Current Events > "Pro-lifers are fascist! Get out of my uterus!"

(+) Yeah! (+)

hockeybub89 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

That's sad. What do you do in this situation? Let it be born, but have it put up for adoption, or kill it?

Let her decide.

She is not mentally capable.

We don't actually know that. People can have mood disorders and learning disorders and still be capable of giving consent. In fact, they aren't questioning her ability to give consent in a general sense, they're specifically arguing she doesn't understand the ramifications of this decision in particular. From what I can tell at least. I didn't dig that much into it though
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

GamerJoker posted...

How could someone post this.

Good ol' caution club.

Goatthief is an underrated person for giving us this goldmine. People give him too much shit for no reason.

goatthief wasn't the person who did that

I'm all pro choice. Women should have autonomy over their bodies, and whether a pregnancy ought to be terminated. A court deciding for a woman that she doesn't get to have her child is a gross overstepping of boundaries.
---

kingdrake2 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

That's sad. What do you do in this situation? Let it be born, but have it put up for adoption, or kill it?

Let her decide.

She is not mentally capable.

we're all mentally capable.

Unless we're children or mentally disabled
---

Its a tragic and complicated case that has absolutely nothing to do with the pro-choice movement.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

kingdrake2 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

That's sad. What do you do in this situation? Let it be born, but have it put up for adoption, or kill it?

Let her decide.

She is not mentally capable.

we're all mentally capable.

Unless we're children or mentally disabled

Except in cases of sexuality/gender.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

kingdrake2 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

That's sad. What do you do in this situation? Let it be born, but have it put up for adoption, or kill it?

Let her decide.

She is not mentally capable.

we're all mentally capable.

Unless we're children or mentally disabled

There are states without laws requiring parental notification or consent for abortions in the U.S. I don't think any where in the U.S. allows your parents to force you into aborting, though.
---

Pukelid posted...

kingdrake2 posted...

we're all mentally capable.

This isn't the time. You should respectfully stay out of serious discussions

not this time. some bastard from brazil said the same damn thing i bet you're from brazil and i politely say to you to stfu.
---

I think this is a more interesting spin on the my body my choice thing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/nyregion/surrogate-pregnancy-law-ny.html

The proposal to legalize surrogacy in New York was presented as an unequivocal progressive ideal, a remedy to a ban that burdens gay and infertile couples and stigmatizes women who cannot have children on their own.

And yet, as the State Legislature hurtles toward the end of its first Democrat-led session in nearly a decade, the bills success is anything but certain.

Long-serving female lawmakers have spoken out against it. Prominent feminists, including Gloria Steinem, have denounced it. Womens rights scholars have argued that paid surrogacy turns womens bodies into commodities and is coercive to poor women given the sizable payments it can bring.

With just one week remaining in this years legislative session, what supporters have presented as an obvious move 47 other states permit surrogacy has turned into an emotional debate about womens and gay rights, bodily autonomy and New Yorks reputation as a progressive leader...
---

SageHarpuia comes from out of hiding to shitpost about abortion? Sounds about right.
---

s0nicfan posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

kingdrake2 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

That's sad. What do you do in this situation? Let it be born, but have it put up for adoption, or kill it?

Let her decide.

She is not mentally capable.

we're all mentally capable.

Unless we're children or mentally disabled

Except in cases of sexuality/gender.

This is not the topic to proudly announce you don't know how transition works.
---

Huh. Didn't even notice that OP posted a Breitbart link. The situation is much more complicated than they reported on. They need to find out who raped the woman and impregnated her.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

kingdrake2 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

That's sad. What do you do in this situation? Let it be born, but have it put up for adoption, or kill it?

Let her decide.

She is not mentally capable.

we're all mentally capable.

Unless we're children or mentally disabled

Except in cases of sexuality/gender.

This is not the topic to proudly announce you don't know how transition works.

I'm well aware there's years of therapy between a child announcing they're a different gender and potential surgery/hormones. That doesn't change the fact that we're expected to take the child's declaration at face value here but not in other instances. The point is that "mental capacity" is a complicated subject and that if the judge's argument here is that she isn't capable of understanding the consequences of her actions because she has the mental age of a child, that said line of reasoning should also be sound when applied to other problems.
---

Balrog0 posted...

I think this is a more interesting spin on the my body my choice thing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/nyregion/surrogate-pregnancy-law-ny.html

The proposal to legalize surrogacy in New York was presented as an unequivocal progressive ideal, a remedy to a ban that burdens gay and infertile couples and stigmatizes women who cannot have children on their own.

And yet, as the State Legislature hurtles toward the end of its first Democrat-led session in nearly a decade, the bills success is anything but certain.

Long-serving female lawmakers have spoken out against it. Prominent feminists, including Gloria Steinem, have denounced it. Womens rights scholars have argued that paid surrogacy turns womens bodies into commodities and is coercive to poor women given the sizable payments it can bring.

With just one week remaining in this years legislative session, what supporters have presented as an obvious move 47 other states permit surrogacy has turned into an emotional debate about womens and gay rights, bodily autonomy and New Yorks reputation as a progressive leader...

This whole debate is incredibly interesting but Ive found it really hard to take any position on it.
---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

This whole debate is incredibly interesting but Ive found it really hard to take any position on it.

Honestly I think the problem is that complicated issues like these will never have a "one size fits all" solution, and any attempt to codify one into a rule that can be summarized in a paragraph just come off feeling... incomplete. The important thing is for people to recognize (like you already have) that it isn't a black-and-white, right-vs-wrong situation so that everyone can find a nuanced way to deal with these kids of issues.
---

ofc a topic this dumb gets to the seventh page.
---

Goats posted...

ofc a topic this dumb gets to the seventh page.

this topic isn't nearly as dumb as ten posts per page
---

Does Breitbart still have a 'Black Crime' section?
---

Imagine posting a link to a white supremacy site and expecting people to take you seriously
---

This would not fly in the US. We actually had a case very similar to this last week. Patient with moderate intellectual disability and bipolar type 1 with episodes of psychosis. The patient and her mother wanted the pregnancy, huge evaluation and a bunch of multidisciplinary team meetings, and ultimately they seemed the pt and her mother fit to rear the child.

Its absolutely repugnant that a UK physician and ethics committee feel as if their decision supersedes that of the patient and her mother, simply because of intellectual impairment.
---

So reading the actual real article not posted by a fake news site, seems like its perfectly reasonable that this decision was made.

Indications are that the potential would be unfit to parent the child due to her mental stage and would potentially pose a danger to the child and though her mother wanted to take care of the child, it seems doubtful she would comply with a court order regarding the child's actual mother's relationship with it. Meaning if an abortion wasn't performed in all likelihood the state would have to take custody of the child.

Seems to me like the only way you could possibly have an issue with this is if you have some insane belief that the state can never intervene and order mentally incapacitated people to take actions that are counter to ones they'd want to take which might cause danger to themselves or others.

And of course nobody actually believes such nonsense.

But then again, there is nothing in this world with less morality and integrity than a pro-life position.
---

DeadBankerDream posted...

So reading the actual real article not posted by a fake news site, seems like its perfectly reasonable that this decision was made.

Indications are that the potential would be unfit to parent the child due to her mental stage and would potentially pose a danger to the child and though her mother wanted to take care of the child, it seems doubtful she would comply with a court order regarding the child's actual mother's relationship with it. Meaning if an abortion wasn't performed in all likelihood the state would have to take custody of the child.

Seems to me like the only way you could possibly have an issue with this is if you have some insane belief that the state can never intervene and order mentally incapacitated people to take actions that are counter to ones they'd want to take which might cause danger to themselves or others.

And of course nobody actually believes such nonsense.

But then again, there is nothing in this world with less morality and integrity than a pro-life position.

Over here stateside, this would be a decision that providers would have to respect assuming the patient has some understanding of the situation, has been consented about risks/benefits/alternatives, and shows evidence of some decision making capacity.

Interesting article:
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/sites/journalofethics.ama-assn.org/files/2018-06/joe-1604.pdf
---

DeadBankerDream posted...

Meaning if an abortion wasn't performed in all likelihood the state would have to take custody of the child.

Seems to me like the only way you could possibly have an issue with this is if you have some insane belief that the state can never intervene and order mentally incapacitated people to take actions that are counter to ones they'd want to take which might cause danger to themselves or others.

And of course nobody actually believes such nonsense.

The number of things I think the state should be allowed to dictate to people with mental challenges is pretty small, and especially when the exact nature of those incapacities aren't known. What I read cites an unnamed "social worker' advocating on her behalf, and it obviously required a whole hearing to determine, so it's not like it's uncontroversial.
---

Its funny how TC hasnt been able to defend this stance as having anything to do with the pro-choice movement. Almost like he wasnt trying to be honest or something.
---

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Its funny how TC hasnt been able to defend this stance as having anything to do with the pro-choice movement. Almost like he wasnt trying to be honest or something.

Caution Clubber being disingenuous this is the newest thing to happen since Reddit.
---

MrPeppers posted...

DeadBankerDream posted...

So reading the actual real article not posted by a fake news site, seems like its perfectly reasonable that this decision was made.

Indications are that the potential would be unfit to parent the child due to her mental stage and would potentially pose a danger to the child and though her mother wanted to take care of the child, it seems doubtful she would comply with a court order regarding the child's actual mother's relationship with it. Meaning if an abortion wasn't performed in all likelihood the state would have to take custody of the child.

Seems to me like the only way you could possibly have an issue with this is if you have some insane belief that the state can never intervene and order mentally incapacitated people to take actions that are counter to ones they'd want to take which might cause danger to themselves or others.

And of course nobody actually believes such nonsense.

But then again, there is nothing in this world with less morality and integrity than a pro-life position.

Over here stateside, this would be a decision that providers would have to respect assuming the patient has some understanding of the situation, has been consented about risks/benefits/alternatives, and shows evidence of some decision making capacity.

Who would even have standing to recommend someone who doesn't want an abortion go get one in the US? In this case it was an NHS trust that oversees the woman's care. I don't think health care providers have that kind of authority here, do they?
---

Balrog0 posted...

MrPeppers posted...

DeadBankerDream posted...

So reading the actual real article not posted by a fake news site, seems like its perfectly reasonable that this decision was made.

Indications are that the potential would be unfit to parent the child due to her mental stage and would potentially pose a danger to the child and though her mother wanted to take care of the child, it seems doubtful she would comply with a court order regarding the child's actual mother's relationship with it. Meaning if an abortion wasn't performed in all likelihood the state would have to take custody of the child.

Seems to me like the only way you could possibly have an issue with this is if you have some insane belief that the state can never intervene and order mentally incapacitated people to take actions that are counter to ones they'd want to take which might cause danger to themselves or others.

And of course nobody actually believes such nonsense.

But then again, there is nothing in this world with less morality and integrity than a pro-life position.

Over here stateside, this would be a decision that providers would have to respect assuming the patient has some understanding of the situation, has been consented about risks/benefits/alternatives, and shows evidence of some decision making capacity.

Who would even have standing to recommend someone who doesn't want an abortion go get one in the US? In this case it was an NHS trust that oversees the woman's care. I don't think health care providers have that kind of authority here, do they?

Not unless the pregnancy poses a risk to the patients life or some other extreme circumstance. Profound intellectual disability may be one of those circumstances, but not moderate.

I edited a previous post with an article, Ill post it again here in case it gets lost in the sea of posts.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/sites/journalofethics.ama-assn.org/files/2018-06/joe-1604.pdf
---

SageHarpuia posted...

DarkRoast posted...

And so Breitbart spins...

"B-b-but breitbaaaaaart!!1!1"

I hope you don't complain about CNN.

King_Hellebuyck posted...

Haha, right. I forgot all about this.
---