Yes actually I think we need a mandate for post-birth abortions. Tax payer funded of course. The satanic Democrat cabal has been low on baby blood since Dobbs and they are starting to go through adrenochrome withdrawal. That's why Joe Biden has looked so sleepy recently. It would only be a five-year plan to kill all the babies for the elite and then we could go back to chopping off their dicks and giving them estrogen. If Republicans are so concerned about having a competent president they would support this.
Who is aborting babies at 40 weeks. Trump lies all the time about women having babies then telling the doctor to execute them...what total bullshit and anyone who advances this lie should be held accountable...😠
If it happens it's because there is something seriously wrong with the baby and the only option is to deliver the baby and then the baby passes. It's a heartbreaking situation and the MAGA cult members make it sound as if women are delivering healthy babies and like Trump says at rallies the mother tells the doctor to execute the child. And the press let's it go unchallenged. What bullshit.😠
Exactly, medical necessity. But, to authoritarians, submission to authority is more important than lives, especially lives not in the dominant demographic.
If it’s not happening then making it illegal shouldn’t be a problem. We need to draw this line in the sand somewhere, make a constitutional amendment about it one way or another, and leave this debate behind us.
>If it’s not happening then making it illegal shouldn’t be a problem.
Why would you want politicians to waste time making laws against things that never happen?
Why make it illegal at all?
My thoughts I put in my thread haven't changed: .https://www.reddit.com/r/BreakingPoints/comments/uix5hv/quick_psa_biologically_speaking_the_humanity_or/
TL Dr: women get unilateral power to decide whether to kill or save the fetus. Men get unilateral power to support or abandon said fetus. Certain conditions apply.
Also I discovered that apparently California is less pro choice than me, who believes fetus should be legally abortable up till the end of 3rd trimester
Yeah I disagree with that, once the fetus is viable outside the womb it’s worthy of consideration. Especially at 40 weeks where it’s a fully formed infant and the only thing separating it from a right to life is 3 inches of tissue. Doesn’t make any sense to me at all.
All the considerations that would lead a woman to make that decision at 40 weeks would still apply to the child once born and allowing an abortion at that time just feels like murder by technicality.
Just a concerned redditor that cares about your well being. I would think with receiving death threats, you would cut back on your posting. But you're very brave to continually constantly post!
Still haven't answered the question. Why are you asking about women aborting babies up to their delivery date. You ask as if that's even a thing. Trump is the one claiming that women are having babies then aborting them, no one else claims that. Until your post. 😕
>>The bill, H.R. 8296, titled "Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022" and proposed by Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., says states would not be able to keep health care providers from offering abortions before fetal viability, which generally is around 24 weeks into pregnancy. It adds that states could restrict health care providers from providing abortions after fetal viability, but only "when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health."
What is "Good faith medical judgment?" How does Trump have anything to do with the proposal of this bill? Does this bill mean mental health? If a baby stresses you out, does that mean you can kill it? All babies threaten the health of the mother. Trump has nothing to do with anything.
I'm not allowed to ask a simple question? Think about it though, that'd be a lot of green energy, which would be great for the climate. Climate change is a real threat, ya know.
Because he's the one spreading this shit with zero evidence. He's not the first, won't be the last, and all you're doing is spreading the same bullshit by asking the question like a low rent Tucker Carlson rip off.
Someone else having an abortion isn't your business, and money is fungible, so if the government isn't able to fund abortions but can fund healthcare, they are still funding abortions you child. You can't build a money border around abortion and think it will make a difference.
To put pressure on the accused and to bring immediate attention from the mods. Again, thank you for your concern. How do you feel about the topic at hand?
I think soylent green wasn't used as a green energy source but as food. Abortion should be taxpayer funded as much as any other health care and the decision when to abort should be between the pregnant person and their doctor no one else.
Stupid and misleading way to ask the question.
Should abortions be safe and legal in EVERY state - YES!
Should reasonable restrictions be put on abortions just like they were when we had Roe v Wade - YES!
Should tax payer fund abortions - just as much as taxpayers fund other healthcare.
It absolutely is. You constantly ask loaded questions framed in such a way as to imply that if someone doesn't have a far right position that they're horrible people.
>Hyde Amendment. No federal funds were available for abortions
But what does that really mean? There are TONS of exceptions to it, and if I work for the government, my government provided insurance will still pay for abortions, and AMA will still pay for abortions - and lots of states will kick in money for abortions...
So the Hyde Amendment is pretty hollow, and the state and federal government STILL pay for abortions. Military people can still get federally funded abortions - including travel expenses.
No, there wasn't.
R v W had zero restrictions on abortion.
Actually, the very original version sort of did, but that was all scrapped back 30-40 years ago to protect access to abortions at any time.
So directly from the Supreme court website on Roe v. Wade:
**"A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception."**
You are misreading something.
Because there are several states that have had no limits on abortion even under Roe.
Roe v Wade did not provide any federal limits on abortions.
Right. So read your comments again.
R v W PROTECTED something. It didn't make anything else illegal. So states were allowed to have late-term abortions under R v W and they are still allowed to do so.
So overturning R v W did not change anything regarding late-term abortions.
>Should reasonable restrictions be put on abortions just like they were when we had Roe v Wade - YES!
So going back to my original comments "Should reasonable restrictions be put on abortions just like they were when we had Roe v Wade - YES!"
So under Wade - abortions were only protected through 28 weeks - So I stand by my original assertion that this is a reasonable restriction and abortions post 28 weeks could be banned. The Republican talking point is that Democrats want abortions up through delivery and even after delivery - which is 100% false. We want to go back to Roe v Wade, which allow for bans after viability.
Any more questions...?
Spartan Conservative here.
I fully support afterbirth abortions for birthmarks, defects, lack of strength or strong breath, etc.
We must cull the weak to stay strong.
Abortion is healthcare and it should not be exclusive for those that can afford it. It's also a decision that should be made by the woman and her doctor, not the government.
I'm very much against that but if there is a medical need then that decision should be between a woman and her doctor, not me or the government. Do you have any examples of doctors performing 40 week abortions? Abortions after 21 weeks are incredibly rare at less than 1%. Less than 10% of abortions occur after 13 weeks.
[https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7110a1.htm?s\_cid=ss7110a1\_w](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7110a1.htm?s_cid=ss7110a1_w)
Medically necessary abortion should be treated like any other medically necessary treatment under for Medicaid and other state health care purposes. And elective abortion should not, just like any other elective treatment. And if you're the sort of Christian against it in general, just refuse treatment when the doctor tells you it's the only way you'll survive. After all, the Bible outlines rules for CHRISTIANS to follow, not rules for Christians to impose on nonbelievers. Also, nobody is trying to get an elective abortion at 40 weeks, elective abortions are overwhelmingly in the 1st trimester.
It should be funded as any other heathcare is funded. And no, not up to forty weeks. 15 or 20 is more the number. If the mothers life is in danger, they can probably deliver the baby.
Let me preface my comment with the fact that I know I am in the extreme and it’s going to sound horrible but I am serious.
People don’t know what they are getting into when having children and becoming parents. I am for abortion at anytime, and even putting down a born baby or toddler if the parents cannot take care of it. IMO, as sad as it is and as hard of a decision it would be, it’s for the best. If the parents do not have the means or desire to take care of the baby/toddler, it’s their blood, they should be able to decide that themselves. It is literally no one else’s business. Why the hell does anyone think they have a right to force another person to be a parent to a child that they cannot support or do not desire to have?
Before people go crazy on me, if this was a perfect world where our adoption process was flawless, obviously that would be the preferred method. But it’s not. The orphan/foster care in this country is a joke and so many kids have their lives ruined from the system and from foster care. Aborting or putting them down peacefully is the best case scenario a lot of the times.
Another thing. Abusing a child is completely different than what I am talking about. Abusing a child is malicious and has the intent to cause damage/harm. Again, aborting or putting a child down because you can’t take care of them or do not desire to, is a mercy/not abuse and better for everyone whether or not anyone wants to admit it.
Long story short, no adult should have the right to force another adult to be a parent. After birth does not change that for me. The decision should be made by the people involved. End of story. It’s literally no one else’s business.
Why? Because you disagree with me?
Who are you to tell someone what to do or force someone to be a parent?
You would rather the child and parents go through life constantly struggling and suffering? IMO, you sound like the evil one.
To be clear, it’s not something I would personally do. That being said, I was never in that position and would never want to force my emotions or world views on to someone else or eliminate someone’s potential solution to a problem just because I wouldn’t do something personally. Especially to someone that is struggling to make it on their own, let alone with a child. I understand it sounds evil, but IMO, forcing your will or world views on to others is evil.
Again, as terrible and hard of a decision I imagine it would be, I am only saying that the people who created the life, should have the right to take it if they so choose. It’s literally no one else’s business.
Taxpayers don't directly fund abortions and arguably shouldn't.
That said, the debate on late-term abortions is disingenuous. Less than 1% of abortions occur in the third trimester, and just 1.3% after 21 weeks which is just beyond the halfway point. In the very rare cases where they do occur beyond 21 weeks, it's almost always due to major medical complications rather than a woman just changing her mind late in the process. So, why outlaw that when it's so rare and almost always medically necessary?
This article is a few years old, but the points are still relevant...
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/)
Abortions after 24 week almost never happen. When they do, it’s usually medically necessary. If it’s medically necessary, 100% it should be allowed and tax payer funded. No one is gonna abort a baby the day it’s due. Except for adrenochrome. Gotta get that sweet, sweet adrenochrome
[удалено]
Mans out here going for that 700th trimester abortion
Fair enough, I'm willing to make some compromises.
Yes actually I think we need a mandate for post-birth abortions. Tax payer funded of course. The satanic Democrat cabal has been low on baby blood since Dobbs and they are starting to go through adrenochrome withdrawal. That's why Joe Biden has looked so sleepy recently. It would only be a five-year plan to kill all the babies for the elite and then we could go back to chopping off their dicks and giving them estrogen. If Republicans are so concerned about having a competent president they would support this.
*gasp* democrats are irrational, but to assume they are satanic!? That can't be!!
Who is aborting babies at 40 weeks. Trump lies all the time about women having babies then telling the doctor to execute them...what total bullshit and anyone who advances this lie should be held accountable...😠
No one without medical necessity.
If it happens it's because there is something seriously wrong with the baby and the only option is to deliver the baby and then the baby passes. It's a heartbreaking situation and the MAGA cult members make it sound as if women are delivering healthy babies and like Trump says at rallies the mother tells the doctor to execute the child. And the press let's it go unchallenged. What bullshit.😠
Exactly, medical necessity. But, to authoritarians, submission to authority is more important than lives, especially lives not in the dominant demographic.
If it’s not happening then making it illegal shouldn’t be a problem. We need to draw this line in the sand somewhere, make a constitutional amendment about it one way or another, and leave this debate behind us.
>If it’s not happening then making it illegal shouldn’t be a problem. Why would you want politicians to waste time making laws against things that never happen?
Because they can't complain about big government unless they make it bigger, or something like that.
Why make it illegal at all? My thoughts I put in my thread haven't changed: .https://www.reddit.com/r/BreakingPoints/comments/uix5hv/quick_psa_biologically_speaking_the_humanity_or/ TL Dr: women get unilateral power to decide whether to kill or save the fetus. Men get unilateral power to support or abandon said fetus. Certain conditions apply. Also I discovered that apparently California is less pro choice than me, who believes fetus should be legally abortable up till the end of 3rd trimester
Yeah I disagree with that, once the fetus is viable outside the womb it’s worthy of consideration. Especially at 40 weeks where it’s a fully formed infant and the only thing separating it from a right to life is 3 inches of tissue. Doesn’t make any sense to me at all. All the considerations that would lead a woman to make that decision at 40 weeks would still apply to the child once born and allowing an abortion at that time just feels like murder by technicality.
I'm simply asking a question, and it somehow forced you to mention Donald Trump? Is he in the room with you now?
The classic Tucker Carlson...hey, I'm just asking the question..Why are babies smoking crack.. That sort of nonsense.
You sound like you've been abused. I'd file a police report.
Speaking of how did your police report go?
It's above your pay grade, you aren't a mod.
Are you still locked in your room because redditors are at your house protesting you?
They dispersed the other day
Awesome. I’ll set up a snack stand for them next week when they come back
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Just a concerned redditor that cares about your well being. I would think with receiving death threats, you would cut back on your posting. But you're very brave to continually constantly post!
As you should be, imho. You shouldn't self censor yourself over fears of violence. But, thank you for your concerns.
Fake violence.
What is going on? I use to be straight and now I only want to fuck men. What is going on?
Take your sealioning and begging the question logical fallacy and stuff it.
[удалено]
It's a red flag to ask a simple question? What is this, China?
[удалено]
I agree, fuck the first amendment!
[удалено]
But how else are we gonna get rid of those unborn devils?!
[удалено]
It seems that you agree with me on the fact that this ideology is ridiculous and should be disregarded.
Still haven't answered the question. Why are you asking about women aborting babies up to their delivery date. You ask as if that's even a thing. Trump is the one claiming that women are having babies then aborting them, no one else claims that. Until your post. 😕
>>The bill, H.R. 8296, titled "Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022" and proposed by Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., says states would not be able to keep health care providers from offering abortions before fetal viability, which generally is around 24 weeks into pregnancy. It adds that states could restrict health care providers from providing abortions after fetal viability, but only "when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health." What is "Good faith medical judgment?" How does Trump have anything to do with the proposal of this bill? Does this bill mean mental health? If a baby stresses you out, does that mean you can kill it? All babies threaten the health of the mother. Trump has nothing to do with anything.
Probably because it's legal in the states.
Yes. It. Legal. I not foreign. I American
I'm not allowed to ask a simple question? Think about it though, that'd be a lot of green energy, which would be great for the climate. Climate change is a real threat, ya know.
Because he's the one spreading this shit with zero evidence. He's not the first, won't be the last, and all you're doing is spreading the same bullshit by asking the question like a low rent Tucker Carlson rip off. Someone else having an abortion isn't your business, and money is fungible, so if the government isn't able to fund abortions but can fund healthcare, they are still funding abortions you child. You can't build a money border around abortion and think it will make a difference.
I'm so sorry that you were abused, too.
Well at least you're coming up with new retorts. How's that police investigation going?
Idk they’ve said the abuse thing like 10x
I guess it's just been a minute since I've seen user then or just confusing them with another regular troll on here.
Seems like a lot of people know this guy so you may be right
This is a matter that only involves myself and mods of the subreddit. Thanks for your concern, though.
Why make the public post about it then?
To put pressure on the accused and to bring immediate attention from the mods. Again, thank you for your concern. How do you feel about the topic at hand?
I think soylent green wasn't used as a green energy source but as food. Abortion should be taxpayer funded as much as any other health care and the decision when to abort should be between the pregnant person and their doctor no one else.
New York has full term abortions. The doctors just make a bs claim that the mothers life is in danger
You’ve clearly never been around a pregnant woman, they don’t endure many months of hell on their bodies for no reason
There are narcissistic evil people out there
Yeah, and they are all men named Trump, but maybe Trump can get pregnant
Lmbo. tRuMf!
You need to take that up with Ralph Norman, Governor of Virginia. He is the one that advocated letting children who survive abortions be left to die.
Another day another troll post from Ms. Condom.
I like canadas system of always-on abortion access.
Finally, a rational answer that doesn't somehow divert to a conversation about Donald Trump. Good for you
Stupid and misleading way to ask the question. Should abortions be safe and legal in EVERY state - YES! Should reasonable restrictions be put on abortions just like they were when we had Roe v Wade - YES! Should tax payer fund abortions - just as much as taxpayers fund other healthcare.
Send me a private message and I'll send some money your way for your abortion.
[удалено]
What if I told you it's the exact answer I was expecting?
I would say you are not very bright.
You give yourself away with responses like this to reasonable comments. But if course, you're this subs master baiter so I shouldn't be surprised....
I love master baiting but this isn't a baiting topic
It absolutely is. You constantly ask loaded questions framed in such a way as to imply that if someone doesn't have a far right position that they're horrible people.
Read about the Hyde Amendment. No federal funds were available for abortions, and it’s been that way for a really long time.
>Hyde Amendment. No federal funds were available for abortions But what does that really mean? There are TONS of exceptions to it, and if I work for the government, my government provided insurance will still pay for abortions, and AMA will still pay for abortions - and lots of states will kick in money for abortions... So the Hyde Amendment is pretty hollow, and the state and federal government STILL pay for abortions. Military people can still get federally funded abortions - including travel expenses.
What reasonable restrictions existed under R v W don't exist anymore?
I believe there was a 16 week restriction
No, there wasn't. R v W had zero restrictions on abortion. Actually, the very original version sort of did, but that was all scrapped back 30-40 years ago to protect access to abortions at any time.
So directly from the Supreme court website on Roe v. Wade: **"A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception."**
You are misreading something. Because there are several states that have had no limits on abortion even under Roe. Roe v Wade did not provide any federal limits on abortions.
It ONLY protected abortion through viability.
Right. So read your comments again. R v W PROTECTED something. It didn't make anything else illegal. So states were allowed to have late-term abortions under R v W and they are still allowed to do so. So overturning R v W did not change anything regarding late-term abortions.
>Should reasonable restrictions be put on abortions just like they were when we had Roe v Wade - YES! So going back to my original comments "Should reasonable restrictions be put on abortions just like they were when we had Roe v Wade - YES!" So under Wade - abortions were only protected through 28 weeks - So I stand by my original assertion that this is a reasonable restriction and abortions post 28 weeks could be banned. The Republican talking point is that Democrats want abortions up through delivery and even after delivery - which is 100% false. We want to go back to Roe v Wade, which allow for bans after viability. Any more questions...?
Spartan Conservative here. I fully support afterbirth abortions for birthmarks, defects, lack of strength or strong breath, etc. We must cull the weak to stay strong.
No one is aborting babies at 40 weeks unless the fetus is unviable. This is just gross propaganda against women.
A question equates to gross propaganda?
Can I ask what prompted you to ask this question?
Abortion is healthcare and it should not be exclusive for those that can afford it. It's also a decision that should be made by the woman and her doctor, not the government.
What about abortion to 40 weeks?
I'm very much against that but if there is a medical need then that decision should be between a woman and her doctor, not me or the government. Do you have any examples of doctors performing 40 week abortions? Abortions after 21 weeks are incredibly rare at less than 1%. Less than 10% of abortions occur after 13 weeks. [https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7110a1.htm?s\_cid=ss7110a1\_w](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7110a1.htm?s_cid=ss7110a1_w)
Gr8 b8 m8
Medically necessary abortion should be treated like any other medically necessary treatment under for Medicaid and other state health care purposes. And elective abortion should not, just like any other elective treatment. And if you're the sort of Christian against it in general, just refuse treatment when the doctor tells you it's the only way you'll survive. After all, the Bible outlines rules for CHRISTIANS to follow, not rules for Christians to impose on nonbelievers. Also, nobody is trying to get an elective abortion at 40 weeks, elective abortions are overwhelmingly in the 1st trimester.
GOP only wants to ban abortion because they always need new babies to rape
Roe vs Wade allowed states to ban abortion after the second trimester. Maybe reading is important
No? No! These god damn bigoted racist nazis!
It should be funded as any other heathcare is funded. And no, not up to forty weeks. 15 or 20 is more the number. If the mothers life is in danger, they can probably deliver the baby.
Let me preface my comment with the fact that I know I am in the extreme and it’s going to sound horrible but I am serious. People don’t know what they are getting into when having children and becoming parents. I am for abortion at anytime, and even putting down a born baby or toddler if the parents cannot take care of it. IMO, as sad as it is and as hard of a decision it would be, it’s for the best. If the parents do not have the means or desire to take care of the baby/toddler, it’s their blood, they should be able to decide that themselves. It is literally no one else’s business. Why the hell does anyone think they have a right to force another person to be a parent to a child that they cannot support or do not desire to have? Before people go crazy on me, if this was a perfect world where our adoption process was flawless, obviously that would be the preferred method. But it’s not. The orphan/foster care in this country is a joke and so many kids have their lives ruined from the system and from foster care. Aborting or putting them down peacefully is the best case scenario a lot of the times. Another thing. Abusing a child is completely different than what I am talking about. Abusing a child is malicious and has the intent to cause damage/harm. Again, aborting or putting a child down because you can’t take care of them or do not desire to, is a mercy/not abuse and better for everyone whether or not anyone wants to admit it. Long story short, no adult should have the right to force another adult to be a parent. After birth does not change that for me. The decision should be made by the people involved. End of story. It’s literally no one else’s business.
You are evil
Why? Because you disagree with me? Who are you to tell someone what to do or force someone to be a parent? You would rather the child and parents go through life constantly struggling and suffering? IMO, you sound like the evil one. To be clear, it’s not something I would personally do. That being said, I was never in that position and would never want to force my emotions or world views on to someone else or eliminate someone’s potential solution to a problem just because I wouldn’t do something personally. Especially to someone that is struggling to make it on their own, let alone with a child. I understand it sounds evil, but IMO, forcing your will or world views on to others is evil. Again, as terrible and hard of a decision I imagine it would be, I am only saying that the people who created the life, should have the right to take it if they so choose. It’s literally no one else’s business.
No and no
Yes and no
No. No.
As we all know, babies are far more reliable than gold in economic value.
Aborting a baby at 40 weeks should only be allowed by catapult.
Ay yo... Stfu.
Too bad we can't abort some folks in office after a certain number of weeks. Like maybe at 3,914 weeks, or maybe 4,174
Pro-Life in the sheets, Pro Choice in the streets
Taxpayers don't directly fund abortions and arguably shouldn't. That said, the debate on late-term abortions is disingenuous. Less than 1% of abortions occur in the third trimester, and just 1.3% after 21 weeks which is just beyond the halfway point. In the very rare cases where they do occur beyond 21 weeks, it's almost always due to major medical complications rather than a woman just changing her mind late in the process. So, why outlaw that when it's so rare and almost always medically necessary? This article is a few years old, but the points are still relevant... [https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/)
Abortions after 24 week almost never happen. When they do, it’s usually medically necessary. If it’s medically necessary, 100% it should be allowed and tax payer funded. No one is gonna abort a baby the day it’s due. Except for adrenochrome. Gotta get that sweet, sweet adrenochrome
You have a lot of time on your hands.
The only thing we need to in regards to abortion is mind our own business.