I think telemedicine abortion provider startups (e.g. https://heyjane.co) have the potential to be seriously disruptive and allow women to access abortion care even as their rights are under attack.
Also, I thought the "Creative ways to access pills" section that shows up when you select a state where telemedicine abortion isn't currently officially available was interesting:
> Rosa lives in Texas where the law makes it hard to find pills by mail. Here is how she used a telemedicine service in another state and a mail forwarding service to get pills mailed to her home.
Said services could be charged as accessories to a crime and their directors and executives may be jailed if they ever step foot in the wrong state. This is not a matter of failing to do KYC, they are knowingly sending these pills.
Isn't sending illegal things by mail a federal crime? They'll probably start searching packages. Although I imagine it'd be very hard to stop it all just as they fail to stop drugs being brought in by mail
It’s amazing how aggressive conservative states are at enforcing their laws across state boundaries, but then turn around a cry states rights whenever things are the other way around.
Almost like they’re a bunch of jackbooted theocratic hypocrites.
versus the alternative of giving birth and raising a child you don’t want, which also doesn’t include mental health services and lasts roughly 18 years longer
Imagine I invite you to a trip in my private jet. We're going to London, and when we're on the middle of the trip, I decide you're no longer welcome on my property. So I open the door the plane and drop you off of the plane. Most people will agree that is unfair, the ideal would be landing and then you move on, but i killed you just because i did the work deciding what was good for me, by convinience.
> Imagine I invite you to a trip in my private jet.
To extend your metaphor a bit, what if you didn't invite me aboard, and I'm a stowaway? Or a hijacker who wants to divert the plane to a different destination?
What if my presence isn't merely inconvenient, but actually hazardous?
Pregnancy causes permanent body changes for one thing, even putting aside spending 9 months being forced by the state to do something with your body that you don't want to do.
I'd hope we could all agree that better sex education and making access to contraceptives easier would be a great way to lower the number of abortions. But many of the states that have restricted access also ban such practices, mandate abstinence-only education in schools, etc. Why not mandate that any hospital that receives federal funds must provide contraceptive RX/shots at low or no cost? If abortion is so bad why oppose easy wins?
IMHO that says more about the real motivations than anything else. It has nothing to do with a child's life - the same politicians oppose the child tax credit and cut funding for early education, child healthcare programs, etc. The real purpose is to punish "those dirty whores" for living a lifestyle they don't approve of. Sometimes for personal reasons, sometimes for religious reasons. So they use the power of the state (the barrel of a gun) to force people to conform to their view of what is right - a minority view I might add.
I happen to think that's immoral and a misuse of state power. It is also incompatible with true conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism, and progressivism.
I don't, but you have the right for the body of your son.
Imagine you travel on an airplane, and the owner of the airplane drops of you off on the middle of the trip just because it's his property. That's your view.
> Imagine you travel on an airplane, and the owner of the airplane drops of you off on the middle of the trip just because it's his property. That's your view.
Your analogy (well, metaphor, really) is flawed, on multiple levels.
First, I as a traveler presumably have agency, probably paid for the privilege, and you agreed in advance to transport me.
It is undisputed that I am a fully realized human being with all attendant rights, such as they are.
But even the ways in which your metaphor is not flawed don't support your point of view.
My presence aboard, having been agreed to ahead of time, is assumed not to pose any costs, danger, difficulty, or hardship that isn't accounted for by the ticket I bought, but most importantly, if ANY of that changes the owner (or rather, operator) of the aircraft absolutely DOES have the right and even obligation to put me off the plane at the earliest opportunity (including making an unscheduled stop for that purpose), for offenses as mild as simply being somewhat unpleasant toward the other passengers or crew, much less acting in a way that may actually be threatening or frightening.
As a passenger, transportation is a privilege, not a right, and said privilege can be revoked at any time, despite having been paid for in advance.
Also, in case you never paid any attention to the legalities of purchasing a ticket for air travel, despite having taken your money, the airline really isn't obligated to do more than make a best effort attempt to get you (and/or your luggage) to your destination. Their best effort doesn't even have to be particularly good or effective, which is how and why people end up stranded or stuck with little to no reason or recourse.
There is no scientific consensus on when a developing fetus becomes a person so saying "kill your own son" begs the question to begin with. Your argument is based on a premise that a) isn't shared and b) has no evidence that doesn't devolve into "my chosen person claiming to be God's representative claims God said so".
My preferred solution would be to make it much easier to avoid an unwanted pregnancy as well as much easier to have a child and keep them healthy, including with lots of financial subsidies. But so far almost none of the anti-abortion crowd are interested in any of that - in fact many vehemently oppose some or all of those things.
Have you stopped to consider why? For example why not free universal prenatal care and child healthcare? Subsidized daycare and after school care. Money? If we are talking about lives here saying money is the reason admits a human life has a dollar value... so pay women to carry a pregnancy to term then. But of course arguments against that say it would encourage women to have a baby when they shouldn't... but if life is precious then is not creating a life immoral? Why or why not? There are so many extensions of these arguments worth considering.
I would encourage anyone who is so certain of their moral position to spend at least a tiny bit of time considering these things honestly - without reference to "God said so" because we may not agree on the existence of God, who God's representative is, or whether God supposedly said what you think he said - which makes basing the use of the state's coercive power on "God" a massive problem and incompatible with religious freedom at the least.
Sure. I should be able to force you to endure 9 months of torture (not to mention the potential for severe health complications), potentially condemning the child to 18 years in the foster system, because of my beliefs. Got it.
I agree, the alternative is not ideal either but there are serious consequences either way and so ensuring that both needs are met should be a priority.
Yeah because the US has a wonderful foster/adoption/childcare system right? anti-abortion people always say adoption and then whine about taxes when they have to pay for it
Not sure where the "sued into oblivion" justification comes from. Most drugs have side effects, including mental ones. Providers aren't getting sued as long as they disclose them up front. Especially considering you need a prescription in the first place.
Physicians and prescription providers get sued all the time. It is a serious concern that that I've seen firsthand that can cause symptoms similar to postpartum depression, suicide thoughts, etc.
They get sued, sure. Anyone can sue for anything. Has a single doctor or provider been successfully sued because an FDA approved drug caused a side effect that they had disclosed to the patient?
I expect a lot of things to become more traumatic, given that the maternal death rate will probably increase even further, and it gets harder for women to get prenatal care.
> These abortion providers are forgetting an important component of having an at-home abortion,
Nobody is forgetting anything. These healthcare providers are pursuing a harm minimization strategy in the face of laws they believe will deter women from engaging with healthcare professionals.
Anyhow, many other European countries have long heavily relied on at-home, pharmaceutical abortifacients precisely because (and this is probably surprising to most Americans) most European countries actually have more restrictive laws regarding abortion than those to which the majority of the U.S. population are subject--i.e. relative to laws in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, etc. So the track record on outcomes, risks, etc is quite clear from foreign experiences alone, not to mention the domestic record.
Still failing to refute the central point: more harm is minimized by preventing an unwanted birth via abortion than via “caring about their mental health.”
Rhetorically, everyone recognizes that you’re just moving the goalposts by providing one onerous requirement after another.
That isn't my point here. The point is the critical need for mental health services to help some women deal with having an at-home abortion. It can be trauma inducing for some women. You can't pretend it simply doesn't exist when studies clearly indicate otherwise and then simultaneously say others are shifting the goal posts when you are doing just that.
> (and this is probably surprising to most Americans) most European countries actually have more restrictive laws regarding abortion than those to which the majority of the U.S. population are subject
Not sure this is a fair assessment. It's true if you measure "restrictiveness" by number of weeks up until it's no longer allowed. In most European countries, 12 weeks is the limit for on-demand abortions (which aligns with the 11 week limit before which abortion pills can be safely and effectively used). [1] However, there are usually exceptions that allow abortions under certain circumstances after 12 weeks, and in many of these countries, abortion is covered under tax-funded healthcare and is offered free of charge.
Meanwhile, in the US, the only federal-level abortion ruling (Roe v. Wade) will soon be overturned. 13 states already have laws on the books that will completely ban abortions in all cases as soon as that happens. [2] And even while Roe was in effect, Texas still somehow managed to implement a ~6 week abortion ban (which is far more restrictive than almost every European country).
Yes! Exactly. How is it different than if you killed the child right after it was delivered? Or how about a couple of years later while it was physically and sexually abused in foster care because the mother had to give the child to the state. Or maybe the mother tried to do good by the child and kept it but it became such a burden that she was unable to continue her education and she ended up in a less than ideal situation and the child became malnourished and died or the mother fell into drugs as an escape and the mother made less than good decisions leading to the child's death. Or maybe the mother busted her ass but because of continuous cutbacks by the GOP was unable to get the assistance she needed to get out of the projects and that child fell in with the wrong crowd, joined a gang, and ended up killing a number of other people?
If you're "pro-life" then you have then you have to support the life post birth as well.
Pro-choice reduces deaths through safe abortions. Pro-choice reduces deaths by not bringing babies into the world that their parents and social welfare programs, that the right continue to kill, can't support. If you're going to be hyperbolic with "liberals wanting to kill babies" then I'm going to be hyperbolic with "The right want to kill babies, children, toddlers, and their parents and make their life a living hell until their demise comes"
It's not a weird premise. You rather save the life of a fetus than save the life of an 18 month old born to a mother that can't support that child. You'd rather that woman have that child, be backed into a corner where that child then becomes a ward of the state and that child be abused by it's foster family, resulting in either death at which point it was a wash or that child grows up to be part of the cycle of abuse.
Or maybe that mother keeps the child but due to the lack of support (do those mega churches need to be so mega) she ends up in a less than ideal part of town and can't fully keep an eye on that child and it joins a gang where it kills a few people before meeting its own demise. Damn, now that one loss of life due to abortion is a loss of 4 lives.
Or maybe that child does make it through life but never really gets out of the poverty cycle that was started because its mother had no control over her body. It never really lives the life it wants. It doesn't feel the love of god, it just feels forsaken until its last breath. But I guess that's ok because it was still here and that's all that matters.
There is a long line of young families who want to adopt and would love that child. I am too familiar w the abuses of foster care. I need to be the voice of those who cant defend themselves. There is one place a child should feel most safe … in the womb of its mother.
Which takes me back to my original question, when does that caring stop? As there are far more children who weren't taken care of post birth than there were aborted.
Many of my personal friends have adopted children from all over the world. Saved them from horrid lives and even death. It hurts me to think of any child that is abused. Born or unborn. It there is a way to fight what you speak of I would gladly join hands w you and fight it.
Their FAQ says it's not recommended to use after 11 weeks of pregnancy, however there is nothing that prevents a woman from using it anyway along with the massive health risks that come in doing so after 11 weeks. I guess by them burying the warnings in the FAQ they are covered legally.
84 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 164 ms ] threadAlso, I thought the "Creative ways to access pills" section that shows up when you select a state where telemedicine abortion isn't currently officially available was interesting:
> Rosa lives in Texas where the law makes it hard to find pills by mail. Here is how she used a telemedicine service in another state and a mail forwarding service to get pills mailed to her home.
https://www.plancpills.org/states/texas#results-anchor
In Texas, providing a service may be a first degree felony with a life sentence.
Almost like they’re a bunch of jackbooted theocratic hypocrites.
Miscarriage + Abortion Hotline, many resources: https://www.mahotline.org/
That's your argument.
we will never see eye-to-eye on this on an ideological level, which I think exemplifies the importance of it being a personal choice!
To extend your metaphor a bit, what if you didn't invite me aboard, and I'm a stowaway? Or a hijacker who wants to divert the plane to a different destination?
What if my presence isn't merely inconvenient, but actually hazardous?
That's the point, actually.
People want to have sex without actually breeding. No method of contraception is 100% effective, so there are options for ending unwanted pregnancies.
I'd hope we could all agree that better sex education and making access to contraceptives easier would be a great way to lower the number of abortions. But many of the states that have restricted access also ban such practices, mandate abstinence-only education in schools, etc. Why not mandate that any hospital that receives federal funds must provide contraceptive RX/shots at low or no cost? If abortion is so bad why oppose easy wins?
IMHO that says more about the real motivations than anything else. It has nothing to do with a child's life - the same politicians oppose the child tax credit and cut funding for early education, child healthcare programs, etc. The real purpose is to punish "those dirty whores" for living a lifestyle they don't approve of. Sometimes for personal reasons, sometimes for religious reasons. So they use the power of the state (the barrel of a gun) to force people to conform to their view of what is right - a minority view I might add.
I happen to think that's immoral and a misuse of state power. It is also incompatible with true conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism, and progressivism.
Imagine you travel on an airplane, and the owner of the airplane drops of you off on the middle of the trip just because it's his property. That's your view.
Your analogy (well, metaphor, really) is flawed, on multiple levels.
First, I as a traveler presumably have agency, probably paid for the privilege, and you agreed in advance to transport me.
It is undisputed that I am a fully realized human being with all attendant rights, such as they are.
But even the ways in which your metaphor is not flawed don't support your point of view.
My presence aboard, having been agreed to ahead of time, is assumed not to pose any costs, danger, difficulty, or hardship that isn't accounted for by the ticket I bought, but most importantly, if ANY of that changes the owner (or rather, operator) of the aircraft absolutely DOES have the right and even obligation to put me off the plane at the earliest opportunity (including making an unscheduled stop for that purpose), for offenses as mild as simply being somewhat unpleasant toward the other passengers or crew, much less acting in a way that may actually be threatening or frightening.
As a passenger, transportation is a privilege, not a right, and said privilege can be revoked at any time, despite having been paid for in advance.
Also, in case you never paid any attention to the legalities of purchasing a ticket for air travel, despite having taken your money, the airline really isn't obligated to do more than make a best effort attempt to get you (and/or your luggage) to your destination. Their best effort doesn't even have to be particularly good or effective, which is how and why people end up stranded or stuck with little to no reason or recourse.
My preferred solution would be to make it much easier to avoid an unwanted pregnancy as well as much easier to have a child and keep them healthy, including with lots of financial subsidies. But so far almost none of the anti-abortion crowd are interested in any of that - in fact many vehemently oppose some or all of those things.
Have you stopped to consider why? For example why not free universal prenatal care and child healthcare? Subsidized daycare and after school care. Money? If we are talking about lives here saying money is the reason admits a human life has a dollar value... so pay women to carry a pregnancy to term then. But of course arguments against that say it would encourage women to have a baby when they shouldn't... but if life is precious then is not creating a life immoral? Why or why not? There are so many extensions of these arguments worth considering.
I would encourage anyone who is so certain of their moral position to spend at least a tiny bit of time considering these things honestly - without reference to "God said so" because we may not agree on the existence of God, who God's representative is, or whether God supposedly said what you think he said - which makes basing the use of the state's coercive power on "God" a massive problem and incompatible with religious freedom at the least.
As for not being torture or a disease, it has killed billions through the ages.
> About 37% of plaintiffs are successful.
Also, bonus science articles about the rise of mental health risks with abortion:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207970/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-...
Nobody is forgetting anything. These healthcare providers are pursuing a harm minimization strategy in the face of laws they believe will deter women from engaging with healthcare professionals.
Anyhow, many other European countries have long heavily relied on at-home, pharmaceutical abortifacients precisely because (and this is probably surprising to most Americans) most European countries actually have more restrictive laws regarding abortion than those to which the majority of the U.S. population are subject--i.e. relative to laws in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, etc. So the track record on outcomes, risks, etc is quite clear from foreign experiences alone, not to mention the domestic record.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207970/
Rhetorically, everyone recognizes that you’re just moving the goalposts by providing one onerous requirement after another.
Not sure this is a fair assessment. It's true if you measure "restrictiveness" by number of weeks up until it's no longer allowed. In most European countries, 12 weeks is the limit for on-demand abortions (which aligns with the 11 week limit before which abortion pills can be safely and effectively used). [1] However, there are usually exceptions that allow abortions under certain circumstances after 12 weeks, and in many of these countries, abortion is covered under tax-funded healthcare and is offered free of charge.
Meanwhile, in the US, the only federal-level abortion ruling (Roe v. Wade) will soon be overturned. 13 states already have laws on the books that will completely ban abortions in all cases as soon as that happens. [2] And even while Roe was in effect, Texas still somehow managed to implement a ~6 week abortion ban (which is far more restrictive than almost every European country).
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/us-abo...
[2] https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-pol...
Boo hoo.
I bet some are sad we can’t still use toddlers as naked chimney sweeps.
If you're "pro-life" then you have then you have to support the life post birth as well.
Pro-choice reduces deaths through safe abortions. Pro-choice reduces deaths by not bringing babies into the world that their parents and social welfare programs, that the right continue to kill, can't support. If you're going to be hyperbolic with "liberals wanting to kill babies" then I'm going to be hyperbolic with "The right want to kill babies, children, toddlers, and their parents and make their life a living hell until their demise comes"
> The “abortion pill” is actually 5 pills, taken one or two days apart.
It's the 4th or so heading on the linked site.
Or maybe that mother keeps the child but due to the lack of support (do those mega churches need to be so mega) she ends up in a less than ideal part of town and can't fully keep an eye on that child and it joins a gang where it kills a few people before meeting its own demise. Damn, now that one loss of life due to abortion is a loss of 4 lives.
Or maybe that child does make it through life but never really gets out of the poverty cycle that was started because its mother had no control over her body. It never really lives the life it wants. It doesn't feel the love of god, it just feels forsaken until its last breath. But I guess that's ok because it was still here and that's all that matters.
So much love.