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?

agnurse it's a choice it doesn't affect...Hello! The paradox of white supremacy is control white women's bodies until they secure the power they crave then deal with the other groups. You rant about abortion, but you and your ilk are silent on child poverty, children gunned down in classrooms, babies stolen from mothers and sleeping in border cages, rape, incest. You love for babies? Give us all a break!!

This is why many pro-life people, myself included, support policies that ensure that women do not need abortion. Our goal is not only to make abortion illegal, but to make it unthinkable and unnecessary. We want to remove the circumstances that lead women to believe that abortion is a good option for them.

Apologies if this question has already been posed, not RTFT, but I'd be grateful for a pro-life person's thoughts.

A woman gives birth to two conjoined twins, Mary and Jodie. The twins are linked at the pelvis with fused spines and spinal cords, and with four legs.

Jodie, the healthier of the two, has an anatomically normal brain, heart, lungs, and liver. She shares a common bladder and a common aorta with Mary. Mary is severely abnormal in three aspects: brain, heart, and lungs. She has a very poor “primitive” brain. Her heart is vastly enlarged, very dilated, and poorly functioning. There is a virtual absence of functional lung tissue. Mary is not capable of independent survival. She lives on borrowed time, all of which is borrowed from Jodie.

If they remain conjoined, the prognosis is that neither will survive infancy. If separated, Mary will die but Jodie has good prospects of living a full life.

Does Mary have a right to life (a life sustained by Jodie's organs), even if that life will be fleeting and also cause the extremely premature death of her sister?

Do you have the right to kill one person to save another if it's not an emergent situation?

Would it be ethical to kill someone in a permanent vegetative state (not brain death) to harvest their organs? I mean, after all, they aren't using them for any reasonable purpose, are they? Couldn't those organs provide a long life to another person?

I agree it's chilling and makes me really scared for the future. I hope that NI will change at some point but the idea that new places are introducing this is just awful. The idea that some-one can be raped and then be forced to continue with a pregnancy is particularly disgusting.

How can anyone vote for these swivel-eyed loons?

Is that not for the parents to decide ? For the Doctors to advice ? Is it not post-birth ?

This is why many pro-life people, myself included, support policies that ensure that women do not need abortion. Our goal is not only to make abortion illegal, but to make it unthinkable and unnecessary. We want to remove the circumstances that lead women to believe that abortion is a good option for them.

Those are admirable goals, but impossible. There will be cases of pregnancy by rape, including incest, and cases of immediate and clear danger to the mother's life, as well as cases where the baby born full term won't survive.

Moreover, unfortunately for women who have abortions for lack of contraception or inability to provide for a child, the people who voted to make abortion virtually impossible are not prepared to support those women, neither financially nor through free contraception.

Do you have the right to kill one person to save another

Yes, if the first person directly threatens the life of the second.

Your example is a fallacy.

A better example would be to kill a shooter that enters a school determined to kill the students there.
As terminating a foetus to ensure that at least the mother survives. Or choosing the mother's life over the baby's.

I think you all may like to read this.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson was a founder of NARAL.

www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/abortion/confessions-of-an-ex-abortionist.html

I think you all may like to read this.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson was a founder of NARAL.

www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/abortion/confessions-of-an-ex-abortionist.html

Do you have the right to kill one person to save another

Yes, if the first person directly threatens the life of the second.

Your example is a fallacy.

A better example would be to kill a shooter that enters a school determined to kill the students there.
As terminating a foetus to ensure that at least the mother survives. Or choosing the mother's life over the baby's.

Our goal is not only to make abortion illegal, but to make it unthinkable and unnecessary. We want to remove the circumstances that lead women to believe that abortion is a good option for them.

What are your proposals to deal with post natal depression for example? The post natal mental health problems directly related to childbirth are still with me over a decade later and have affected my career prospects and financial stability. How do you plan to make it unthinkable that a woman might suffer from PND.

I suppose you could always make PND illegal, that seems to be your answer to things ...

agnurse is a troll. He's a parasitic flea that needs to be scratched. Just ignore him.

you do realise pretty much all world religions are anti-abortion. What does that tell you?

That pretty much all world religions have some kind of anti-womens-autonomy agenda?

Our goal is not only to make abortion illegal, but to make it unthinkable and unnecessary.

We don't live in some fantasy land where the problems with an unwanted pregnancy just go away. It will never be ok to be raped and forced to stay pregnant. It will never be ok to grow up unwanted. You can't just wave a magic wand and make it all sunshine and roses.

In the real world, access to abortion is needed.

Is that not for the parents to decide ? For the Doctors to advice ? Is it not post-birth?
Assuming that was posed to me:

Obviously it was post-birth. In this particular case (it was a real one), the parents didn't want to separate the twins, but medical professionals did.

Our goal is not only to make abortion illegal, but to make it unthinkable and unnecessary.

Pure idiocy.

For as long as women have being getting pregnant women have been having abortions.

I'm quite tickled by the idea that making something illegal stops it happening.

Could we make cancer illegal? And plane crashes? I think most people could get on board with outlawing those.

This is why many pro-life people, myself included, support policies that ensure that women do not need abortion. Our goal is not only to make abortion illegal, but to make it unthinkable and unnecessary. We want to remove the circumstances that lead women to believe that abortion is a good option for them.

When you say 'many pro-life people' you're not including the government of Alabama however - as Alabama is one of the states doing everything it can to ensure students get inaccurate sex education, women find it difficult to access prenatal care and even somewhere safe to give birth, and continues to allow adoption agencies to refuse to place babies with same-sex couples. Alabama has the third highest infant mortality rate in the US. It refused to expand Medicaid, making it more difficult for women to access the care they need before and during pregnancy - unsurprisingly Alabama's maternal death rate is 2.5 times the national average. And of course Alabama is the 6th poorest state in the US, meaning that parents (women generally) are already struggling to keep their children safe, healthy and well-fed.

I think the phrase you were looking for is 'a small proportion of pro-life people'.

Our goal is not only to make abortion illegal, but to make it unthinkable and unnecessary.

Cool. I want a unicorn and a swimming pool filled with peach iced tea. It ain’t happening in reality.

You will never, not even in Fantasy Magical Lala Land where anti-choicers care about babies post-birth, remove access to abortion. All you could potentially do is remove access to safe, legal abortion. But who gives a shit if a woman ends up dead as well, right @agnurse? After all she’s just a vessel. /s

99yrs jail for a doctor performing an abortion but rapists or peodophiles can and do get no jail time. When Pat Roberson from the evangelist right says the Alabama law is too extreme you know the extremists have truly jumped the shark !

@lisalocketlostherpocket I have a friend who is a child of a rape.

I also have two friends that were raped and went on to have the children.

What you were suggesting would be deeply upsetting and damaging for them to read. It absolutely is 'not in the spirit' of Mumsnet.

My understanding of the age of viability is based on the fact that in my jurisdiction, stillbirth is defined as dead at delivery after 20 weeks.

Not in the UK it isn't. From the Office of National Statistics:

Stillbirth – the Stillbirth Definition Act 1992 changed the definition of a stillbirth from a baby being born after 28 weeks completed gestation to a baby being born after 24 weeks (which did not breathe or show any other signs of life). This means that data for 1993 onwards are not directly comparable with data for stillbirths before the introduction of the Act.

Even one of your links gave that the earliest survivor, who would have been a total outlier, was delivered at 21.4. So no baby has ever survived between 20.0 and 21.4. If your juristication treats these as stillbirths (while other juristrictions don't) yours will be reporting an exceptionally high rate of stillbirth.

Those fundamentalist states end up with more fundamentalist people, as everyone else flees to more liberal states. Including with better health care cover.

I am not in the UK.