Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TamerVirus]

Has the EU approved it? I was hoping they wouldn't

The EU gave the thumbs up in May

[EuchreJack]

https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/11/23790923/facebook-meta-woman-daughter-guilty-abortion-nebraska-messenger-encryption-privacy

Someone's going to jail for refusing to have a baby.

[TD1]

https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/11/23790923/facebook-meta-woman-daughter-guilty-abortion-nebraska-messenger-encryption-privacy

Someone's going to jail for refusing to have a baby.

Dear God man, by your implied sympathy I can only assume you didn't look into this. It is repulsive in the most extreme.

'The charges include having an abortion after 20 weeks, false reporting, and tampering with human skeletal remains.'

The mother-to-be was 17, and the granny-to-be acquired the pills for her. They burned the body and buried it in a field.

These charges, by the way, apply to the granny-to-be. The mother, Celeste 'now 18, was charged as an adult and pleaded guilty in May to removing, concealing or abandoning a dead body. She is scheduled to be sentenced on 20 July. She faces up to two years in prison.'

In other words, she doesn't appear to be convicted of abortion so much as hiding the burned corpse of her child.

Beyond that, she was 29 weeks pregnant.

A foetus at that stage has a working heart, brain, limbs, etc. It can hear and react to noises outside the womb. For Christ's sake, it's only two months before birth.


To sum what you seem to assume is a tear-jerk story of woman vs impersonal machine:
The mother-to-be is (potentially) going to jail for hiding a body.
Her mother is (potentially and rightfully) going to jail for encouraging/supplying the means for an abortion, lying, and hiding a body.

On top of this, the abortion came at 29 weeks. That's.... abhorrent.

The earliest a baby has been born and survived is 21 weeks and 5 days.

[hector13]

That final line is the reason places that allow abortions tend to have a limit of ~20-24 weeks to have it without restriction, and with conditions after that point.

[Rolan7]

Don't worry, father-to-be.  We have the technology for you to volunteer yourself to carry as many fetuses as you want!  You can even call them babies if you prefer.  Not in any real sense, but clearly it's important to you.

Currently it's not an option for people assigned male at birth, for some reason, but there are no physical barriers.  In the meantime I suppose you could donate some organs.  People are dying every day specifically because you haven't done so- humans who can "hear and react to noises" and even love and have conversations!

I'm not saying you should be compelled to donate, that would be inhuman of me.  Truly abhorrent.  A total breach of your bodily autonomy.
But if you feel so strongly...

[Loud Whispers]

To sum what you seem to assume is a tear-jerk story of woman vs impersonal machine:
The mother-to-be is (potentially) going to jail for hiding a body.
Her mother is (potentially and rightfully) going to jail for encouraging/supplying the means for an abortion, lying, and hiding a body.

On top of this, the abortion came at 29 weeks. That's.... abhorrent.

The earliest a baby has been born and survived is 21 weeks and 5 days.

29 weeks? At that point it becomes a more serious matter, as especially after the burning of the body it becomes impossible to verify thereafter whether a live birth had taken place or not. And regardless of the legal/moral implications, if you must terminate the fetus in the 29th week, ensuring fetal death before termination is only right; it's the least you can do for the fetus to offer palliative or as proper an end possible. Facebook is still fucked and it's a nightmare surveillance state we live in, but this is something else

[King Zultan]

I don't see why it's bad to abort babies, I think people should do it more often.

[TD1]

Don't worry, father-to-be.  We have the technology for you to volunteer yourself to carry as many fetuses as you want!  You can even call them babies if you prefer.  Not in any real sense, but clearly it's important to you.

Currently it's not an option for people assigned male at birth, for some reason, but there are no physical barriers.  In the meantime I suppose you could donate some organs.  People are dying every day specifically because you haven't done so- humans who can "hear and react to noises" and even love and have conversations!

I'm not saying you should be compelled to donate, that would be inhuman of me.  Truly abhorrent.  A total breach of your bodily autonomy.
But if you feel so strongly...

I'm going to be frank, Rolan. My initial reaction to your post was 'Oh, fuck off.' Your tone was disrespectful and intended to incite. Congratulations, it worked.

My more reasoned and collected response is this  -  you're making a transparent reductio ad absurdum. We're not talking about preserving imperiled life, we're talking about preventing life from being imperiled. By the 29th week there are two lives to consider, even if, as LW notes, it is only to provide palliative care.

[dragdeler]

Don't you think people who reeaally want a kid and can afford to sink as many ressources as they want will keep pushing the record for viable after least duration of pregnancy? If one day rich women start to outsource the peoblem as to not ruin their figure, and we are having the ovussesses broodoodeded routinely after 2-3 weeks, will that then become the standard?

I think they were kinda based in antiquity in those regards. Don't like the face? Rejected after birth, better luck next time.

[Loud Whispers]

Don't you think people who reeaally want a kid and can afford to sink as many ressources as they want will keep pushing the record for viable after least duration of pregnancy? If one day rich women start to outsource the peoblem as to not ruin their figure, and we are having the ovussesses broodoodeded routinely after 2-3 weeks, will that then become the standard?

I think they were kinda based in antiquity in those regards. Don't like the face? Rejected after birth, better luck next time.

Football punting babies off of mountains is sadly an anti-Spartan propaganda dreamed up by conniving Delians

[dragdeler]

No I was not referring to that hole in specific, nor the spartans in specific. But to fail to see the nuance between litterrally throwing it in a pit, and leaving it somewhere, is kind of poetic symbolism.


Yeah I bet they football punting them while the mothers cheered on -.-

[TD1]

Hmmm, I believe they did it culturally in Scandinavia. More 'can't afford to feed this child? Too much a girl? Leave it outside.'

The catholic church permitted it depending on whether the child was baptised/had a name.

If it had a name, then there was a possibility the dead child would return to haunt those who abandoned it.

[Rolan7]

I'm going to be frank, Rolan. My initial reaction to your post was 'Oh, fuck off.' Your tone was disrespectful and intended to incite. Congratulations, it worked.

My more reasoned and collected response is this  -  you're making a transparent reductio ad absurdum. We're not talking about preserving imperiled life, we're talking about preventing life from being imperiled. By the 29th week there are two lives to consider, even if, as LW notes, it is only to provide palliative care.

Back atcha, dude.  You can take that "grandmother-to-be" shit and keep it to yourself.

The point of the analogy is that if this was about lives, there's *plenty* you could do.  But you don't, because it isn't about lives.  I can only infer your honest opinion, but I think it's pretty obvious from your hardly-restrained contempt.

I don't care what you convince yourself she "deserves", or what you think is "natural".  She's a human being and you have no right to force her to do anything.  No more than we have the right to force you to save lives.

Even if you actually think the fetus is "a life", hell, you can even think it's a full human being in there... so what?  YOU won't sacrifice jack to save a life, why should she be forced to?  Withholding the use of one's body is NOT murder.

And if the fetus WAS viable that far ahead of schedule, well, I'd place that death on the system which doesn't give pregnant people a choice in the use of their body.  She could have had the baby removed and everyone would be happy.  But she couldn't do that, could she?  Because of laws you're supporting.  This is the fault of YOUR position.

[dragdeler]

What makes me really angry: do we call people who starve victims of murder? No that's over the top! The callousness is a feature not a bug. But then when it gets to antagonising pregnant people suddenly the civil courage boileth over, when the only possible outcome of this discourse is to lower medical care for women. For a fucking blob that's less functional than a two weeeks old kitten, less motherfucking functional than an 8 hour old foal. For a fucking blob so incredibly dependant on it's mother that you will inevitably hurt it too some way down the road, if you hurt the mothers. So what really rubs me the wrong way is that this discourse is allways draped as rational, just because those words make up an internally coherent argument... Bitch if I've ever seen an argument that's entirely hormonal, this is the one, despite how you manage to make yourself sound.

[Loud Whispers]

Everyone please amplify their relaxed states; no one here should be placing moral judgements about how likely someone is to care about life. We do not need to devolve to the babykillers vs moral hypocrites when we all know each other are not that -_-