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

[Headlock]

2 hours ago, Harrier said:

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.
 

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.

These are contradictory statements. You, in providing a strict week limit and restricted access are directly “robbing” doctors of their ability to provide care. Additionally, you are fully negating how the law and medicine enter into conflict regarding this in the real world, and how anti-choice laws are deliberately vague to allow legislators, who have no medical knowledge or training, to restrict access beyond what even you find morally right.

[Harrier]

2 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said:

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”

Because there are obvious, clear differences between a newly concieved fetus and a healthy, viable 9 month old fetus. Abortion laws around the world reflect this in basically every developed country having some kind of restriction after 24 weeks (including progressive ones with universal healthcare). Sometimes it's earlier. I'm not sure if you all are aware of this reality or not. I will agree it is very difficult to find the exact line of fetal viability, fetal health and the health of the mother, but this is where doctor discretion comes in.

 

And on the second hilighted pont, why would I do that? This is in no way the reality of what I think, but typical of an idealogue to paint anyone with disagreement as anti-choice, as callous, or as obstructionist. You all insist on doubling down on every issue, offering no room for nuance because of the supposed slippery slope of conceding any inch, even if that inch might actually be morally coherent. 

 

And for the record, I'm an atheist, considering I've now been accused of being religious.

[Harrier]

24 minutes ago, Headlock said:

These are contradictory statements. You, in providing a strict week limit and restricted access are directly “robbing” doctors of their ability to provide care. Additionally, you are fully negating how the law and medicine enter into conflict regarding this in the real world, and how anti-choice laws are deliberately vague to allow legislators, who have no medical knowledge or training, to restrict access beyond what even you find morally right.

There is no contradiction, only your lack of understanding. In Australia (the laws I was referring to) the law allows doctor discretion after 22-24 weeks (depending on state), allowing for assistance to be given to mothers where deemed necessary. Is that a 'strict' limit in your mind? For the record, again, these are the kinds of laws we see in virtually every country that provides abortion access. Your position here is fringe and extreme

[Headlock]

54 minutes ago, Harrier said:

the law allows doctor discretion after 22-24 weeks (depending on state), allowing for assistance to be given to mothers where deemed necessary. Is that a 'strict' limit in your mind?

By definition, yes, because you are naming a specific numerical value 

[Sannie]

The argument for or against abortion at 7 or 8+ months is moot because abortions that late into pregnancy rarely happen just because the mother is bored and no longer wants the baby. They happen when there is a medical issue. Who tf puts their body through hell for 8 months just to change their mind last second? Hardly anyone.

[Bloo]

22 hours ago, Harrier said:

Because there are obvious, clear differences between a newly concieved fetus and a healthy, viable 9 month old fetus. Abortion laws around the world reflect this in basically every developed country having some kind of restriction after 24 weeks (including progressive ones with universal healthcare). Sometimes it's earlier. I'm not sure if you all are aware of this reality or not. I will agree it is very difficult to find the exact line of fetal viability, fetal health and the health of the mother, but this is where doctor discretion comes in.

 

And on the second hilighted pont, why would I do that? This is in no way the reality of what I think, but typical of an idealogue to paint anyone with disagreement as anti-choice, as callous, or as obstructionist. You all insist on doubling down on every issue, offering no room for nuance because of the supposed slippery slope of conceding any inch, even if that inch might actually be morally coherent. 

 

And for the record, I'm an atheist, considering I've now been accused of being religious

Would you support the government forcibly requiring you to have your kidney removed from your body to transplant into someone else? Or would you rather have the choice to have your kidney removed?
 

This is about bodily autonomy. It is your body, so no government should have any say as to what a person does to their own organs. Why then do we somehow think the government has the right to say that the uterus is its property that it has the license to regulate?

 

That’s a terrifying world if you think the government has that ability. I honestly don’t care if a person has an abortion at whatever point because it is their body and it’s none of our f***ing business. 

[Harrier]

1 hour ago, Bloo said:

Would you support the government forcibly requiring you to have your kidney removed from your body to transplant into someone else? Or would you rather have the choice to have your kidney removed?
 

This is about bodily autonomy. It is your body, so no government should have any say as to what a person does to their own organs. Why then do we somehow think the government has the right to say that the uterus is its property that it has the license to regulate?

 

That’s a terrifying world if you think the government has that ability. I honestly don’t care if a person has an abortion at whatever point because it is their body and it’s none of our f***ing business. 

A 9 month old fetus is not comparable to an organ omfg, speechless  we are never going to agree here bc to me that argument is sheer inhumane madness

 

the fact that you all genuinely think it would be okay for a woman to just change her mind and abort a healthy pregnancy the day before her due date is just insane to me. insane. the 'it doesnt happen' is truly just a redirect to avoid having to contend with the brutality of your beliefs

[Communion]

14 minutes ago, Harrier said:

A 9 month old fetus is not comparable to an organ omfg

This is religious hysteria on your end, and I say that as someone who was born premature and on opiates and who was almost aborted due to people suggesting to my mother that a child being born addicted to heroin would cause more trouble than worth. Of course I love being alive, but I don't take the hysterical idea of some hypothetical that the fetus could have been me to mean that somehow bodily autonomy is not worth protecting. 

 

It's veering more and more into the "think of the unborn!!" rhetoric and you should ask yourself why you have those religious feelings that makes you hostile to what are women suffering unfortunate realities.to center your religiosity. 

[velocity]

2 hours ago, Bloo said:

Would you support the government forcibly requiring you to have your kidney removed from your body to transplant into someone else? Or would you rather have the choice to have your kidney removed?
 

This is about bodily autonomy. It is your body, so no government should have any say as to what a person does to their own organs. Why then do we somehow think the government has the right to say that the uterus is its property that it has the license to regulate?

 

That’s a terrifying world if you think the government has that ability. I honestly don’t care if a person has an abortion at whatever point because it is their body and it’s none of our f***ing business. 

What about the babies bodily autonomy and right to live?

 

This isn't a foetus, this is a fully developed human being that is fully viable and alive. It's outright murder. And the goverment does indeed already have the 'scary' ability to stop/punish you from killing someone innocent.

[Bloo]

28 minutes ago, Harrier said:

A 9 month old fetus is not comparable to an organ omfg, speechless  we are never going to agree here bc to me that argument is sheer inhumane madness

 

the fact that you all genuinely think it would be okay for a woman to just change her mind and abort a healthy pregnancy the day before her due date is just insane to me. insane. the 'it doesnt happen' is truly just a redirect to avoid having to contend with the brutality of your beliefs

Please give me a single example of this even happening? When you carelessly invent laws to address make believe problems, then you easily open up loopholes to harm other people as well.

 

Please cite me one example of a woman getting abortion at 8-9 months for fun? One example will do. 

 

Until you do that, then all you’re vouching for is legislation that will make it more possible for women who will die from giving birth being denied healthcare because Ron DeSantis or Greg Abbott think the doctor saying the woman’s life is at risk is just a political operator and not a healthcare professional doing their job. 

8 minutes ago, velocity said:

What about the babies bodily autonomy and right to live?

 

This isn't a foetus, this is a fully developed human being that is fully viable and alive. It's outright murder. And the goverment does indeed already have the 'scary' ability to stop/punish you from killing someone innocent.

And this is an issue that concerns the fact that writing legislation to try to have the government interpret health conditions of people to restrict healthcare only opens up women dying because their lives are risk from giving birth.

 

Making a law where the government is now able to prevent healthcare and deny a doctor the ability to treat patients is a terrible idea and so beyond illogical.

[ClashAndBurn]

24 minutes ago, Harrier said:

A 9 month old fetus is not comparable to an organ omfg, speechless  we are never going to agree here bc to me that argument is sheer inhumane madness

 

the fact that you all genuinely think it would be okay for a woman to just change her mind and abort a healthy pregnancy the day before her due date is just insane to me. insane. the 'it doesnt happen' is truly just a redirect to avoid having to contend with the brutality of your beliefs

“It doesn’t happen” is just the reality. You wanting laws to obstruct what doesn’t happen only serves to add bureaucratic hurdles that someone who’s carrying a non viable pregnancy that could put their life in danger would have to overcome within the courtroom of an activist judge who makes the exact same moral arguments you are making, but with all stages of any given pregnancy. If the mother dies, that is the “will of God” and we should do nothing to change that outcome if it means there’s a one percent chance that the innocent infant’s life can be spared instead.

[Harrier]

20 minutes ago, Communion said:

This is religious hysteria on your end, and I say that as someone who was born premature and on opiates and who was almost aborted due to people suggesting to my mother that a child being born addicted to heroin would cause more trouble than worth. Of course I love being alive, but I don't take the hysterical idea of some hypothetical that the fetus could have been me to mean that somehow bodily autonomy is not worth protecting. 

 

It's veering more and more into the "think of the unborn!!" rhetoric and you should ask yourself why you have those religious feelings that makes you hostile to what are women suffering unfortunate realities.to center your religiosity. 

i am an atheist, repeadely calling me religious isnt going to change that reality 

 

you people are deranged, straight up. this is a mask off moment as far as im concerned. as velocity rightly states, at 9 months a fetus is fully viable and alive. you are saying a woman should have the ability to not only ask that a healthy 9 month old fetus to be removed from her uterus, which is one thing, but also for its life to be ended. madness, utter madness

 

i will grant that it is difficult to find the line of viability, but that doesnt mean we should just give up and decide that a fetus is completely worthless unti! it is born. i just am at a loss here jfc

 

again repeating myself, I KNOW that this doesnt happen. but just be ******* normal and say that the above theoretical is immoral or unethical. why is that so impossible?

 

[Bloo]

I cannot understand how people can follow the story of a child from Ohio, who became as a result of a rape, was forced to flee the state and get an abortion in Indiana to end a pregnancy because the abortion restrictions prevented her from receiving necessary healthcare.

 

How can you follow that story and think government being involved in restricting healthcare is a good idea? Healthcare is between a doctor and the patient. 

[velocity]

12 minutes ago, Bloo said:

Please give me a single example of this even happening? When you carelessly invent laws to address make believe problems, then you easily open up loopholes to harm other people as well.

 

Please cite me one example of a woman getting abortion at 8-9 months for fun? One example will do.

Why do you require an example to discuss the ethics of something. Legally? Nowhere that I'm aware of today and that's how it should be. But don't think for a second that these things don't happen illegally because they unfortunately do.

 

Either way, if it never happened or happened every second, we're discussing wether it's ethical and your argument is that it is.

[Communion]

Just now, Harrier said:

i am an atheist, repeadely calling me religious isnt going to change that reality 

Then we're both atheists but atheists born in and raised in culturally Christian societies, with you not yet unlearning specific cultural indoctrination that is not actually rooted in scientific fact and finding.

 

The rhetoric and articulation of your feelings you have are innately rooted in the Christian idea that life starts at conception and thus a fetus is a life even before birth. You're shaking in terror and calling people murderers because they're comfortable with the unfortunate, tough reality that a living pregnant adult's life is worth more than that of a fetus, even at 9 months. What happens to mothers whose health will be in danger if they're forced to birth a healthy 9 month fetus? How does your knee-jerk reaction to "think of the unborn"  via legislation reconcile with these realities?

 

I trust doctors to understand their profession enough without needing to be legislated against by religious conservatives which is why the amount of "healthy women aborting healthy fetuses at the end of their ninth month" is less than 0.1%. You'd not even be able to share a medical record of such occurring. 

 

You're doing slippery slope Christian panic syndrome and not even aware of it to where you're cosigning legislation restricting rights on abortion access. 

[Bloo]

1 minute ago, velocity said:

Why do you require an example to discuss the ethics of something. Legally? Nowhere that I'm aware of today and that's how it should be. But don't think for a second that these things don't happen illegally because they unfortunately do.

 

Either way, if it never happened or happened every second, we're discussing where it's ethical and your argument is that it is.

My argument is that it is extremely unethical to say the government has a say on healthcare decisions and can deny healthcare to people that need it. 
 

Discussions about ethics should be grounded in real world problems. If you wan to live in the world of hypotheticals rather than real world problems, that’s on you. It makes no sense to debate things that do not happen, especially when that debate is used to justify laws that harm other people that aren’t spoken of in the hypothetical you posit. 
 

If you think it’s okay for the government to deny healthcare to a woman who will die unless she gets an abortion 8-9 months into the pregnancy because the government isn’t sure to trust the doctor’s judgment, that’s on you. To that end, I find your ethics very questionable. 

[velocity]

2 minutes ago, Bloo said:

My argument is that it is extremely unethical to say the government has a say on healthcare decisions and can deny healthcare to people that need it. 
 

Discussions about ethics should be grounded in real world problems. If you wan to live in the world of hypotheticals rather than real world problems, that’s on you. It makes no sense to debate things that do not happen, especially when that debate is used to justify laws that harm other people that aren’t spoken of in the hypothetical you posit. 
 

If you think it’s okay for the government to deny healthcare to a woman who will die unless she gets an abortion 8-9 months into the pregnancy because the government isn’t sure to trust the doctor’s judgment, that’s on you. To that end, I find your ethics very questionable. 

It's sad to see that you deny the existence of this issue for women all around the world. If that's what you want to believe then I cannot do anything about it.

 

All I can say is that late term abortion is not healthcare, it's the opposite. A baby that is viable and alive doesn't need to be aborted, it can be removed and allowed to live. Late term abortions and birth are pretty similar in the process, it leaves the body either way. There is zero need to kill them, it's senseless and evil. Placing the mothers life above the kid's but trying to save both is not abortion and not wrong.

[Harrier]

2 minutes ago, Communion said:

Then we're both atheists but atheists born in and raised in culturally Christian societies, with you not yet unlearning specific cultural indoctrination that is not actually rooted in scientific fact and finding.

 

The rhetoric and articulation of your feelings you have are innately rooted in the Christian idea that life starts at conception and thus a fetus is a life even before birth. You're shaking in terror and calling people murderers because they're comfortable with the unfortunate, tough reality that a living pregnant adult's life is worth more than that of a fetus, even at 9 months. What happens to mothers whose health will be in danger if they're forced to birth a healthy 9 month fetus? How does your knee-jerk reaction to "think of the unborn"  via legislation reconcile with these realities?

 

I trust doctors to understand their profession enough without needing to be legislated against by religious conservatives which is why the amount of "healthy women aborting healthy fetuses at the end of their ninth month" is less than 0.1%. You'd not even be able to share a medical record of such occurring. 

 

You're doing slippery slope Christian panic syndrome and not even aware of it to where you're cosigning legislation restricting rights on abortion access. 

i grew up in a family of athiests have never been to church, and the life at conception thing is more of an American thing that isnt as relevant in my country. dont push narratives where they arent relevant - i have these thoughts outside of religious influence

 

I agree that a adult mother's life is more important than that of a 9 month of fetus - BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The mothers life is not threatened at all in our theoretical scenario. it is purely you rating some arbitray idea of bodily autonmy over all other considerations. further, once removed from the uterus, does the living baby not have bodily autonomy? what gives the mother the right to end its life?

 

See the thing is, I actually trust doctors and the laws I argue for actually center their judgement. it allows them to make tough choices to protect the mother's life while also acknowledgeing the obvious reality that the unborn fetus at a certain point in pregnancy becomes something worthy of consderation, rather than just cells. your laws instead make doctors powerless by makign them forced to listen to the mother, even in an extreme hypothetical like weve been discussing

[Bloo]

4 minutes ago, velocity said:

It's sad to see that you deny the existence of this issue for women all around the world. If that's what you want to believe then I cannot do anything about it.

What are you talking about? You have literally refused to give a single example of women choosing to have an abortion at 8-9 months for fun. You would rather restrict healthcare options for women that need an abortion based on a hypothetical because you are denying the reality of abortion.  
 

Trusting doctors to be more intelligent on how to take care of patients is the logical thing. Unless you’re a medical doctor, your opinion on how to hypothetically “save both the baby and the mother” is baseless and unimportant because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
 

Unless you’re a medical doctor, you do not have the license to speak with authority about how to treat people in the space of healthcare. 

[Bloo]

5 minutes ago, Harrier said:

The mothers life is not threatened at all in our theoretical scenario.

The problem is you’re just arguing about a theoretical/hypothetical scenario that doesn’t happen (to which you and others refuse to provide a single example) and the rest of us are discussing the ramifications for real-world scenarios and how legislation based on your rhetoric will kill living, breathing women.

[Communion]

21 minutes ago, Harrier said:

i grew up in a family of athiests have never been to church, and the life at conception thing is more of an American thing that isnt as relevant in my country.

Again, I have never been to church either. Not having religious parents is not somehow an opt-out of growing up in a religious society. Australia isn't a religious nation? You're not going to convince anyone of that.

 

21 minutes ago, Harrier said:

further, once removed from the uterus, does the living baby

A fetus with a higher than not chance of surviving outside of the womb would not be aborted. The issue is you seem to think 180 days is some magical number and once past it that all fetuses can survive outside of the womb except in very rare circumstances. Nearly 8% of babies born globally before 38 weeks (read: 259 days) die due to being premies and premature birth is the leading cause of infant death in the world. Pregnancy is a laborious effort for the mother because pregnancies themselves are fragile. A woman even being just a few pounds overweight can negatively impact fetal health.

 

Imagine how many babies' lives you could actually save if instead focus this outrage and energy towards improving the conditions that lead to these deaths (pre-natal health, access to healthcare) rather than theorizing over what red tape needs to be in place legislatively to not allow a crime to happen before it even happens.

 

21 minutes ago, Harrier said:

your laws instead make doctors powerless by makign them forced to listen to the mother,

You have honestly no clue what you're talking about. Do you think there are compelled abortions in Canada?

Not criminalizing the act of a medical procedure to protect victims =/= forcing all doctors to engage in said practice.

Conscientious objection is a thing and undercuts literally everything you're claiming.

Edited July 22, 2023 by Communion

[Harrier]

45 minutes ago, Communion said:

Again, I have never been to church either. Not having religious parents is not somehow an opt-out of growing up in a religious society. Australia isn't a religious nation? You're not going to convince anyone of that.

 

A fetus with a higher than not chance of surviving outside the womb would not be aborted. The issue is you seem to think 180 days is some magical number and once past it that all fetuses can survive outside of the womb except in very rare circumstances. Nearly 8% of babies born globally before 38 weeks die due to being premies and premature birth is the leading cause of infant death in the world. Pregnancy is a laborious effort for the mother because pregnancies themselves are fragile. A woman being a few pounds overweight can negatively impact fetal health.

 

Imagine how many babies' lives you could actually save if instead focusing this outrage and energy towards improving the conditions that lead to these deaths (pre-natal health, access to healthcare) instead of theorizing over what red tape needs to be in place legislatively to not allow a crime to happen before it even happens.

 

You have honestly no clue what you're talking about. Do you think there are compelled abortions in Canada?

Not criminalizing the act of a medical procedure to protect victims =/= forcing all doctors to engage in said practice.

Conscientious objection is a thing and undercuts literally everything you're claiming.

RIGHT!! EXACTLY!! So both you and the doctors actually doing this acknowledge that it would be cruel and unethical to abort a highly viable fetus when there is minimal to no threat to the mother. Great, end of argument. No doubt, part of the reason it doesn't happen is precisely because it would be madness and no doctor is going to agree to do something like that. You also say there is room for concientous objection in Canada, and I think we had veered off discussing Canada - but great! Im happy about that. But is this not in line with what I would want, not the laws that you are arguing for? where doctors are making informed moral decisions and using their discretion, putting the medical needs of the woman first but also placing some value on the emergent life of a 7+ month of fetus? Whereas you support the womans unrestricted right to 'bodily autonomy', including when her decisions might pointlessly end the life of a perfectly viable and healthy fetus that poses no threat to her.

 

Ill put it this way: in China, sex-selective abortions were theoretically legal for decades, resulting in the massive imbalance we currently see of males to females. This, theoretically, included the ability of a mother to find out her child was female at 8-9 months and abort that pregnancy. I do not know whether this actually happened - but if it did, does that not amount to assisted infanticide? Would the desire of a mother to have a male child outweigh the emergent life of her 8-9 month old female fetus? Should that be legal? We know that illegal mass infanticide (post birth) did occur under the one child policy - so this theoreitcal isnt even that much of a stretch.

[Communion]

14 minutes ago, Harrier said:

But is this not in line with what I would want

No, you're advocating for legislation to criminalize women who get abortions.

 

Again:

 

52 minutes ago, Communion said:

Not criminalizing the act of a medical procedure to protect victims =/= forcing all doctors to engage in said practice.

The lack of any laws criminalizing late-term abortions is not at odds with doctors not having to do what they don't want.

You're trying to demand there be criminalization where there is simply no need for.

[ClashAndBurn]

1 hour ago, Harrier said:

RIGHT!! EXACTLY!! So both you and the doctors actually doing this acknowledge that it would be cruel and unethical to abort a highly viable fetus when there is minimal to no threat to the mother. Great, end of argument. No doubt, part of the reason it doesn't happen is precisely because it would be madness and no doctor is going to agree to do something like that. You also say there is room for concientous objection in Canada, and I think we had veered off discussing Canada - but great! Im happy about that. But is this not in line with what I would want, not the laws that you are arguing for? where doctors are making informed moral decisions and using their discretion, putting the medical needs of the woman first but also placing some value on the emergent life of a 7+ month of fetus? Whereas you support the womans unrestricted right to 'bodily autonomy', including when her decisions might pointlessly end the life of a perfectly viable and healthy fetus that poses no threat to her.

 

Ill put it this way: in China, sex-selective abortions were theoretically legal for decades, resulting in the massive imbalance we currently see of males to females. This, theoretically, included the ability of a mother to find out her child was female at 8-9 months and abort that pregnancy. I do not know whether this actually happened - but if it did, does that not amount to assisted infanticide? Would the desire of a mother to have a male child outweigh the emergent life of her 8-9 month old female fetus? Should that be legal? We know that illegal mass infanticide (post birth) did occur under the one child policy - so this theoreitcal isnt even that much of a stretch.

If it were up to doctors to make moral decisions on the care they give, more gay people would be left to die bleeding out on operating tables because doctors disagreed with the morality of their “lifestyle choice.”

 

That is exactly what you are arguing to empower here, even if you don’t realize it.

[Sannie]

12 hours ago, velocity said:

What about the babies bodily autonomy and right to live?

 

This isn't a foetus, this is a fully developed human being that is fully viable and alive. It's outright murder. And the goverment does indeed already have the 'scary' ability to stop/punish you from killing someone innocent.

No human has the right to live if their living is reliant on someone else's body. It is that simple.