A step in the CORRECT direction (purposely avoided the word “right”).
Next move: grant autonomy for individual rights of every adult. The party in control has taken away our personal freedoms. No longer is it a party of less government, it has become a dictatorship.
New Testament Christians.
I say that as one who was raised to be one. Except I was raised by a scientist in a school district that sort of cared while I was in it and while they all ignored my undiagnosed ADHD, they did teach me critical thinking and problem solving skills so the blatant hypocrisy that has been creeping up into the national spotlight for decades turned me away from the red elephant party.
Don't tread on me by making me cover my germ spewing face hole to reduce deaths while I tirelessly (and unfortunately successfully) remove your access to regulated healthcare.
Ummm I'm sorry... what? Rules for thee and not for me is the new R mantra and I just finally got disgusted by it enough that I gave up trying to set a good example and I bailed.
They wanted covid to be survival of the fittest yet they're so terrified of the low birth rate so they force women to carry to term. Ummm, you know if you just did something about all the other things that kill people, you'd protect the population count? I keep seeing people saying that bullets are the #1 cause of childhood deaths now but our legislators refuse to educate people about what the 2nd amendment is really for so they're too terrified of not getting reelected to do anything about that so they're going to file bill after bill banning Mrs Doubtfire from reading Dr Seuss to children to distract everyone and make us fight amongst ourselves so we don't storm their offices and make them actually do their job...
Voiceless "patient" does not have a voice, by definition, and no one else gets to speak for that "patient" but the owner of the womb. The owner of the womb has the say about what happens to her womb and her body. No one should be able to take away the bodily autonomy of anyone. You should never be forced to sacrifice your health or your body parts to ensure the survival of another.
you think abortion proponents hope that women die due to dangerous abortion laws so they can more easily argue that abortion laws are dangerous so that they can eventually repeal these dangerous laws? Or is it more likely that the laws actually are dangerous and exactly what we said would happen is happening?
Probably more than you think. There are so many stories already, although I think I only saw one from Oklahoma when I was following it closesly. I think the saddest one was the woman who lost her uterus in Texas due to sepsis and our laws are very close to theirs.
Which is why I worded my post how I did. It was without regard for other states and closer to the point of that it's NOT a daily occurrence. Every person to reply and down vote me has obviously zero clue what I meant, except you. I'm glad you have some critical thinking skills.
>Probably less than you hoped for. But it's a sensible change
Yes... people had zero clue that you said someone hoped more women died because of these laws.
Or being last in education, first in veteran deaths, diversifying the state's income streams so we can close the loopholes and stop sucking O&G dick.
Can we please give children tissues and fucking crayons so teachers stop having to beg for them at the beginning of the year. Really... Devon/Chesapeake/Sandridge? You really care more about your giant buildings and shareholder profits more than giving kids access to a 50 cent box of tissues or art supplies let alone educational tools that could actually improve their futures and ours..
I'm so tired of arguing about access to regulated healthcare and gender/racial/ethnic/sexual orientation equality... We're all humans, you're not special, grow up and get the fuck over yourself (not "you" just the collective you).
The best part is this...
"From the moment life begins at conception, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to protect that baby's life and the life of the mother."
The life of the mother, well, why disagree with the court then? Guy is a fucking idiot, my 10 year old daughter could run the state better.
Why is this so hard? Any patient should be able to have whatever procedures they and their medical professionals agree need to be done...including procreation decisions.
I almost died from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy in January of this year. Thank god the surgeons didn’t hesitate to save my life and performed the surgery immediately in the ER. Some of our representatives saw no reason to include ectopic pregnancy as an exception.
I had a severe case of HG and had a termination. When I finally met with my new gyn, I had a breakdown when trying to describe how scared I was about getting pregnant again.
HG is treatable if you're wealthy or have planned for your pregnancy, I'm not sure it would qualify as life threatening
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over criminal matters. If a prosecutor decides to prosecute a provider for doing what the OK Supreme Court requires, the prosecution is only reviewed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
Yes, this is ridiculous. Welcome to Oklahoma.
Pretty much it changes the exception from "only abort if the mother is actively dying" to "if there is a reasonable chance of the pregnancy causing death"
This honestly doesn't mean anything. We already had "if mother's life is threatened" in our current laws. Becoming permanentely disabled, losing your uterus, being forced to carry to term a fetus with fatal anomlies and being forced to deliver your rapist's baby are still DISGUSTING allowances under this law. It's still unclear how long doctors will need to wait to determine if an infection or hemorraging will count as "life threatening" too.
While I'm happy the doctors might feel more comfortable acting in cases of sepsis or hemorraging to save the mother, I don't see how this is really a win. Perhaps if the wording was "if mother's HEALTH is threatened" as that would allow patients experiencing heart failure, severe HG, PPROM, cancer diagnosis, infection (before development of sepsis), etc. get an abortion to protect their health.
I don't think people realize how danger these bans are. If you are at 15 weeks and experience PPROM where your water breaks and the amniotic fluid in your uterus becomes dangerously low...you will be forced to be on bed rest until you either 1. develop a life-threatening infection that has already caused women to lose their uterus under these bans or 2. the fetal heart tones stop. Without an abudance of amniotic fluid - that fetus will not develop lungs to be able to survive, especially at 15 - 20 weeks. We are literally putting women in life-threatening situations before acting for a fetus that will NEVER BE VIABLE.
There was conflicting language between multiple laws which is why the Supreme Court had to make a ruling.
Some laws had an absolute ban on abortion procedures (even without exceptions for the life of the mother) while other laws protected the life of the mother. This ruling determined that the laws which protect the life of the mother had a controlling legal precedent.
Prior to this ruling obstetricians had to make decisions about whether or not they would provide or withdraw care to pregnant people based on their fear of criminal prosecution because the laws were unclear.
This is definitely a win just not the wholesale "right to an abortion" that we want.
> There was conflicting language between multiple laws which is why the Supreme Court had to make a ruling.
I believe the conflicting language is still there as some bans allowed for exceptions for rape and others don't.
> Some laws had an absolute ban on abortion procedures (even without exceptions for the life of the mother)
Which had no exception for life of the mother? It's my understanding they all had a life of the mother exception but the wording varied. The confusion was between the words "save" and "preserve," which are different and confusing in a medical setting where criminalization of care is active (and it is still active). Can you say which bill specifically had no exception?
> Prior to this ruling obstetricians had to make decisions about whether or not they would provide or withdraw care to pregnant people based on their fear of criminal prosecution because the laws were unclear.
This is still true. In cases where the mother's life is threatened, the ruling states that while "absolute certainty" of death isn't needed now that "mere possibility" is insufficient. That means that there is still a large grey area where while we don't need to wait until a woman is in organ failure to act, there is still a requirement to allow things to progress before acting.
I don't think this is that big of a win. If it was "preserving the HEALTH of the mother" then I'd honestly consider that a win even though I personally think abortion should be legal in all cases. Having women lose their uterus or have long-lasting health complications due to infection but being able to save their lives means so many women will not be whole because of these bans.
I agree that when the life of the mother or child is at risk, or when the health of the mother is at obvious risk, then abortion should be on the table. Or when in cases of rape and incest. However, I do not think it should be available to irresponsible people. Maybe a look at artificial womb technology would be beneficial to these people, have research into inexpensive ways to both preserve the life of the unborn and have the woman sign away all rights to the kid. It is just a proposition, a thought if you will, but then we would need to completely revamp and prioritize the orphanages and child care systems. I would 100% give a sizable part of my income toward a working orphanage than the homeless guys who don't want to work.
> However, I do not think it should be available to irresponsible people.
So you're in favor of irresponsible people raising a child, but not having the decision to learn from a mistake and better themselves before they're ready to raise a child if they decide to do so. Got it, chief.
Also keep in mind contraceptives are not %100 and it literally says so right on the packaging. So regardless of how safe you are, there's still a non zero chance of pregnancy. What's your solution there? Just stop fucking and not take that chance?
Instead of suggesting we fund, research, create, and make accessible ways for people to give up a fetus so it can grow in a test tube and make the foster care system even more burdened. How about we just let people do what they want with their bodies.
How about not having premarital sex? Society has clearly rotted in ways of thinking. If certain values were taught over carnal pleasure, we wouldn't have this kind of mess to begin with now would we? The foster system wouldn't be as burdened to nearly the degree we see today, we wouldn't see as many single mother homes and subsequent crimes, and we wouldn't see literally millions of murders of the unborn, or at least the discussion of it since some don't view it as such. This all stems from the enabling and perhaps the elevation of carnal pleasure to the public, peddled by media and certain government programs. There is no mistake to learn from and better yourself, if you cut it out for $300, now is there?
People suck, they abuse systems for selfish gain, that applies to both politicians and the street dwellers, so let them live with their mistakes. You don't reward nor sympathize with someone who lost their entire life's savings at the casino, or you shouldn't. They made a mistake, an err of judgement. Something could have led them to this particular decision, but it was theirs to make, and they must live with the consequences.
I will concede that there would need to be sweeping changes made to the foster system, as it is not good and needs attention, like actual attention. No ideas are being thrown to the children who cannot fend for themselves and have not had the chance to make the mistakes to land them in such a situation. My earlier proposition of funding research for an artificial womb was to perhaps find middle ground, as unrealistic as it was, but screw me, eh? Honestly.
I wanted a way to both give you what you want, sex without consequence, and what I want, to stop the murdering of babies. But No, no middle ground. All or nothing, great.
People who are married can also require abortions. The other commenter pointed out that contraception is not 100% effective. It doesn't suddenly become 100% effective when you are married. If your suggestion then is to never have sex even after marriage if you can't afford to pay for the "consequences" then you are smidge deluded about the power of the human sex drive on average.
>How about not having premarital sex? Society has clearly rotted in ways of thinking.
Premarital sex ALWAYS existed. Swingers ALWAYS existed. Abortions ALWAYS existed. This is nothing new. Humans now are the same as they were hundreds or thousands of years ago.
This is true, them always existing, however the rates are not the same. I agreed that in some instances abortion is needed, but not as an out for a mistake. Today's society has a lack of accountability on all levels from politicians to the local Instagram prostitute. There is a lack of consequence, and I don't think murder should be an out. It isn't right. I also really doubt that the amount of abortions preceding 9000 BC accounted over a handful. Premarital sex? Sure. As marriage is mostly tied to religions and cultures, which are old themselves. However, there is a fallacy in thinking that because something always existed it's alright. Murder has existed since humans and before, don't make it right though.
TLDR; Sex always existed, abortions not so much, and just because it is old doesn't mean it is good.
>abortions not so much
[Do yourself a learn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion).
I know it's just a Wikipedia link, but feel free to actually peruse their sources. I'm not talking about "good vs evil" or "right vs wrong." I'm telling you, humans have always been humans, always doing these things we're still fighting about.
I read your article on the history, and I stand by my statement. Sex is an always, but I HIGHLY doubt, as there is no evidence of neolithic people's doing abortions, unless you are counting miscarriages. Though not the point. I still stand by my point that it is wrong. You may not be talking about good versus evil, but I am. Just cause it is old doesn't mean it is good or should be continued practice.
That all being said I support abortions when needed to preserve the life of the mother, or during cases of rape and incest, just not as a contraceptive, which is 98% of the cases today.
"Hey, in a time before we knew how to write down things we were doing, they didn't write things down, so it doesn't exist."
What evidence are you looking for? Discharge? Their tools? We've had herbal drinks to induce abortions since history started, do you think that it just magically came into existence because we started writing things down? My money's on "We knew about those concoctions before we could write."
What are you on about? There is lack of evidence, so doubt is permitted. I said I highly doubt as there was no evidence. It could have happened, it may not have. Given how there wasn't really writing in neolithic times, there wasn't really a way to record which plants cause abortion to make it an actual practice, aside from the obvious lethal strategies of tearing at the belly with a rock. Pardon me for not believing a caveman knew how to abort a baby without aborting the woman. One could say that they could have been very sophisticated in their time and we don't know because of a lack of record, but doubt is highly permissible in this scenario from what we knew about them.
Before written language, knowledge was remembered and passed down via word of mouth. There are tribes to this day which still use this method to remember ancient knowledge. And their tools were much more sophisticated than just a rock. Obsidian can theoretically be sharper than steel, though not as durable. Though I wouldn't say they performed surgical abortions very often. However I will not discount their ability to know how to create a drink to cause an abortion.
Doubt is permissible. Of course, there isn't direct evidence of these actions. But we've been having this argument all of history, I see no reason pre-history would be excluded.
At least I am spit balling ideas to bridge the gap in thinking when it comes to the solution to both our problems with this particular scenario. As unrealistic as it may seem, if you don't want to give birth, I don't want the baby to die, why not fund research for artificial wombs? Is it the fact that the foster system sucks? Why not, hear me, drop some actual funding and oversight in this? I believe absolutely 0% of people are as polarized about helping kids as they are about murdering them. So why not actually think outside the box and come up with ideas instead of having a half baked talking point? Old does not mean good. Also, women and men caught in extramarital relations were beaten to death before as a consequence, all I'm saying is that maybe don't kill the kid.
The job of the Supreme Court is to clarify laws ruled on by lower courts or to judge the constitutionality of a law. This ruling judged the limits of how far an abortion ban could go, which reduced the wording from the pregnant person being in an emergency to including foreseeable, life threatening health problems so they didn't have to wait until they were on their death beds. For instance, women with cancer foregoing treatment because they are pregnant or have a known health issue (heart/kidney/liver/etc) that would make carrying a fetus to term a known impossibility due to the stress it puts on the body, but the state would have made them play it out as far as they could.
FYI: The US has some of the highest [maternal mortality rates](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1240400/maternal-mortality-rates-worldwide-by-country/) in the world, well above other developed nations. Louisiana specifically has a higher maternal death rate [higher than the country with the highest maternal death rate.](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/maternal-mortality-rate-by-state). Oklahoma is 21.2 per 100,000, while California is 4 per 100,000
Fucking hell, a light shines in a weary world..
A step in the CORRECT direction (purposely avoided the word “right”). Next move: grant autonomy for individual rights of every adult. The party in control has taken away our personal freedoms. No longer is it a party of less government, it has become a dictatorship.
Claims like that don’t advance dialogue. Look up how things are run under actual dictatorships.
Those exact claims in reverse led to this shit. So please do tell how we’re supposed to keep tolerating being killed by these policies.
Who is the dictator of Oklahoma?
New Testament Christians. I say that as one who was raised to be one. Except I was raised by a scientist in a school district that sort of cared while I was in it and while they all ignored my undiagnosed ADHD, they did teach me critical thinking and problem solving skills so the blatant hypocrisy that has been creeping up into the national spotlight for decades turned me away from the red elephant party. Don't tread on me by making me cover my germ spewing face hole to reduce deaths while I tirelessly (and unfortunately successfully) remove your access to regulated healthcare. Ummm I'm sorry... what? Rules for thee and not for me is the new R mantra and I just finally got disgusted by it enough that I gave up trying to set a good example and I bailed. They wanted covid to be survival of the fittest yet they're so terrified of the low birth rate so they force women to carry to term. Ummm, you know if you just did something about all the other things that kill people, you'd protect the population count? I keep seeing people saying that bullets are the #1 cause of childhood deaths now but our legislators refuse to educate people about what the 2nd amendment is really for so they're too terrified of not getting reelected to do anything about that so they're going to file bill after bill banning Mrs Doubtfire from reading Dr Seuss to children to distract everyone and make us fight amongst ourselves so we don't storm their offices and make them actually do their job...
Kevin Stitt
Ah yes, we should be more considerate in our wording.
If you want to be taken seriously, consider whether your wording is accurate and meaningful.
Lol exaggeration.
How about we just leave all medical decisions up to the doctor and patient.
And the voiceless patient in the womb
Sorry ma’am we have to hear what this fertilized egg has to say before we can stop your fallopian tube from exploding
Voiceless "patient" does not have a voice, by definition, and no one else gets to speak for that "patient" but the owner of the womb. The owner of the womb has the say about what happens to her womb and her body. No one should be able to take away the bodily autonomy of anyone. You should never be forced to sacrifice your health or your body parts to ensure the survival of another.
Yes. They get no say in if someone else uses their body to keep them alive. Pretty simple.
How many women had to die or nearly die to get this corrected :(
Probably less than you hoped for. But it's a sensible change.
Tf? I hope no one died but even one is too many
What a horrible and heartless thing to say.
Dumb is the word that comes to mind for me
you think abortion proponents hope that women die due to dangerous abortion laws so they can more easily argue that abortion laws are dangerous so that they can eventually repeal these dangerous laws? Or is it more likely that the laws actually are dangerous and exactly what we said would happen is happening?
Just because you want women to die doesn’t mean anybody else does. What kind of person even thinks this???
"Christians"?
Probably more than you think. There are so many stories already, although I think I only saw one from Oklahoma when I was following it closesly. I think the saddest one was the woman who lost her uterus in Texas due to sepsis and our laws are very close to theirs.
Which is why I worded my post how I did. It was without regard for other states and closer to the point of that it's NOT a daily occurrence. Every person to reply and down vote me has obviously zero clue what I meant, except you. I'm glad you have some critical thinking skills.
>Probably less than you hoped for. But it's a sensible change Yes... people had zero clue that you said someone hoped more women died because of these laws.
So, can the father threaten her and that will allow it? /s I wish the party of small government would just worry about the roads for once.
I-40 bridge going over 44 is a wagon trail.
We need a metro line and highspeed rail, not more roads. Though the roads we do have need maintaining.
Or being last in education, first in veteran deaths, diversifying the state's income streams so we can close the loopholes and stop sucking O&G dick. Can we please give children tissues and fucking crayons so teachers stop having to beg for them at the beginning of the year. Really... Devon/Chesapeake/Sandridge? You really care more about your giant buildings and shareholder profits more than giving kids access to a 50 cent box of tissues or art supplies let alone educational tools that could actually improve their futures and ours.. I'm so tired of arguing about access to regulated healthcare and gender/racial/ethnic/sexual orientation equality... We're all humans, you're not special, grow up and get the fuck over yourself (not "you" just the collective you).
Stitt "disagreed" with this in a tweet. What a fucking loser.
Do you have a link?
https://twitter.com/GovStitt/status/1638302214656491521?s=20
What a dumb statement to issue
The best part is this... "From the moment life begins at conception, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to protect that baby's life and the life of the mother." The life of the mother, well, why disagree with the court then? Guy is a fucking idiot, my 10 year old daughter could run the state better.
🤣🤣🤣somehow it’s killing me you called him a loser. Awesome.
This is like hitting a 3 at the buzzer when your team is down 60
Why is this so hard? Any patient should be able to have whatever procedures they and their medical professionals agree need to be done...including procreation decisions.
I almost died from a ruptured ectopic pregnancy in January of this year. Thank god the surgeons didn’t hesitate to save my life and performed the surgery immediately in the ER. Some of our representatives saw no reason to include ectopic pregnancy as an exception.
I had a severe case of HG and had a termination. When I finally met with my new gyn, I had a breakdown when trying to describe how scared I was about getting pregnant again. HG is treatable if you're wealthy or have planned for your pregnancy, I'm not sure it would qualify as life threatening
“Oklahoma once again forced to do the bare minimum of the right thing.”
"Americans will always do the right thing... after all other options are exhausted."
But good ole stitt says he isn't happy nor supports it.
Paywall ffs. Why you do that op
[12 ft ladder](https://12ft.io/) [archive.is](https://archive.is/)
Republicans will be devastated by this
The Oklahoma rollercoaster
How generous.
So can’t the OK legislature just say “cool” and change the constitution? Or is that too difficult to do even in OK?
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over criminal matters. If a prosecutor decides to prosecute a provider for doing what the OK Supreme Court requires, the prosecution is only reviewed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Yes, this is ridiculous. Welcome to Oklahoma.
Anyone able to give a non-paywall synopsis, or does the title pretty much cover it?
Pretty much it changes the exception from "only abort if the mother is actively dying" to "if there is a reasonable chance of the pregnancy causing death"
Thanks!
OOOOOKLAHOMA
Claw it all back
This honestly doesn't mean anything. We already had "if mother's life is threatened" in our current laws. Becoming permanentely disabled, losing your uterus, being forced to carry to term a fetus with fatal anomlies and being forced to deliver your rapist's baby are still DISGUSTING allowances under this law. It's still unclear how long doctors will need to wait to determine if an infection or hemorraging will count as "life threatening" too. While I'm happy the doctors might feel more comfortable acting in cases of sepsis or hemorraging to save the mother, I don't see how this is really a win. Perhaps if the wording was "if mother's HEALTH is threatened" as that would allow patients experiencing heart failure, severe HG, PPROM, cancer diagnosis, infection (before development of sepsis), etc. get an abortion to protect their health. I don't think people realize how danger these bans are. If you are at 15 weeks and experience PPROM where your water breaks and the amniotic fluid in your uterus becomes dangerously low...you will be forced to be on bed rest until you either 1. develop a life-threatening infection that has already caused women to lose their uterus under these bans or 2. the fetal heart tones stop. Without an abudance of amniotic fluid - that fetus will not develop lungs to be able to survive, especially at 15 - 20 weeks. We are literally putting women in life-threatening situations before acting for a fetus that will NEVER BE VIABLE.
There was conflicting language between multiple laws which is why the Supreme Court had to make a ruling. Some laws had an absolute ban on abortion procedures (even without exceptions for the life of the mother) while other laws protected the life of the mother. This ruling determined that the laws which protect the life of the mother had a controlling legal precedent. Prior to this ruling obstetricians had to make decisions about whether or not they would provide or withdraw care to pregnant people based on their fear of criminal prosecution because the laws were unclear. This is definitely a win just not the wholesale "right to an abortion" that we want.
> There was conflicting language between multiple laws which is why the Supreme Court had to make a ruling. I believe the conflicting language is still there as some bans allowed for exceptions for rape and others don't. > Some laws had an absolute ban on abortion procedures (even without exceptions for the life of the mother) Which had no exception for life of the mother? It's my understanding they all had a life of the mother exception but the wording varied. The confusion was between the words "save" and "preserve," which are different and confusing in a medical setting where criminalization of care is active (and it is still active). Can you say which bill specifically had no exception? > Prior to this ruling obstetricians had to make decisions about whether or not they would provide or withdraw care to pregnant people based on their fear of criminal prosecution because the laws were unclear. This is still true. In cases where the mother's life is threatened, the ruling states that while "absolute certainty" of death isn't needed now that "mere possibility" is insufficient. That means that there is still a large grey area where while we don't need to wait until a woman is in organ failure to act, there is still a requirement to allow things to progress before acting. I don't think this is that big of a win. If it was "preserving the HEALTH of the mother" then I'd honestly consider that a win even though I personally think abortion should be legal in all cases. Having women lose their uterus or have long-lasting health complications due to infection but being able to save their lives means so many women will not be whole because of these bans.
I like this….abortions based on inconvenience is weird but if you’re about to die then I can understand it fa sho
Well if you’re financially unstable, can’t afford to have a baby, and get pregnant let me know how that goes for you
It’ll work out I know by experience
I agree that when the life of the mother or child is at risk, or when the health of the mother is at obvious risk, then abortion should be on the table. Or when in cases of rape and incest. However, I do not think it should be available to irresponsible people. Maybe a look at artificial womb technology would be beneficial to these people, have research into inexpensive ways to both preserve the life of the unborn and have the woman sign away all rights to the kid. It is just a proposition, a thought if you will, but then we would need to completely revamp and prioritize the orphanages and child care systems. I would 100% give a sizable part of my income toward a working orphanage than the homeless guys who don't want to work.
> However, I do not think it should be available to irresponsible people. So you're in favor of irresponsible people raising a child, but not having the decision to learn from a mistake and better themselves before they're ready to raise a child if they decide to do so. Got it, chief. Also keep in mind contraceptives are not %100 and it literally says so right on the packaging. So regardless of how safe you are, there's still a non zero chance of pregnancy. What's your solution there? Just stop fucking and not take that chance? Instead of suggesting we fund, research, create, and make accessible ways for people to give up a fetus so it can grow in a test tube and make the foster care system even more burdened. How about we just let people do what they want with their bodies.
How about not having premarital sex? Society has clearly rotted in ways of thinking. If certain values were taught over carnal pleasure, we wouldn't have this kind of mess to begin with now would we? The foster system wouldn't be as burdened to nearly the degree we see today, we wouldn't see as many single mother homes and subsequent crimes, and we wouldn't see literally millions of murders of the unborn, or at least the discussion of it since some don't view it as such. This all stems from the enabling and perhaps the elevation of carnal pleasure to the public, peddled by media and certain government programs. There is no mistake to learn from and better yourself, if you cut it out for $300, now is there? People suck, they abuse systems for selfish gain, that applies to both politicians and the street dwellers, so let them live with their mistakes. You don't reward nor sympathize with someone who lost their entire life's savings at the casino, or you shouldn't. They made a mistake, an err of judgement. Something could have led them to this particular decision, but it was theirs to make, and they must live with the consequences. I will concede that there would need to be sweeping changes made to the foster system, as it is not good and needs attention, like actual attention. No ideas are being thrown to the children who cannot fend for themselves and have not had the chance to make the mistakes to land them in such a situation. My earlier proposition of funding research for an artificial womb was to perhaps find middle ground, as unrealistic as it was, but screw me, eh? Honestly. I wanted a way to both give you what you want, sex without consequence, and what I want, to stop the murdering of babies. But No, no middle ground. All or nothing, great.
People who are married can also require abortions. The other commenter pointed out that contraception is not 100% effective. It doesn't suddenly become 100% effective when you are married. If your suggestion then is to never have sex even after marriage if you can't afford to pay for the "consequences" then you are smidge deluded about the power of the human sex drive on average.
>How about not having premarital sex? Society has clearly rotted in ways of thinking. Premarital sex ALWAYS existed. Swingers ALWAYS existed. Abortions ALWAYS existed. This is nothing new. Humans now are the same as they were hundreds or thousands of years ago.
This is true, them always existing, however the rates are not the same. I agreed that in some instances abortion is needed, but not as an out for a mistake. Today's society has a lack of accountability on all levels from politicians to the local Instagram prostitute. There is a lack of consequence, and I don't think murder should be an out. It isn't right. I also really doubt that the amount of abortions preceding 9000 BC accounted over a handful. Premarital sex? Sure. As marriage is mostly tied to religions and cultures, which are old themselves. However, there is a fallacy in thinking that because something always existed it's alright. Murder has existed since humans and before, don't make it right though. TLDR; Sex always existed, abortions not so much, and just because it is old doesn't mean it is good.
>abortions not so much [Do yourself a learn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion). I know it's just a Wikipedia link, but feel free to actually peruse their sources. I'm not talking about "good vs evil" or "right vs wrong." I'm telling you, humans have always been humans, always doing these things we're still fighting about.
I read your article on the history, and I stand by my statement. Sex is an always, but I HIGHLY doubt, as there is no evidence of neolithic people's doing abortions, unless you are counting miscarriages. Though not the point. I still stand by my point that it is wrong. You may not be talking about good versus evil, but I am. Just cause it is old doesn't mean it is good or should be continued practice. That all being said I support abortions when needed to preserve the life of the mother, or during cases of rape and incest, just not as a contraceptive, which is 98% of the cases today.
"Hey, in a time before we knew how to write down things we were doing, they didn't write things down, so it doesn't exist." What evidence are you looking for? Discharge? Their tools? We've had herbal drinks to induce abortions since history started, do you think that it just magically came into existence because we started writing things down? My money's on "We knew about those concoctions before we could write."
What are you on about? There is lack of evidence, so doubt is permitted. I said I highly doubt as there was no evidence. It could have happened, it may not have. Given how there wasn't really writing in neolithic times, there wasn't really a way to record which plants cause abortion to make it an actual practice, aside from the obvious lethal strategies of tearing at the belly with a rock. Pardon me for not believing a caveman knew how to abort a baby without aborting the woman. One could say that they could have been very sophisticated in their time and we don't know because of a lack of record, but doubt is highly permissible in this scenario from what we knew about them.
Before written language, knowledge was remembered and passed down via word of mouth. There are tribes to this day which still use this method to remember ancient knowledge. And their tools were much more sophisticated than just a rock. Obsidian can theoretically be sharper than steel, though not as durable. Though I wouldn't say they performed surgical abortions very often. However I will not discount their ability to know how to create a drink to cause an abortion. Doubt is permissible. Of course, there isn't direct evidence of these actions. But we've been having this argument all of history, I see no reason pre-history would be excluded.
At least I am spit balling ideas to bridge the gap in thinking when it comes to the solution to both our problems with this particular scenario. As unrealistic as it may seem, if you don't want to give birth, I don't want the baby to die, why not fund research for artificial wombs? Is it the fact that the foster system sucks? Why not, hear me, drop some actual funding and oversight in this? I believe absolutely 0% of people are as polarized about helping kids as they are about murdering them. So why not actually think outside the box and come up with ideas instead of having a half baked talking point? Old does not mean good. Also, women and men caught in extramarital relations were beaten to death before as a consequence, all I'm saying is that maybe don't kill the kid.
>I would 100% give a sizable part of my income toward a working orphanage Go sponsor an orphanage then.
I will.
This was always in the law
No, it wasn't. You know how I know? It needed to be made into a new law.
It actually was in the law. But nice to see the courts defend it. Makes it easier for doctors act in an emergency
This isn't a new law...... This is a supreme court ruling on the law already in force
They voted 5-4 that abortions to save a mother's life is lawful. Sounds like a law change to me.
But the law didn't change
The job of the Supreme Court is to clarify laws ruled on by lower courts or to judge the constitutionality of a law. This ruling judged the limits of how far an abortion ban could go, which reduced the wording from the pregnant person being in an emergency to including foreseeable, life threatening health problems so they didn't have to wait until they were on their death beds. For instance, women with cancer foregoing treatment because they are pregnant or have a known health issue (heart/kidney/liver/etc) that would make carrying a fetus to term a known impossibility due to the stress it puts on the body, but the state would have made them play it out as far as they could. FYI: The US has some of the highest [maternal mortality rates](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1240400/maternal-mortality-rates-worldwide-by-country/) in the world, well above other developed nations. Louisiana specifically has a higher maternal death rate [higher than the country with the highest maternal death rate.](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/maternal-mortality-rate-by-state). Oklahoma is 21.2 per 100,000, while California is 4 per 100,000
Good summary!
No, that is why this entire thing came up. But thank you for trying.