“According to court documents, Celeste Burgess was in her third trimester of pregnancy when she consumed the abortion pills, making the procedure illegal as per Nebraska law.”
I think this would be illegal in almost every western country.
What would be revolting is if this wasn’t a crime. She then hid the “human remains.” I understand you’re probably pro-choice, but is this the hill you want to die on?
People like you just read the headline and reaction as if you know the whole story?
Abortion should be legal at any trimester, for any reason. No one has the right to use your body without your consent (unless Republicans succeed). Pretty sure that’s how it is in Canada.
Some people do it even years after birth, so there are always someone pushing it.
Point is that “tour right To swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”
At some point those cells become person wether that is after three months, nine months or nine years is up to debate. I think medical professionals are best equipment to advice us.
I don’t believe you will find many doctors willing to do abortion in 7th month.
You are arguing in favor of abortion when you say “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” I can’t believe you don’t see that. The principle says that we are generally free, but we don’t have the right to harm or infringe upon someone else. But, that’s exactly what’s happening when a woman is forced to give from her body to support a child. You are giving the child the right to swing their fist wherever, regardless of who it harms.
The cells are a person from the very beginning. They are a person, and it is not wrong to abort them. It’s the most compassionate way to interpret our autonomy rights. The alternative is forced incubation.
Great, so Canada got it right, and you’re obviously swinging the weight of “western nations” as if it has any relevance. What matters is what can be argued to be correct, and I’ve argued that using bodily autonomy. You’ve argued… You’re right because most western nations agree. Totally barbaric and ignorant of my argument, but that’s obvious. You completely misunderstand consent, but that’s not surprising. I was taught that consent can be withdrawn, but you imply like she has to sit there and take it if she consented originally. Bizarre view of consent you have.
No, they enacted a policy that you agree with. That doesn’t make it ‘right.’
and you’re obviously swinging the weight of “western nations” as if it has any relevance.
It does, we’re most comparable with other first world countries and specifically western countries. Pretty much in every comparable metric where we want to see how we’re doing, we compare it to first world european nations.
What matters is what can be argued to be correct
There is no ‘correct’ - just because you agree with it, doesn’t mean every single country needs to listen to you and enact policies you agree with. You have mad main character syndrome.
Believe it or, people disagree with some of your opinions, and that doesn’t make them ‘wrong’
do you actually argue why abortion should be legal or illegal.
Because that’s not my argument, that’s what you want to argue.
I’m simply stating that almost every single other western country, even ones that are much more liberal than the U.S., has laws restricting abortions in the scenario that this woman had an abortion. If the U.S. is a shithole 3rd world country because of this, those nations surely are as well.
Nebraska’s abortion policy at this time was more liberal than europes, who we offten compare our policies to.
I’m also arguing that just because you think a policy would be good, doesn’t make it ‘right’ for the other 7 billion people in the world.
You’re arguing that you don’t have to argue. You’re the same guy I’m replying to from yesterday about this very topic. I’m laughing so hard that here you are spending all your energy taking about what most western countries do or do not do, but you STILL won’t argue for or against bodily autonomy, for or against abortion. You have no argument! You just want to talk about things that are completely irrelevant, like what policy has been decided. It’s irrelevant! Argue or admit you can’t justify what you believe. This is my 3rd reply to you and you never argue or justify anything, just more invitation to meaningless conversation.
None of these countries would permit an abortion at 28 weeks, let alone let her keep the babies remains.
The article sheds no light on why she needed a late-term abortion. If something is permissible and publicly funded, chances are a person gets it done early, in a clinic, without hesitation. In case of wanting an abortion, delay is harmful, having to travel, smuggle something or fear something (or gather money) is harmful. Also note: those countries have a separate schedule for normal and exceptional conditions. Which is generally not possible in a political environment that has banned abortion (some cities in Nebraska - yes, in the US, cities can regulate abortion, very strange for me). Some examples that I know of:
Estonia:
under normal conditions, 12 weeks
under exceptional conditions, 22 weeks (risk to health, severe foetal disease, raising the child is prevented by health or sanity, the pregnant is under 15 or over 45)
Finland:
under normal conditions, 12 weeks
under exceptional conditions, 20…24 weeks (foetal abnormality gives a limit of 24 weeks)
If it was easy to get an abortion earlier in the pregnancy when she wanted one, you would have a point. But you and I both know Republicans have made it next to impossible for women to get a legal abortion before whatever cutoff time have been mandated in law, especially in a deep-red shithole like Nebraska. When Republicans keep restricting access to legal abortions, things like this are going to happen. This is entirely a policy failure.
Right because the GOP is famously known for making it easy to get an abortion, and definitely don’t defund abortion providers so that people have to drive for hours to get an abortion. I’m sure the odds are high she lives right next door to one of Nebraska’s three whole abortion clinics, you know?
I don’t know the exact scenario, only the facts presented in the article
The woman had 20 weeks to get an abortion, instead she took an abortion pill at 28 weeks and held onto the babies remains.
I’m sure during the 5 months, she could have found a day to drive and get an abortion if it was important to her.
I do believe there should be more abortion clinics available, but have you ever lived in a rural state? The 3 are in the largest cities in the state, where nearly 50% of the population lives.
Putting an abortion clinic in a town of 1,000 people doesn’t make sense for clinics. I think your disgust comes from your lack of understanding rural america.
Okay first of all the article doesn’t say “held onto the babies remains.” She plead guilty to removing or concealing human skeletal remains, which most likely means she buried it.
I’m sure during the 5 months, she could have found a day to drive and get an abortion if it was important to her.
See, that’s an assumption, not a fact presented in the article. You don’t know if she had access to a car, and public transportation in rural areas is known for being practically nonexistent. It’s possible she didn’t get an abortion sooner because she simply did not have the means to.
Putting an abortion clinic in a town of 1,000 people doesn’t make sense for clinics. I think your disgust comes from your lack of understanding rural america.
You realize places like Planned Parenthood don’t just perform abortions, right? They provide all kinds of other family planning and women’s healthcare services, which are useful for most women, not just those looking to get an abortion. It makes sense for them to be easily accessible to everyone. And GOP has been attacking Planned Parenthood for yearsspecifically to make it harder for women to get abortions. What this woman went through is exactly the sort of thing that was inevitable when the Republican party attacks women’s rights.
“According to court documents, Celeste Burgess was in her third trimester of pregnancy when she consumed the abortion pills, making the procedure illegal as per Nebraska law.”
I think this would be illegal in almost every western country.
What would be revolting is if this wasn’t a crime. She then hid the “human remains.” I understand you’re probably pro-choice, but is this the hill you want to die on?
People like you just read the headline and reaction as if you know the whole story?
Abortion should be legal at any trimester, for any reason. No one has the right to use your body without your consent (unless Republicans succeed). Pretty sure that’s how it is in Canada.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Some people do it even years after birth, so there are always someone pushing it.
Point is that “tour right To swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”
At some point those cells become person wether that is after three months, nine months or nine years is up to debate. I think medical professionals are best equipment to advice us.
I don’t believe you will find many doctors willing to do abortion in 7th month.
“(your) right To swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”
Exactly, If you care so much transplant it into your uterus.
You are arguing in favor of abortion when you say “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” I can’t believe you don’t see that. The principle says that we are generally free, but we don’t have the right to harm or infringe upon someone else. But, that’s exactly what’s happening when a woman is forced to give from her body to support a child. You are giving the child the right to swing their fist wherever, regardless of who it harms.
The cells are a person from the very beginning. They are a person, and it is not wrong to abort them. It’s the most compassionate way to interpret our autonomy rights. The alternative is forced incubation.
I disagree, but once again, almost any western nation disagrees with you.
There’s a decent argument bringing a life into this world by choice is consent.
Canada is one of the very few nations to decriminalize abortions totally.
Great, so Canada got it right, and you’re obviously swinging the weight of “western nations” as if it has any relevance. What matters is what can be argued to be correct, and I’ve argued that using bodily autonomy. You’ve argued… You’re right because most western nations agree. Totally barbaric and ignorant of my argument, but that’s obvious. You completely misunderstand consent, but that’s not surprising. I was taught that consent can be withdrawn, but you imply like she has to sit there and take it if she consented originally. Bizarre view of consent you have.
surprising really, Canada could use more citizens/a higher tax base. really, very few people in Canada, all told
No, they enacted a policy that you agree with. That doesn’t make it ‘right.’
It does, we’re most comparable with other first world countries and specifically western countries. Pretty much in every comparable metric where we want to see how we’re doing, we compare it to first world european nations.
There is no ‘correct’ - just because you agree with it, doesn’t mean every single country needs to listen to you and enact policies you agree with. You have mad main character syndrome.
Believe it or, people disagree with some of your opinions, and that doesn’t make them ‘wrong’
Removed by mod
Because that’s not my argument, that’s what you want to argue.
I’m simply stating that almost every single other western country, even ones that are much more liberal than the U.S., has laws restricting abortions in the scenario that this woman had an abortion. If the U.S. is a shithole 3rd world country because of this, those nations surely are as well.
Nebraska’s abortion policy at this time was more liberal than europes, who we offten compare our policies to.
I’m also arguing that just because you think a policy would be good, doesn’t make it ‘right’ for the other 7 billion people in the world.
You’re arguing that you don’t have to argue. You’re the same guy I’m replying to from yesterday about this very topic. I’m laughing so hard that here you are spending all your energy taking about what most western countries do or do not do, but you STILL won’t argue for or against bodily autonomy, for or against abortion. You have no argument! You just want to talk about things that are completely irrelevant, like what policy has been decided. It’s irrelevant! Argue or admit you can’t justify what you believe. This is my 3rd reply to you and you never argue or justify anything, just more invitation to meaningless conversation.
My argument is that our abortion policies tend to be in line, or more liberal than many of the western countries the left looks up to.
I’d be fine with a 12 week ban, that’s in much of western europe.
Where is your evidence that “almost every western nation disagrees with you”? Because I’ve seen many polls that say otherwise.
The fact that almost every other western democratic nation has abortion policies more restrictive than most american states.
Almost every single one has the limit under 14 weeks.
Notable exceptions: Netherlands - 24 weeks Iceland - 22 weeks Sweden - 18 weeks
None of these countries would permit an abortion at 28 weeks, let alone let her keep the babies remains.
The article sheds no light on why she needed a late-term abortion. If something is permissible and publicly funded, chances are a person gets it done early, in a clinic, without hesitation. In case of wanting an abortion, delay is harmful, having to travel, smuggle something or fear something (or gather money) is harmful. Also note: those countries have a separate schedule for normal and exceptional conditions. Which is generally not possible in a political environment that has banned abortion (some cities in Nebraska - yes, in the US, cities can regulate abortion, very strange for me). Some examples that I know of:
Estonia:
Finland:
Latvia:
You said disagree. Since when have laws been indicative of current public opinion?
The country as a whole has laws that disagree with it.
The U.S. doesn’t permit honor killings, as a country we’re against it.
In Iran, it’s legal, the country agrees with it.
It’s not that hard to understand.
deleted by creator
If it was easy to get an abortion earlier in the pregnancy when she wanted one, you would have a point. But you and I both know Republicans have made it next to impossible for women to get a legal abortion before whatever cutoff time have been mandated in law, especially in a deep-red shithole like Nebraska. When Republicans keep restricting access to legal abortions, things like this are going to happen. This is entirely a policy failure.
You gotta make a series of bold assumptions to believe her only option was to get an abortion pill at 28 weeks and hold onto the babies remains.
She had 20 weeks to get an abortion, which is more liberal than almost all progressive european countries.
Right because the GOP is famously known for making it easy to get an abortion, and definitely don’t defund abortion providers so that people have to drive for hours to get an abortion. I’m sure the odds are high she lives right next door to one of Nebraska’s three whole abortion clinics, you know?
I don’t know the exact scenario, only the facts presented in the article
The woman had 20 weeks to get an abortion, instead she took an abortion pill at 28 weeks and held onto the babies remains.
I’m sure during the 5 months, she could have found a day to drive and get an abortion if it was important to her.
I do believe there should be more abortion clinics available, but have you ever lived in a rural state? The 3 are in the largest cities in the state, where nearly 50% of the population lives.
Putting an abortion clinic in a town of 1,000 people doesn’t make sense for clinics. I think your disgust comes from your lack of understanding rural america.
Okay first of all the article doesn’t say “held onto the babies remains.” She plead guilty to removing or concealing human skeletal remains, which most likely means she buried it.
See, that’s an assumption, not a fact presented in the article. You don’t know if she had access to a car, and public transportation in rural areas is known for being practically nonexistent. It’s possible she didn’t get an abortion sooner because she simply did not have the means to.
You realize places like Planned Parenthood don’t just perform abortions, right? They provide all kinds of other family planning and women’s healthcare services, which are useful for most women, not just those looking to get an abortion. It makes sense for them to be easily accessible to everyone. And GOP has been attacking Planned Parenthood for years specifically to make it harder for women to get abortions. What this woman went through is exactly the sort of thing that was inevitable when the Republican party attacks women’s rights.
Hard dissagree. It’s wrong in Nebraska, wrong in Germany, and wrong everywhere else where the standard is some date before birth.
That’s fine, but that still makes the comment I’m responding to absurd.
'revolting that this is now a ‘crime’ - it’s almost always been a crime in almost every civilized country for the last 200+ years.
It’s not a crime in at least seven US states, and would not be prosecuted in at least 13 more because of the vague definition of viability.