217
Arizona to vote on enshrining abortion rights in state constitution in November
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
217 points (98.7% liked)
News
23397 readers
3607 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As much as I'm pro abortion: no restrictions is bullshit too. Wouldn't allow aborting in the 9th month if not the life of the mother is at stake.
Leave it to the doctor and the one who is pregnant. No one is seeking to abort at 8.5 months unless there is a serious medical reason. So yeah leave it to the doctor and the one who is pregnant.
I mean I would, but I'm also a man that knows better than to be in that situation so I got sterilized. If someone wishes to abort at 8 and some or even 9 I have no ground to stand on when it comes to someones life that doesnt even involve me
That's not an abortion and also does not happen.
An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The guy I'm answering to is demanding either abortion with no restrictions or no abortion at all. So it is first of all not about what is happening, but about what would be allowed to happen. Abortion with no restrictions would make this generally legal.
That is not the definition of an abortion otherwise a birth would be considered an abortion. An induced labor at 9 months would be a birth. We already have laws on the books to prosecute people who kill live individuals.
The reason there should not be restrictions is because we do not need law enforcement analyzing every fucking later term abortion. Only 1% are at or past 21 weeks and the majority of those are at 21 weeks. The ones that occur after are from women who do absolutely want a child but there are complications with the fetus or the mother's health. These women should not have to fear being arrested because they are aborting a non viable fetus which they will likely spend thousands of dollars to do. And if you think that is an unlikely scenario where the police would make an arrest, I have some bad news for you: women have been arrested for miscarriages. Hell, one woman was arrested after being shot caused her to miscarry.
So no, no restrictions.
So how do you define an abortion if not as a termination of pregnancy? The reasons you gave in my eyes are rather reasons to reform the American police system. How would police even know of a miscarriage or an abortion? Most countries have duty of confidentiality for medical staff?
Also there is still a difference between restriction and prosecution and restrictions can be more or less restrictive. If there are medical complications an abortion shall always be allowed and if not in my opinion only up to a certain point into the pregnancy. Starting at somewhere around 23 weeks a fetus is able to survive outside of the womb, so besides medical reasons I'd set a cut somewhere there.
Wait are you not American? Have you been following what the conservatives in America have been doing?
They've taken any common sense rule and stretched it to the breaking point. And after Roe v. Wade was struck they've made abortion completely illegal in large swaths of America.
They have several ways to find out. They've mandated hospitals to report any they find out about with stiff penalties for not doing so. Doctors are liable for 99 year prison sentences for performing one. Anyone can inform the police if someone they know is suddenly not pregnant anymore. Anyone can sue a former pregnant woman and she cannot get her legal fees paid for even if she proves it was a miscarriage. This all includes penalties for getting an abortion out of state.
Before Roe v Wade was struck they passed law after law to make it as hard as possible to get an abortion before the 22 week cut off. Including waiting periods meant to artificially delay things and run out the clock and closing down places you could get an abortion until some states had only one or two clinics in the entire state. Then they also funded "pregnancy crisis centers", whose entire purpose was to obfuscate the entire process.
So yeah some people want no legal restrictions because the conservatives have proven they can't be trusted with them.
Nope not American. I heard about the most important points, but did not go in too deeply.
I think with the detailed background I get the point of no restrictions. But it still rather feels like working on the symptoms and not the cause.
Yeah we get that. But working on the cause is going to take a bit longer. It requires some reforms that our system is set up to make really hard. For now treating the symptoms is about all we can do.
Yeah, that's not a real fucking thing. No one is going to planned parenthood to get an abortion at 9 months because they don't want to raise a kid.
It's what the guy was demanding: abortions with no restrictions.
That's a C-section birth. There are not abortions in the ninth month unless the fetus has become nonviable, which is extremely rare. More common is Mom gets hurt and the fetus has to be born early. In which case it gets care as a premie baby and all the help the hospital can give it to live.
Again. Ninth month abortions do not happen. Anybody trying to get your vote or your money by telling you they happen is lying to you.
I am not even American and I guess I'm discussing on a rather ethical way and too far from the reality America is facing right now.
My only point was that if you'd allow abortions without any restrictions and simply define an abortion as a termination of pregnancy you'd also allow this.
I'd still rather vote for this than the abolition of abortion, just to be clear, but this would also be choosing one minor bad thing over the other.
Why are people pretending doctors would sign off on 9 month abortions to anyone who wants one?
If you pay enough you find one and if it is not restricted in any way it is also legal. I'm not against abortions, but I think there need to be at least some regulations.
Sounds like a privatized healthcare problem. Most people getting abortions are not able to pay for expensive doctors anyway.
This was extremely rare during Roe and will continue to be extremely rare, that shit doesn't happen unless it's a risk of harm to the carrier. All that law would do is put women at risk.
Let the medical experts write the regulations, like they do for every other medical procedure.
So many holes in this argument.
Shit in the ninth month it's not an abortion unless the fetus itself is nonviable. Otherwise it's a C-Section birth. Nobody is killing the fetus unless it's absolutely necessary or before viability.
Yeah, there's not a single woman who put up with the aches, morning sickness, tiny bladder, mood swings, gas, swollen joints, and everything else that accompanies pregnancy, for nine months before deciding she really didn't want to be pregnant.
The only reason women delay getting abortions is either something happens late in gestation that puts the life of the mother or the viability of the fetus as risk, or Republicans put up a bunch of arbitrary obstacles.
What you are not thinking of is that there are psychologically instable people who are not able to make a conscious decision for themselves for a certain time or who just follow through with impulsive decisions. Also there are people being forced to do things by others.
Having medical reasons for a late abortion is one thing (while still being allowed to have aan abortion withourt any reasons up to a certain point of time), being allowed to abort whenever you want without any restrictions just something totally different.
Why not?
Sometimes when it comes up I like to say we should allow abortion up to 20 months, just to anchor the conversation a little. Little door in the face bargaining.
Why so low? How about some 1000 months, that's a nice round number.