Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, May 05, 2022

Jessica Ravitz: There was a time when abortion was simply part of life in the United States. People didn't scream about it in protest, and services were marketed openly. Drugs to induce abortions were a booming business. They were advertised in newspapers and could be bought from pharmacists, from physicians and even through the mail. If drugs didn't work, women could visit practitioners for instrumental procedures. The earliest efforts to govern abortions centered on concerns about poisoning, not morality, religion or politics. It was the mid-19th century, long before abortion became the hot-button issue it is now.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

With the help of Reagan, author of "When Abortion Was a Crime," and the nonprofit Our Bodies Ourselves, we set out to learn what abortion was like in America before 1973. What we found was full of surprises.

In the 18th century and until about 1880, abortions were allowed under common law and widely practiced. They were illegal only after "quickening," the highly subjective term used to describe when pregnant women could feel the fetus moving, Reagan said.

"At conception and the earliest stage of pregnancy, before quickening, no one believed that a human life existed; not even the Catholic Church took this view," Reagan wrote. "Rather, the popular ethic regarding abortion and common law were grounded in the female experience of their own bodies."

Though it is considered taboo in Christian traditions, until the mid-19th century, "the Catholic Church implicitly accepted early abortions prior to ensoulment," she explained. "Not until 1869, at about the same time that abortion became politicized in this country, did the church condemn abortion; in 1895, it condemned therapeutic abortion," meaning procedures to save a woman's life.

Abortions would become criminalized by 1880, except when necessary to save a woman's life, not at the urging of social or religious conservatives but under pressure from the medical establishment - and the very organization (AMA) that today speaks out in support of abortion access, Reagan explained.

Wow, no wonder Alito had to invoke 16th Century for his convoluted tale in support of banning abortion. A quick look back into American history before 1869 finds that not only was abortion legal, it was widely practiced and noncontroversial. Even the Catholic Church did not condemn the termination of pregnancies up until the point of quickening, or when fetal movement was first noticeable.

So basically, the leaked draft decision is based upon lies and the complete disavowal of undisputed American history as it regards legal abortions after the Constitution had been written and codified. To claim that abortions weren't in the tradition of American life is to ignore reality before the year 1869.

The truth might not set you free in today's world, but it will make you madder than hell.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-05 09:04 AM | Reply

As I recall it's morality and legality has fluctuated many times in America.

#2 | Posted by Tor at 2022-05-05 11:21 AM | Reply

"A quick look back into American history before 1869 finds that not only was abortion legal, it was widely practiced and noncontroversial."

^
Restrictions on abortion were a pushback against the women's suffrage movement. Full stop.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-05 12:37 PM | Reply

Just like making weed illegal was to put "those people" in prison.

#4 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-05-05 01:55 PM | Reply

Why are right wingers so eager to limit individual freedom?

#5 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-05-05 01:59 PM | Reply

This is surprising. Could Islamic Sharia Law actually save America from a total ban on abortion based on it violating 1st Amendment rights?

There is no complete abortion ban under Sharia Law

While opinions vary over when a pregnancy can be terminated, there is no complete ban on a woman's right to end a pregnancy under Islamic law, experts say ... Under Islamic law, the majority of medieval Muslim scholars allowed women to terminate a pregnancy before 120 days, said Abed Awad, a Rutgers adjunct law professor and national expert in Sharia/Islamic law.

"Scholars in the medieval period looked at the theological conception as the start of life as opposed to a scientific conception as a start of life," Awad said. These scholars, from a theological perspective, came to terms with the idea that a fetus is not ensouled at conception, rather 120 days after the fact, he added.

"For that reason, the termination was not a termination of a life," Awad said.

To Awad, the Texas law constitutes a religious violation of the First Amendment in that it subjects this "moral position of the Christian right and the antiabortion movement" to other communities who don't subscribe to these beliefs.

"This is not only contrary to the Sharia, but it's also in a lot of respects contrary to living in a religious cultural plural society, because if (I were) a Muslim female (and) subscribe(d) to the position of my medieval scholars that I am entitled to terminate my pregnancy ... as long as I terminate it before 120 days, I am not able to exercise my religion in Texas," Awad said.

So Islam holds the same standards and allowances for abortion that the Catholic Church did up until 1880.

When the American evangelical/tyrannical right is more draconian than Sharia law, doesn't that mean one has likely gone too far?

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-05 02:18 PM | Reply

Jt is not just a coincidence that most white nationalists are anti=abortion. acism IS AT THE CORE OF SO MANY ISSUES IN THE U.S. Can't be aborting white babies. If we let women control yheir own bodies immigrants and people of cojor will soon outnumbert abortion us whitw folks. Ihr anti-abortion crowd hide behind false religious claims and dystortwd morality yo make their ridiculous arguments for laws against aboetion. In truth they really just don't want whyte women getting them buy the anti-abortion movement is, at its heart, deeply dishonest and cynical. Everyonr has a rihjy yo believe wgatever lie they choose to bekieve but just know yhat the rest of us consider your arguments dishonest attenpts to control women. foced pregnancy is a weapon atmed at women eho won;y adhere to the social structure og the past.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2022-05-05 02:28 PM | Reply

Ben Franklin published a recipe for abortion in 1748.

#8 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-05 02:56 PM | Reply

"This is surprising. Could Islamic Sharia Law actually save America from a total ban on abortion based on it violating 1st Amendment rights?"

Satanic Temple includes abortion as a sacrament. It's literally a pillar of their religion.

Now, before you go saying Satanic Temple is a made-up religion, separation of church and state is why the court is very, very reluctant to enter into the conversation of what's a real religion and what's a made-up religion.

Though I wouldn't bet on the current Court to adhere to that precedent either!

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-05 03:00 PM | Reply

stare decisis is for losers, snoofy.

#10 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-05-05 03:02 PM | Reply

#8

In this week's leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, "The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions." Yet abortion was so "deeply rooted" in colonial America that one of our nation's most influential architects [Ben Franklin] went out of his way to insert it into the most widely and enduringly read and reprinted math textbook of the colonial Americas"and he received so little pushback or outcry for the inclusion that historians have barely noticed it is there. Abortion was simply a part of life, as much as reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Franklin wasn't even the first issuer of a math textbook on either side of the Atlantic to include among its materials a recipe for abortion, though his book certainly had the most reliable and explicit one. William Mather's 1699 Young Man's Companion also has one (the London book would inspire the very first arithmetic book to be printed in the colonies in 1705, by Franklin's old boss Andrew Bradford). In Mather's book, though, the recipe was short, misleading, and ineffective. It includes an entry for "Terms provoked," a heading also found under comparable medical books with abortifacient concoctions (where the "term," or period, needs "provoking").

slate.com

Alito's argument against abortion is being destroyed by actual documented American history - something he obviously knows little, if anything factually about. Perhaps he should pick up a book other than the Bible.

#11 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-05 03:03 PM | Reply

#9

I have a feeling quite a few pregnant American women are going to start saying "As-salamu alaykum."

Just a guess ...

#12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-05 03:05 PM | Reply

Ah.... I finally find out that those amorphous "Good Ol' Days" I keep hearing about from the right never really existed.

I'm shocked... shocked I tells ya!

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2022-05-05 03:09 PM | Reply

#9
I have a feeling quite a few pregnant American women are going to start saying "As-salamu alaykum."
Just a guess ...

#12 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Wouldnt that be ironic that outlawing abortion resulted in a massive increase in Muslim folj

#14 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-05 03:11 PM | Reply

folk

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-05 03:12 PM | Reply

Though I wouldn't bet on the current Court to adhere to that precedent either!

Religious freedom is the fulcrum for many aspects of their anti-freedom, religionist agenda. They want to give Christians pretty much carte blanche to ignore the civil rights of others if allowing them offends their "personally held religious beliefs," remember? There is no way possible for them to ignore non-Christian's beliefs while advancing Christian ones.

And it will absolutely enflame Christians when other religions are given the same deference they claim for themselves. Again, I'm willing to admit that a metaphysical legal Twister game may break out, but it should be a doozy either way.

#16 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-05 03:12 PM | Reply

"Religious freedom is the fulcrum for many aspects of their anti-freedom, religionist agenda."

Best example I have of this is Scalia's opinion that a law Congress wrote allowing Hopi to use peyote in religious ceremonies also means Congress intended for Hobby Lobby to not have to purchase health insurance that covered birth control when ACA became law.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-05 03:23 PM | Reply

#17

Yep.

#18 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-05 03:48 PM | Reply

Roe vs Wade is/was not a law. It was a SCOTUS ruling as that court has no authority to make and pass laws. It is now time for the Congress to actually do their duty and establish a law to end all this once and for all.

Abortions was not a big deal for years [except with a few vocal groups] until recent year when the abortionists decided that it was okay to kill a baby as it's about to be born [sucking out its brains right before the delivery] and even though I'm for legal abortions in the early stages of pregnanacy, I consider that disgusting and 'beyond the pale'.

#19 | Posted by MSgt at 2022-05-05 04:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Roe vs Wade is/was not a law. It was a SCOTUS ruling as that court has no authority to make and pass laws. It is now time for the Congress to actually do their duty and establish a law to end all this once and for all.
Abortions was not a big deal for years [except with a few vocal groups] until recent year when the abortionists decided that it was okay to kill a baby as it's about to be born [sucking out its brains right before the delivery] and even though I'm for legal abortions in the early stages of pregnanacy, I consider that disgusting and 'beyond the pale'.

#19 | POSTED BY MSGT A

You are ignorant.

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-05 04:55 PM | Reply

#19

Roe is not about a "law," it's about an unenumerated right and whether the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendment allows Americans the freedom of practicing their religious faith (by Islamic text, abortion is legal up to 120 days after conception), or their personal rights to privacy, equal protection, and bodily autonomy alluded to in the other Amendments.

These freedoms are the basis where the state was not allowed to ban abortion completely. It never created a "law" allowing abortion.

#21 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-05 04:56 PM | Reply

"Abortions was not a big deal for years [except with a few vocal groups] until recent year when the abortionists decided that it was okay to kill a baby as it's about to be born [sucking out its brains right before the delivery] "

Now why would they need to suck its brains out right before delivery, when a normal fetal head can make it out?

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-05 05:04 PM | Reply

"even though I'm for legal abortions in the early stages of pregnanacy, I consider that disgusting and 'beyond the pale'."

What if the reason for sucking the fetal brains out is the fetal head has swollen up to the size of a basketball, and giving birth to that will kill the woman?
That's not beyond the pale?
???

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-05 05:05 PM | Reply

MSGT, you know why women get 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions? Either the life of the mother is seriously at risk, or the fetus is seriously abnormal-to the point that if born it will live long enough to die in agony a few short minutes or hours after birth.

The reason that the decision to have an abortion till later in pregnancy is piss poor screening in identifying abnormalities OR the risks to the mother or the abnormality of the fetus are not known until into the 2nd trimester. So, late term abortions are about saving the mother's life or terminating an abnormal fetus to save the mother and fetus of the trauma of birth.

One reason late term abortion is NOT about is the mother's whims.

It is a traumatic and life altering event. One that is none of your friking business and no place for the government.

So your analysis and conclusion on why abortion became an issue is, well, factually wrong.

In point of fact, it is HIGHLY beneficial to permit late term abortions-because they save lives!

So, now you have been informed, I expect you to reverse your position.

#24 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-05 05:06 PM | Reply

Late term abortions only happen for life threatening medical reasons, never simply for choice. To continue to use such horrid imagery of heartbreaking circumstances is vile.

But look at the cretins who always bring up the abhorrent because the normal fails to shock the conscious.

#25 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-05 05:09 PM | Reply

"To continue to use such horrid imagery of heartbreaking circumstances is vile."

It really is vile.
But then, they're vile people, and they show us that every day here.

We really shouldn't be surprised they insist a non-viable braindead fetus be carried to term and delivered, not caring one whit that it will injure or kill the mother.

That's just who they are.

The GOP is a Death Cult.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-05 05:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Roe is not about a "law," it's about an unenumerated right and whether the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendment allows Americans the freedom of practicing their religious faith (by Islamic text, abortion is legal up to 120 days after conception), or their personal rights to privacy, equal protection, and bodily autonomy alluded to in the other Amendments."

There are lots of religious practices and rituals that are not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Claiming abortion rights is about "equal protection" is a joke and tarnishes that phrase. The side effect of Roe v Wade was to create an unequal balance where one biological parent is legally bound to toil and care for the life of a child from the moment of conception, and the other is not. Ironically, this has had a disproportionate effect on putting men "of color" into a state of involuntary servitude.

#27 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-06 09:21 AM | Reply

"Late term abortions only happen for life threatening medical reasons, never simply for choice."

And yet many abortion activists routinely argue that it should be legal as an elective procedure (or have enough loopholes to effectively be one), because some women are apparently too stupid to know they're pregnant until they're just about to give birth.

#28 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-06 09:28 AM | Reply

The side effect of Roe v Wade was to create an unequal balance where one biological parent is legally bound to toil and care for the life of a child from the moment of conception, and the other is not.

#27 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

You've lost me.

What do you think is going to happen after Roe?

You people will imprison and even execute women for having abortions (looking at you, Louisiana) but there will never, ever be a law punishing a man for setting up the problem in the first place.

#29 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-06 09:29 AM | Reply

The side effect of Roe v Wade was to create an unequal balance where one biological parent is legally bound to toil and care for the life of a child from the moment of conception, and the other is not. Ironically, this has had a disproportionate effect on putting men "of color" into a state of involuntary servitude.

Interesting idea, wonder if this relates to fatherlessness.

I am not aware of the full law, how does it create the "one biological parent is legally bound to toil and care for the life of a child from the moment of conception, and the other is not"?

#30 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-05-06 09:31 AM | Reply

some women are apparently too stupid to know they're pregnant until they're just about to give birth.

#28 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Yeah, those stupid women.

No one would ever call you a misogynist, you jerk.

Wear a condom, jackass.

#31 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-06 09:31 AM | Reply

The side effect of Roe v Wade was to create an unequal balance where one biological parent is legally bound to toil and care for the life of a child from the moment of conception, and the other is not.

Yet they literally call child birth labor

Btw it is barbaric to force a woman to carry and birth an unwanted fetus

#32 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-06 09:34 AM | Reply

because some women are apparently too stupid to know they're pregnant until they're just about to give birth.

#28 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

You vile despicable human being

Late term abortions are to save the life of the mother or due to extreme abnormalities in the fetus
---- that can only e determined in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters
Late stage abortions are critical to saving lives

#33 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-06 09:37 AM | Reply

"And yet many abortion activists routinely argue that it should be legal as an elective procedure"

All medical procedures are elective procedures.

If a woman wants to die for her stillborn fetus, that's her choice too.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-06 09:39 AM | Reply

"some women are apparently too stupid to know they're pregnant until they're just about to give birth."

You trust these women with a child?

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-06 09:40 AM | Reply

"some women are apparently too stupid to know they're pregnant until they're just about to give birth."

You trust these women with a child?

#35 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-05-06 09:40 AM | FLAG:

Trust? They force them

#36 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-06 09:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There are lots of religious practices and rituals that are not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Name a couple.

You haven't been paying attention to the Roberts Court as they've given deference to individuals' and corporations' "religious beliefs" when it comes to actions for or serving persons living lives they disagree with in the course of their work/business in serving the general public. Companies are allowed to dictate that contraceptives aren't covered by insurance plans that workers pay for themselves due to the "closely held religious beliefs" of it's ownership or management.

As it regards the complete lack of ANY laws dictating or limiting the personal health decisions or options of men, if pregnant woman are forced to carry a fertilized egg to birth, then the state should also demand that the father be identified and begin taking financial responsibilities for said child's costs from fertilization until the child is emancipated.

#37 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-06 09:42 AM | Reply

"Pro-lifers" will willingly sacrifice the life of a woman for the sake of an unviable fetus by banning a procedure that will easily save her life

Think about that

#38 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-06 09:47 AM | Reply

There are lots of religious practices and rituals that are not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Name a couple

Human sacrifice? Maybe?
The abortion ban seems to have that effect though

#39 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-06 09:49 AM | Reply

Btw it is barbaric to force a woman to carry and birth an unwanted fetus

Its not barbaric, some people see it as protecting a fellow human being. What is barbaric, aborting a fetus in the third trimester as Psaki was defending yesterday.

Seems to me both sides are extreme, whittling on the extreme.

#40 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-05-06 10:02 AM | Reply

"As it regards the complete lack of ANY laws dictating or limiting the personal health decisions or options of men, if pregnant woman are forced to carry a fertilized egg to birth, then the state should also demand that the father be identified and begin taking financial responsibilities for said child's costs from fertilization until the child is emancipated."

If you think there aren't states that already do this, then you are the one who has not been paying attention.

#41 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-06 10:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There are lots of religious practices and rituals that are not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Name a couple

Polygamy

#42 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-05-06 10:07 AM | Reply

Btw it is barbaric to force a woman to carry and birth an unwanted fetus

Its not barbaric, some people see it as protecting a fellow human being. What is barbaric, aborting a fetus in the third trimester as Psaki was defending yesterday.

Seems to me both sides are extreme, whittling on the extreme.

#40 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT AT 2022-05-06 10:02 AM | REPLY

You don't know many women do you? The pain and discomfort of most pregnancies is very severe
Try having your taint forcibly torn the tell me that isn't torture

One side is going to "win" and take the rights away from 70+million American women
So no both sides are not the same

#43 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-06 10:08 AM | Reply

If you think there aren't states that already do this, then you are the one who has not been paying attention.

#41 | POSTED BY SENTINE

Seems to me that is an argument for freedom of choice

#44 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-06 10:09 AM | Reply

#41

Again, name one. Link to that information. To my knowledge, there isn't a state in the U.S. that has ever passed a law that dictates any man's health decision. And there absolutely isn't a single state that has a law where a man's financial responsibilities begin at conception and not at actual birth, if at all - where the woman's life is altered from conception forward.

#45 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-06 10:09 AM | Reply

"Pro-lifers" will willingly sacrifice the life of a woman for the sake of an unviable fetus by banning a procedure that will easily save her life
Think about that

POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

It's beyond absurd. I never believed we'd come this close to that scenario. A scenario where a woman dies because she was denied a life saving medical procedure.

#46 | Posted by eberly at 2022-05-06 10:21 AM | Reply

"Seems to me that is an argument for freedom of choice"

So why don't many self-identified "pro-choicers" support equitable freedom of choice? Both parents should be able to opt out of parental servitude up until elective abortion can no longer be performed.

#47 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-06 10:58 AM | Reply

"Polygamy"

That's more than a couple.

#48 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-06 10:59 AM | Reply

"Seems to me that is an argument for freedom of choice"

So why don't many self-identified "pro-choicers" support equitable freedom of choice? Both parents should be able to opt out of parental servitude up until elective abortion can no longer be performed.

#47 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Because once the fetus is born it is now a separate person who's parents have an obligation to provide for

Prior to birth a man does not have a financial obligation

That leaves what you appear to be advocating a man having sole authority over a woman's body prior to birth in that he could force her either to have an abortion or carry the fetus to term

I hope you recognize the problems inherent to that

#49 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-06 11:14 AM | Reply

"That leaves what you appear to be advocating a man having sole authority over a woman's body prior to birth in that he could force her either to have an abortion or carry the fetus to term"

This is another one of your nonsensical straw-mans, PravdaPain. A biological father choosing to opt out of parental servitude in the first 20 weeks after conception does not "force" the woman to do anything, any more than a mother making the same choice forces the man to do anything. She is still free to make her choice, either way, but she should be 100% responsible for the outcome if she carries a child to term knowing the father did not want it. Why should it be treated any differently than a sperm donor in that case?

And before you or some other idiot accuses me of being misogynistic for holding this position, remember that doing so makes you transphobic because it assumes men don't get pregnant too. :-P

#50 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-06 11:29 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

And before you or some other idiot accuses me of being misogynistic for holding this position, remember that doing so makes you transphobic because it assumes men don't get pregnant too.

#50 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

You mean: "I know what I am but what are you?"

Christ, it's like dealing with second graders. Second graders who hate women.

#51 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-06 11:36 AM | Reply

"Again, name one. Link to that information. "

Here's two examples from a quick Google search:
www.leagle.com
www.npr.org

#52 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-06 11:38 AM | Reply

#51 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2022-05-06 11:36 AM

We already knew you were transphobic based on your past comments on this site, Zed. IIRC, it was about Chelsea Manning, although it could have been something else. So, it's not surprising you'd jump in to deflect from a criticism of transphobia.

#53 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-06 11:42 AM | Reply

This is another one of your nonsensical straw-mans, PravdaPain. A biological father choosing to opt out of parental servitude in the first 20 weeks after conception does not "force" the woman to do anything, any more than a mother making the same choice forces the man to do anything. She is still free to make her choice, either way, but she should be 100% responsible for the outcome if she carries a child to term knowing the father did not want it. Why should it be treated any differently than a sperm donor in that case?
And before you or some other idiot accuses me of being misogynistic for holding this position, remember that doing so makes you transphobic because it assumes men don't get pregnant too. :-P

#50 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

It's not a strawman at all. Parental obligations are related to the child not the mother. So, to imply "parental servitude" is the result of the woman's choice is misleading at best. The obligation is, enforced by the state, to support the living child. Your position, that a man can opt out of his legal responsibilities is absurd. The baby is a living person and the obligation exists, separate from the mother. Yes it is true that women have/had the ability to make a choice that impacted the father, but given the disparity in income, single motherhood, deadbeat dads, I have no problem with that choice having the impact it does. The alternative is prioritizing the man's wishes over the mothers-to the detriment of the child. It is simply Pro-Life to require both parents to support a child. And again, your position prioritizes man's bodily integrity over a woman's, which is more barbaric since a woman's body actually carries the fetus.

#54 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-06 11:48 AM | Reply

"she should be 100% responsible for the outcome if she carries a child to term knowing the father did not want it."

If the father didn't want a child, why did he make one?

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-06 11:56 AM | Reply

#52

The first link is blocked by my web protection. Thanks for providing the second link. It is on point, but not in any way a bullseye.

My point more directly was that no law exists where the state automatically puts financial conditions on the man from the point of conception. Utah's law requires the woman to jump through legal hoops first, the state does not carry the burden of forcing compliance, it's on the woman.

The state itself enforces any abortion ban though.

#56 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-06 12:00 PM | Reply

"It's not a strawman at all. "

Of course it is. You claimed I was "advocating a man having sole authority over a woman's body prior to birth in that he could force her either to have an abortion or carry the fetus to term" without any basis at all.

#57 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-06 12:04 PM | Reply

"It's not a strawman at all. "
Of course it is. You claimed I was "advocating a man having sole authority over a woman's body prior to birth in that he could force her either to have an abortion or carry the fetus to term" without any basis at all.

#57 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Ok fair enough, I was incomplete in my argument, but that does not refute the rest of my argument because what you are advocating is a man having sole authority over a woman's body prior to birth in that he could force her either to have an abortion or carry the fetus to term OR prioritizing a man's bodily autonomy over a woman's.

There, fixed it

#58 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-06 12:06 PM | Reply

#6 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

That's almost hilarious. So's this. theconversation.com

Who knew Islam and Satanism would be more concerned about women's rights than so called Christians?

#59 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-06 12:14 PM | Reply

Fine, if that's the route you want to go down, your argument is that white women should be able to put black men in -------. Even in cases of rape and ------.

#60 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-06 12:18 PM | Reply

#33 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Yes, and they're also incredibly rare.

" ... late-term abortions are also very rare. In 2015, more than 400,000 abortions took place in the US. Of those, just 5,597 (or 1.3%) happened on or after 21 weeks of pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The vast majority (91%) of abortions take place at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy." www.theguardian.com

Yet this is one of the bogeymen - bogeywomen? - the Christian Nationalist and Republican crowd love to use to horrify the uneducated.

#61 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-06 12:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Fine, if that's the route you want to go down, your argument is that white women should be able to put black men in -------. Even in cases of rape and ------.

#60 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

wow

you really have a diseased mind.

So, a black man rapes a white woman, and your argument is he is put in ------- for having to support the child that the woman is now forced to carry to term.

I mean, just WOW!

#62 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-06 12:25 PM | Reply

" ... late-term abortions are also very rare. In 2015, more than 400,000 abortions took place in the US. Of those, just 5,597 (or 1.3%) happened on or after 21 weeks of pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The vast majority (91%) of abortions take place at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy." www.theguardian.com
Yet this is one of the bogeymen - bogeywomen? - the Christian Nationalist and Republican crowd love to use to horrify the uneducated.

#61 | POSTED BY EL_BUSCADOR

And that 1.3% is done for 1 of 2 reasons-to save the life of the mother or to terminate a seriously abnormal fetus (you know, the type of fetus that will live in agony for a few minutes, hours or days).

And, the reason they are done so late is because the life threatening situation or severe abnormality isn't discovered until later in the pregnancy.

So, in point of fact, later term abortions are actually pro-life as is saving the life of the mother or humane to terminate an otherwise seriously abnormal fetus who's existence will be agonizing.

#63 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-06 12:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

you really have a diseased mind.

SSentinel?

The Swastika ------- white supremacist who kept calling me a f****t?

Yes. He's incredibly fkkked in the head.

#64 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-05-06 12:31 PM | Reply

"So, a white woman rapes a black man, and my argument is he is put in ------- for having to support the child that the woman chose to carry to term."

FTFY, since you can't read.

#65 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-06 01:12 PM | Reply

Fact check: Is the United States one of seven countries that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy?'

This one seemed a bit surprising, so we looked into it. And it turned out, it's backed by data.

We award the elusive Geppetto Checkmark when a factoid surprisingly turns out to be true, as in this case.

#66 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-06 01:17 PM | Reply

"So, a white woman rapes a black man, and my argument is he is put in ------- for having to support the child that the woman chose to carry to term."
FTFY, since you can't read.

#65 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Please provide links to the plague of white women raping black men that has you so concerned.

#67 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-06 01:24 PM | Reply

" Please provide links to the plague of white women raping black men that has you so concerned.

#67 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-05-06 01:24 PM | FLAG: "

Ginni and Clarence Thomas?

#68 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-06 01:27 PM | Reply

"So, a white woman rapes a black man, and my argument is he is put in ------- for having to support the child that the woman chose to carry to term."

Woman raping man notwithstanding,
How is he put in -------?

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-06 01:28 PM | Reply

"Is the United States one of seven countries that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy?"

It's not, though.

Not the entire United States.

"Currently, states can decide to ban abortions after a certain point in the pregnancy, usually 20 to 24 weeks."

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-06 01:30 PM | Reply

#63 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Absolutely. And in many cases, the aborted fetus has a lethal anomaly and will either not survive birth, or die soon after.

"Individuals also seek abortions later in pregnancy due to medical reasons. With medical advances, many genetic fetal anomalies can be detected early in pregnancy; for example, chorionic villus sampling can diagnose Down Syndrome or cystic fibrosis as earlier as 10 weeks gestation. Structural fetal anomalies, however, are often detected much later in pregnancy. As part of routine care, a fetal anatomy scan is performed around 20 weeks, which entails ultrasound imaging of all the developing organs. Many structural anomalies are discovered at this time that would not have been apparent previously. A proportion of these are lethal fetal anomalies, meaning that the fetus will almost certainly die before or shortly after birth, meaning the fetus may be nonviable.2 In these cases, many individuals wish to terminate their pregnancies, rather than carrying the pregnancy until the fetus or newborn passes away. Very often these pregnancies are desired, making this decision exceedingly difficult for parents. Inadequate data exist to know how many abortions later in pregnancy occur due to fetal anomalies, but a study by Washington University Hospital showed almost all women whose fetuses had lethal fetal anomalies chose to terminate their pregnancies." www.kff.org

#71 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-06 01:53 PM | Reply

We already knew you were transphobic based on your past comments on this site, Zed.

#53 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Just call me a pedophile, like you people do everyone else.

#72 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-06 07:16 PM | Reply

Please provide links to the plague of white women raping black men that has you so concerned.

#67 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT

It's a ------------ fantasy.

#73 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-06 07:17 PM | Reply

"Trisomy 13, also called Patau syndrome, is a chromosomal condition associated with severe intellectual disability and physical abnormalities in many parts of the body. Individuals with trisomy 13 often have heart defects, brain or spinal cord abnormalities, very small or poorly developed eyes (microphthalmia), extra fingers or toes, an opening in the lip (a cleft lip) with or without an opening in the roof of the mouth (a cleft palate), and weak muscle tone (hypotonia). Due to the presence of several life-threatening medical problems, many infants with trisomy 13 die within their first days or weeks of life. Only five percent to 10 percent of children with this condition live past their first year."

medlineplus.gov

#74 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-05-06 08:18 PM | Reply

"Trisomy 18, also called Edwards syndrome, is a chromosomal condition associated with abnormalities in many parts of the body. Individuals with trisomy 18 often have slow growth before birth (intrauterine growth retardation) and a low birth weight. Affected individuals may have heart defects and abnormalities of other organs that develop before birth. Other features of trisomy 18 include a small, abnormally shaped head; a small jaw and mouth; and clenched fists with overlapping fingers. Due to the presence of several life-threatening medical problems, many individuals with trisomy 18 die before birth or within their first month. Five to 10 percent of children with this condition live past their first year, and these children often have severe intellectual disability."

medlineplus.gov

#75 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-05-06 08:35 PM | Reply

Amazing how many pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty.

I assume it's because Jesus was a fisherman so they follow size limits. Throw that one back it's too small we'll kill it when it's bigger.

#76 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2022-05-06 08:45 PM | Reply

"Just call me a pedophile, like you people do everyone else."

It's weird that you would volunteer that information as deflection from being called out for your transphobic comments on this site.

#77 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-07 09:31 AM | Reply

#77 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Being under your skin is nowhere anyone wants to be. You can let me out any time that you want.

#78 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-07 10:45 AM | Reply

Please provide links to the plague of white women raping black men that has you so concerned.

#67 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Maybe without linking to a porn site?

#79 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-07 10:47 AM | Reply

stylemagazine.com

#80 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-07 03:11 PM | Reply

A handful of men have been raped by women, therefore abortion should be illegal!
--SSentinel

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-07 03:20 PM | Reply

pbs.twimg.com

#82 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-07 08:11 PM | Reply

A handful of men have been raped by women, therefore abortion should be illegal!
--SSentinel

Nothing wrong with waivers in the case of rape, or perhaps the morning after pill, but its only 0.08 percent of abortions.

But the prehistoric barbarian progressives argue the outlier, for the whole.

You are intellectually dishonest Snoofy.

#83 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-05-07 08:29 PM | Reply

"But the prehistoric barbarian progressives argue the outlier, for the whole."

The whole of the history of abortion is that early abortion is acceptable.

Not even Sharia Law is as strict as the GOP.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-07 08:31 PM | Reply

"You are intellectually dishonest Snoofy."

Is Snoofy still here? All this talk of personhood must be making him really jealous.

#85 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-05-07 11:01 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort