professionals defining a healthy pregnancy, making an informed moral decision. That is why we have doctors and why it's so hard to become one: they make difficult moral choices about life and harm every day. Your concept of 'any time any reason' access to abortion actually robs doctors of the ability to make those difficult moral decisions that they are qualified to make.

 

edit: for the record, I don't mean I support lashings, I mean I support restrictions.

[TasteOfYourLips]

Am I misunderstanding something because that's called giving birth and it's perfectly legal to induce birth or have a c-section for a 9 months pregnant women? Unless they want to kill those babies after birth then I'm also against it 

[Communion]

35 minutes ago, Harrier said:

A healthy fetus

Again- who and what defines healthy? Why should people who don't practice your religion accept what is fundamentally a theological belief on your end? Viability is a loose medical term that can't be easily applied to strict legislation. Fetuses become viable at different stages due to different health conditions on a basis that can only be individually assessed and not rubber stamped with a week number that will comfort a particular religious delusion you may have. 

[ClashAndBurn]

1 hour ago, Harrier said:

If we are talking at 9 months, then yes, period. A healthy fetus at 9 months is viable outside of the uterus. Aborting it in a non-emergency is in essence, robbing the fetus of its life.  It's not about what I can personally stomach, it's about what is morally acceptable as we collectively decide as a society. I believe that it what we should do in a democracy. Simply put, you are out of touch with not only most Americans but most people in general by suggesting that a difficult to measure, amporphus 'harm' such as in the case of socioeconomic difficulty or mental health outweigh the value of an emergent human life. You tacitly acknowledge the moral questionablility in the way you talk about it - insisting on using the impersonal language of 'medical procedure' to distance what would actually need to happen in this theoretical situation we're discussing.

 

I realise that I am in essence, making a pro-life argument for 9 month old fetuses, but I am comfortable doing so. I am in support of common sense abortion laws as in my country which allow for full access to abortion up to around 24 weeks, and then access with approval of a medical professional after that. To answer you other questions - I believe it should be liscenced professionals defining a healthy pregnancy, making an informed moral decision. That is why we have doctors and why it's so hard to become one: they make difficult moral choices about life and harm every day. Your concept of 'any time any reason' access to abortion actually robs doctors of the ability to make those difficult moral decisions that they are qualified to make.

 

edit: for the record, I don't mean I support lashings, I mean I support restrictions.

If you’re going to make an anti-choice argument for 9-month old fetuses, why stop there? Why not just say that life begins at conception and outlaw all forms of abortion? That’s what your rhetoric allows to happen. The laws are intentionally kept vague enough that activist judges will impose their will on pregnant people no matter how far along they are.

 

Just admit you’re actually anti-choice and don’t care that those who are in the most urgent need of healthcare attention will be obstructed from life-saving treatments by activist judges because of your “morals”

Edited July 21, 2023 by ClashAndBurn

[Vermillion]

Ooph. I’m glad I was at a work event to miss the bulk of this thread debate. Seems most everything’s been unpacked already, including philosophy on viability and the medical vs. cultural breakdown and false framing.

 

I stopped following anything TYT (unless a reaction to them was trending) over three years ago so whatever with them. The lamentation over a lack of other progressive outlets is overblown, the ones available now, new and old, are just much smaller.

 

As for the state by state legislation, I’m mainly following the birth control angle at this point. I’m the one that keeps bumping the Roe thread, so apologies for annoying anyone with that