Which of these is an "effective ban on all abortions"?

[Josie]

A few people have said that Texas' abortion laws are an "effective ban on all abortions". I'm curious if it's just the 6-week deadline or if other deadlines are considered a ban on all abortions. Please vote and discuss.

 

[Crovax]

A few people have said that Texas' abortion laws are an "effective ban on all abortions". I'm curious if it's just the 6-week deadline or if other deadlines are considered a ban on all abortions. Please vote and discuss.

93% of abortions are done before 12 weeks. It would be interesting to see the numbers between 6 and 12

 

[ttwtt78640]

Any restriction (based on fetal development after conception) is an effective ban after that point has been reached. If there is some Constitutional basis for defining the (precise?) point of fetal development after which states may restrict (or ban?) abortion then the SCOTUS has (thus far) failed to provide it.

Roe v. Wade established ‘precedent’ to grant a pregnant woman a limited right to abortion (on demand) without ever stating how “quickening” (detectable fetal movement) became “viability” (able if given extreme medical assistance to survive premature birth). IMHO, that was a purely political ‘compromise’ (thus should have been entirely up to the states’ legislatures) and not based on any previous US (federal) law or Constitutional clause.

 

[j brown's body]

There should be no deadlines. Abortion should be available up to the point of birth.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Unless someone has undeniable proof that every mother can know with absolute certainty she is pregnant before the ninth week regardless of her age, education, marital status, and personal finances, any so-called "heartbeat law" is an effective ban on abortions at any time during gestation. By the time most pregnant women know it, the embryo has started looking like a human being with specific tissues and organs.

 

[AGENT J]

93% of abortions are done before 12 weeks. It would be interesting to see the numbers between 6 and 12

I thought it was lower like 88% but no big deal
as far as 6-12, ive never seen that stat . . typically they do 8weeks or less then a 9-12 range

i know the 8 weeks or less is around 64%
and 9-12 is usually around 24%

hold on let me go look . .

ok heres two different charts


Regardless id never support anything under 16 weeks
RvW at ,24 is fine to me and id have no problem moving it to 21 weeks based on earliest possible viability but that would just be cosmetic since like 99% happen before then and the ones that dont id still allow because they are exceptions

 

[AGENT J]

A few people have said that Texas' abortion laws are an "effective ban on all abortions". I'm curious if it's just the 6-week deadline or if other deadlines are considered a ban on all abortions. Please vote and discuss.

well the wording may be exaggerated its not really that over the top
im also not familiar with all the ins and outs of the texas law and im ignorant of it overall

in general, just going off a nutty 6 week ban thats pretty effective at banning abortions since the avg woman doesnt know they are pregnant until 5-7 weeks.
And the reality of that number is skewed because of the amount of women TRYING to get pregnant and paying attention instead of women not trying to get pregnant having accidents and bc failing etc etc
about 65% of abortions happen 8 weeks or less . . so id say banning at 6 weeks probably stops what? 50% . .that is massive and nothing id support

So unless there are a ton of exceptions 6 weeks is a basic ban that i would never support because i view it to violate current womans rights

Im good with RvW <24 weeks
im totally fine with <21 weeks but that would just be cosmetic since 99% happen before than anyway and the ones that dont are medical exceptions i would still support

anything earlier than that doesnt get my support at all

anything <16 weeks without all the current exceptions id take to the street in protest

 

[Crovax]

I thought it was lower like 88% but no big deal
as far as 6-12, ive never seen that stat . . typically they do 8weeks or less then a 9-12 range

i know the 8 weeks or less is around 64%
and 9-12 is usually around 24%

hold on let me go look . .

ok heres two different charts
View attachment 67365365View attachment 67365366

Regardless id never support anything under 16 weeks
RvW at ,24 is fine to me and id have no problem moving it to 21 weeks based on earliest possible viability but that would just be cosmetic since like 99% happen before then and the ones that dont id still allow because they are exceptions

Here's where my number came from

"The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation"

CDCs Abortion Surveillance System FAQs | CDC

CDCs Abortion Surveillance System Frequently Asked Questions

www.cdc.gov

I think 12 weeks looks like a good number with an exception for rape and health of the mother

 

[AGENT J]

Here's where my number came from

"The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation"

CDCs Abortion Surveillance System FAQs | CDC

CDCs Abortion Surveillance System Frequently Asked Questions

www.cdc.gov

I think 12 weeks looks like a good number with an exception for rape and health of the mother

i could never support 12 without a boatload of exceptions that makes it irrelvant
just too early IMO . . id have to look but i think there was info posted here of many women not knowing they were pregnant till like 10-12 weeks
these were women on BC, especially BC that ends their period or make it very irregular etc so just not having a period or missing one is not a sign, its common.

Heck ive had a few GFs like this that were on Depo and they had no periods or irregular 1-2 day periods

I just dont see the value of violating a womans rights that early based on the unknown

im on board with the current situation of 24, am totally fine with 21 . .
wouldn't fight 20 or 19, or 18
less than that i fight against it

 

[Crovax]

i could never support 12 without a boatload of exceptions that makes it irrelvant
just too early IMO . . id have to look but i think there was info posted here of many women not knowing they were pregnant till like 10-12 weeks
these were women on BC, especially BC that ends their period or make it very irregular etc so just not having a period or missing one is not a sign, its common.

Heck ive had a few GFs like this that were on Depo and they had no periods or irregular 1-2 day periods

I just dont see the value of violating a womans rights that early based on the unknown

im on board with the current situation of 24, am totally fine with 21 . .
wouldn't fight 20 or 19, or 18
less than that i fight against it

Just a side question, Since you are okay with banning abortion after viability. What happens 20 years down the road when artificial wombs change the level of viability drastically?

 

[AGENT J]

Just a side question, Since you are okay with banning abortion after viability. What happens 20 years down the road when artificial wombs change the level of viability drastically?

this question has come up before and i dont understand how anybody thinks an artificial womb changes the discussion in any way, its a neat conversation and interesting side question but i never got the impact

1.) it has no real impact on viability at all actually, the womb is still needed so that's not changing viability. it would still need the AW until 20/21 weeks because that's the earliest possible lung development
2.) also even more importantly, unless teleportation is also invented and it has basically zero risk how does the ZEF get into the artificial womb?

That would still require a medical procedure with risks and thats the issue, not just cause risks exist but because they would have to be forced on the woman . . .


so for me it changes nothing UNLESS teleportation is also invented, the risk is negligible and the woman has the legal outs she has now, adoption, safe haven etc
if that happens then I'm on board

 

[Crovax]

this question has come up before and i dont understand how anybody thinks an artificial womb changes the discussion in any way, its a neat conversation and interesting side question but i never got the impact

1.) it has no real impact on viability at all actually, the womb is still needed so that's not changing viability. it would still need the AW until 20/21 weeks because that's the earliest possible lung development
2.) also even more importantly, unless teleportation is also invented and it has basically zero risk how does the ZEF get into the artificial womb?

That would still require a medical procedure with risks and thats the issue, not just cause risks exist but because they would have to be forced on the woman . . .


so for me it changes nothing UNLESS teleportation is also invented, the risk is negligible and the woman has the legal outs she has now, adoption, safe haven etc
if that happens then I'm on board

Without a long discussion about teleportation, let's go with the assumption that the fetus moving procedure has the exact same risks as an abortion and that the artificial womb is not prohibitively rare or expensive.

 

[AGENT J]

Without a long discussion about teleportation

awww come on LOL

,let's go with the assumption that the fetus moving procedure has the exact same risks as an abortion and that the artificial womb is not prohibitively rare or expensive.

well abortions has very different risks depending on when it's done but it would always be more because risk in removing and more focus on preserving life

but for the sake of your question, it doesn't matter and ill use your parametere . .

it still doesnt change anything for me because one would be a choice the other would be forced

thats the whole crux for me and the woman's rights
we cant achieve actual equal rights on the matter and its unlike any other scenario because one life resides inside the other

many prolifers dont admit it but also some do, abortion is the same no matter what side one is on
because on life resides inside the other we decide which life we value over the other . . the only difference is when and why

in most cases, i side with the already born, viable mother vs the not viable unkown that very well could abort itslef

 

[Crovax]

but for the sake of your question, it doesn't matter and ill use your parametere . .

it still doesnt change anything for me because one would be a choice the other would be forced

The current choice is between having a baby and having an abortion, the new choice would be between having a baby and having womb transfer.

I don't see the force, or am I missing something?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

There should be no deadlines. Abortion should be available up to the point of birth.

It is if the mother would die without one. But that ie extremely rare because fetal viability occurs before the 35th week .If a premature baby has no severe disabilities and can live without technological, surgical, or medical treatments keeping him or her alive is always the right decision.

 

[AGENT J]

The current choice is between having a baby and having an abortion, the new choice would be between having a baby and having womb transfer.

I don't see the force, or am I missing something?

the force would be one medical procedure over another

all three need to be on the table or its force so it would have to be CHOOSING to:

give birth
have an abortion
womb transfer

even if risks are identical i would want the choice to remain

i might be open to it if again, the opt outs are completely buttoned up and handled by the state/fed or whatever

 

[Crovax]

the force would be one medical procedure over another

all three need to be on the table or its force so it would have to be CHOOSING to:

give birth
have an abortion
womb transfer

even if risks are identical i would want the choice to remain

i might be open to it if again, the opt outs are completely buttoned up and handled by the state/fed or whatever

Circling back to something you said previously "we decide which life we value over the other . . the only difference is when and why

in most cases, i side with the already born"

I see it as a choice, especially in this scenario, as "life vs liberty"

I think as in most cases of law that when life and liberty are in conflict that the winner should be life.

IF (big if) the risks are the same then abortion should not be an option if womb transfer is available

 

[AGENT J]

Circling back to something you said previously "we decide which life we value over the other . . the only difference is when and why

in most cases, i side with the already born"

I see it as a choice, especially in this scenario, as "life vs liberty"

I think as in most cases of law that when life and liberty are in conflict that the winner should be life.

I agree but what i dont do is ignore the fact that as soon as conception happens its a risk of life . . (not saying you do just saying in general)
sometimes the risk is minuscule and sometimes severe but always a risk so to me its not life vs liberty . . . life vs life and one is inside the other so that takes precedence and i side with the woman in most cases

IF (big if) the risks are the same then abortion should not be an option if womb transfer is available

I see what you are saying but maybe i have trouble with it because its fantasy and that will never be the case, maybe i just cant get over that part

the realistic logistic of womb transfer (without the fantasy of teleportation) just dont add up to equal risks . .

 

[Josie]

It is if the mother would die without one. But that ie extremely rare because fetal viability occurs before the 35th week .If a premature baby has no severe disabilities and can live without technological, surgical, or medical treatments keeping him or her alive is always the right decision.

There’s no reason to kill a normally-developing 28, 30, 32 week fetus. They can survive.

 

[Crovax]

I agree but what i dont do is ignore the fact that as soon as conception happens its a risk of life . . (not saying you do just saying in general)
sometimes the risk is minuscule and sometimes severe but always a risk so to me its not life vs liberty . . . life vs life and one is inside the other so that takes precedence and i side with the woman in most cases

Abortion is 100% death for the fetus, if the risk is miniscule (I'm not saying pregnancy is a miniscule risk) then I don't really see that as life vs life

I see what you are saying but maybe i have trouble with it because its fantasy and that will never be the case, maybe i just cant get over that part

Well that is the point of thought experiments though, to challenge beliefs.

 

[AGENT J]

Abortion is 100% death for the fetus, if the risk is miniscule (I'm not saying pregnancy is a miniscule risk) then I don't really see that as life vs life

but it is and that choice should be with the woman, not somebody else feelings. Its easy for us to sit on line and say naaaaaah i dont think its a big deal when its not our life we are talking about but I simply cant do that

I would never want that done to me or my mom, daughter, sister etc etc. I value their rights and life to much

to just make up some fantasy
say you were a master skydiving instructor, 3000+ jumps, you got two chutes on
but at the last second, you decided you dont want to jump, but i force you and you die
i could never use the minuscule chances of you dying as a defense, i took away your choice so im responsible
due to the location its life vs life

Well that is the point of thought experiments though, to challenge beliefs.

agreed but in this case ive been through this one and it doesnt challenge my believes if choice is removed and risk of health and life is forced

so i guess ill just cross my fingers and hope teleportation is invented!!!

 

[Crovax]

but it is and that choice should be with the woman, not somebody else feelings. Its easy for us to sit on line and say naaaaaah i dont think its a big deal when its not our life we are talking about but I simply cant do that

I would never want that done to me or my mom, daughter, sister etc etc. I value their rights and life to much

to just make up some fantasy
say you were a master skydiving instructor, 3000+ jumps, you got two chutes on
but at the last second, you decided you dont want to jump, but i force you and you die
i could never use the minuscule chances of you dying as a defense, i took away your choice so im responsible
due to the location its life vs life

Like I said I don't see pregnancy as a miniscule risk, however miniscule risk is not seen as a life/death scenario in most legal matters

agreed but in this case ive been through this one and it doesnt challenge my believes if choice is removed and risk of health and life is forced

Choice is not being removed and the risk is staying the same in the scenario

 

[AGENT J]

Like I said I don't see pregnancy as a miniscule risk, however miniscule risk is not seen as a life/death scenario in most legal matters

only when that risk can be reasonably proven

Choice is not being removed and the risk is staying the same in the scenario

but it is, 3 options of choice vs 2 options one MUST do

 

[Crovax]

only when that risk can be reasonably proven

If the risk is reasonably proven I wouldn't consider it miniscule

but it is, 3 options of choice vs 2 options one MUST do

You only have 2 options now

 

[AGENT J]

If the risk is reasonably proven I wouldn't consider it miniscule

thats not how it always works though
if i find somebody who broke into my house while im home and shoot them, most consider that a reasonable threat but maybe they only wanted my lucky charms and had no want to harm me
Im not sayign i want that change, i support that, just saying theres nothing really proven in that matter besides where that person was, in my home

You only have 2 options now

2 options one MUST do by force rather than 3 options of choice . . ill stick with the later