Texas towns make it illegal to use roads to travel out of state for an abortion.

Already settled law and SCOTUS got it right in Dobbs.

"Remain pregnant against her will."

Does the fact that I'm legally prohibited from punching you in the face mean that I don't have full autonomy over my body? There's limits to where my fist goes. The state is tasked with deciding cases where the exercise of one's rights may impede on the rights of another. And there is no Constitutional right to an abortion, and frankly, that was always incorrect.

Absolutely not.

You guys want to fund abortions on your own dollar, have at it.

 

You know nothing about this. Delayed reporting...sometimes years....is not at all unusual, most especially with child victims. The Anti-choicers will undoubtedly impose a requirement for rape or incest abortions that a police report be filed and likely with some medical confirmation.

 

Well, what do you propose we do?

We assume any accusation of rape is correct in the interest of abortion? If we were to do that, get ready for the rate of false rape accusations to skyrocket.

 

What nonsense is this?

"Does the fact that I'm legally prohibited from punching you in the face mean that I don't have full autonomy over my body? There's limits to where my fist goes."

Only in RED America.

Abortions should be available at no or reduced cost to indigent women through local health departments. I'm more than happy to help fund it through my taxes. Way cheaper than 18 years of food stamps and public assistance (which you would also resent paying.)

 

What exactly do you mean by this? Can I waive my fist around anywhere regardless of who I hit in the process?

Yes, I would resent that. If you're so generous, make charitable contributions. Don't expect others to pay for it via taxes.

 

So the fetus has more rights than the woman? Even during a period when the fetus has zero brain activity and cannot survive on its own? And pregnant women are nothing more than walking wombs and must acquiesce to the needs of the fetus every time? Even those women who were raped and never wanted to be pregnant?

Speaking of other "outliers," ABC is running a series of women who all had to go out of state for an abortion. Each one has a story similar to that of the woman in the OP. The complication was found outside the abortion ban window in their home state, and the laws weren't clear cut and dry about allowing the abortion. What would you tell these women? Sorry, but you're outliers, and we shouldn't make laws just to cover your individual cases?

Dobbs is wrong in my opinion. Roe had it right. We have no right to the intimate details of others. Women should have a right to privacy about their love and sex lives, and are not walking wombs. They are people, who should be able to control their own bodies. Roe covers the women in the ABC stories, and the women who were raped. Dobbs has lead us to this crap.

 

No. Neither is entitled to kill the other. Does the mother have more rights than the fetus just because the fetus is forcibly confined to the mother during the pregnancy? Of course not, that's nonsense.

The mother should not be allowed to kill a fetus.

No. Who is saying that?

There you go again trying to bring up the rare exceptional case.

Sure we should craft laws to cover some of their cases, depending on the case. But what we shouldn't do is frame the whole abortion discussion around cases that reflect 3% of abortions.

Roe led to the killing of over a million unborn babies per year.

If we want to compare damage, let's pile up the bodies of dead fetuses since Roe and compare.

 

The mother has brain activity. A fetus before 20 weeks does not.

[/quote]The mother should not be allowed to kill a fetus.

No. Who is saying that?[/quote]

If the woman can't abort the fetus, then you are saying she has to acquiesce to the fetus' needs.

What percentage does a minority have to be in order to be large enough to craft laws? 5%? 10%? And if laws don't cover the rights of the minority, are they truly just and Constitutional?

Are you willing to tell the women in the ABC story or women pregnant because of rape, "Sorry, but because you're the minority, your individual case doesn't matter!"? Or do their cases matter, and should we craft laws that cover them?

But of course, you'll never admit that we should craft laws to cover the exceptions, because if you do, you are admitting that some fetuses are more innocent than others. Which is why you have never answered the direct question, but continue to deflect with the 3% number.

And Dobbs hasn't saved anyone. As often is the case when abortion is outlawed, women with means simply travel to have an abortion. And as expected, Dobbs has made working complicated pregnancies cases much more difficult to navigate, and has resulted in an increase in maternal mortality. So speaking on a pure pragmatic level, Dobbs is worse. No children saved, and more women dead.

 

Women of means do what they have done since before abortion was legal, have a "cooperative" doctor perform a D&C. They don't have to travel.

 

You cannot have it both ways.

You can't on one hand say that everyone who would've had an abortion pre-Dobbs can still have an abortion and therefore no lives have been saved, while on the other simultaneously claiming that some people can no longer receive abortions.

If some people who would have otherwise had an abortion are no longer having abortions, then some lives have been saved.

The notion that everyone without the means of traveling who would've had an abortion if it were legal is now having back-alley abortions is simply not true. And the notion that back-alley or black market abortions kills far more mothers than it doesn't is also not true. How do I know this? Because pregnant mothers wouldn't have back-alley abortions on a 70%-80% likelihood that they would die from it. It's all a fictitious narrative to excuse the legalization of killing millions of unborn children per year to prevent the deaths of several dozen pregnant mothers per year.

 

Where the F is the 70% to 80% likelihood number coming from? Who has said that back alley procedures have this kind of mortality rate? Nobody that I know. Link, please. Otherwise, I'll assume you're just pulling a number from your behind.

Here's an example of a link showing a rise in maternal mortality rate. In the US, it rose from 21 per 100,000 to 32.9 per 100,000 pregnancies post Dobbs. Still wondering where you're pulling your numbers from.

Here's a an example of a link showing 92,000 women in the first six months of this year who crossed state lines for an abortion. I would assume, since they crossed state lines, they didn't have to use a "back alley." Coupled with the first link in my last post that showed no reduction in overall abortions, makes you wonder where those without means got their procedure completed? Judging from the fact that there has been a rise in not only maternal deaths, but pregnancy complications that doctors attribute to dangerous practices such as self abortion attempts, it's certainly not a place where the procedure is as safe as in a legal clinic.

Fictitious narrative? Maybe you should look in the mirror? I link my sources and back up my opinions with facts if asked. Like the stat 93% of all abortions take place in the 1st trimester, when the fetus has zero brain activity.

 

While 70% to 80% is undoubtedly an exaggeration you might want to educate yourself by clicking on the link below:
How abortion bans will likely lead to more deadly infections
This link is somewhat more on point since the above link concerned delays in medically necessary abortions more so than illegal abortions.
Lessons from Before Roe: Will Past be Prologue?
Whether intentional or not seem to be making the argument that deaths of millions of dead fetuses (most early in the first trimester of gestation) is more tragic than the deaths of pregnant women.

 

The last thing he is going to do is educate himself about anything. He's adopted his position and that is that...facts, science, medicine, common sense, etc. be damned.

 

My point is that a number like that ISN'T accurate.

Is that entire increase from people who are now denied abortions?

Sure, abortion is not as safe because it's not as available. But I'm not arguing that it is as safe. I'm arguing that more lives are saved when abortion is limited than when it isn't.

If the Dobbs decision has not affected yearly abortions, then abortion isn't being effectively limited.

If the reason for that discrepancy is people crossing state lines. Cool. I have no issue with people crossing state lines to do something legal in another state.

If the reason is back-alley or black market abortions, the amount of women having complications because they fit such a niche market for back-alley abortions where they also happen to be killed from the back-alley abortion is miniscule.

The greater the risk of back-alley or black market abortions, the greater of a deterrent those abortions are. The greater of a deterrent, the less people have abortions. The less people who have abortions, the more lives are saved.

My honest thoughts about the abortion rates post-Dobbs is that travel is not a deal-breaker for the vast majority of people getting abortions.

You're trying to say that Dobbs radically limits abortion access while simultaneously saying that abortions haven't gone down since Dobbs. These two positions cannot coexist.

 

It was, it was a critique to the notion that pregnancy mortality is skyrocketing thanks to the necessity for black market abortions.

The point I was making is that those numbers are obviously false, and I'm glad we all seem to agree.

If some states are no longer sanctioning abortion it's not surprising that attempts at abortion for the country as a whole are now more dangerous.

That's one factor. We also have to weigh factors like:
1. Do we want to live in a country with state-sanctioned abortion?
2. How many fetuses are saved by limiting abortion?
3. How many mothers are lost compared to how many fetuses are saved?

How many dead fetuses does it take to equal the value of one pregnant woman to you?

Scratch that, you're a Democrat, right? You must think a fetus is valued at 3/5ths of a woman.

 

Seems like I'm living rent free in your head.

 

You're missing the point entirely. Dobbs hasn't reduced the number of abortions. Those with means travel out of state because they can afford it. Those without seek back alley alternatives. The effect on abortion numbers is 0. The effect on maternal mortality rate has been an increase in 10 per 100,000. End result, more lives lost.

 

Prove that the increase in 10 per 100,000 is entirely on Dobbs.

You're arguing that every single person who wants an abortion is continuing to get an abortion.
1. Bullshit
2. If women take a risk in trying to kill their unborn child and they fit a small minority of people who actually resort to black market abortions and die from them... tough man. I can only feel so sympathetic after so many bad decisions. It takes such a continuous line of bad decisions to get to that point, there's not much else that can be done for you.
1. You probably have to repeatedly have sex without birth control without being ready to have a child. (There are exceptions, but typically that's how this works)
2. You have to be so poor that you can't afford the means to cross state lines and get an abortion.
3. You resort to a shady black market abortion.

Good Lord man. I'm a big believer in second chances, but how many chances do you need?

 

This article is from 2014.

Unlike in most other countries, U.S. maternal deaths are on the rise | MinnPost

"It is still safer to become pregnant and give birth in the United States than in most other countries, but we are far from being a world leader in this area of women’s health. According to the WHO report, for every 100,000 births in the United States, 28 women die, a number that has increased by more than 136 percent since 1990, when 12 women died for every 100,000 births."

Roe v. Wade was the law of the land between 1990 and 2014.

 

Let's put it this way. Dobbs has caused a decrease in safe and legal abortions in certain states. This has caused when in those states who seek an abortion to either travel out of state for a safe and legal abortion if they can afford it. Or, seek back alley solutions. As an result, maternal mortality rate has increased. And in poorer areas, the rate has increased more than 10 per 100,000.