Abortion: Fetus Masturbation

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Abortion: Fetus Masturbation

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

OwlFancier posted:

So er, I guess the morning after pill is illegal and physicians aren't "persons" for the purpose of that law?

It's just weirdly worded.

Morning after pill is not an abortifacient. It's hormonal birth control pills in larger doses. There's no evidence it affects implantation.

# ? Feb 5, 2015 02:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 22:32

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Pixelated Dragon posted:

A miscarriage is a terrible and traumatic thing to go through. Why would anyone want to further victimize women who endure such a tragedy if there is little to no evidence that they induced it?

Because they hate women and want them to die.

# ? Feb 5, 2015 03:15

Xibanya: Sep 17, 2012; Clever Betty

Theory - a weaker group will be treated poorly because they don't have the power to resist poor treatment. Those treating them poorly then come up with a justification ex post facto on why the weaker group deserved such treatment. Because they now believe the weaker group deserves it, the stronger group will treat the weaker group poorly. If the weak group resists being abused by the stronger group the stronger group feels wronged by them as they are attempting to avoid the treatment they clearly deserve.

Thus, in times of yore, men thought women were inferior because they treated them badly because they were inferior because they treated them badly, and so on.

Follow up theory - these abortion laws are being dreamt up by transplants from the Stone Age.

# ? Feb 5, 2015 03:48

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

Missouri will be requiring all abortion-seekers to watch a video detailing the method of how abortions "work" 72 hours before they get an abortion.

# ? Feb 5, 2015 08:31

Mr Ice Cream Glove: Apr 22, 2007

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Missouri will be requiring all abortion-seekers to watch a video detailing the method of how abortions "work" 72 hours before they get an abortion.

There is no end to the sickening measures these fucks will take.

# ? Feb 5, 2015 15:45

Zeitgueist: Aug 8, 2003; by Ralp

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Missouri will be requiring all abortion-seekers to watch a video detailing the method of how abortions "work" 72 hours before they get an abortion.

"Woman takes pills, has cramps and some bleeding, done"

# ? Feb 5, 2015 19:02

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Is there an organization I can donate to that helps pay for transportation to clinics in woman-hating states?

# ? Feb 5, 2015 19:13

Pixelated Dragon: Jan 22, 2007; Do you remember how we used to breathe and watch it
and feel such power and feel such joy, to be ice dragons and be so free. -Noe Venable

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Missouri will be requiring all abortion-seekers to watch a video detailing the method of how abortions "work" 72 hours before they get an abortion.

Do they really think this will make women change their minds about it or is it just a delaying tactic?

# ? Feb 5, 2015 20:57

Zeitgueist: Aug 8, 2003; by Ralp

Pixelated Dragon posted:

Do they really think this will make women change their minds about it or is it just a delaying tactic?

Women need to be sufficiently punished for having sex.

# ? Feb 5, 2015 21:02

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Pixelated Dragon posted:

Do they really think this will make women change their minds about it or is it just a delaying tactic?

It also means making two appointments, getting two blocks of time off work, traveling two times. Poor women are the ones who should get the least access to abortion, for reasons that are apparently evident if you're a huge shitheel.

# ? Feb 5, 2015 21:17

Zeitgueist: Aug 8, 2003; by Ralp

Guavanaut posted:

It also means making two appointments, getting two blocks of time off work, traveling two times. Poor women are the ones who should get the least access to abortion, for reasons that are apparently evident if you're a huge shitheel.

Yep, it's all about making abortions as inconvenient as possible, because while it's illegal for them to block access explicitly, they can do it with a thousand cuts.

# ? Feb 5, 2015 21:34

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment I'm alive, I pray for death!

Pixelated Dragon posted:

Do they really think this will make women change their minds about it or is it just a delaying tactic?

The hope is that some who are wavering for whatever reason will balk and not go through with it, and those that don't will at least have to endure a more unpleasant and drawn-out rigamarole. This is because they care deeply about life and women's health.

# ? Feb 5, 2015 22:47

Solenna: Jun 5, 2003; I'd say it was your manifest destiny not to.

Zeitgueist posted:

Yep, it's all about making abortions as inconvenient as possible, because while it's illegal for them to block access explicitly, they can do it with a thousand cuts.

And then be loving shocked (and willing to prosecute) women who would try and abort using drugs ordered online instead of going to a doctor.

I suppose the clinic would get in trouble if they showed a second video with all the risks and consequences of carrying a pregnancy to term. And were honest about the fact that abortion is safer.

Solenna fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Feb 6, 2015

# ? Feb 6, 2015 00:49

Pixelated Dragon: Jan 22, 2007; Do you remember how we used to breathe and watch it
and feel such power and feel such joy, to be ice dragons and be so free. -Noe Venable

Zeitgueist posted:

Yep, it's all about making abortions as inconvenient as possible, because while it's illegal for them to block access explicitly, they can do it with a thousand cuts.

Guavanaut posted:

It also means making two appointments, getting two blocks of time off work, traveling two times. Poor women are the ones who should get the least access to abortion, for reasons that are apparently evident if you're a huge shitheel.

I was hoping that some misguided, naive lawmaker actually thought that by showing women 'what an abortion really entails', some women might be horrified and change their minds. That would at least sit better with me than it simply being a delaying tactic to make it more difficult.

I hate people sometimes.

# ? Feb 6, 2015 01:05

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Keep reading, we'll have you at full fledged misanthrope within the year.

# ? Feb 6, 2015 01:08

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

Pixelated Dragon posted:

I was hoping that some misguided, naive lawmaker actually thought that by showing women 'what an abortion really entails', some women might be horrified and change their minds. That would at least sit better with me than it simply being a delaying tactic to make it more difficult.

I hate people sometimes.

This is a group of people who thought it would be a great idea to specifically mandate an invasive vaginal ultrasound then had to walk it back when people pointed out that, "mandating something be put up there by law is kind of insulting and rapey, no?"

# ? Feb 6, 2015 03:18

McAlister: Nov 3, 2002; by exmarx

ErIog posted:

This is a group of people who thought it would be a great idea to specifically mandate an invasive vaginal ultrasound then had to walk it back when people pointed out that, "mandating something be put up there by law is kind of insulting and rapey, no?"

They haven't walked it back far enough. They take the word transvaginal out then write bills requiring the presentation of images that can't be gotten any other way. Scott Walker is pushing one as we type.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/15/1597701/wisconsin-forced-transvaginal-ultrasound/

Note, over half of all abortions happen prior to 8 weeks and over 90% by week 13. So when you admit that women less than 12 weeks pregnant would need a transvaginal probing to comply with the law that's almost everyone seeking an elective abortion.

# ? Feb 6, 2015 08:08

ExplodingChef: May 25, 2005; Deathscorts are the true American heroes.

McAlister posted:

They haven't walked it back far enough. They take the word transvaginal out then write bills requiring the presentation of images that can't be gotten any other way. Scott Walker is pushing one as we type.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/15/1597701/wisconsin-forced-transvaginal-ultrasound/

Note, over half of all abortions happen prior to 8 weeks and over 90% by week 13. So when you admit that women less than 12 weeks pregnant would need a transvaginal probing to comply with the law that's almost everyone seeking an elective abortion.

That's an old article from 2013. Nothing has changed in Wisconsin at least as far as ultrasounds go. Wisconsin law currently does not require a transvaginal ultrasound. At the clinic I escort at, they only use transvaginal if deemed medically necessary -- very early pregnancy, morbid obesity, or "anatomical variants" in the uterus. Something to note is that we consider an ultrasound a medically necessary part of the procedure. However, we do oppose the woman being forced to view it without her express consent.

# ? Feb 6, 2015 08:30

McAlister: Nov 3, 2002; by exmarx

twodot posted:

I don't understand why you quoted my post with this.

You asserted that prosecutors could be trusted. Given the way the laws are being used in practice they clearly can't be trusted on this issue.

http://m.acog.org/Resources-And-Pub...sMobileSet=true

The laws treating loss of pregnancy as murder are of recent vintage. They started popping up around 2004. They are pushed by faux-lifers because it's really loving hard to call abortion murder when killing a pregnant woman isn't actually treated as a double homicide and never has been.

When they are proposed the people pushing them try to sound like these are public safety laws and mention mention things like :

quote:

murder is responsible for more pregnancy associated deaths in the United States than any other cause, including hemorrhage and thromboembolic event.

Note please, that being murdered by their boyfriend/husband is not a risk that physicians can diagnose. You can easily google a myriad of papers on how pregnancy emboldens abusers of all stripes. The top three causes of death among the pregnant are all things that a medical exception to an abortion ban can't account for because by the time you know they are happening its to late.

Anywho, the laws are sold as tools to protect pregnant women from abusers. But once in place they are used by prosecutors to harass pregnant women ... Particularly poor and minority pregnant women. We see not only are they being misused in this way, they aren't even being used for the purpose they were supposedly passed for ... Locking up people who beat pregnant women till they miscarry.

Prosecutors have proven they can't be trusted here.

And my favorite part of that link;

quote:

However, in the United States, even in the case of two completely separate individuals, constitutional law and common law have historically recognized the rights of all adults, pregnant or not, to informed consent and bodily integrity, regardless of the impact of that person's decision on others. For instance, in 1978, a man suffering from aplastic anemia sought a court order to force his cousin, who was the only compatible donor available, to submit to bone marrow harvest. The court declined, explaining in its opinion:

For our law to compel the Defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits. . . . For a society that respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concepts of jurisprudence. Forcible extraction of living body tissues causes revulsion to the judicial mind. Such would raise the specter of the swastika and the Inquisition, reminiscent of the horrors this portends. (24)

Justice requires that a pregnant woman, like any other individual, retain the basic right to refuse medical intervention, even if the intervention is in the best interest of her fetus. This principle was challenged unsuccessfully in June 1987 with the case of a 27-year-old woman who was at 25 weeks of gestation when she became critically ill with cancer. Against the wishes of the woman, her family, and her physicians, the hospital obtained a court order for a cesarean delivery, claiming independent rights of the fetus. Both mother and infant died shortly after the cesarean delivery was performed. Three years later, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated the court-ordered cesarean delivery and held that the woman had the right to make health care decisions for herself and her fetus, arguing that the lower court had "erred in subordinating her right to bodily integrity in favor of the state's interest in potential life.

Beyond its importance as a means to protect the right of individuals to bodily integrity, the doctrine of informed consent recognizes the right of individuals to weigh risks and benefits for themselves. Women almost always are best situated to understand the importance of risks and benefits in the context of their own values, circumstances, and concerns. furthermore, medical judgment in obstetrics itself has limitations in its ability to predict outcomes. In this document, the Committee on Ethics has argued that overriding a woman's autonomous choice, whatever its potential consequences, is neither ethically nor legally justified, given her fundamental rights to bodily integrity. Even those who challenge these fundamental rights in favor of protecting the fetus, however, must recognize and communicate that medical judgments in obstetrics are fallible (25). And fallibility�present to various degrees in all medical encounters�is sufficiently high in obstetric decision making to warrant wariness in imposing legal coercion. Levels of certainty underlying medical recommendations to pregnant women are unlikely to be adequate to justify legal coercion and the tremendous impact on the lives and civil liberties of pregnant women that such intervention would entail (26). Some have argued that court-ordered intervention might plausibly be justified only when certainty is especially robust and the stakes are especially high. However, in many cases of courtordered obstetric intervention, the latter criterion has been met but not the former. Furthermore, evidencebased medicine has revealed limitations in the ability to concretely describe the relationship of maternal behavior to perinatal outcome. Criminalizing women in the face of such scientific and clinical uncertainty is morally dubious. Not only do these approaches fail to take into account the standards of evidence-based medical practice, but they are also unjust, and their application is likely to be informed by bias and opinion rather than objective assessment of risk.

But yeah, that's a long read about how both prosecutors and juries have shown themselves to be unable to handle this topic like adults which recommends removing these asinine laws so that pregnant women stopped being tortured by assholes for no good reason.

Edit:

Cause remember:

quote:

Evidence suggests that punitive and coercive policies not only are ethically problematic in and of themselves, but also unfairly burden the most vulnerable women. In cases of court-ordered cesarean deliveries, for instance, the vast majority of court orders have been obtained against poor women of color (27, 40).

This isn't just sexism. Its racism too.

Guess which race's pregnant women get reported to the police after an unauthorized/illegal drug test in 9 out of 10 cases of doctors tattling - even though they aren't 90% of drug users or the overall population. Go on. Guess.

McAlister fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Feb 6, 2015

# ? Feb 6, 2015 08:53

McAlister: Nov 3, 2002; by exmarx

For the folks opposed to elective abortion still among us I want to take a moment to talk about an amazing woman I know who completed an incredibly difficult pregnancy and gave birth to a healthy baby girl. She's real and I'm using the name Ada to refer to her. She does not die. You'll like her.

Around week 32 Ada started developing gallstones. Over a dozen of them would eventually be surgically removed. By week 34 she was in incredible pain. This was her first pregnancy and she loved her daughter with the heat of a thousand suns.

She would take no strong painkillers, because being doped up for weeks would harm the baby.

She refused surgery because doing it around the baby would be dangerous.

She refused to induce early labor because she felt the doctors were underestimating the dangers of early delivery.

She was in bed rest for two weeks and then hospitalized. In agony. Her husband was sympathetic at first but by week 36 he was begging her to induce or c-section and get the gallstones removed but she refused. I listened to the daily report of her progress at work as he fretted at being helpless to do anything.

She went into early labor in week 37 and as soon as her daughter was born they whisked her into surgery to remove the gallstones .. Which were the biggest the surgeon had ever seen.

Amazing, isn't she?

But if we take away her choices she stops being amazing.

Say we make this not something she did but rather something that was done to her. Say she had wanted to abort the pregnancy via c-section or induced labor ( both methods where the fetus is not harmed ) to get her gallstones removed sooner but the law didn't let her ... She goes from noble hero to pathetic victim in an eyeblink. And that's just the change in our eyes. The difference to Ada herself is even more extreme as pain willingly suffered, pain that you can stop at any time, is a completely different animal than pain inflicted by another outside your control. One tempers you, the other shatters you.

Those late term abortion bans with exceptions only for the life of the mother? They wouldn't cover Ada. Her life was not in danger. Just in an endless sea of pain that left her bedridden for weeks.

Because it was her choice that ordeal made her love for her daughter even stronger. It's a basic human trait that we value what we work for. And self sacrifice creates an intense emotional investment. The more you give of yourself to a goal the more you need it to succeed.

But the sacrifice of another has the exact opposite effect. If that was done to her ... Then it becomes the fetuse's fault. Instead of strengthening the mother-child bond involuntary suffering poisons it. Weeks in bedridden agony resenting/hating the child in whose name she is being tortured.

Both these dynamics are in play for every pregnancy. Pregnancy itself is a difficult thing to endure. Even without gallstones. The root of the mother/child bond is self sacrifice. We value that which we strive for. When you presume to force gestation on another you are attacking the mother/child bond viciously.

And you are attacking it from both ends.

If the only reason my mom had me was because her family forced her to ... Then what the hell do I owe her? Absolutely nothing. Which is why I left home at 16 shortly after discovering that the reason she hated me wasn't that I was failing to live up to her standards but was actually because she'd never wanted me in the first place. Nothing I could ever do would make her love me because I was something done to her. Not something she did. For all intents and purposes I don't have a Mother. There is just a broken woman out there somewhere who was tortured to create me and resents my existence.

And before you say anything about adoption remember that over 50 million unwanted pregnancies have been aborted since Roe. There are only ~340 million people total in the US. So far fewer than 170 million couples. To say that I and the kids like me could have been placed with loving families is absurd. You'd have to get over half of all households to adopt to keep up with the supply. The stuff that happens to surplus children is horrific and always has been

You can't be pro family without being pro choice.

Period.

# ? Feb 6, 2015 10:36

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

McAlister posted:

You asserted that prosecutors could be trusted. Given the way the laws are being used in practice they clearly can't be trusted on this issue.

I did not assert that. I asserted that the correct way to deal with prosecutors incorrectly prosecuting people is to fire them, and not alter the law that the prosecutors are already ignoring (doing either requires popular support anyways). Your list of people is both irrelevant to that point, and even if relevant, 30 cases a year over the entirety of "the south" is hardly convincing of anything. Read what I write in the context of the post I was replying to.

# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:20

corn in the bible: Jun 5, 2004; Oh no oh god it's all true!

twodot posted:

I did not assert that. I asserted that the correct way to deal with prosecutors incorrectly prosecuting people is to fire them, and not alter the law that the prosecutors are already ignoring (doing either requires popular support anyways). Your list of people is both irrelevant to that point, and even if relevant, 30 cases a year over the entirety of "the south" is hardly convincing of anything. Read what I write in the context of the post I was replying to.

imho if the voting registrars really are misusing the laws then those uppity negros should just complain to the governor, he'll sort it out

# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:34

corn in the bible: Jun 5, 2004; Oh no oh god it's all true!

i dont think cops would shoot someone who didnt deserve it, but if they did then they'd be fired, i have faith in the legal system

# ? Feb 6, 2015 16:35

Mr Ice Cream Glove: Apr 22, 2007

Another life ended unnecessarily by pro-life beliefs

quote:

AMARAC, FL, February 12, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Thirty-four-year-old Suzanne Mazzola, a special education teacher from Tamarac, FL died February 2 after giving birth to her fourth child, son Owen. She suffered from placenta accreta, a rare life-threatening condition that causes the blood vessels in the placenta to attach too deeply to the uterine wall triggering severe bleeding.

Mazzola was aware that carrying Owen to term could possibly jeopardize her life. Still, she made the selfless decision to offer her son the best chance at life.

�Suzanne was given the option to take the baby very early in the pregnancy,� Janet Free, Mazzola�s aunt, said on the family�s You Care page. �But being the wonderful strong woman and mother that she was and understanding the personal risk, she chose to wait until 35 weeks when the baby would be strong enough to survive.�

Mazzola began to hemorrhage after a C-section was performed to deliver Owen. Despite the efforts of 15 doctors she passed away.

This is probably too harsh but that is a terrible mom to leave your 3 kids because of some belief you hold.

# ? Feb 13, 2015 04:27

Twelve by Pies: May 4, 2012; Again a very likpatous story

Eh. I'm not going to be upset about that because being pro-choice is about that, choice. Would it have been better for the family perhaps if she hadn't waited? Probably, but it was her decision. If she had been forced to carry the baby by her husband/pastor/governor then yeah, that'd be hosed up, but I sorta feel like being pro-choice means we shouldn't look down on women who choose not to have an abortion, even if we think that would be the preferable option.

# ? Feb 13, 2015 04:34

SpiderHyphenMan: Apr 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

Twelve by Pies posted:

Eh. I'm not going to be upset about that because being pro-choice is about that, choice. Would it have been better for the family perhaps if she hadn't waited? Probably, but it was her decision. If she had been forced to carry the baby by her husband/pastor/governor then yeah, that'd be hosed up, but I sorta feel like being pro-choice means we shouldn't look down on women who choose not to have an abortion, even if we think that would be the preferable option.

Just because we believe it is there absolute right to make that choice doesn't mean we shouldn't think it's a really bad choice.

# ? Feb 13, 2015 05:02

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

Just because we believe it is there absolute right to make that choice doesn't mean we shouldn't think it's a really bad choice.

Right, but it's got nothing to do with the purposes of this thread. She made a choice. She was able to make a choice. She was not forced to the carry the child by her doctor, the hospital, or the state.

# ? Feb 13, 2015 05:04

Twelve by Pies: May 4, 2012; Again a very likpatous story

I agree it was a bad choice, but it was still her choice and I kinda felt like it's a bit wrong to frame it as "This is why pro-life beliefs are bad!" Pro-life beliefs are bad because they don't allow women a choice in the first place, pointing to an issue where a woman had a choice and chose an option we don't like sucks, but it's not an example of why pro-life policies are bad. Besides, the only alternative to this is to have denied her the choice by forcing her to take the operation, which would also be a denial of choice, which is not a pro-choice position.

# ? Feb 13, 2015 05:08

Mr Ice Cream Glove: Apr 22, 2007

WOW

quote:

An Idaho lawmaker received a brief lesson on female anatomy after asking if a woman can swallow a small camera for doctors to conduct a remote gynecological exam. The question Monday from Republican Rep. Vito Barbieri came as the House State Affairs Committee heard nearly three hours of testimony on a bill that would ban doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication through telemedicine. Dr. Julie Madsen was testifying in opposition to the bill when Barbieri asked the question. Madsen replied that would be impossible because swallowed pills do not end up in the vagina. The committee approved the bill 13-4 on a party-line vote. Barbieri, who sits on the board of a crisis pregnancy center in northern Idaho, voted in favor of the legislation.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 00:40

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

But I don't get it...I drink water and it comes out my dick.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 00:42

Strong Convections: May 8, 2008

ErIog posted:

The reason the human gestation period is around 10 months is because of the mismatch between the size of the baby's head and the average female pelvis. Left any longer than that, and the baby will almost certainly not be able to be born or will kill the mother on its way out. So human evolution settled on a kind of uneasy compromise between the development of the fetus and the risks to the fetus/mother.

Nope. This was the theory for a long time because someone came up with that idea and nobody bothered to check. The real reason is energy requirements of the foetus will begin to outstrip the mother's metabolic ability: http://www.livescience.com/22715-pregnancy-length-baby-size.html

A thing that gets brought up in these debates is the 'option' of adoption. I think adoption and surrogacy is repugnant and in an ideal world would not happen. As someone who knows a number of people who adopted out children, my impression is that adopting out a child fucks you up. Really badly. Don't have a goddamn kid and give it up for adoption, you'll gently caress up your future family because you'll be so traumatised by the experience.
Nobody out there wants to give up their baby- circumstances forces it. As soon as the stigma about being a single unmarried mother reduced and the government started supporting them the number of women keeping their babies shot up and adoptions down.
Are pro-lifers sticking their heads in the sand about reality because there's the option of adopting out and the consequences are later on and unseen? I think so, they get to pretend that there's enough 'support' out there for abortions to be banned- just adopt it out!
Would it be acceptable for me to stand outside and adoption centre and scream at women to reconsider their decision? If there was a huge political movement against adoptions maybe it would stop the horrible practice and prolifers would reconsider that the options out there for women who don't want to become pregnant or have an unwanted pregnancy are currently inadequate.

In an ideal world abortion wouldn't happen either- pregnancy happens only when you want it to and it's always healthy and if something happens to you just suck that clump of cells into a syringe and inject into a syntho-womb and possibly freeze for later. But hey world isn't perfect.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 06:03

Acrophyte: Sep 5, 2012; Respect me like Pesci
and if rap was hockey
I be Gretzky

Strong Convections posted:

In an ideal world abortion wouldn't happen either- pregnancy happens only when you want it to and it's always healthy and if something happens to you just suck that clump of cells into a syringe and inject into a syntho-womb and possibly freeze for later. But hey world isn't perfect.

If your "ideal world" is a place where rape, incest, and poverty have never been invented, and where women's bodies function exactly as I was taught in junior high health class, then sure. I'm not trying to rip on you especially, I just want to make it clear to anyone who might be unsure that abortions will always occur because:

a. there are tons of ways a pregnancy fails on its own
b. complications put the potential child or mother's life at risk and thus in need of medical intervention
c. horrific social scenarios can and do surround a pregnancy and make carrying it to term indirectly dangerous or, especially, a poverty sentence.

And none of this even touches the concept of choice for its own sake, which is its own lengthy post.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 06:30

Strong Convections: May 8, 2008

That's right, crime such as rape never occurs. Pregnancy only occurs when wanted. There are synthetic wombs embryos/foetuses (foetii? is the root greek or latin?) can be extracted to. I did specify ideal world.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 07:02

Guavanaut: Nov 27, 2009; Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998; Toilet Rascal

Strong Convections posted:

There are synthetic wombs embryos/foetuses (foetii? is the root greek or latin?)

Fetus is the original Latin, so the plural would be feti originally, but fetuses tends to be used.

Foetus is a hypercorrection, from a period in the middle ages when � and � got simplified to e, and then at a later point expanded out again. The e in fetus was mistakenly thought to have been one of these cases.

Most modern medical texts use fetus now, although the hypercorrect spelling continues in non-scientific use in Commonwealth English.

There have been some recent research advances in artificial wombs, so I think that's the most likely part to come true. More likely than eliminating rape, incest, and poverty. :smith:

# ? Feb 24, 2015 12:02

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

quote:

a crisis pregnancy center in northern Idaho

AKA the place where they try to guilt you into not having an abortion.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 15:26

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Guavanaut posted:

Fetus is the original Latin, so the plural would be feti originally, but fetuses tends to be used.

The plural of fetus is fetuses. While fetus is Latin, the word referring to offspring is fourth declension (while words ending in us are often second declension), meaning it is its own plural and using feti wouldn't make sense.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 17:14

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Twelve by Pies posted:

I agree it was a bad choice, but it was still her choice and I kinda felt like it's a bit wrong to frame it as "This is why pro-life beliefs are bad!" Pro-life beliefs are bad because they don't allow women a choice in the first place, pointing to an issue where a woman had a choice and chose an option we don't like sucks, but it's not an example of why pro-life policies are bad. Besides, the only alternative to this is to have denied her the choice by forcing her to take the operation, which would also be a denial of choice, which is not a pro-choice position.

This is all true and I agree with you

but

this is something awful, so

"It's a good thing she gave that child its best chance at life. Shame about the other three"

# ? Feb 24, 2015 18:04

Xibanya: Sep 17, 2012; Clever Betty

twodot posted:

The plural of fetus is fetuses. While fetus is Latin, the word referring to offspring is fourth declension (while words ending in us are often second declension), meaning it is its own plural and using feti wouldn't make sense.

Fetal fait accompli.

# ? Feb 24, 2015 19:32

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

SedanChair posted:

AKA the place where they try to guilt you into not having an abortion.

Those combined with vanity ultrasound places pollute search results so much that they are a major hurdle to finding prenatal care if you don't know where to start looking, and doubly so if you don't know what they are. If my wife had been on her own, she'd have gone to at least two of those goddamn things before finding anyplace legit.

# ? Feb 25, 2015 01:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 22:32

Acrophyte: Sep 5, 2012; Respect me like Pesci
and if rap was hockey
I be Gretzky

VideoTapir posted:

Those combined with vanity ultrasound places pollute search results so much that they are a major hurdle to finding prenatal care if you don't know where to start looking, and doubly so if you don't know what they are. If my wife had been on her own, she'd have gone to at least two of those goddamn things before finding anyplace legit.

That's really loving infuriating. A legislative goal for NARAL needs to be a warning sign on those places, like with a pack of cigarettes.

"WE ARE FULL OF poo poo AND HAVE ZERO MEDICAL EXPERTISE."

# ? Feb 25, 2015 03:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Abortion: Fetus Masturbation

«‹›9 »