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?

I see that Agnurse also dodged the question about embryos and IVF treatment - too controversial to be seen having a go at infertile women perhaps?

Oh and a couple of interesting facts about risk -

The maternal mortality rate in the UK is 9.6 per 100,000 live births.

In 2016 there were 190,406 abortions carried out in England and Wales. There was one death.

I have a problem with IVF treatment also.

Actually, I AM classed as infertile due to PCOS. Hubby and I have rejected IVF as an option. Having children is not an impossibility for us. We are considering NaPro Technology as an alternative. But IVF and IUI are not options.

I have a 14-year-old stepdaughter from Hubby's previous marriage.

Yes but noting the loss of a pregnancy post-20 weeks as a stillbirth is not answering my question.

You said the age of viability is 20-22 weeks. I'll make it easier - give me just one baby born at 20 weeks' gestation that has survived and made it to toddlerhood (and beyond).

If anti abortionists would guarantee to support financially the life of a born child , great but they don’t. That is the rub.

Great to talk about the foetus and all that, but if a child is brought to term and is born, where are the fundies supporting that little child and mother?

There is no way somebody that thick is a nurse.

aaplog.org/induced-abortion-and-natural-cause-maternal-death/

While this is a pro-life web site, the study described was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Busy people's summary: having an abortion was associated with an increase in all-cause mortality for women afterward. This means that it's not just about looking at mortality from the procedure itself. It's looking at the risks of dying by accidents, suicide, homicide, and natural causes.

Did I ever say that men should not be made to take responsibility for their children? I never said that. In fact, I agree that men SHOULD and MUST take responsibility for any children they create.

But you said that if women want to avoid pregnancy they should abstain. Where do you stand on the fact that many Christians believe that a married woman has no right to abstain and is obliged to have sex with her husband. How do those women abstain?

Many of us pro-lifers, myself included, want to ensure that women have the opportunities that they require to ensure that they and their babies are healthy and financially stable.

You said the age of viability is 20-22 weeks. I'll make it easier - give me just one baby born at 20 weeks' gestation that has survived and made it to toddlerhood (and beyond).

Actually I can answer so agnurse can't or resorts to citing exceptional, rare cases, and I will go with a more reliable source than Wikipedia:

What are the health outcomes for extremely preterm babies?

Medical advances have helped some preterm babies survive and overcome health challenges. However, the chances that a baby born extremely early will survive without disability are still small. With very rare exceptions, babies born before 23 weeks of pregnancy do not survive. Although survival rates increase for babies born between 23 weeks and 25 weeks of pregnancy, most survivors face serious, often lifelong disabilities.
www.acog.org/Patients/FAQs/Extremely-Preterm-Birth?IsMobileSet=false

agnurse I'm sorry to hear you have fertility problems, genuinely, that must heartbreaking.

At the same time, you don't get to impose your ideology on other women. I'm sorry, you just don't.

Those women and their husbands can determine at what time they are fertile. They can make a determination as to whether a pregnancy is something they both want at that time.

A husband and wife both have perpetual rights to each other's bodies. That does not mean that either one can demand sex at any time. That means that they have a responsibility to decide together whether or not they are open to children at any given time. (This is not meant to indicate that sex is only for making babies; rather, it is meant to indicate that the unitive and procreative functions of sex cannot be divorced from each other. Consequently it is acceptable for a couple to have sex knowing that due to natural reasons, such as the woman being in an infertile period, them being naturally sterile, or them being of advanced age, pregnancy would not be possible.)

@agnurse - you’re not getting it - not every pregnancy is a wanted pregnancy. The women, and no one else is the decision makers as to whether that pregnancy continues. Hopefully the Alabama legislation will be overturned.

A husband and wife both have perpetual rights to each other's bodies.

Ah, ah. No they don't.

A husband and wife both have perpetual rights to each other's bodies.

Nope. They don't. No one has the right to another person's body.

@agnurse "Generally, if a pregnancy is lost after 20 weeks, it is considered a stillbirth."

Nope. 24 weeks. That's the point it changes. I've had to deal with the difference in funeral care and paternity leave.

Many of us pro-lifers, myself included, want to ensure that women have the opportunities that they require to ensure that they and their babies are healthy and financially stable.

What are the provisions in Alabama?
And how do you ensure mental health in a woman or a child pregnant from rape?

As a married couple they willingly give each other the right to each other's bodies. They are no longer two, but one.

Parker231

If you don't want a pregnancy, then abstinence is virtually 100% effective as an option. That's the point.

Pregnancy is not a punishment for having sex. But it is a natural consequence. What we are saying is that you do not have the right to end the life of another person simply because you don't want them.

Remember that Hitler didn't want Jews. In some Asian countries, there are literally thousands of missing girls and women. Some were aborted when it was found that the baby was female. Some were killed or abandoned by their parents. They weren't wanted either.

If you’re experiencing fertility issues, @agnurse have you considered adoption? Since you are so terribly concerned about all unloved human life out there and you believe women should be forced to give their babies up for adoption rather than terminate their pregnancy, why not take some of those abandoned babies on yourself?

Seems a bit complicated to go through some NaPro newfangled sciencey thing when there are so many unloved babies out there waiting for you to mother them.

And embryos too - spare a thought for all those embryos in IVF clinics! They are full humans just like the babies & living children after all.

You should go to your nearest IVF clinic tomorrow and ask if they have any embryos no-one has claimed and then allow your own body to house those poor abandoned mites so they can become the full humans they were meant to me. Pregnancy and birth is a small price to pay for rescuing the lives of these embryos, I’m sure you agree. It’s only 9 months of your life plus birth risks plus breastfeeding etc, no big deal, right?

It is a woman’s right to choose. End of story.

Anyone who says otherwise is a controller of women. Mostly male.

What is an abortion going to do for the rape victim? Will it erase the rape? Will it bring about justice?

Jerome Brudos was known as the Lust Killer. He murdered a number of young women in his garage. He was married and had children. When his crimes became known, did his wife have the right to kill their already-born children because she did not want a visible reminder of what her husband had done - literally in their own backyard?

As a married couple they willingly give each other the right to each other's bodies. They are no longer two, but one.

Still no, they aren't.

We have considered adoption as an option. The main thing that's stopping us is the expense involved.

The ethics of snowflake adoption are controversial.

A husband and wife both have perpetual rights to each other's bodies. That does not mean that either one can demand sex at any time.

But that's not what I asked. I'm talking about the people who believe that the man has the right to sex with his wife at any time and she has no right to abstain. I know these people exist because I have sat through sermons in church where that's what the message was. That a woman must obey her husband at all times. If he wakes you in the night to demand sex, you obey. Because that is your duty.

Unless you're a Spice Girl, please don't say two become one, it's so incredibly twee and toe curling.