What on earth is going on in America??

[Nanny0gg]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48275795

How can a supposedly 'civilised' society pass such a retrograde law?

And other states following suit?

A foetus and a newborn are not the same thing.

Being taken care of by somebody employed in healthcare is not using somebody else’s body.

agnurse nope, not splitting hairs. The rights a newborn baby has do not include using the body of another person to stay alive. They have no legal right to be breastfed, they have no legal right to blood or organs. Why do they have fewer rights than a foetus?

A newborn baby has the right to have food, clothing, and care.

That doesn't happen by itself. They need the body of another person to get those things.

Oh my god that is not the same as using someone else’s body! Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you actually stupid?

agnurse clothes,, food, etc. not the same. You know they are aren't the same. Why do you think foetuses should have more rights than a newborn baby? Please just answer that question. If you're so sure of your convictions it should be easy.

Actually, following an abortion you have a 7 times higher risk of suicide. You have a higher risk of breast cancer. (Ironically, pregnancy and breastfeeding lower the risk of breast cancer.) You have a higher risk of developing an incompetent cervix. This can lead to problems carrying a pregnancy in the future.

Sources please.

I note that you have still not responded to my question about providing evidence of age of viability being "20-22 weeks".

I think we should all stop feeding the troll. I’m tapping out now because I simply can’t be arsed.

agnurse taking care of a baby or another person by providing basic care isn't the same as growing a fetus inside my own body, giving birth to it, risking my life and my health.

It isn't just about pregnancy being a bit of a hassle. There are a multitude of reasons why a woman may not want to continue to be pregnant and then give birth to a child.

To downplay it as simply 9 months of pregnancy then put it up for adoption is completely disingenuous, it is not the more humane option. In fact it's brutal. More brutal than an abortion.

You're entitled to believe that life begins at conception, you're entitled to your spirituality if that's the case, you're entitled not to have an abortion yourself.

But your idealistic view and your utopia where all babies are wanted and all pregnant women are supported just isn't a reality.

I don't think they're a troll, I think they hate babies but don't want to admit it.

This is actually fascinating.

I hadn't realised the extent to which 'pro-lifers' had to tie themselves in knots and contradict themselves and twist words to justify their beliefs.

It's been quite educational.

Thanks for the update on your committed activism on pro-life issues, @agnurse. It sounds like you have spent a lot of time promoting pro-life views to women but not a lot of time helping abandoned living children who need help or supporting low income parents. I was hoping you would tell me all about your large family of foster children and how you set up your own children's home to help those whose mothers had to give them up for adoption or something. Or maybe even how you fundraised for a low income school with high numbers of children in care. Or even a food bank maybe. Oh well, I guess you're not the committed pro-life activist I thought you were.

As for sex trafficking, I hadn't though much about it before but now that you mention it, I think it's great. I have all kinds of loopy theories why it's great (preventing women from having bodily autonomy, the fact that men have a god-given right to sex without consequences - unlike nasty slutty women, amirite? - the opportunities for international travel that it presents, the list goes on) but I won't bore you with them on here. I will find an internet forum for campaigners against trafficking and go and annoy them with my off-the-wall views.

A more realistic analogy would be forcing someone to give a newborn baby one of their kidneys. That is more comparable to forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy.

@agnurse

What do you think your links show?

From the first one (ResearchGate, because your link it's just a generic abstract with no conclusions):
"Our overview of the research and of advances in the biology of breast develop‑ment show different magnitudes of breast cancer risk following a procured abortion. The independent effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk as demonstrated in epidemiological studies varies from small to large and from nonsignificant to marginally or highly significant, depending on myriad factors now known to affect these rates"

bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/5/e002803

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/The-tiniest-survivor-How-miracle-baby-born-weeks-legal-abortion-limit-clung-life-odds.html

bliminy they always do. I've asked numerous pro-forced-birthers why foetuses should have more rights but they never, ever answer. They can't, their position is inconsistent.

I think it's a clear instance of "you can lead an ass to google scholar, but you can't make the ass into a scholar," Lweji.

Still haven't had an answer as to why the ass in question wants women to die in backstreet abortions, given that that is the foreseeable and inevitable consequence of abortion bans.

Having an abortion won't usually affect your chances of becoming pregnant and having normal pregnancies in the future.
But there's a very small risk to your fertility and future pregnancies if you develop a womb infection that isn't treated promptly. The infection could spread to your fallopian tubes and ovaries, known as pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).
www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/womens-health/can-having-an-abortion-affect-my-fertility/

That daily mail link doesn't back up your point at all.

The vote was won 26-5. ALL senators who voted in favour were white men.

There are only four female senators, all of whom voted against the bill.

THIS is why we need to keep fighting for women’s rights. Until we have equal representation in parliament and on boards of big companies, our rights will not be adequately protected and fought for.

Again, not sure what you think those links are supposed to show.

BMJ:
"In this large nationwide cohort study, we found a positive association between surgical termination of pregnancy and subsequent preterm delivery, cervical incompetence treated by cerclage, placental implantation or retention problems and postpartum haemorrhage in a subsequent pregnancy. Absolute risks for these outcomes, however, remain small. Medicinal termination might be considered first whenever there is a choice between both methods."

Access to legal termination will reduce the time at which terminations are carried out, and therefore allow more medical instead of surgical procedures, as well as increase the safety of those terminations.

In the study it specifically states that absolute risks remain small. Plus the study was conducted in the Netherlands. Findings in the UK, or any other country, could well vary, due to the availability of services and the types of procedures being carried out.

And the DM story you've linked to is about Amillia Taylor - the example I used earlier. Who was born at 23w6d. You said the age of viability was 20-22 weeks.

So I'll ask again, please provide a source for a baby born prior to 22 weeks' gestation that survived. Given that you are a nurse and a committed pro-life campaigner I'm puzzled as to why you are struggling to back up your statement.

Sorry 21w6d not 23. However, the question still stands; details of a baby born prior to that point of gestation who has survived.

I agree Fermats no abortion ban has ever ended abortions, it's just brought about unsafe, unsupervised ones. But pro-lifers would rather risk killing a woman and a fetus than allow a choice.

It would be interesting to see a pro-life group debate with an environmental group, since environmentally forcing large numbers of women to go through with unplanned pregnancy would be a disaster for the planet. So from an environmentalist perspective being pro-life and that pro-life position being adopted on a large and/or global scale would hasten the end of all life. Especially as some on this thread are also against decent forms of contraception.

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/20/give-up-having-children-couples-save-planet-climate-crisis

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth#Notable_cases

Generally, if a pregnancy is lost after 20 weeks, it is considered a stillbirth. The protocol for reporting a stillbirth is different from the protocol for a miscarriage. A stillbirth must be reported to vital statistics and usually proper disposition of the remains is required (i.e. burial or cremation).