>>18692213
Some communist states (like Romania) banned abortion because unborn humans were considered property of the state and they wanted a population boom after WW2

>>18692213
The normal position regarding abortion isn't that it's great but that not having the option is absolutely, objectively worse.

I could go either way on abortion at this point but I find it creepy how fanatic the average women gets when it comes to their supposed right to kill their children in utero

>>18692225
The reaction to that recent Lindsay Clancy trial didn’t help things either

secular humanists be like life is sacred this 70 iq negro convicted of eating ten people does not deserve the chair and then turn around and claim a baby 0.00000001 seconds from being birthed should totally be dismembered if the mother wishes it

File: anime character posting.png (321 KB, 330x448)

321 KB PNG

>>18692225
There are cases when a normal pregnancy turns into a preventable cause of death for the woman. Also we've seen what happened in States that criminalized abortion - doctors stopped providing services to pregnant women for fear of ending up on the funny chair should the pregnancy fail to come to terms. Which is anything but rare, mind.

>>18692240
then set up the laws to make exceptions for the health of the mother/rape/incest

deal?


notice how they never agree, because for them it’s all about women killing unilaterally murdering their offspring with impunity

American Republicans.

I support abortion strictly on the basis that it keeps the negro population relatively stagnant in a sane all white or mostly white society I’d oppose it, outside of eugenicist reasons.

>>18692213
I know a lot of secular humanists who argue for a cut-off at 12 weeks, unless there are serious medical complications.

The complete ban from the day of conception is usually religiously motivated.

>>18692213
because letting the people retarded enough to kill their kids kill their genetics is a good thing long term.
>>18692240
>Which is anything but rare, mind
lmao. post proof

>>18692225
Because they don’t want to give birth to those specific children to begin with. They do not want to raise a child they don’t want

File: Screenshot 2023-05-06 at (...).png (191 KB, 458x539)

191 KB PNG

>>18692260
>lmao. post proof
30-40% of all fertilized eggs miscarry. If "Life begins at conception"-states were serious, they'd make pregnancies illegal.

>>18692286
human life dying by itself without being killed is not a problem and a natural and only way to have life in the first place, it has nothing to do with abortion where in most cases women chose to kill their children because they dont want to take care of them.

>>18692286
Abortion ≠ Miscarriage

>>18692240
The vast majority of abortions are elective.

File: Screenshot_2026-09-16-01-(...).jpg (252 KB, 1080x673)

252 KB JPG

>>18692213
Because the humanists are trying to save the country from being overrun by the blacks.

>>18692251
Polling consistenly shows a big majority of people support at least some restrictions on abortion. It's undeniable that the fringe positions on either side have an outsized influence. There are multiplle states that allow late-term elective abortions i.e legalized murder.

>>18692219
And it worked out great.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s%E2%80%931990s_Romanian_orphans_phenomenon

>>18692491
That's not the real argument against the policy. What rendered it irrelevant was the emergence of a massive contraceptive black market, showing that in a globalized world banning contraceptives in you own country is not enough to hamper their use.
What you brought up could be easily chalked up to an initial shock period after which things would have theoretically stabilized.

I'm a pro life fedorafag. All the abortion arguments fall flat for me.

>what if the child is born horrifically disabled or born into poverty or otherwise horrible conditions?
Eugenic argument. Logically follows that it's better to be dead than poor/disabled

>it's the right to choose
Snappy catchphrase that means nothing. Child rape is a choice too.

>bodily autonomy
It's not just your body anymore. No surgeon would perform a seperative operation on conjoined twins that would kill one of them.

>it's just an embryo/fetus/clump of cells
The right to life isn't predicated on your level of sapience or cognition.

>>18692498
Have you ever heard about gypsies? Contraception exists and is available to everyone, yet gypsies are still having children they can't afford to raise and put them in orphanages. Romania is 8 percent gypsy.

>>18692488
>9 states have no gestational limits on abortion
Jesus Christ. Maybe 'sending it to the states' isn't quite good enough?

>>18692508
>The right to life isn't predicated on your level of sapience or cognition.
Why?

>>18692213
Without abortion, survival of the UNFITTEST and anti-eugenics would take place. Have you seen the rate third worlders and brownoids breed at?

White people generally shoot for some quality in the child's genetics and the financial ability to raise them. Brown cultures don't. The strategy of the latter is just to have offspring in huge numbers and some of them may survive and do okay.

Margaret Singer knew what she was talking about. Allowing shitty people to self-cull their own offspring is a social necessity, regardless of how you feel about it ethically or spirtually. And Malthus was right about the dangers of overpopulation.

>>18692508
>No surgeon would perform a seperative operation on conjoined twins that would kill one of them.

Shitty argument, surgeons have attempted this on many instances. Particularly if one of them is severely mentally impaired or just a part of a body. I'd venture to say it happens MOST of the time with conjoined twins. Only a small portion opt to stay connected.

>>18692213
>why isn’t there a secular humanist tendency that opposes abortion?
Because only religion cuckery is moralistic enough to care about abortions.

File: cb4.jpg.png (995 KB, 677x747)

995 KB PNG

>>18692296
>>18692479
It's not just that the policy about protecting unborn life is formulated in a way that accepts the base line 40% mortality without any comment, they also wrote it in such a way as to make doctors reduce healthcare services for pregnant women, leading to more preventable deaths among the unborn.

If they just said that they want the foids to suffer, that would be okay. The law would be effective and sensible.

>>18692213
people are stupid i guess and most of politics is just following the american false dichotomy or what its called. like racism and being opposed to faggotry are also regarded as religious conservative beliefs and there are even completely retarded irrelevant opinions like car use and diet that are divided into left and right

>>18693071
>totally-unbiased physicians cry to a bunch of academics and journals about statutes making them worried
Okay, the statute is now re-worded to make it clear physicians are not liable for the death of a baby in other treatments. Obviously this would open the door to exploitation, with abortions being performed under the guise of other treatments, but let's assume we live in a fantasy world where psychos and don't exist so this won't happen. What would be your problem then?

>>18692221
In addition to this, while I am not saying any other motivations are insincere or insignificant, quite a lot of pro-life people are motivated at least in part by a dislike of women and wanting them punished for having sex.
>>18692234
>a baby 0.00000001 seconds from being birthed should totally be dismembered if the mother wishes it
It helps that secular humanists aren't this stupid and realize this doesn't happens
>>18692251
I've seen some who argue for a cut off of 22-24 weeks, 12 would be close to effectively being a full ban and would be in line with what a lot of more moderate pro-life conservatives would want anyway.
>>18692508
Not trying to make some strong argument against you, just want to note that "right to choose" and "bodily autonomy" are the same point

>>18693010
It implies we should exterminate the brain dead and mentally retarded.
>>18693046
Please link examples. Operations where one sapient twin is sacrificed so the other can survive.

>>18693115
>brain dead
Already dead

>mentally retarded
Can be solved by putting a wide error margin on what you consider a human person.
The cut-off being somewhere in the middle of:
>unthinking
>able to ask for human rights

>>18693114
>>a baby 0.00000001 seconds from being birthed should totally be dismembered if the mother wishes it
>It helps that secular humanists aren't this stupid and realize this doesn't happens
It is currently legal in 9 states + DC.

>>18693126
This logic would extend to pre-sapient infants as well. If you support the blanket extermination of the brain dead and mentally feeble you're free to do so, just be aware that's the natural extension of the pro-choice argument.

>>18693129
An abortion at 9 months, on top of being extremely rare, doesn't involve dismemberment or killing the baby. Like I said, this is the opinion someone who is very stupid or at least ignorant would have.

>>18693138
implying it's fine to abort a fully developed and viable child as long as you're not scrambling it

>>18693142
Did your brain shut off before you read "or killing the baby"

>>18693138
>it's rare
There are very much late-term abortions which kill the baby. And I'm sure it makes you feel smug when you see their annual rates at no more than 1% a year, but that 1% is thousands of dead babies every year. Not to mention that even if it was a handful per year there is zero justification to legalize it. And yet, people like Tim Walz signed it into law.

>>18693144
At 9 month abortions the child is usually considered non-viable outside the womb. In cases where it's more uncertain, the baby is injected with a chemical to ensure it dies before being delivered. You're just wrong.

>>18693114
>quite a lot of pro-life people are motivated at least in part by a dislike of women and wanting them punished for having sex
On the contrary, they don't think it's right for an innocent life to be taken due to the decisions of another. This is just another insincere and inflammatory way to frame abortion as a "gross incel men vs women" issue, which is admittedly very effective on progressive females.

>>18693157
It's just projection. Crazy women view pregnancy as a punishment and they project that feeling at pro-lifers. "You want to punish me for having sex"

>>18693162
The most dogmatically pro-life people I've known irl were almost all women. Many of them being mothers themselves.

>>18692508
>The right to life isn't predicated on your level of sapience or cognition.
What is it predicated on?

>>18693165
It follows that righteous mothers would be the ones most aware that pregnancy is a wonder, not a punishment.

>>18693157
That’s the main political strategy behind it, it’s framed as taking away a political right in progressive circles. It’s how they justify the insane non limits of when abortion can be conducted, places like NJ and now MA allowing it up to birth that are extreme. The language used is even modeled for it, choosing to call it “pro-choice” instead of “pro abortion.”

>>18693167
Humanity, mostly. With some exceptions that vary from person to person. Most modern societies universally agree it's wrong to take the life of an innocent, particularly an innocent child.

>>18693146
An abortion a 9 months is going to focus on inducing labor or a C-section, and these are going to happen if a continued pregnancy is going to be dangerous to the mother and/or child. Women are not walking into clinics after 9 months and deciding they enjoyed the whole pregnancy process but would like their baby killed now. I don't know why you are talking to me about Tim Walz, I don't live in Minnesota.
>>18693154
I have to assume you are a different Anon from the one who was telling me fully developed and viable children are being aborted at 9 months. If the child is non-viable outside of the womb I'm not entirely sure what your objection is. The woman should go through labor to give birth to a child that dies shortly after?
>>18693157
>they don't think it's right for an innocent life to be taken due to the decisions of another.
I acknowledge they might genuinely think this in addition to thinking women should be punished for having sex.
>>18693165
Women are also capable of thinking other women should be punished for having sex.

>>18693177
>If the child is non-viable outside of the womb I'm not entirely sure what your objection is
Read the second half of the post, retard. If it's uncertain whether the infant will be viable, it's killed before delivery.

>Women are also capable of thinking other women should be punished for having sex.
This is like trying to frame punishment for murder as "punishing people for enacting justice on someone who wronged them". It's insincere and isn't gonna change anyone's mind. It's just to meant to inflame the pro-choice political base.

>>18693173
What is humanity and why is the right to life predicated on it? Do you think there is no moral question about the life of animals and they should be freely killed as we please? At which point does something become human and earn that right? Is sperm human? Does the egg cell become human the second a sperm touches it? A week later? A month? You have to ask yourself what exactly changes that gives it that trait of "humanity", and that very thing that grants it will be by necessity the defining human characteristic.
Also
>with exception
>most modern societies
it's not universal then, is it?

>>18692244
>woman has emergency medical issue and needs to terminate a pregnancy or die
>doctor knows he’s going to have to defend himself against some religious schizophrenic in a legal setting if he conducts the procedure
>he doesn’t do the procedure
That’s why. The thing that confuses me is that all the forced birth people think that women get late term abortions for fun or on a dare or something. No one waits until a week before the due date and then gets the fetus sucked out so they can get views on YouTube.

>>18693183
>it's not universal then, is it?
Obviously not. I challenge you to think of a single ethical or moral quandary with a universal application.

>What is humanity and why is the right to life predicated on it?
This is beyond good-faith debate.

>At which point does something become human and earn that right? Is sperm human? Does the egg cell become human the second a sperm touches it? A week later? A month? You have to ask yourself what exactly changes that gives it that trait of "humanity"
Gametic cells are not humans. Human embryos are, albeit in a different stage of development.

>>18693186
It's less moral to squash a bug than kill an embryo. A bug is more developed than an embryo.

>>18692213
Because pussy worship is the central tenet of secular humanism not humans

>>18693181
>If it's uncertain whether the infant will be viable, it's killed before delivery.
This is not true at 9 months, unless maybe a live birth would somehow cause some issue/death of the mother.
>This is like trying to frame punishment for murder as "punishing people for enacting justice on someone who wronged them".
I don't know what you're trying to say here and I think you might be missing my point. It's just an observation of how pro-life people talk. They say women who seek abortions shouldn't have slept around and if they didn't want to be pregnant they shouldn't have had sex, they themselves are framing pregnancy as a punishment.

>>18693177
>is going to be dangerous to the mother and/or child
>>18693185
>doctor knows he’s going to have to defend himself against some religious schizophrenic in a legal setting if he conducts the procedure
This is the crux of the matter. Physicians and psycho women want to be able to kill babies under the guise of "complication treatments" and don't want to be liable for that. This is why they keep saying "it never happens but it has to be legal".

>>18693196
No. It happens. Just it doesn’t happen when the religious schizophrenics have the power to interfere and prevent women from getting life saving medical care.

>>18693192
Is a bug a human?

>>18693200
No, but it has more developed brain than a 3 months old embryo.

>>18693195
>They say women who seek abortions shouldn't have slept around and if they didn't want to be pregnant they shouldn't have had sex
Tbf it's the same argument used against men who express an issue with child support laws.
>they themselves are framing pregnancy as a punishment.
Pure projection.
Consequence ≠ punishment

>>18693199
>No. It happens.
Late-term elective abortion happens? And you want to keep it legal?

>>18693203
Then you support the right of a parent to kill their mentally retarded teenaged child if it has the same intellectual capacity of a fetus? In that it can only react to basic surrounding stimuli?

>>18693186
>Obviously not.
Don't say that people universally agree on it then.
And if it's not universal, then it must be subjective. What is it based on then? You argued that "most modern societies universally agree it's wrong", so clearly you value common consensus as a moral authority. If enough people claim abortion to be morally acceptable, will you change your mind as well?
>This is beyond good-faith debate.
This is the issue with this whole topic, people just get offended if you question them and refuse to think about alternatives or even the very source of their conviction.
>Gametic cells are not humans. Human embryos are
Ok. What trait is it that makes them human? What is the essence of humanity?

>>18693205
No. Late term medical abortions happen and schizophrenic zealots absolutely abuse arbitrary rules on them to attack doctors and patients.

>>18693209
So yeah, you hide behind the medical crap and want to protect physicians who perform abortion under the guise of treatment.

>>18693207
Mentally retard child have fully developed brain and nervous system.
>fetus
We are talking here about an embryo. A person with such an underdeveloped brain wouldn't be able to live. Brain dead people are unplugged all the time. It's perfectly legal.

>>18693208
>Don't say that people universally agree on it then.
"Most" being the important qualifier in my previous post

>so clearly you value common consensus as a moral authority.
Partially, if we're being honest with ourselves here. Secular ethics are more multifaceted than religious ones. I approach the abortion debate by asking myself what the logical extension of pro-choice arguments are. Then I find that they end up in direct conflict with most of the other moral values held by both myself and the social/cultural milieu I exist in.

>Ok. What trait is it that makes them human? What is the essence of humanity?
They're human in an early stage of development. A sperm will never develop into a human, just like a single skin cell wouldn't either.

>This is the issue with this whole topic, people just get offended if you question them and refuse to think about alternatives or even the very source of their conviction
I self audit my beliefs all the time. I just find it hard to believe that you don't understand why we treat human life with more respect than that of a grasshopper. It's not a sincere question and my answer wouldn't elucidate anything relevant to the debate.

>>18693213
>Mentally retard child have fully developed brain and nervous system
Is the right to life predicated on a fully developed nervous system then? Should we kill children with Angelman syndrome? Again, it's a eugenic argument.

>Brain dead people are unplugged all the time. It's perfectly legal.
Often outlined as a wish in a living will. Unplugging comatose individuals without prior consent is more ethically tenuous.

>>18693217
>A sperm will never develop into a human, just like a single skin cell wouldn't either.

>40% to 60% of human embryos naturally die or fail to survive from fertilization to birth. [1]
Their survival rate is pretty low anyway. Why do you care if we help some of them to die?

>>18693204
>Tbf it's the same argument used against men who express an issue with child support laws.
Obviously child support and abortion are different things but I do think most pro-choice people who would make this argument are in fact probably hypocrites and they are similarly framing child support as a punishment. It's never an argument I would make.
>Consequence ≠ punishment
I'm sure the people who make this argument about child support don't think they are making it out to be a punishment either but when they talk this way, they are.
I want to be clear I do not think this is true of all pro-life people, just a lot of them. I will give you the benefit of the the doubt that you genuinely believe abortion is murder and would not make an exception in cases of rape or outside of the most extreme medical necessity. But I have read enough from pro-life people to see a dislike of women having sex is a motivating factor for a lot of them even if it isn't the main one(though it sometimes is)
>>18693205
Neither of those posts were talking about elective abortions.

>>18693222
>Yes, children with Angelman syndrome are vastly more developed than bugs.
We should terminate pregnancies that produce such children, yes.
>eugenic argument
Nothing wrong with eugenics if it doesn't cause unnecessary suffering.

>>18693227
>Nothing wrong with eugenics if it doesn't cause unnecessary suffering.
If that's your argument, who gets to be the ultimate arbiter of who's genetically developed enough to exist? What if this person decided you or someone you care about is genetically feeble and needs to be removed from the gene pool? Do you understand how this could set a concerning precedent?

>>18693071
>they also wrote it in such a way as to make doctors reduce healthcare services for pregnant women
1. goalpost moving
2. proof?
3. irrelevant cope

>>18693226
>But I have read enough from pro-life people to see a dislike of women having sex is a motivating factor for a lot of them even if it isn't the main one(though it sometimes is)
I wouldn't assert that this absolutely never happens (browse 4chan for all the proof you need), but I think the framing is needlessly inflammatory and stifles rational debate like we are having now. In the same vein, I wouldn't characterize women who've had an abortion as evil, as is often done, but merely misguided and propogandized.

>>18693224
>Their survival rate is pretty low anyway.
The right to human life shouldn't be predicated on likelihood of survival either.

>>18693247
They are lucky they were aborted and not left on some landfill.

>>18693253
The mask finally slips

>>18692219
>Some communist states (like Romania) banned abortion because

they still allowed it if the mother was younger than 16 or older than 38

>>18693211
You’re exactly the kind of person who makes it necessary to leave abortions unregulated. There are no late term elective abortions. There are lunatics who will use that legislation to attack healthcare providers though by trying to label any medical procedure as elective. Late term elective abortions don’t even make sense.

>>18693454
You can easily write a statute with a 24-week limit(still liberal, especially compared to Europe) while shielding non-elective abortion procedures from liability at any point in the pregnancy. Some statutes already do that of course. But no, you demand for the statutes that even in the US are fringe.

File: PR_2025.02.26_religious-l(...).png (70 KB, 840x770)

70 KB PNG

>>18692213
Because gaytheists are liberal faggots.

>>18693471
Easily? Says who? It doesn’t work that way. Some dingus will absolutely try to press charges anyway because without Roe, there’s no federal protection so they might as well.

>>18693494
>Easily? Says who?
The vast majority of legislatives in the west as it turns out.

>>18693134
I said somewhere in the middle of...

>>18693681
Where should the line be drawn then?

>>18693687
In my opinion around 12 weeks, assuming normal development. That's erring on the side of caution. The fetus' brain will be slightly below the thinking capacity of a mouse or other small rodent at that point.

But ultimately society should decide, as long as it isn't based on "my holy book told me this is right." At that point you aren't adding anything to the conversation.

The same discussion would need to be had for aliens if we ever meet any, or androids.
When in doubt it should stay within the edge cases I mentioned. If it is unthinking / brain dead then it's definitely out. If it can ask for human rights and isn't just parroting then that's an automatic yes.

>>18693721
>"my holy book told me this is right." At that point you aren't adding anything to the conversation
Agreed

>If it is unthinking / brain dead then it's definitely out. If it can ask for human rights and isn't just parroting then that's an automatic yes.
IMO that would set a concerning precedent that could be extended beyond abortion

>>18692213
Because of the culture war. If you identify as a liberal you *have* to support abortion regardless of how you actually feel about it, because it comes as a component of the "liberal package". Women and simps will exert social and psychological pressure on you by calling you an evil microdick incel if you say abortion is murder, so you learn not to say it.

>>18693192
Why does morality depend on "development"? An adult pedophile is more developed than the child he rapes, does that mean his life is worth more than the child's?

>>18693856
>everyone keeps talking about the "culture war" as if it's bad
>no one wants to concede on their "culture war" positions
People only use that retarded term to try and disarm their enemies.

>>18694933
I'm using it neutrally here. It simply is a culture war thing because if you agree with the left wing on some other issues you automatically have to agree on this one as it's believed there can't be middle ground between the Left and the Right

>>18694943
Well yeah, it should be a neutral term. Pat Buchanan accurately described the political landscape in America as a culture war back in his 1992 RNC speech. But in practice it's prevalent use is in a disapproving derogatory manner. Buchanan himself was widely ridiculed and shunned by the Republican establishment after his speech, all for daring to say the culture war was a real and present thing.

>>18692244
Violates right to privacy, hence Roe v. Wade (seriously that was the key point of the ruling)
If a patient doesn't want to divulge that they were raped e.g. by their brother or father, then neither the patient nor the doctor ought to divulge that information to the police or external investigators (who'd obviously have to be involved in a legal situation)

>>18692488
>There are multiplle states that allow late-term elective abortions i.e legalized murder.
This is a unique American insanity, no state in Europe allows on-demand abortion past the first or second trimester at most. Even super militantly secular France caps it at 14 weeks

>>18692508
>Logically follows that it's better to be dead than poor/disabled
Depends on the country
Being born poor in India? Jesus man, I'm being genuine here when I say that sounds like punishment and I feel terrible for them.

>>18693595
They’re not dealing with America’s schizo problem and a lack of legal protection. Wait a minute. Do you actually think women wait until the third trimester to abort because they think it’s fun, or abortions are the new black or something?

Just don't think its as important as its made out, its boring hearing people get so worked up about irl. Especially when they start asking for your opinion.

>>18695247
>Even super militantly secular France caps it at 14 weeks
14 weeks is considered far-right in America haha

>>18695249
Then that's a decision that each individual should make for themselves. If you're born into a slum in Dhaka, give life a fair shot for 20-30 years, and decide the life you're fated to isn't worth it, I think you ought to have the right to an hero.

>>18695252
>America’s schizo problem and a lack of legal protection
You say that but there are currently 41 states with abortion regulation on the books, but other than reports of a bunch of physicians *saying* they're worried about being prosecuted, you can't point to a single case where a physician was actually prosecuted. After all, 25% of physicians withholding pregnancy treatments because of scary abortion laws is one thing, but it also means 75% have opened themselves up to these potential prosecutions. None have materialized.

>>18693071
>they also wrote it in such a way as to make doctors reduce healthcare services for pregnant women
Source? And what kind of services were impacted by the way the law was written?

>>18695392
His ass. All of the cases I have ever seen of anyone being prosecuted for "miscarriages" turned out to be obscene shit like leaving a live, fully formed baby in a toilet to drown.

>>18695428
>leaving a live, fully formed baby in a toilet to drown
No way, that's outrageous! No one would ever do something like that! We should make it legal so that people won't get prosecuted when they totally-don't-do-it!

>>18695431
>just legalize post-partum abortions sis
Hello Lindsey, how's prison?

>>18695435
Listen man, she was a model mom, everyone who testified said so. Her children were unavailable for comment but who cares about them anyway am I right?

>>18695439
More importantly, she's a Leo

>>18695244
>Violates right to privacy, hence Roe v. Wade (seriously that was the key point of the ruling
Roe vs. Wade allowed states to regulate abortion, the thing you said was unacceptable. It was overruled because it gave a far too liberal legal range and forbade states from banning abortions before 24 weeks i.e most European statutes would be illegal under Roe v. Wade

more of a /pol/ question i would think

>>18695384
Yes. The people who provide the medical care say they’re worried about it, to the point that they have refused to provide it. There are even states trying to harass out of state providers because people just drive to civilization for treatment. Now, I’m curious. Do you actually think that women just randomly get late term abortions for fun or because it’s fashionable to wait until the third trimester or something? Why so intent on making losing a very clearly wanted baby worse for an already grieving mother?

>>18693138
>an abortion at 9 months doesn't involve killing the baby
what?

>>18692240
>>>/r/eddit

>>18692278
Give it up for adoption.

>>18698578
>just lower your value as a person, risk your health, risk your life, and lose your career advancement/ job, bro

>>18698533
>The people who provide the medical care say they’re worried about it, to the point that they have refused to provide it.
No actual such case provided, despite the fact that some physicians did in fact open themselves up to that scare possibility. Seems like we're dealing with politically-motivated physicians using their reputable positions to influence public discourse and perhaps sway policy - the fact that this involves withholding pregnancy treatments effectively means they're engaging in extortion.

>>18698723
Sounds like you’re just kvetching because they don’t want to open themselves up to more harassment from schizophrenics. Now, why ban elective procedures that don’t exist? Unless you’re saying women get late term abortions on a dare. Or is the goal just to make the worst loss a parent can imagine that much more painful?

>>18698899
They have. Far from 100% of physicians have reported feeling scared or have withheld treatments, meaning a majority were still "exposed" to your fearmongered prosecutions - they have not materialized, meaning either their worries are unfounded or they are playing a game of political extortion at the expense of pregnant women.
Either way, regulated abortion as is the case in Europe and the US - including under Roe v. Wade - does not lead to the outcomes you keep harping on about - not even a single anecdote of a phyisician prosecuted due to abuse of a statute. As >>18695428 said prosecutions occur when physicians actually commit heinous things(the things you say never happen). Your claim that unregulated abortion leads to physicians being prosecuted over benign pregnancy treatments gone awry is not just 99%, but 100% bogus. Which makes your insistence that total deregulation of abortion is the only acceptable policy highly suspicious.

>>18698910
>Your claim that unregulated abortion leads to physicians being prosecuted
regulated* abortion

>>18698910
The fact is the forced birthers engage in any method possible to attack healthcare. Now, can you tell me why you want to make the loss of a wanted pregnancy more painful and dangerous for the grieving mother?

>>18698916
>The fact is the forced birthers engage in any method possible to attack healthcare
Unfounded, you can't find a single anecdote. Meanwhile I can simply point to Kermit Gosnell who has performed nurmerous late-term elective(not medically necessary) abortions, including cases of the baby being delivered and then killed out of the womb.

>>18698918
>live baby being killed
Isn’t that just murder? Anyway. The providers themselves don’t risk care because of the danger. Now, what women are getting late term abortions for fun?

>>18698920
>Isn’t that just murder?
Why did women willingly go for a physician to murder their baby? That happened you. And multiple women have also come to him for late-term elective abortion, they exist unlike your claims.
>The providers themselves don’t risk care because of the danger
Most physicians have not withheld pregnancy treatments, opening themselves to the terrible abusive prosecutions you keep talking about - none have materialized.
I provided you a clear case of a piece of shit licensed physician who proved elective late-term and post-term abortions to women who came to him willingly. You can't provide any instance of a benign pregnancy treatment, or an abortion that is protected under a statute, resulting in prosecution.

>>18698925
Yet the actual providers say it is a problem, with states trying to attack them across state lines. That you have to point to a serial killer who was just guilty of murder and malpractice and pretend extant laws don’t cover these crimes and instead healthcare needs to be attacked says a lot about your real goals. What I don’t understand is why you want to make the loss of a wanted pregnancy so much harder. Is it a spite thing? Or just God’s judgement that these women die or are maimed? Why make it harder for them otherwise?

>>18698931
You didn't see me say that the precious providers are beyond political bias and extortion. Physicians who opened themselves up to the possibility were not prosecuted, that is the only relevant fact of the matter. "Across state lines" means there are 2 different statutes clashing, not a single statute being open to abuse.
>a serial killer who was just guilty of murder and malpractice
The murders involved killing babies for women who came to him willingly. The "mapractice" involved late-term elective abortions for women who *came to him willingly*. These weren't poor women being hoodwinked, the trial established that perfectly clear - he provided late-term abortions as a service.
Women came to a physician to terminate their unwanted late-term pregnancies without medical necessity, the thing you claimed didn't happen.
>why you want to make the loss of a wanted pregnancy so much harder
You should direct that question to physicians who withhold pregnancy treatments despite their "worries" being entirely unfounded.

File: 1773456681341020.jpg (186 KB, 1200x1194)

186 KB JPG

>>18692213
>why isn’t there a secular humanist tendency that opposes abortion?
there probably is, it's just that the only people who care so much are amerifat culture warriors who tend to be christlarpers as well

>>18698939
>amerifat culture warriors
Europe has stricter regulations of abortion than most US states even after Roe v. Wade was overturned lol. Of course I fully anticipate that would change down the line due to Americanization(it already happened in Ireland several years ago), but it contradicts your notion about America being more conservative than Europeans on abortion.

>>18698936
Their worries aren’t unfounded. They’ve dealt with the forced birthers. Now, why make the loss of a wanted pregnancy harder for the mother? Why make the risk to her life greater? Since the serial killer you’re citing was guilty of a host of crimes including murder. The women were poor though. Why else seek care from a butcher? Unless you want to see these practices happen more often.

>>18698944
>Their worries aren’t unfounded. They’ve dealt with the forced birthers.
No documented case of such a prosecution happening to physicians who didn't engage in your heinous extortion scheme.
>why make the loss of a wanted pregnancy harder for the mother? Why make the risk to her life greater?
Once again, direct that question to the extortionist physicians who withhold treatment to score political points.
>Since the serial killer you’re citing was guilty of a host of crimes including murder. The women were poor though. Why else seek care from a butcher? Unless you want to see these practices happen more often.
Here you concede that women do in fact willingly go to have their late-term pregnancies terminated without medical necessity. I accept your concession.

>>18698946
>women prevented from getting care make desperate decisions
See, this is how I know none of this has to do with protecting fetuses and everything to do with fucking over women for some imaginary sexual transgression or whatever else the forced birthers think sex is. You’re still not telling me why you want to make this harder for women who need medical care. Do you believe your god wants them to suffer?

>>18698952
>women prevented from getting care
the care being prevented being a late-term elective abortion, so they instead went to a physician who illegally performed one. That was the case. You think them being poor justifies killing their babies, just say it.

>>18698943
my point is that nobody in europe really gives a fuck
i could not tell you what abortion laws are like in my country and i'm a literal fucking lawyer

>>18698954
Huh? I’m not the one who wants to force them to use some basket case serial killer who was shut down by Obama’s FBI. Why do you want to make this harder for them? Did you ever consider that you don’t matter in someone else’s healthcare decisions and they don’t need forced birthers restricting their medical care?

>>18698959
>I’m not the one who wants to force them to use some basket case serial killer who was shut down by Obama’s FBI. Why do you want to make this harder for them?
Oh sorry, you wanted a high-end abortion provider to kill their late-term kids without medical necessity due to financial concerns? Is that what you wanted? They were forced to go a crazy serial killer(who was a licensed physician) for their late-term elective abortions(which just severla posts ago you swore women never do)?

>>18698956
So why frame it in a way that makes *oppositon* to abortion be the "amerifat culture war" thing? Norway forbids elective abortions after 18 weeks, they'd be labeled far-right in the US.

>>18698965
>why frame it in a way that makes *oppositon* to abortion be the "amerifat culture war" thing
because OP was asking why opposition to abortion primarily seems to come from christians
excessive "pro-choice" positions are similarly retarded american culture war nonsense, but that's not what this thread is about

>>18698563
I'm still wondering what anon meant by this

>>18692213
Because all the legitimate solutions are either all stuff that many on the pro and anti abortion side would not really like, or putting extra funding and state in healthcare and reproductive education which faces push back and budget cuts for stupid as fuck reasons.

>>18698965
The thing is travel in Europe is pretty cheap and a Norwegian woman traveling to the NL for a an abortion post 18 weeks but pre 24 weeks is legal. Same for the US but certain states have this fixation on middle and lower class women traveling state lines for abortions even though the upper mid and rich ones fly for it whoch has a paper trail lol.