I know this is an outlier in many ways, for being post 20 weeks, for happening before Roe's overturn, for the Facebook messenger aspect.... But I think it's a portent. The daughter was convicted...
I know this is an outlier in many ways, for being post 20 weeks, for happening before Roe's overturn, for the Facebook messenger aspect....
But I think it's a portent. The daughter was convicted on the mishandling human remains charge. It just leaves me in this state of being unsettled and worried for the future.
I was ready to be horrified by this headline but the fact that it was after 20 weeks gives me pause. I’m not sure jail time is the right consequence, but I also don’t think it’s right for this to...
I was ready to be horrified by this headline but the fact that it was after 20 weeks gives me pause. I’m not sure jail time is the right consequence, but I also don’t think it’s right for this to be done outside of medical supervision. It also doesn’t mention the age of the child which may affect my view.
It feels like this has been written to make people outraged about current abortion laws and/or scared of the consequences. But this case doesn’t feel relevant for that, to me (a non American, so what do I know?!)
The fetus does not even have the structure for consciousness at 20 weeks, and even if it did it is kept in a state of sedation by the placenta for most of the pregnancy. What should give you pause...
The fetus does not even have the structure for consciousness at 20 weeks, and even if it did it is kept in a state of sedation by the placenta for most of the pregnancy.
What should give you pause is that you aren't able to really commit to any meaningful stance on this topic. "Feeling uneasy" is not enough to sentence away two years of this mother's life for helping her teenage daughter eject an unwanted pregnancy from her body. All for a fetus that has no memories, no consciousness or personhood.
I'm trying not to be harsh here, but people really need to stop treating bodily autonomy as if its some kind of uncertain ethical grey area. Even if a fetus were a person, no one has a right to use the body of another against their will, even to sustain themselves. There is no other scenario in which a person would be forced to allow the use of their body, yet somehow pregnancy is treated as this exception.
I think you’re reading me wrong here. I’m not pro life by any stretch and I know a foetus is not a baby. I did specifically say “but I also don’t think it’s right for this to be done outside of...
I think you’re reading me wrong here. I’m not pro life by any stretch and I know a foetus is not a baby.
I did specifically say “but I also don’t think it’s right for this to be done outside of medical supervision” - this is what concerns me. My impression is that this is a more complicated procedure at a later date, and I think doctors should be involved. People are entitled to make risky medical decisions for themselves, but I don’t think they should be free to do that for their children. I also said I don’t believe jail time to be appropriate, though I’m not sure what the consequence should be
Edit: I do also want to add that the earliest premature baby to survive was 21 weeks so we actually aren’t far off consciousness and viability at 20 weeks. There has to be a cut off point somewhere
No, there doesn't have to be a cut off because it's an unwanted invader inside another person's body. Bodily autonomy is the basis of all rights, it cannot be selectively taken away from women...
No, there doesn't have to be a cut off because it's an unwanted invader inside another person's body. Bodily autonomy is the basis of all rights, it cannot be selectively taken away from women based on some wishy-washy ideas about whether a sedated fetus with no memories or experiences being a person.
Your rhetoric is what provides a toe hold for the far right to keep their anti-bodily autonomy ahenda alive. The US needs to put this issue to bed definitively, not with blurry lines based on spiritual hypotheticals.
I need you to stop assuming I’m coming from a pro life place. You are putting meaning to my words which I am being very intentional about avoiding which makes me think you’re engaging in bad faith...
I need you to stop assuming I’m coming from a pro life place. You are putting meaning to my words which I am being very intentional about avoiding which makes me think you’re engaging in bad faith here.
This is an anti-choice position. The fact that you also use terminology like "pro life" is revealing as well. You're making a forced birth argument whether you understand it in that way or not,...
Edit: I do also want to add that the earliest premature baby to survive was 21 weeks so we actually aren’t far off consciousness and viability at 20 weeks. There has to be a cut off point somewhere
This is an anti-choice position. The fact that you also use terminology like "pro life" is revealing as well. You're making a forced birth argument whether you understand it in that way or not, the only difference is you're drawing the line in a slightly different, but no less justifiable place.
To suggest that any woman should be forced to give birth is an extreme position, and that is the underlying implication of your statement, that at some point someone besides the woman and her doctor should have a say in who/what can use her body against her will.
People who don't want pregnancies don't typically wait until late in the pregnancy, they do so when extreme restrictions on medical care give them no other choice. And even in the case that people do have a late-term abortion, there is almost always an important medical reason.
The very thing that makes you squeamish is a result of the position you're arguing here -- if you want less late-term abortions then it requires lifting all abortion bans and allowing women access to care they need in a timely manner. Not arguments about viability or keeping the door cracked rhetorically for anti-choice proponents to build a case.
If you’re going to sit there and argue that abortion at 39 weeks is no different to one at 10 weeks you aren’t going to win many people over. Medically they are different and past a certain point...
If you’re going to sit there and argue that abortion at 39 weeks is no different to one at 10 weeks you aren’t going to win many people over. Medically they are different and past a certain point should have medical supervision, which was my argument about this case.
Your argument about forced birth is irrelevant here. A woman undergoing an abortion after 22 or so weeks is giving birth. The girl in this case gave birth. A later abortion doesn’t stop that part. A reasonable cut off (20-22 weeks or so imo) encourages women to make the decision at a time when the procedure is safer and less traumatic. And that trauma isn’t only for the patient; I can’t imagine many doctors would be willing to perform a medically unnecessary termination close to term.
I’m quite cross that you keep trying to paint me as anti-choice when I haven’t expressed that at all and have specifically stated the opposite multiple times. You are twisting my words and it’s a shitty thing to do. Stop it please
"Medically unnecessary" is a really tough phrase to handle. Medically unnecessary to whom? This is a pure hypothetical, but if the mother was dying of cancer and could be saved via an abortion...
I can’t imagine many doctors would be willing to perform a medically unnecessary termination close to term.
"Medically unnecessary" is a really tough phrase to handle. Medically unnecessary to whom?
This is a pure hypothetical, but if the mother was dying of cancer and could be saved via an abortion (forced birth / whatever the term is) at say 2223 weeks otherwise they will die by 36 weeks... at what point does it become medically questionable to save either 'life'?
What if the mother was suffering an extreme mental health emergency and are a danger to themselves and others around them during (because of) the pregnancy? When does it become medically questionable to save either 'life'?
It's a really headscratcher of a question and there's a plethora of ideological answers we've all got towards these subjects. I'm personally in favour of the true bodily autonomy approach myself, but if someone does raise their hand at 21+ weeks afterwards (or whatever the cut off is where you and others are) there should be systems in place that are affirming to the person and help them make the decision the same way a counsellor works in the mental health field. No opinions, No solutions, Just a space to pursue that decision quickly and ethically to whatever end the mother decides.
It's also a hugely emotional question for a gigantic portion of the population, and for good reason. It's one that in many nations has now been politicised and leads to families breaking apart and violence between people. All because some can't seem to respect the bodies of others.
If I’m answering personally then yes I consider these medically necessary. But I just used that term to avoid using the word choice as I felt someone would argue with me. I find myself in a weird...
If I’m answering personally then yes I consider these medically necessary. But I just used that term to avoid using the word choice as I felt someone would argue with me.
I find myself in a weird position of being on the same side as everyone having a go at me and feeling like I have to be very careful with what I say to not be accused of being anti-women. Normally I would disengage but I find it such an abhorrent thing to be called that I can’t help but stand up for myself.
The reasons I’m in favour of a cut off are nothing to do with the question of when a foetus becomes a baby or anything like that. Terminations get riskier the later they happen (I’m not an expert, but this is my understanding); a cut off encourages people to seek this option at a time when it’s less risky. It avoids added trauma for the patient if they don’t have to give birth to the foetus. It avoids added trauma for the medical team. In the vast majority of cases it’s enough time to know you’re pregnant and make a decision (and where I’ve lived, the procedure is set up quickly - a couple of weeks from decision to it being done).
In my view having the time and resources to make this decision is bodily autonomy. I find out I’m pregnant and I can decide whether I want to use my body that way or not; there’s just a time limit on that decision for reasons that, in my opinion, make sense.
Aye man, like I said it's a doozey of a topic and extremely-emotional. I'm a dude, so it's one I don't weigh in on very often beyond "Man, fuck what the US (and others) is doing to womens rights!"...
Aye man, like I said it's a doozey of a topic and extremely-emotional. I'm a dude, so it's one I don't weigh in on very often beyond "Man, fuck what the US (and others) is doing to womens rights!"
My wife and I are extremely-childfree, we don't want kids and never have. If she fell pregnant then we'd get an abortion immediately and I'd be there to work through whatever madness her biology puts her through. The idea of someone subjecting her to that birth vidictively puts me on edge in a huge way, and that's what I think is the point that sets folks off seething, and for good reason. But then we go looking for enemies who aren't there, because text sucks for communicating anything that has even the remotest amount of nuance on the internet (especially given how womens rights are attacked left, right and centre lately.)
I guess it's almost a semantic arguement eventually isn't it? What timeperiod is a termination, what timeperiod is a forcedbirth (and retained), what timeperiod is a forcedbirth (not retained), i.e. does a kid stay with the bio-mom? There's no denying at a certain point there is viability and a healthy prognosis that can happen given medical science being as insanely good as it is. So the argument becomes a "This foetus CAN survive, Should it?" ethical dialemma.
That's where the affirming care HAS to come in. Systems being in place to take that kid on if the mother doesn't want it (Which is entirely fair) for WHATEVER reason that may be. Counselling beforehand, Counselling afterwards. There's no denying the biology, risk and capacity to do whatever mankind can do with this situation... other than treat each other like grownups who can make the decisions they want to make apparently!
I agree with everything you’ve said here. Especially about the surrounding services to make sure people actually can make this choice. Emotions have got really high in this thread. I can’t report...
I agree with everything you’ve said here. Especially about the surrounding services to make sure people actually can make this choice.
Emotions have got really high in this thread. I can’t report myself and don’t want to label the other person with malice when they don’t deserve it; it wouldn’t be a bad idea for you to label my top comment as malice and get this thread shut down, I’m happy to take that label. It feels unproductive and has left a sour taste in my mouth
Nah, that's not the case mate. Emotional threads are just that and other people's responses to what you've written aren't controlled by you, so why should you take the blame for their shitty and...
Nah, that's not the case mate. Emotional threads are just that and other people's responses to what you've written aren't controlled by you, so why should you take the blame for their shitty and aggressive behaviour?
You've been fine with me, more so than others would have been.
Go grab a tea / coffee and disconnect for a bit. Always helps my brain.
Personally, I don't believe anyone here deserves malice yet, however I am disheartened by attempts to say just don't say that, just don't think that, expressing that is not welcome here. I think...
Personally, I don't believe anyone here deserves malice yet, however I am disheartened by attempts to say just don't say that, just don't think that, expressing that is not welcome here. I think your views are well within the bell curve statistical range of pro abortion rights opinions and that activists would be well served to both advocate for their own interpretations and perspectives but also remember that politics is moved by coalitions of people with overlapping or allied views and interests. Gatekeeping for purity of thought and opinion can be deadly to effective political action.
FWIW, I wouldn't want you to be reported. My impression is that you came to this comment section with an honest intention to express your own viewpoint — and that's something that should be...
FWIW, I wouldn't want you to be reported. My impression is that you came to this comment section with an honest intention to express your own viewpoint — and that's something that should be encouraged. And even though emotions got heated, I see a lot of self-awareness on your part.
Basically, I'm trying to say thank you for modeling the behavior I want to see in Tildes comments. I think you did better than I could.
Which again, is a very rare occurrence almost always based on necessity. People who keep the pregnancy that long almost always plan to keep it or they are forced to carry it that long due to the...
And that trauma isn’t only for the patient; I can’t imagine many doctors would be willing to perform a medically unnecessary termination close to term.
Which again, is a very rare occurrence almost always based on necessity. People who keep the pregnancy that long almost always plan to keep it or they are forced to carry it that long due to the arbitrary restrictions created by uninvolved parties. "Necessary" isn't a decision for you or some old white dude politician to make for that person.
There is no "reasonable cut off", because it's not your body. The pregnant person and the doctors are the only people in a position to make highly contextual decisions that need to be made, trying to regulate that ability to make decisions will only create harm.
Even were we to except that an entity with no memories, feeling or consciousness meets a meaningful definition of a person, there is no other situation in which you would be arguing that someone could use your kidneys or your blood or any other part of you against your consent, even to sustain themselves. Not even prisoners or dead bodies are expected to have those restrictions placed on them. If something is grown from and resides inside my body, it is my decision what happens to it. Not yours, not some random politician's.
I’m quite cross that you keep trying to paint me as anti-choice when I haven’t expressed that at all
You just outlined an entire justification for taking a woman's medical choice away based on what you, a complete uninvolved stranger, decided is a reasonable cut off. You need to accept this if you're ever going to understand the harm you're doing with your rhetoric, you are not making a pro-choice argument. I'm not twisting your words, you are literally arguing against bodily autonomy.
I see something here that may be cause of the confusion, I don't know about AgnesNutter, but when I think about the cutoff date, it's the cutoff date for the woman to make the decision on her own...
The pregnant person and the doctors are the only people in a position to make highly contextual decisions that need to be made
I see something here that may be cause of the confusion, I don't know about AgnesNutter, but when I think about the cutoff date, it's the cutoff date for the woman to make the decision on her own without someone with medical expertise involved in the decision. But I interpret what you write here as the cutoff date for doing an abortion at all. Did I understand you correctly? There may be more nuances, but that's the gist of it.
Sure, at a certain point people would be advised to not carry out their own abortion if it's beyond the point that a safe home method like the pill would be effective. But a person's choices about...
Sure, at a certain point people would be advised to not carry out their own abortion if it's beyond the point that a safe home method like the pill would be effective. But a person's choices about their own personal safety should not be a matter of legality. If someone is concerned about the safety of the patient there should be education and outreach on when to go to the hospital, not a legal cut-off by which they get penalized.
If I break my leg, I should not become a criminal if I choose not to go to the hospital. Should I go to the hospital? Definitely, but not going to a hospital should not be a criminal act.
I'm open to discussions about medical malpractice by a third-party (for example, someone running an unlicensed abortion clinic when there are licensed services available), but if you read the further discussion above you start to see that this isn't actually a discussion about safety, it's revealed to be a discussion of what constitutes "medically necessary" abortion and when a person should become obligated to keep the pregnancy to "prevent trauma" to themselves and doctors.
I appreciate you trying to mediate such an emotionally driving topic, but I think that dissecting this kind of rhetoric and the commonly excepted assumptions around abortion is the only way we'll move the country forward to a point that we can actually secure women the right to bodily autonomy. Otherwise we will always leave the door open for anti-choice proponents to wedge their policy in again.
This page has the list I mainly reference below https://www.profemina.org/en-us/abortion/late-term-abortion, note that Nebraskan law has changed since this case happened and the list has the...
To suggest that any woman should be forced to give birth is an extreme position
I don't think there's any country in the world that allows abortion up until birth based on choice only, not that I could find, but I did not find an exhaustive list of all countries. So I don't think AgnesNutters opinion is extreme, valid or not. In the list I saw there were no country that didn't allow abortion if it would save the mothers life. Again, not an exhaustive list, but enough to give a good overview of the west world imho. In my opinion the quoted statement above is the extreme one.
The very thing that makes you squeamish is a result of the position you're arguing here -- if you want less late-term abortions then it requires lifting all abortion bans and allowing women access to care they need in a timely manner.
I have not seen AgnesNutter say anything about liking the current laws as they are set up in Nebraska, but I guess that depends on how you interpret their first post. They're not american (neither am I, nor is english my first language), so we both may have missed something important. I agree with AgnesNutter that the text is not that shocking in itself, not that ruling at least.
The article gives little info about the context as to why the daughter wanted an abortion, and especially why the two of them decided to proceed on their own that late in the pregnancy, but doing some research outside of the article it looks like it may not be readily available? I couldn't find any updated numbers, but according to Wikipedia there seems to have been only 3 abortion clinics in Nebraska in 2014 which sounds insanely low and quite shocking to me.
To summarize my two points, since I'm not sure that they're clear with all the reasoning and research baked in, and I'm afraid the heated debate may cause me some unmotivated anger (motivated anger is of course ok ;) )
I think the two of you are being to harsh on AgnesNutter, assuming them to have knowledge that may not be readily available and attributing stances to them that I don't think they hold.
I agree with you that the situtation in Nebraska seems horrible for a pregnant woman that doesn't want to be pregnant, and the solution to that imho is not to allow late term abortions to anyone that wants to carry them out themselves. But rather as you suggested, or part of what you suggested "... allowing women access to care they need in a timely manner."
meta: I've read this "arugment" in other contexts, most often political (e.g. "right wing talking points"). My personal opinion is it shuts the door on nuanced discussions and promotes partisanship.
regurgitating pro life talking points
meta: I've read this "arugment" in other contexts, most often political (e.g. "right wing talking points"). My personal opinion is it shuts the door on nuanced discussions and promotes partisanship.
There is a legitimate difference of opinion of how to handle abortion rights where the fetus is viable. In my view, society should facilitate c - section and incubator space and adoption for such...
There is a legitimate difference of opinion of how to handle abortion rights where the fetus is viable. In my view, society should facilitate c - section and incubator space and adoption for such a fetus if medically practical. The pregnant person's rights should 100 percent trump other concerns if issues come into conflict, but not unnecessarily ending a viable fetus is also worth promoting. The underlying problem in this story is that Nebraska does not have adequate access to early term abortions that are within the law, and that a prosecutor used their discretion to choose to go after these very sympathetic women.
Purists on any question can unintentionally alienate political allies who are needed to build large enough coalitions to create change under a democratic system of government. You might not be squeamish about the idea of terminating a viable fetus without strong superceding need like medical necessity but a lot of people are, many of whom support abortion rights.
Also, as I read the rules of Tildes, any civil participant is welcome. Disagreeing about the precise limits of abortion rules is not hate speech.
I consider myself pro-choice, in favour of unrestricted and unconditional termination until the third trimester (27 weeks) at which point viability is highly likely (92% at 27 weeks, 98% at 28...
No, there doesn't have to be a cut off because it's an unwanted invader inside another person's body
I consider myself pro-choice, in favour of unrestricted and unconditional termination until the third trimester (27 weeks) at which point viability is highly likely (92% at 27 weeks, 98% at 28 weeks, source)
Past that point, I only support termination in cases of e.g. fatal foetal abnormality, imminent risk to the life of the mother.
I suspect that my position is not uncommon amongst those who consider themselves pro-choice.
I am a steadfast atheist, strongly disagree with the rollback on Roe v Wade, think that the restrictions on term to 12 weeks or the outlaw altogether in some US states is outrageous, support access for all women to completely free, unlimited, unconditional termination before the third trimester.
I can understand but cannot agree with your stance. I hope you can understand mine.
I am going to be honest i do struggle to see/understand your view, now in my life. I did hold it previously though myself. I think bad people (not you) will take your view and make it more...
Exemplary
I am going to be honest i do struggle to see/understand your view, now in my life. I did hold it previously though myself.
I think bad people (not you) will take your view and make it more restrictive because their end goal is birth no matter what. I don't see you as that way. I do see you wanting to do the right thing as much as possible trying to maximize the good here. However, Ill be honest i don't see people with this viability mindset getting too worked up when it slowly gets chipped away, maybe i am wrong but thats how it played out in the south..becoming more and more restrictive.
So the below can be ignored but want to go through some of my own internal struggles I had to truly stand by my position previously and why it's shifted drastically.
If we're using statistical viability as our threshold. Why are we arbitrarily picking 90 percent? isn't a 1 out of 2 viable a reason to pick that window, so 50% should be reasonable right. We can see in the CPR thread on this site many people push on chests without consent for less than 20 chance of viability (survivability).
How do we define fetal abnormalities? To me that risks getting to eugenics if the fetus is highly viable? I personally cannot grasp this mindset this highly viable living thing is okay to kill now because it's DNA is set up wrong.
How do we define mother life at risk? Do we have to balance out the viability, is high blood pressure which can be a sign of a serious disease but also nothing by itself sufficient enough to now have an abortion treatment or is the option limited to c-section now? Do we wait for sepsis? Sepsis can be a silent killer, sepsis is the reason for death of women in other countries with abortion laws.
Can women than have a c-section at this point and give up for adoption. You point is viability right? So if the fetus is highly viable women should be able to schedule a c-section at any point after 27 weeks and doctors should have to perform it? That risks choice for the doctor though doesn't it. However why does one lose choice pregnant women and not the other? If we say it's up to viability the medical license shouldn't be at risk and it should be considered safe enough to perform as requested, no? Idk it's frustrating to settle this one at all.
Now what if the woman has cancer and the condition isn't life threatening but not getting treatment could become life threatening and the treatment she needs is life threatening to the baby? Now do we force a doctor to do a c-section because the mothers life is at risk or is the risk too minimal.
What about women who are 42 weeks along and want to wait for natural birth. Now viability is decreasing rabidly should they be forced to have a c-section or other pharmalogics to give birth, regardless of how they want to do?
Speaking of women birthing choices should at home births be allowed? How about in a pool? We've seen these things decrease viability especially for an at risk pregnancy.
My perspective and concern being the idea of making this anything other than a personal decision of a women and her body for medical treatment. Anything more restrictive leaves room for the laws were seeing and then people are making horrendous choices because of these laws. As someone who went through pregnancy and birth it made me more firm in this. It's complicated and every appointment is filled with anxiety even when wanted, and now considering having another child in the post-roe world when my body had to get medication in the past for two failed pregnancies that would've otherwise made me septic, and those medications being allowed for now but uncertainty as cases will likely be filed again. My body has failed me twice before and I'm not sure it won't again, but after having our son here and the world of joy he brings its worth some of the risk, should I be given a risk of a death sentence for that choice though?
If this 17 year old lived somewhere else I'm not sure she would've been thrusted into this game theory-ship that had a no-win answer in her mind because of what access she had due to her states slowly chipped away more restrictive laws.
Anyways I hope this made sense and gets to nuance of why I struggle to understand the view anymore. Even if I did at one point.
It is worth pointing out that the fetus was actually at 29 weeks in this case, something that was routinely misreported at the outset:...
It is worth pointing out that the fetus was actually at 29 weeks in this case, something that was routinely misreported at the outset:
After the teen aborted the 29-week-old fetus, the two burned the remains and buried them in a field north of Norfolk in north-eastern Nebraska. Authorities later found the burned fetus.
Jessica Burgess, 41, is facing five criminal charges, including three felonies, after investigators accused her of helping her 17-year-old daughter obtain abortion pills to end her pregnancy, as well as burning and interring the fetus.
Thanks for the extra link, some relevant extra details in there I think. Ultimately her age doesn’t change my view. I’m already sympathetic to their situation (I believe there must have been some...
Thanks for the extra link, some relevant extra details in there I think. Ultimately her age doesn’t change my view. I’m already sympathetic to their situation (I believe there must have been some serious circumstances to lead to this - it is surely not something you would put yourself through otherwise) but I also don’t think this is something you should be allowed to do outside of medical supervision. And to be clear I’m talking about late term abortions here, she was around 26 weeks. I’m fully supportive of women who need to take matters into their own hands in states with anti-choice laws
I know you've been through the ringer on this and I think you're right that a doctor should have been involved, but in states where medical providers are prohibited from facilitating an abortion,...
I know you've been through the ringer on this and I think you're right that a doctor should have been involved, but in states where medical providers are prohibited from facilitating an abortion, I am empathetic to them attempting to handle it themselves.
This is what happens in the face of increasing restrictions. I don't know how accessible a medical provider who could do post-20 week abortions was to them, but 20 weeks was the legal cut off in their state. And pills and a claimed stillbirth may have seemed the best or only option.
I think we'll see more of this, in desperation, especially prosecuting family and friends since generally the individual is not prosecutable for the abortion itself.
Prosecutors have discretion to prosecute or not any case that crosses their desk. The fact that this case reached trial was a political choice and it is one that I strongly oppose.
Prosecutors have discretion to prosecute or not any case that crosses their desk. The fact that this case reached trial was a political choice and it is one that I strongly oppose.
Agreed fully. But I suspect the prosecutor is part of the problem and supports the even greater restrictions imposed on people seeking abortion so it's just gonna get worse.
Agreed fully. But I suspect the prosecutor is part of the problem and supports the even greater restrictions imposed on people seeking abortion so it's just gonna get worse.
Criminalizing Care
A Nebraska mother who helped her teen daughter self-manage an abortion is scheduled to be sentenced next week. Jessica Burgess pled guilty to breaking the state’s abortion law; her daughter, Celeste, who was 17 at the time, pled guilty to concealing and abandoning a dead human body. Celeste served 53 days of a 90-day jail sentence before being released, and will be on probation for two years. I’ll keep you updated about Jessica’s sentencing as I find out more.
As we watch women and girls be prosecuted for abortion, Republicans continue to claim that they would never, ever punish women for ending their pregnancies. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for example, told CBS News this weekend that his state’s recently-passed 6-week ban would not criminalize abortion patients—just providers. Thank goodness CBS Evening News anchor Norah O'Donnell pushed back, pointing out that the language of the bill says that anyone “who willfully performs or actively participates in a termination of pregnancy” would be guilty of a felony.
When O'Donnell asked, “Is a woman not actively participating in the termination of her pregnancy?” De Santis responded that “she's not a medical practitioner.” But here’s the thing: When someone takes an abortion pill, that ‘participation’ is about as ‘active’ as you get! Besides, we know that women will be criminalized because it’s happening elsewhere
I know this is an outlier in many ways, for being post 20 weeks, for happening before Roe's overturn, for the Facebook messenger aspect....
But I think it's a portent. The daughter was convicted on the mishandling human remains charge. It just leaves me in this state of being unsettled and worried for the future.
Edit: to fix a letter
I'm most curious about who reported this and how they found out.
If I recall, a "Friend" of the daughter's overheard a conversation and said something. I'll see if I can find the original story.
I was ready to be horrified by this headline but the fact that it was after 20 weeks gives me pause. I’m not sure jail time is the right consequence, but I also don’t think it’s right for this to be done outside of medical supervision. It also doesn’t mention the age of the child which may affect my view.
It feels like this has been written to make people outraged about current abortion laws and/or scared of the consequences. But this case doesn’t feel relevant for that, to me (a non American, so what do I know?!)
The fetus does not even have the structure for consciousness at 20 weeks, and even if it did it is kept in a state of sedation by the placenta for most of the pregnancy.
What should give you pause is that you aren't able to really commit to any meaningful stance on this topic. "Feeling uneasy" is not enough to sentence away two years of this mother's life for helping her teenage daughter eject an unwanted pregnancy from her body. All for a fetus that has no memories, no consciousness or personhood.
I'm trying not to be harsh here, but people really need to stop treating bodily autonomy as if its some kind of uncertain ethical grey area. Even if a fetus were a person, no one has a right to use the body of another against their will, even to sustain themselves. There is no other scenario in which a person would be forced to allow the use of their body, yet somehow pregnancy is treated as this exception.
I think you’re reading me wrong here. I’m not pro life by any stretch and I know a foetus is not a baby.
I did specifically say “but I also don’t think it’s right for this to be done outside of medical supervision” - this is what concerns me. My impression is that this is a more complicated procedure at a later date, and I think doctors should be involved. People are entitled to make risky medical decisions for themselves, but I don’t think they should be free to do that for their children. I also said I don’t believe jail time to be appropriate, though I’m not sure what the consequence should be
Edit: I do also want to add that the earliest premature baby to survive was 21 weeks so we actually aren’t far off consciousness and viability at 20 weeks. There has to be a cut off point somewhere
No, there doesn't have to be a cut off because it's an unwanted invader inside another person's body. Bodily autonomy is the basis of all rights, it cannot be selectively taken away from women based on some wishy-washy ideas about whether a sedated fetus with no memories or experiences being a person.
Your rhetoric is what provides a toe hold for the far right to keep their anti-bodily autonomy ahenda alive. The US needs to put this issue to bed definitively, not with blurry lines based on spiritual hypotheticals.
I need you to stop assuming I’m coming from a pro life place. You are putting meaning to my words which I am being very intentional about avoiding which makes me think you’re engaging in bad faith here.
This is an anti-choice position. The fact that you also use terminology like "pro life" is revealing as well. You're making a forced birth argument whether you understand it in that way or not, the only difference is you're drawing the line in a slightly different, but no less justifiable place.
To suggest that any woman should be forced to give birth is an extreme position, and that is the underlying implication of your statement, that at some point someone besides the woman and her doctor should have a say in who/what can use her body against her will.
People who don't want pregnancies don't typically wait until late in the pregnancy, they do so when extreme restrictions on medical care give them no other choice. And even in the case that people do have a late-term abortion, there is almost always an important medical reason.
The very thing that makes you squeamish is a result of the position you're arguing here -- if you want less late-term abortions then it requires lifting all abortion bans and allowing women access to care they need in a timely manner. Not arguments about viability or keeping the door cracked rhetorically for anti-choice proponents to build a case.
If you’re going to sit there and argue that abortion at 39 weeks is no different to one at 10 weeks you aren’t going to win many people over. Medically they are different and past a certain point should have medical supervision, which was my argument about this case.
Your argument about forced birth is irrelevant here. A woman undergoing an abortion after 22 or so weeks is giving birth. The girl in this case gave birth. A later abortion doesn’t stop that part. A reasonable cut off (20-22 weeks or so imo) encourages women to make the decision at a time when the procedure is safer and less traumatic. And that trauma isn’t only for the patient; I can’t imagine many doctors would be willing to perform a medically unnecessary termination close to term.
I’m quite cross that you keep trying to paint me as anti-choice when I haven’t expressed that at all and have specifically stated the opposite multiple times. You are twisting my words and it’s a shitty thing to do. Stop it please
"Medically unnecessary" is a really tough phrase to handle. Medically unnecessary to whom?
This is a pure hypothetical, but if the mother was dying of cancer and could be saved via an abortion (forced birth / whatever the term is) at say 2223 weeks otherwise they will die by 36 weeks... at what point does it become medically questionable to save either 'life'?
What if the mother was suffering an extreme mental health emergency and are a danger to themselves and others around them during (because of) the pregnancy? When does it become medically questionable to save either 'life'?
It's a really headscratcher of a question and there's a plethora of ideological answers we've all got towards these subjects. I'm personally in favour of the true bodily autonomy approach myself, but if someone does raise their hand at 21+ weeks afterwards (or whatever the cut off is where you and others are) there should be systems in place that are affirming to the person and help them make the decision the same way a counsellor works in the mental health field. No opinions, No solutions, Just a space to pursue that decision quickly and ethically to whatever end the mother decides.
It's also a hugely emotional question for a gigantic portion of the population, and for good reason. It's one that in many nations has now been politicised and leads to families breaking apart and violence between people. All because some can't seem to respect the bodies of others.
Tis a doozey.
If I’m answering personally then yes I consider these medically necessary. But I just used that term to avoid using the word choice as I felt someone would argue with me.
I find myself in a weird position of being on the same side as everyone having a go at me and feeling like I have to be very careful with what I say to not be accused of being anti-women. Normally I would disengage but I find it such an abhorrent thing to be called that I can’t help but stand up for myself.
The reasons I’m in favour of a cut off are nothing to do with the question of when a foetus becomes a baby or anything like that. Terminations get riskier the later they happen (I’m not an expert, but this is my understanding); a cut off encourages people to seek this option at a time when it’s less risky. It avoids added trauma for the patient if they don’t have to give birth to the foetus. It avoids added trauma for the medical team. In the vast majority of cases it’s enough time to know you’re pregnant and make a decision (and where I’ve lived, the procedure is set up quickly - a couple of weeks from decision to it being done).
In my view having the time and resources to make this decision is bodily autonomy. I find out I’m pregnant and I can decide whether I want to use my body that way or not; there’s just a time limit on that decision for reasons that, in my opinion, make sense.
Aye man, like I said it's a doozey of a topic and extremely-emotional. I'm a dude, so it's one I don't weigh in on very often beyond "Man, fuck what the US (and others) is doing to womens rights!"
My wife and I are extremely-childfree, we don't want kids and never have. If she fell pregnant then we'd get an abortion immediately and I'd be there to work through whatever madness her biology puts her through. The idea of someone subjecting her to that birth vidictively puts me on edge in a huge way, and that's what I think is the point that sets folks off seething, and for good reason. But then we go looking for enemies who aren't there, because text sucks for communicating anything that has even the remotest amount of nuance on the internet (especially given how womens rights are attacked left, right and centre lately.)
I guess it's almost a semantic arguement eventually isn't it? What timeperiod is a termination, what timeperiod is a forcedbirth (and retained), what timeperiod is a forcedbirth (not retained), i.e. does a kid stay with the bio-mom? There's no denying at a certain point there is viability and a healthy prognosis that can happen given medical science being as insanely good as it is. So the argument becomes a "This foetus CAN survive, Should it?" ethical dialemma.
That's where the affirming care HAS to come in. Systems being in place to take that kid on if the mother doesn't want it (Which is entirely fair) for WHATEVER reason that may be. Counselling beforehand, Counselling afterwards. There's no denying the biology, risk and capacity to do whatever mankind can do with this situation... other than treat each other like grownups who can make the decisions they want to make apparently!
I agree with everything you’ve said here. Especially about the surrounding services to make sure people actually can make this choice.
Emotions have got really high in this thread. I can’t report myself and don’t want to label the other person with malice when they don’t deserve it; it wouldn’t be a bad idea for you to label my top comment as malice and get this thread shut down, I’m happy to take that label. It feels unproductive and has left a sour taste in my mouth
Nah, that's not the case mate. Emotional threads are just that and other people's responses to what you've written aren't controlled by you, so why should you take the blame for their shitty and aggressive behaviour?
You've been fine with me, more so than others would have been.
Go grab a tea / coffee and disconnect for a bit. Always helps my brain.
Personally, I don't believe anyone here deserves malice yet, however I am disheartened by attempts to say just don't say that, just don't think that, expressing that is not welcome here. I think your views are well within the bell curve statistical range of pro abortion rights opinions and that activists would be well served to both advocate for their own interpretations and perspectives but also remember that politics is moved by coalitions of people with overlapping or allied views and interests. Gatekeeping for purity of thought and opinion can be deadly to effective political action.
FWIW, I wouldn't want you to be reported. My impression is that you came to this comment section with an honest intention to express your own viewpoint — and that's something that should be encouraged. And even though emotions got heated, I see a lot of self-awareness on your part.
Basically, I'm trying to say thank you for modeling the behavior I want to see in Tildes comments. I think you did better than I could.
Which again, is a very rare occurrence almost always based on necessity. People who keep the pregnancy that long almost always plan to keep it or they are forced to carry it that long due to the arbitrary restrictions created by uninvolved parties. "Necessary" isn't a decision for you or some old white dude politician to make for that person.
There is no "reasonable cut off", because it's not your body. The pregnant person and the doctors are the only people in a position to make highly contextual decisions that need to be made, trying to regulate that ability to make decisions will only create harm.
Even were we to except that an entity with no memories, feeling or consciousness meets a meaningful definition of a person, there is no other situation in which you would be arguing that someone could use your kidneys or your blood or any other part of you against your consent, even to sustain themselves. Not even prisoners or dead bodies are expected to have those restrictions placed on them. If something is grown from and resides inside my body, it is my decision what happens to it. Not yours, not some random politician's.
You just outlined an entire justification for taking a woman's medical choice away based on what you, a complete uninvolved stranger, decided is a reasonable cut off. You need to accept this if you're ever going to understand the harm you're doing with your rhetoric, you are not making a pro-choice argument. I'm not twisting your words, you are literally arguing against bodily autonomy.
I see something here that may be cause of the confusion, I don't know about AgnesNutter, but when I think about the cutoff date, it's the cutoff date for the woman to make the decision on her own without someone with medical expertise involved in the decision. But I interpret what you write here as the cutoff date for doing an abortion at all. Did I understand you correctly? There may be more nuances, but that's the gist of it.
Sure, at a certain point people would be advised to not carry out their own abortion if it's beyond the point that a safe home method like the pill would be effective. But a person's choices about their own personal safety should not be a matter of legality. If someone is concerned about the safety of the patient there should be education and outreach on when to go to the hospital, not a legal cut-off by which they get penalized.
If I break my leg, I should not become a criminal if I choose not to go to the hospital. Should I go to the hospital? Definitely, but not going to a hospital should not be a criminal act.
I'm open to discussions about medical malpractice by a third-party (for example, someone running an unlicensed abortion clinic when there are licensed services available), but if you read the further discussion above you start to see that this isn't actually a discussion about safety, it's revealed to be a discussion of what constitutes "medically necessary" abortion and when a person should become obligated to keep the pregnancy to "prevent trauma" to themselves and doctors.
I appreciate you trying to mediate such an emotionally driving topic, but I think that dissecting this kind of rhetoric and the commonly excepted assumptions around abortion is the only way we'll move the country forward to a point that we can actually secure women the right to bodily autonomy. Otherwise we will always leave the door open for anti-choice proponents to wedge their policy in again.
This page has the list I mainly reference below https://www.profemina.org/en-us/abortion/late-term-abortion, note that Nebraskan law has changed since this case happened and the list has the updated law, so it doesn't match the story.
I don't think there's any country in the world that allows abortion up until birth based on choice only, not that I could find, but I did not find an exhaustive list of all countries. So I don't think AgnesNutters opinion is extreme, valid or not. In the list I saw there were no country that didn't allow abortion if it would save the mothers life. Again, not an exhaustive list, but enough to give a good overview of the west world imho. In my opinion the quoted statement above is the extreme one.
I have not seen AgnesNutter say anything about liking the current laws as they are set up in Nebraska, but I guess that depends on how you interpret their first post. They're not american (neither am I, nor is english my first language), so we both may have missed something important. I agree with AgnesNutter that the text is not that shocking in itself, not that ruling at least.
The article gives little info about the context as to why the daughter wanted an abortion, and especially why the two of them decided to proceed on their own that late in the pregnancy, but doing some research outside of the article it looks like it may not be readily available? I couldn't find any updated numbers, but according to Wikipedia there seems to have been only 3 abortion clinics in Nebraska in 2014 which sounds insanely low and quite shocking to me.
To summarize my two points, since I'm not sure that they're clear with all the reasoning and research baked in, and I'm afraid the heated debate may cause me some unmotivated anger (motivated anger is of course ok ;) )
meta: I've read this "arugment" in other contexts, most often political (e.g. "right wing talking points"). My personal opinion is it shuts the door on nuanced discussions and promotes partisanship.
That’s just an outright lie
There is a legitimate difference of opinion of how to handle abortion rights where the fetus is viable. In my view, society should facilitate c - section and incubator space and adoption for such a fetus if medically practical. The pregnant person's rights should 100 percent trump other concerns if issues come into conflict, but not unnecessarily ending a viable fetus is also worth promoting. The underlying problem in this story is that Nebraska does not have adequate access to early term abortions that are within the law, and that a prosecutor used their discretion to choose to go after these very sympathetic women.
Purists on any question can unintentionally alienate political allies who are needed to build large enough coalitions to create change under a democratic system of government. You might not be squeamish about the idea of terminating a viable fetus without strong superceding need like medical necessity but a lot of people are, many of whom support abortion rights.
Also, as I read the rules of Tildes, any civil participant is welcome. Disagreeing about the precise limits of abortion rules is not hate speech.
I consider myself pro-choice, in favour of unrestricted and unconditional termination until the third trimester (27 weeks) at which point viability is highly likely (92% at 27 weeks, 98% at 28 weeks, source)
Past that point, I only support termination in cases of e.g. fatal foetal abnormality, imminent risk to the life of the mother.
I suspect that my position is not uncommon amongst those who consider themselves pro-choice.
I am a steadfast atheist, strongly disagree with the rollback on Roe v Wade, think that the restrictions on term to 12 weeks or the outlaw altogether in some US states is outrageous, support access for all women to completely free, unlimited, unconditional termination before the third trimester.
I can understand but cannot agree with your stance. I hope you can understand mine.
I am going to be honest i do struggle to see/understand your view, now in my life. I did hold it previously though myself.
I think bad people (not you) will take your view and make it more restrictive because their end goal is birth no matter what. I don't see you as that way. I do see you wanting to do the right thing as much as possible trying to maximize the good here. However, Ill be honest i don't see people with this viability mindset getting too worked up when it slowly gets chipped away, maybe i am wrong but thats how it played out in the south..becoming more and more restrictive.
So the below can be ignored but want to go through some of my own internal struggles I had to truly stand by my position previously and why it's shifted drastically.
If we're using statistical viability as our threshold. Why are we arbitrarily picking 90 percent? isn't a 1 out of 2 viable a reason to pick that window, so 50% should be reasonable right. We can see in the CPR thread on this site many people push on chests without consent for less than 20 chance of viability (survivability).
How do we define fetal abnormalities? To me that risks getting to eugenics if the fetus is highly viable? I personally cannot grasp this mindset this highly viable living thing is okay to kill now because it's DNA is set up wrong.
How do we define mother life at risk? Do we have to balance out the viability, is high blood pressure which can be a sign of a serious disease but also nothing by itself sufficient enough to now have an abortion treatment or is the option limited to c-section now? Do we wait for sepsis? Sepsis can be a silent killer, sepsis is the reason for death of women in other countries with abortion laws.
Can women than have a c-section at this point and give up for adoption. You point is viability right? So if the fetus is highly viable women should be able to schedule a c-section at any point after 27 weeks and doctors should have to perform it? That risks choice for the doctor though doesn't it. However why does one lose choice pregnant women and not the other? If we say it's up to viability the medical license shouldn't be at risk and it should be considered safe enough to perform as requested, no? Idk it's frustrating to settle this one at all.
Now what if the woman has cancer and the condition isn't life threatening but not getting treatment could become life threatening and the treatment she needs is life threatening to the baby? Now do we force a doctor to do a c-section because the mothers life is at risk or is the risk too minimal.
What about women who are 42 weeks along and want to wait for natural birth. Now viability is decreasing rabidly should they be forced to have a c-section or other pharmalogics to give birth, regardless of how they want to do?
Speaking of women birthing choices should at home births be allowed? How about in a pool? We've seen these things decrease viability especially for an at risk pregnancy.
My perspective and concern being the idea of making this anything other than a personal decision of a women and her body for medical treatment. Anything more restrictive leaves room for the laws were seeing and then people are making horrendous choices because of these laws. As someone who went through pregnancy and birth it made me more firm in this. It's complicated and every appointment is filled with anxiety even when wanted, and now considering having another child in the post-roe world when my body had to get medication in the past for two failed pregnancies that would've otherwise made me septic, and those medications being allowed for now but uncertainty as cases will likely be filed again. My body has failed me twice before and I'm not sure it won't again, but after having our son here and the world of joy he brings its worth some of the risk, should I be given a risk of a death sentence for that choice though?
If this 17 year old lived somewhere else I'm not sure she would've been thrusted into this game theory-ship that had a no-win answer in her mind because of what access she had due to her states slowly chipped away more restrictive laws.
Anyways I hope this made sense and gets to nuance of why I struggle to understand the view anymore. Even if I did at one point.
It is worth pointing out that the fetus was actually at 29 weeks in this case, something that was routinely misreported at the outset:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/10/nebraska-mother-daughter-abortion-pills-burying-fetus-guilty
The kid was 17
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/09/nebraska-teen-charged-aborting-fetus
Thanks for the extra link, some relevant extra details in there I think. Ultimately her age doesn’t change my view. I’m already sympathetic to their situation (I believe there must have been some serious circumstances to lead to this - it is surely not something you would put yourself through otherwise) but I also don’t think this is something you should be allowed to do outside of medical supervision. And to be clear I’m talking about late term abortions here, she was around 26 weeks. I’m fully supportive of women who need to take matters into their own hands in states with anti-choice laws
I know you've been through the ringer on this and I think you're right that a doctor should have been involved, but in states where medical providers are prohibited from facilitating an abortion, I am empathetic to them attempting to handle it themselves.
This is what happens in the face of increasing restrictions. I don't know how accessible a medical provider who could do post-20 week abortions was to them, but 20 weeks was the legal cut off in their state. And pills and a claimed stillbirth may have seemed the best or only option.
I think we'll see more of this, in desperation, especially prosecuting family and friends since generally the individual is not prosecutable for the abortion itself.
Prosecutors have discretion to prosecute or not any case that crosses their desk. The fact that this case reached trial was a political choice and it is one that I strongly oppose.
Agreed fully. But I suspect the prosecutor is part of the problem and supports the even greater restrictions imposed on people seeking abortion so it's just gonna get worse.
Jessica Valenti on Burgess in Abortion Every Day from a few days ago: