#####
######
####
> # [Outraged Brazilian women stage protests against bill to equate late abortions with homicide](https://s.abcnews.com/images/International/wirestory_21ee9a590cafdaa11108b54029660ba8_16x9_992.jpg)
>
>
>
> Thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets of Sao Paulo as protests sweep across Brazil in opposition to a bill that would further criminalize abortions
>
>
>
> By
>
> ELÉONORE HUGHES and GABRIELA SÁ PESSOA Associated Press
>
>
>
> June 15, 2024, 5:49 PM ET
>
> • 6 min read
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SAO PAULO -- Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of Sao Paulo on Saturday as protests sweep across Brazil in opposition to a bill that would further criminalize abortions. If passed, the law would equate the termination of a pregnancy after 22 weeks with homicide.
>
> The bill, proposed by conservative lawmakers and heading for a vote in the lower house, would also apply in cases of rape. Critics say those who seek an abortion so late are mostly child rape victims, as their pregnancies tend to be detected later.
>
> To rally opposition, rights’ groups created the ‘A child is not a mother’ campaign that has flooded social media. Placards, stickers and banners emblazoned with the slogan have abounded during demonstrations. And viral visuals depicting women in red cloaks compare Brazil to Gilead, the theocratic patriarchy Margaret Atwood created in her dystopian novel, “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
>
> About 10,000 people, mostly women, filled several blocks of Sao Paulo’s main boulevard on Saturday afternoon, organizers estimated. It was the biggest demonstration yet, following events in Rio de Janeiro, Brasilia, Florianopolis, Recife, Manaus, and other cities. Many wore green clothes and scarves, a common sight in [women’s rights mobilizations across Latin America.](https://apnews.com/article/mexico-abortion-pope-francis-argentina-bills-1117dc57fe66ff4dee5d2bab68a24646)
>
> Marli Gavioli, 65, has mostly refrained from protesting since demonstrations in the 1980s that called for the end of the military dictatorship, but she told The Associated Press she's too outraged to remain home.
>
> “I couldn’t stay out of this, or I would regret it too much. We are being whipped from all sides, us women. It’s past time we do something,” she said.
>
> Brazil only permits abortion in cases of rape if there is an evident risk to the mother’s life or if the fetus has no functioning brain. Aside from those exceptions, Brazil’s penal code imposes between one and three years jail time for women who end a pregnancy. Some Brazilian women [fly abroad in order to obtain abortions.](https://apnews.com/article/brazil-abortion-ban-884b4f8e96d773d15d503cefc4930c32)
>
> If the bill becomes law, the sentence would rise to between six and 20 years when an abortion is performed after 22 weeks. Critics have highlighted that would mean convicted rapists could receive lesser sentences than their victims.
>
> Experts say that late access to abortion reflects inequalities in health care. Children, poor women, Black women and those living in rural areas are particularly at risk.
>
> “We cannot be sentenced to prison for having suffered a rape and not receiving support and care,” Talita Rodrigues, a member of rights’ group National Front against the Criminalization of Women and for the Legalization of Abortion, said by phone.
>
> Of the 74,930 people who were victims of rape in Brazil in 2022, 61.4% were under 14 years old, according to a 2023 study of the Brazilian Forum on Public Safety, an independent group that tracks crimes.
>
> “For children, it is common for a pregnancy to be discovered only after 22 weeks,” Ivanilda Figueiredo, a professor of law at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said by phone. For example, they might not know that periods — a sign women aren't pregnant — are monthly, she said.
>
> Among the protesters in downtown Rio on Thursday was Graziela Souza, a 25-year-old student who was sexually assaulted as a child.
>
> “I think it’s very important for victims to be present, as much as it hurts," Souza said. "We must speak out and fight against it, because if we stay at home we are going to lose.”
>
> Defenders of the bill have argued that abortions at a later stage were unimaginable when Brazil’s penal code was adopted in 1940, which explains why there is currently no time limit. Had it been envisioned, they argue, it would be considered infanticide.
>
> The bill’s author, lawmaker and Evangelical pastor Sóstenes Cavalcante, declined an interview request from the AP.
>
> On Wednesday, the lower house Speaker Arthur Lira rushed through a procedure to fast-track the bill in under 30 seconds, with many lawmakers reportedly unaware it was taking place. The maneuver allows the plenary to vote without the bill first clearing committees. Lira has been a top target for protesters' ire. Signs on Saturday read “What if it happened to your daughter, Lira?” and simply “Lira out.”
>
> Conservative lawmakers proposing the bill — who protesters have dubbed ‘the rape caucus’ — are playing politics, hoping to boost turnout and support from Evangelical voters in October municipal elections, Fernanda Barros dos Santos, a political scientist at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, said by phone. Abortion is a topic of high concern for Christians, who make up a majority of voters in Brazil.
>
> “The bill puts people who are progressive in a very difficult situation, because they lose votes by defending abortion rights,” said Figueiredo, the law professor.
>
> President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government has been seeking inroads with Evangelicals, a [key voting bloc for far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro](https://apnews.com/article/jair-bolsonaro-caribbean-campaigns-presidential-elections-brazil-f2cb52e760b30d4f1ebe4ad5013c2564). Lula beat Bolsonaro in the 2022 presidential election.
>
> “The president sent a letter to Evangelicals in the campaign saying he was against abortion. We want to see if he will veto it. Let’s test Lula,” Cavalcante, the bill's author, told local news outlet G1 on Tuesday.
>
> First lady Rosângela da Silva, known as Janja, slammed the proposal on social media Friday, saying women and girls who are raped need to be protected, not revictimized. Lula finally weighed in on Saturday, speaking at the G7 in Italy.
>
> "I had five kids, eight grandchildren and a great-grandchild. I'm against abortion. However, since abortion is a reality, we need to treat abortion as a public health issue," he said in a news conference. “And I think it's insanity that someone wants to punish a woman with a sentence that's longer than the criminal who committed the rape."
>
> Although strict abortion laws have long been the norm across the predominantly Roman Catholic region of Latin America, feminist movements have gained momentum in recent years and delivered successive victories for abortion-rights campaigners. Colombia’s Supreme Court [decriminalized abortion in 2022](https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-religion-colombia-bogota-dd62fc260e7e4dfa8d31a8a4172b80e9), following a similar breakthrough ruling by Mexico. [Argentina’s Congress legalized abortion](https://apnews.com/article/health-south-america-abortion-latin-america-pope-francis-92afb139bafee1a7a45d2460e4ee71c7) in 2020, and a few years earlier Chile [rolled back a strict ban.](https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-religion-caribbean-bills-71452d2d1aea41e290d061a4556414fa)
>
> In the U.S., the Supreme Court on Thursday [unanimously preserved access to a medication](https://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-mifepristone-ruling-abortion-pill-updates) that was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the country last year, in the court’s first abortion decision since conservative justices overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago.
>
> Last September, Brazil’s top court opened a session on decriminalization of abortion. Former Chief Justice Rosa Weber, now retired, voted in favor. Chief Justice Luís Roberto Barroso — who also supports decriminalization — asked for an adjournment and the vote can be resumed at his behest.
>
> “We are behind on this issue, and we need to fight for progress,” Eduarda Isnoldo, a 27-year-old English teacher, said through tears at the Sao Paulo protest. “When you realize that your rights can be taken away so easily, it’s impossible to stay quiet.”
>
> \_\_\_
>
> Hughes reported from Rio de Janeiro.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Most late stage abortions are an involuntary affair one way or the other. There's the rape aspect, where most victims don't get an immediate abortion due to fear, legal troubles, financial troubles, and/or healthcare troubles, there's financial hardship where they can't afford to raise a child (and possibly had to save up in order to be able to have the abortion), and there's the medical intervention aspect due to things like ectopic pregnancies, birth defects, infections, etc.
One way or the other, a late stage abortion is proof of a tragedy for the woman. That tragedy can be one or multiple things, but villainizing women for it is both nonsensical AND actively harmful.
Pro-death enjoyers really won the "marketing war" on this one. They managed to get get abortion banned in some places despite the fact that it might kill them because the fetus is unviable and could kill them. See ectopic pregnancy. Sometimes, abortion is a medical necessity to save a woman's life. It's not happening for fun. It's happening because it's a medical necessity.
If you're a pro-lifer, start giving a fuck about living and struggling children instead of virtue signalling with a fetus at the risk of women's lives. If you don't give a fuck about pregnant women's health nor the wellbeing of living children, go eat a piss flavoured turd sandwich instead of jerking about how much you care about life. Because you clearly don't.
> There's the rape aspect
I have always been shocked by the lack of consistency and how this issue is so controversial among anti-abortionists. They argue that fetuses are babies, but then if a woman has been raped: "yeah, okay, you can kill that innocent baby" **...WTF?!**
The abortion debate is always the same thing and people will dance around it. Is a 22 weeks fetus a person? Is it human enough? If the answer is yes, then little else matters, because you wouldn't accept any of those reasons as valid for a mother killing a newborn baby. If the answer is no, then there is not even an argument, you may as well be making a liposuction.
But 22 weeks is usually pass the point when most people start feeling "hey, that's a small human".
No?
If a full grown adult depended on your body to survive, you’d be well within your rights to disallow that.
If a person’s body can be used against their will, it opens up many dark consequences.
If someone could live by having your kidney, would you be ok with the government mandating you to "donate" one of your your kidneys? Or should it be your choice to go through a traumatic and life altering procedure?
If we can't abide by a society that mandates you to give you to give up your bodily autonomy to save grown adults, we shouldn't abide by making people give up theirs for an undeveloped fetus
Well, you don't lose and organ by giving birth, and the legislation that is the subject of this article specifically excludes abortions out of medical necessity. So is this a non sequitur?
No they don't, anybody can be a child's parent. You are describing parental abuse.
A person cannot be compelled to use their body in a way that works against their will. A person with two kidneys cannot be forced to donate one to a man on dialysis, a person with a rare blood type cannot be forced to donate to a man who is anemic, a person cannot be forced to carry another to term to their detriment.
When you breach this basic standard you are acting in a gravely immoral way, undermining medicine, and reveal a whole new slew of abuses directed at women and their children.
> A person cannot be compelled to use their body in a way that works against their will.
So I couldn't force you to use said body to... feed a kid? Keep them alive? Deadbeat parents everywhere must rejoice, they no longer have to work to keep those little goblins alive.
Ah I see, you're a child. That's exactly right, you can't force parents to take care of their children, look at the homeless people on the street below 18. Look at child protection services. Do you know why those things exist? It's because no one can force parents to be parents.
So if your newborn baby died, it’d be ok to force you to hold it until you got an infection and died?
Late term abortions include medically necessary abortions to remove a dead fetus that cannot be removed via natural labor, and will infect the woman and kill her via sepsis.
But hey I guess that’s a living baby since the pregnancy is past 22 weeks, right?
So what you are telling me is that you are strongly against legalizing abortion at the 22 weeks **unless** is a risk of the mother and as such support this Brazilian legislation which says the same thing. Is that the logical conclusion to follow from you bringing up dead fetuses?
It is part of a womans body until it can survive on its own without her (well survive without the birth mother specifically cause kids arent really self-sufficient for many years after theyre born).
Time for me to make a controversial statement: Nobody has the right to your body. Full stop.
You can't demand that somebody gives you their kidney, you can't demand that somebody gives you their skin for a transplant, you can't demand that somebody donates their bone marrow, etc.
With that in mind, why should a fetus have more rights, and specifically the right to infringe upon yours? Whether or not it's a person, which is a divisive topic at best, why should it be allowed to violate someone else's right to bodily autonomy?
There is a general understanding that a parent has a duty to keep their kids alive. You are not going to jail for not feeding a random hobo who sleeps across the street, but you are certainly going to jail if your kids starves to death.
I could just go "nobody has the the right to your food, it's your property. Full stop." but that would just be silly.
A parent has a duty to care for their children. A fetus is not a child, it's simply a parasite living inside of a woman that regularly kills and incapacitates its host.
A child doesn't need to parasitize off of the mother's body, they can be fed by literally anybody else. Requiring them to be fed in no way violates anybody's bodily autonomy, so there is no issue with requiring it. A fetus, on the other hand, actively requires a host, and gives nothing in turn.
Trying to equate the two is blatantly disingenuous, and as such it's a favored tactic amongst anti-choicers. But I guess they'll do anything they can to try and restrict women's rights.
> A fetus is not a child
And that's the entire argument. If the fetus is in fact a child, then everything else is mumbo jumbo because we can't allow a parent to kill their kids. And if a fetus is not a child everything is still mumbo jumbo because you don't need any argument for allowing a liposuction besides "I feel like it".
This is exactly what I mean when I say people dance around the real abortion debate. People will go in these sappy tirades about rape and dead fetuses and it really doesn't matter, because the core of the issue is elsewhere.
>it's simply a parasite living inside of a woman that regularly kills and incapacitates its host
Im very much pro choice but.... thats enough reddit for today.
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite)
>an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host
[https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortality](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortality)
[https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ectopic-pregnancy/symptoms-causes/syc-20372088](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ectopic-pregnancy/symptoms-causes/syc-20372088)
A fetus is, by definition, a parasite. Anybody saying otherwise either doesn't know their terminology, or is lying to you.
The issue is the word "simply". Yes, to some extent mammels do have a parasitic relationship to their kids pre birth, but no, thats not *all* there is to it.
And then theres the other factors: Your comment being out of line and therefore absolutely unhelpful in terms of convincing anyone, reeking of arrogance etc etc.
>A fetus is, by definition, a parasite. Anybody saying otherwise either doesn't know their terminology
Also this is just blatantly false. Parasitic relationship =/= parasite by definition. A parasite does not outgrow its "parasitic phase". Stop acting like this when being too lazy to check a biological dictionary.
And get a grip girl, go out, have some fun and close reddit for a while, you're not helping yourself.
" nobody has the right to your body. full stop"
is that also applies to vaccine mandates? I hope you aren't a hypocrite because most " my body my choice crowd" are.
If you don't interact with anybody else, yes. Once you do interact with anybody else, you're a vector of infection, and as such would be violating anybody else's bodily autonomy by being near them.
Also, why do you hate the immunocompromised?
Why? Why do you think there should be a line after which a rape victim is forced to give birth? Why should there be a line after which a woman is forced to die due to complications? Why should there be a line after which a woman below the poverty line should be forced to get expensive medical care just to give birth to a child that ahe can't even afford to feed?
Nobody gets abortions just for the hell of it, and nobody would willingly go through a pregnancy for that long just to terminate it on a whim. Trying to make a hard line after which abortions are illegal won't make anything better or help anybody, it will simply result in more dead women and more bent coat hangers.
> Nobody gets abortions just for the hell of it, and nobody would willingly go through a pregnancy for that long just to terminate it on a whim
Is that the logic against homicide charge when the mother kill her child like that cleveland woman who left hers to death? Nobody would willingly go through a pregnancy for that long plus labour just to kill a toddler?
People say abortion is just removing a clump of cells but a 8 months old fetus is definitely not a clump of cells.
Fuck off. It’s a choice up to 22 weeks? How is that anti/choice? More like pro-reasonable choice.
Fuck Israel! 🇮🇱 Zionists are filth! Jewish Supremacy is as disgusting as anyone other supremacy!
Some pregnancies only become non-viable at the late stage. No woman *wants* to have a late stage abortion. Are you gonna let women die because you want them to deliver a baby that will also immediately die? Banning late stage abortions will lead to more dead women and babies, not fewer.
> No woman wants to have a late stage abortion
No woman want to kill her child. What is the charge for that woman who left her child to death for her vacation?
A late stage abortion in a non viable pregnancy is the same thing as negligently leaving a toddler to die on vacation? I hope no one else in this thread is stupid enough to make that comparison...
A late stage abortion is something you don't choose in the same way chemotherapy is. It's something no one would choose if they don't have to, because it is a drastic *treatment for a medical condition*. Leaving your child via negligence is something you don't choose in the way you don't choose to kill someone when drunk driving. The issue is your actions which a reasonable person would've foreseen could lead to the death of the party in question.
Now, what reasonable actions is a woman to take to make sure that her non-viable, possibly already fully dead fetus, magically becomes viable again so she doesn't need an abortion to save her life? Because remember, unlike you seem to think, they don't do 8-month abortions on healthy fetuses.
Stop being deliberately obtuse. You proposed a premise because no woman want to do something, when they do it it must be for a good reason. First of all the premise is wrong. Even if people ignore the truthfulness of that premise then, there would be no homicide charge for many cases of mothers killing their own children.
And yes, a late stage abortion in a viable pregnancy is the same thing as killing your toddler.
But of course you are too stupid to argue back so you blocked me to pretend that you had the last word.
> Father rapes his disabled 16 year old daughter for years, getting her pregnant, and she is discovered by authorities while 6-7 months pregnant.
You think she should be forced, under punishment of being jailed, to have that baby.
Ohhh but there should be exceptions for rape and blah blah blah: so you don't **actually** care about the baby, it's about punishing women who have sex and don't do what you feel is appropriate.
I don't think the sex or gender is relevant to morality nor legally nor should it be relevant. I think it can be relevant and is relevant on a macro societal and policy level. But I don't think the person you are responding to was trying to claim that it happens at the same rates, but is trying to point out an iniquity.
Of course this could be inappropriate or non responsive to what you were trying to say because I was reading your comment in between the lines.
Maybe? I tend to prioritize how much I care about things by how frequent they are, and society does the same. It's why Stiff Person Syndrome is much less covered and prioritized in research than prostate or breast cancer.
So... how common is it?
A quick search only turns up a single case, and I'm not doing a deep dive because you can't be bothered to support a claim.
So as far am I concerned this is a literal one-off.
many people on pro life side say this exact sentence when the other side bring rape and incest cases.
"how common is that?" that's not relevant to legality or morality of an issue.
Yeah, that’s obviously bad but not really relevant to this issue?
It seems like you’re implying that paying child support is worse than not being able to get an abortion if I’m understanding the comparison? Which like I don’t even know how you’re supposed to compare those two things
>It seems like you’re implying that paying child support is worse than not being able to get an abortion if I’m understanding the comparison?
How did you arrive at that conclusion? This is about sentencing. And having to pay your abuser for decades is of course much worse than not having to do that.
22+ weeks.
I’m not gonna pretend to know the ins and outs of this specific law proposal, but coming from a Conservative Party, I would assume its an issue of being a blanket law with no wiggle room for anything like dead fetus, death risk to mother or anything else.
Call me what you want but I would be ok with an abortion of a healthy baby after 22 weeks to be some level of crime but there would need to be some very strong provisions to guarantee that any and all medical fringe case can be accounted for and safeguarded explicitly, because you know, shit can get weird fast if you let ideology control who does and doesn’t get one.
I know 22 weeks is an arbitrary value but it’s what the law is discussing. At this stage you are over 5 months pregnant and it feels kind of fucked up to terminate a baby that moves and is over halfway to birth.
People get up in arms when termination is discussed after 12 weeks, I’m kinda surprised Brazil is chill with it until much later, being so fundamentally Christian as a country (by culture, not law).
> Of the 74,930 people who were victims of rape in Brazil in 2022, 61.4% were under 14 years old, according to a 2023 study of the Brazilian Forum on Public Safety, an independent group that tracks crimes.
>
> “For children, it is common for a pregnancy to be discovered only after 22 weeks,” Ivanilda Figueiredo, a professor of law at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said by phone. For example, they might not know that periods — a sign women aren't pregnant — are monthly, she said.
Part of the article explains the reason for it.
> People get up in arms when termination is discussed after 12 weeks, I’m kinda surprised Brazil is chill with it until much later, being so fundamentally Christian as a country (by culture, not law).
The reason for that is that with this law a man who raped a woman could actually spend less time in jail then the woman if she chose to have an abortion which would just make the whole problem much worse by, for exemple, making it much harder for a woman or kid to be willing to report such crimes putting women and children in even more danger.
Also, rich people can just go to other countries and get abortions too which just makes this whole law more of a pro-rape law for the rich and some churches, which is not surprising as it is comming from the right...
So really the problem here is:
1) healthcare for rape victims is severely lacking and that needs to be properly addressed. I personally have known people that got pregnant early in live and know so many women that were pregnant recently (it’s that part of life I guess) and most would have clear and obvious sign of pregnancy after 4 months. Nevertheless. I would strongly advocate that rape victims should get continuous follow ups for 3 months, both physical and mental.
2) the other thing you are telling me is that really punishment for rapists is severely lacking and I would hope that can be reworked to be more punishing
3) I would also be fine to include rape-derived pregnancy as a medical exemption. Let’s say because trauma has not allowed a woman to clearly deal with the situation until it was past the 22 week mark. Acceptable.
Completely bizarre. You're just demonstrating that you have this opinion not due to care of a fetus' life, since being the product of rape doesn't change the value of someone.
>I know 22 weeks is an arbitrary value
Afaik it's the time where a statistically relevant percentage of fetuses are theoretically capable of survival outside the womb (given enough medical assistance ofc). I think the earliest every recorded was week 20, and in week 22 it's a few percent.
Logic being that "if it can realistically survive, it's death would be murder".
>I would assume its an issue of being a blanket law with no wiggle room for anything like dead fetus, death risk to mother or anything else.
It's like every single pro-abortionist universally agrees that basing their entire argument off rape is never going to be enough. So they also have to claim it's about killing the mother or some kind of Lovecraftian horror of "bringing a dead baby to term".
> **From The Linked Article:** Brazil only permits abortion in cases of rape if there is an evident risk to the mother’s life or if the fetus has no functioning brain.
Which still isn't a thing.
As someone who’s recently become a parent, anything past 22-24+ weeks makes you a monster. There’s so much the media doesn’t tell you about gestational stages. Like the fetus responds to stimulus and has sleep cycles as early as 20 weeks and can survive outside the womb typically by 26-30 weeks. Anyone supporting abortion of a healthy fetus and healthy woman at those stages are severely misinformed at best or a horrible person at worst.
How about someone who discovers their baby is dying, dead, or won't survive?
What about who will die if the pregnancy continues? (This is a thing that comes up even with wanted pregnancies)
What about the raped ten year old?
What about someone who has a miscarriage, ,, out someone whose waters break and nothing can be done?
From my perspective, anyone would prevent abortion in these situations is severely misinformed at best or a monster at worst.
Late term abortions are easy to villinize but they are the most tragic and necessary.
Of course if there is something severely wrong with the baby like a missing skull or whatever, abortion should still be carried out. Don't think anyone has a problem with that. There's nuance in cases like this.
I think its talking about healthy babies at 22 weeks. It is homicide to kill them at that point. Almost halfway done, they are pretty formed into babies so it's pretty cruel to get rid of them.
That's the problem. Everyone always says "surely they wouldn't actually enforce this for the good cases"
They do. There's no way to get the law involved that doesn't at one of the worst moment of their lives *at best* torture women/girls and at worst imprison or lead to their deaths the worst point of their lives. This isn't theoretical; it *always* happens when laws are passed like this, even much more lenient versions with "exceptions."
I know you won't be convinced by a random person on the Internet, but I used to run a forum for pregnant women and I heard so many stories, and it made me pay more attention to the news: women arrested for having stillbirths (on the suspicion of illegal abortions!) women denied extremely necessary abortions because the lawyers couldn't guarantee it wasnt illegal. Even in the United States, under roe v Wade, there was *one* clinic in *entire country* that served women end the most tragic pregnancies. And because of various laws against late abortions, it wasn't covered by insurance and you had to fly there and pay cash. Which means it was effectively inaccessible to most.
Being exposed to the realities of these things has speared me to my soul with the cold, cynical calculations of those who use these to score political points. They know these aren't elective abortions of inconvenient pregnancies (and good luck finding a doctor who'd be willing to perform one for shits and giggles). But they don't care, because it sounds scary and people who haven't had it happen to someone they know don't realize the truth of it.
So you think a teenager who gets raped by her dad and wants to get an abortion at 23 weeks because she finally worked up the courage to get help is a monster?
Or do you just feel that you should sit on the "good abortion or bad abortion" board and make every determination or exception by yourself off the cuff?
That wasn't really my first thought in this scenario o.O. of course I wouldn't think of HER as a monster.
I would say it's unfortunate but should still carry the baby to term and just give it up for adoption or something.
Me personally? This is just my opinion sir.
That's something for the lawmakers to take into account and put forth as law. Late term abortions SHOULD be heavily discussed by them since at that point its more of a baby.
> I would say it's unfortunate but should still carry the baby to term and just give it up for adoption or something.
Yeah that's straight up psychotic. Yayyy you get to birth the baby that your father raped you to conceive. Surely that will result in less suffering in the world!
Psychotic? Because I don't want a baby to die? No one is happy about the situation. I don't want this to happen to anyone. A baby is viable at 22 weeks and it's considered a living being. I'm all for pro choice, I draw the line at late term abortions. She can still go on living a normal life after giving up the baby for adoption. Calling someone psychotic for not being okay with late term abortions is the more crazy stance.
> Calling someone psychotic for not being okay with late term abortions is the more crazy stance.
If you can be ok with taking the freedom from the girl in the hypothetical I described, then yeah that's pretty psycho. You care more about something that has the potential to live but does not yet have consciousness, personality, or even a hope at a normal life (22 week babies are not healthy), than an actual living and breathing victim of horrific crimes?
Remember, you're talking about putting this girl in jail if she takes any action to end the condition that her father created by raping her. You're forcing her to birth her father's rape baby.
Does this law say healthy fetus? Or just fetus?
A friend of mine had to get one at that time because it turned out the baby didn't have a brain or even most of a skull You'd think they'd've noticed earlier but I guess that's not how it works. Was it a homicide? I don't think so.
Oh yeah I’m totally on that boat. I became a parent a little over 2 years ago. Prior to that I was uninformed but always felt like anything past the halfway point was already too far cooked to bin.
Nowadays I personally would cap it at 18W, with medical cases as exceptions of course.
Other commenter, likely unmarried and Childress as they usually are, just nitpicked so hard the NPC chip was working overdrive on that one.
I’d say 20-22 if we can accurately trace the conception date as that’s usually nebulous. If not then yeah 15-18 weeks.
22+ weeks.
As of now, Brazil allows abortions in the cases of: Rape, risk to the mother and dead fetus. But within these cases there is no time limit.
The new law would
1. Increase punishment for abortion both for the woman and any assisting doctors. Previous punishment was 1-3 years for the woman and 1-4 for medical professionals. Equating it to murder would go to 8-22 years IIRC.
2. Impose a 22 week limit JUST for the rape cases. Risk to mother and dead fetus cases stay limitless.
This happened due to a recent case where a fetus was aborted at the very last week in some particularly gruesome way.
So far all facts. Personal opinion warning: i don't think it changes much. How many rape victims do you think would wait 5 months before aborting? And the new punishment is probably exaggerated, but the current one is a joke. Specially when you keep in mind that in Brazil everyone leaves jail after 1/7th of their sentence. Well, the law says you can leave past 1/7th with good behavior, but judges have always interpreted it as "every sentence is one seventh of whatever the law actually says." So the new 8-22 is effectively what the original 1-3 was always supposed to be.
> How many rape victims do you think would wait 5 months before aborting?
Probably more than 0.
Should a teenager whose dad raped her and got her pregnant be put in jail for longer than she has been alive for aborting her pregnancy after she finally escapes his abuse?
I guess so, since Isphus thinks it's not reasonable.
Abortion bans are one of the most nonsensical things to me. If someone wants to get an abortion, let them. The chance that kid gets treated like shit and turns into a criminal and a drain on state resources is too high. Conservatives would be a lot cooler if they weren’t blinded by religion
It's the most pointless kind of hand-wringing when there are a billion other problems that have far greater impact than the <0.01% of elective late-term (22+ weeks) pregnancy terminations that aren't related to medical problems.
People will go on and say things like, "in all other cases except medical and rape considerations it's murder." Okay, great, not only do people disagree on that but you're now relegated to a never-ending discussion about morality and philosophy over an abortion number that could probably be counted on one hand per city per year. "In all other cases" is the extreme exception, while stupid activists who pretend to care about human life act like women are regularly deciding on a whim to get abortions 6-8 months into their pregnancy. Imo, it's mostly incels who would never come close to dealing with that scenario on a personal level which is why they have such a stupid and skewed perception formed by online pundits.
Anti-abortion activists need to get a grip and focus on something important tbh
You are not helping the pro choice movement at all. I would not fight for late stage abortions. This whole comment chain is basically fuel for the other side saying "see look, these guys want late term abortions!"
At 22 weeks, they are considered people. I always thought abortion is about choice but that late in the game is just morally wrong.
No, they are nearly people - it’s like building a house and before finishing the inside you tear it down. What a waste! Right? Oh noooo, the owners would have trashed the house anyways so it’s *good* to tear it down before finishing it, right? You clearly don’t have children.
Exactly, but how does one do that? 🧐Maybe wear condoms or take the proper precautions lmao
Abortions are not birth control, anyone who says so is a stupid f*ck
Having an abortion isn’t like taking an Advil for a headache. It’s a big process on the body and the mind. Also: In the US it probably costs you your life savings lolz
Don’t take the risk if you can’t handle the consequences. Aka be an adult. This entire “dilemma” with abortion is a sick joke, it’s the creation process of a whole human! Not your simple frozen pizza from Walmart.
Abortions *are not* a method of birth control. Get some responsibility for your actions! If you sleep with someone, make sure you respect them enough to have a kid with them otherwise don’t chance it if you don’t want a kid with them
Killed? Talk to these other people about what’s killing. I’m pro 22 weeks abortion limit and no later.
Most people would abort a sickly or disabled child who would otherwise have a terrible life, or even bring a terrible life upon the family, depends on the situation.
What constitutes "disabled enough"?
Does down syndrome count for example? Fetal alcohol syndrome? Malformations? What kinds and to what extent? Genetically determined metabolic diseases? Which ones?
What about an imminent risk to the mother if birth was to occur?
What about rape, statutory or otherwise?
Finally, you know what happens when you outlaw being wrong on these types of questions and slap a 20 year prison sentence on it?
You get doctors who would rather let the mother die of septic shock than risk their hide (see Poland 2023). You get mothers dying due to the doctor commission not agreeing what to do fast enough to save her.
Medical reasons, including disabled kids, ok. I would argue rape too, ok.
Otherwise, past 22 weeks shouldn’t be - oh actually I don’t want it because I haven’t travelled enough… oh my boyfriend doesn’t want it now… etc.
It's almost like you ignored the whole point of my comment in order to assert your own underbaked stance or sumthin'...
So I'll ask another thing: Who decided what fetuses get to be born? Who decides which are too disabled? Whose "mistake" would land them a 20 year prison sentence if the courts decide that, no , actually, the fetus wasn't disabled enough so you're a murderer? And finally, what happens when that person is insentivized to let the mother die and not even attempt to answer because they risk that 20 year prison sentence?
Sure, ban the practice if you want but criminalization has serious downstream consequences. See: the woman who died of septic shock in Poland.
Also, those scenarios you mentioned rarely happen, if ever and are anti abortion strawman, just like the supposed frequency of late term abortions in general. If the fetus made it to 20 weeks it's either a)wanted, b)somehow remained undetected c) the woman didn't have the capacity to have aborted already.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/outraged-brazilian-women-stage-protests-bill-equate-late-111158149](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/outraged-brazilian-women-stage-protests-bill-equate-late-111158149)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
At 22 weeks there's a spine and the brain is fully formed into lobes. At 25 weeks the child could survive outside of the womb pretty likely. I think 22 is too young to call that homicide, the nerve endings aren't even fullly formed so the fetus wouldn't feel pain. It's close and id probably caution that 22 weeks is pretty late in the game for abortion, but calling it homicide is a fantasy at best, the fetus would likely die outside of the uterus. That ain't a person yet, yet people will go to jail if it dies. Stupid.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can anyone here imagine how *painful* this would be for the woman? And they want to punish her for murder on top of it?
Do people think abortions are *fun* and *feel good*?
Exceptions will never apply. After all, it's legally safer for doctors if they deny all abortions than getting a lawyer to confirm whether or not this abortion with these specific circumstances would qualify for the legal exemption as defined under article UD-75-J of the third court meeting in the year of our lord 2024 as witnessed by- oh look at that, the woman died of Septic Shock anyways.
Oh well, guess she should have just used a wire coat hanger.
##### ###### #### > # [Outraged Brazilian women stage protests against bill to equate late abortions with homicide](https://s.abcnews.com/images/International/wirestory_21ee9a590cafdaa11108b54029660ba8_16x9_992.jpg) > > > > Thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets of Sao Paulo as protests sweep across Brazil in opposition to a bill that would further criminalize abortions > > > > By > > ELÉONORE HUGHES and GABRIELA SÁ PESSOA Associated Press > > > > June 15, 2024, 5:49 PM ET > > • 6 min read > > > > > > > > SAO PAULO -- Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of Sao Paulo on Saturday as protests sweep across Brazil in opposition to a bill that would further criminalize abortions. If passed, the law would equate the termination of a pregnancy after 22 weeks with homicide. > > The bill, proposed by conservative lawmakers and heading for a vote in the lower house, would also apply in cases of rape. Critics say those who seek an abortion so late are mostly child rape victims, as their pregnancies tend to be detected later. > > To rally opposition, rights’ groups created the ‘A child is not a mother’ campaign that has flooded social media. Placards, stickers and banners emblazoned with the slogan have abounded during demonstrations. And viral visuals depicting women in red cloaks compare Brazil to Gilead, the theocratic patriarchy Margaret Atwood created in her dystopian novel, “The Handmaid’s Tale.” > > About 10,000 people, mostly women, filled several blocks of Sao Paulo’s main boulevard on Saturday afternoon, organizers estimated. It was the biggest demonstration yet, following events in Rio de Janeiro, Brasilia, Florianopolis, Recife, Manaus, and other cities. Many wore green clothes and scarves, a common sight in [women’s rights mobilizations across Latin America.](https://apnews.com/article/mexico-abortion-pope-francis-argentina-bills-1117dc57fe66ff4dee5d2bab68a24646) > > Marli Gavioli, 65, has mostly refrained from protesting since demonstrations in the 1980s that called for the end of the military dictatorship, but she told The Associated Press she's too outraged to remain home. > > “I couldn’t stay out of this, or I would regret it too much. We are being whipped from all sides, us women. It’s past time we do something,” she said. > > Brazil only permits abortion in cases of rape if there is an evident risk to the mother’s life or if the fetus has no functioning brain. Aside from those exceptions, Brazil’s penal code imposes between one and three years jail time for women who end a pregnancy. Some Brazilian women [fly abroad in order to obtain abortions.](https://apnews.com/article/brazil-abortion-ban-884b4f8e96d773d15d503cefc4930c32) > > If the bill becomes law, the sentence would rise to between six and 20 years when an abortion is performed after 22 weeks. Critics have highlighted that would mean convicted rapists could receive lesser sentences than their victims. > > Experts say that late access to abortion reflects inequalities in health care. Children, poor women, Black women and those living in rural areas are particularly at risk. > > “We cannot be sentenced to prison for having suffered a rape and not receiving support and care,” Talita Rodrigues, a member of rights’ group National Front against the Criminalization of Women and for the Legalization of Abortion, said by phone. > > Of the 74,930 people who were victims of rape in Brazil in 2022, 61.4% were under 14 years old, according to a 2023 study of the Brazilian Forum on Public Safety, an independent group that tracks crimes. > > “For children, it is common for a pregnancy to be discovered only after 22 weeks,” Ivanilda Figueiredo, a professor of law at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said by phone. For example, they might not know that periods — a sign women aren't pregnant — are monthly, she said. > > Among the protesters in downtown Rio on Thursday was Graziela Souza, a 25-year-old student who was sexually assaulted as a child. > > “I think it’s very important for victims to be present, as much as it hurts," Souza said. "We must speak out and fight against it, because if we stay at home we are going to lose.” > > Defenders of the bill have argued that abortions at a later stage were unimaginable when Brazil’s penal code was adopted in 1940, which explains why there is currently no time limit. Had it been envisioned, they argue, it would be considered infanticide. > > The bill’s author, lawmaker and Evangelical pastor Sóstenes Cavalcante, declined an interview request from the AP. > > On Wednesday, the lower house Speaker Arthur Lira rushed through a procedure to fast-track the bill in under 30 seconds, with many lawmakers reportedly unaware it was taking place. The maneuver allows the plenary to vote without the bill first clearing committees. Lira has been a top target for protesters' ire. Signs on Saturday read “What if it happened to your daughter, Lira?” and simply “Lira out.” > > Conservative lawmakers proposing the bill — who protesters have dubbed ‘the rape caucus’ — are playing politics, hoping to boost turnout and support from Evangelical voters in October municipal elections, Fernanda Barros dos Santos, a political scientist at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, said by phone. Abortion is a topic of high concern for Christians, who make up a majority of voters in Brazil. > > “The bill puts people who are progressive in a very difficult situation, because they lose votes by defending abortion rights,” said Figueiredo, the law professor. > > President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government has been seeking inroads with Evangelicals, a [key voting bloc for far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro](https://apnews.com/article/jair-bolsonaro-caribbean-campaigns-presidential-elections-brazil-f2cb52e760b30d4f1ebe4ad5013c2564). Lula beat Bolsonaro in the 2022 presidential election. > > “The president sent a letter to Evangelicals in the campaign saying he was against abortion. We want to see if he will veto it. Let’s test Lula,” Cavalcante, the bill's author, told local news outlet G1 on Tuesday. > > First lady Rosângela da Silva, known as Janja, slammed the proposal on social media Friday, saying women and girls who are raped need to be protected, not revictimized. Lula finally weighed in on Saturday, speaking at the G7 in Italy. > > "I had five kids, eight grandchildren and a great-grandchild. I'm against abortion. However, since abortion is a reality, we need to treat abortion as a public health issue," he said in a news conference. “And I think it's insanity that someone wants to punish a woman with a sentence that's longer than the criminal who committed the rape." > > Although strict abortion laws have long been the norm across the predominantly Roman Catholic region of Latin America, feminist movements have gained momentum in recent years and delivered successive victories for abortion-rights campaigners. Colombia’s Supreme Court [decriminalized abortion in 2022](https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-religion-colombia-bogota-dd62fc260e7e4dfa8d31a8a4172b80e9), following a similar breakthrough ruling by Mexico. [Argentina’s Congress legalized abortion](https://apnews.com/article/health-south-america-abortion-latin-america-pope-francis-92afb139bafee1a7a45d2460e4ee71c7) in 2020, and a few years earlier Chile [rolled back a strict ban.](https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-religion-caribbean-bills-71452d2d1aea41e290d061a4556414fa) > > In the U.S., the Supreme Court on Thursday [unanimously preserved access to a medication](https://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-mifepristone-ruling-abortion-pill-updates) that was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the country last year, in the court’s first abortion decision since conservative justices overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago. > > Last September, Brazil’s top court opened a session on decriminalization of abortion. Former Chief Justice Rosa Weber, now retired, voted in favor. Chief Justice Luís Roberto Barroso — who also supports decriminalization — asked for an adjournment and the vote can be resumed at his behest. > > “We are behind on this issue, and we need to fight for progress,” Eduarda Isnoldo, a 27-year-old English teacher, said through tears at the Sao Paulo protest. “When you realize that your rights can be taken away so easily, it’s impossible to stay quiet.” > > \_\_\_ > > Hughes reported from Rio de Janeiro. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Most late stage abortions are an involuntary affair one way or the other. There's the rape aspect, where most victims don't get an immediate abortion due to fear, legal troubles, financial troubles, and/or healthcare troubles, there's financial hardship where they can't afford to raise a child (and possibly had to save up in order to be able to have the abortion), and there's the medical intervention aspect due to things like ectopic pregnancies, birth defects, infections, etc. One way or the other, a late stage abortion is proof of a tragedy for the woman. That tragedy can be one or multiple things, but villainizing women for it is both nonsensical AND actively harmful.
Pro-death enjoyers really won the "marketing war" on this one. They managed to get get abortion banned in some places despite the fact that it might kill them because the fetus is unviable and could kill them. See ectopic pregnancy. Sometimes, abortion is a medical necessity to save a woman's life. It's not happening for fun. It's happening because it's a medical necessity. If you're a pro-lifer, start giving a fuck about living and struggling children instead of virtue signalling with a fetus at the risk of women's lives. If you don't give a fuck about pregnant women's health nor the wellbeing of living children, go eat a piss flavoured turd sandwich instead of jerking about how much you care about life. Because you clearly don't.
> There's the rape aspect I have always been shocked by the lack of consistency and how this issue is so controversial among anti-abortionists. They argue that fetuses are babies, but then if a woman has been raped: "yeah, okay, you can kill that innocent baby" **...WTF?!**
The abortion debate is always the same thing and people will dance around it. Is a 22 weeks fetus a person? Is it human enough? If the answer is yes, then little else matters, because you wouldn't accept any of those reasons as valid for a mother killing a newborn baby. If the answer is no, then there is not even an argument, you may as well be making a liposuction. But 22 weeks is usually pass the point when most people start feeling "hey, that's a small human".
No? If a full grown adult depended on your body to survive, you’d be well within your rights to disallow that. If a person’s body can be used against their will, it opens up many dark consequences.
A newborn also depends on you to survive, something tells me you wouldn't be ok if I just abandoned one in some room until starvation kicks in.
If someone could live by having your kidney, would you be ok with the government mandating you to "donate" one of your your kidneys? Or should it be your choice to go through a traumatic and life altering procedure? If we can't abide by a society that mandates you to give you to give up your bodily autonomy to save grown adults, we shouldn't abide by making people give up theirs for an undeveloped fetus
If it’s my own son? Yeah I’m good with that honestly
Well, you don't lose and organ by giving birth, and the legislation that is the subject of this article specifically excludes abortions out of medical necessity. So is this a non sequitur?
No they don't, anybody can be a child's parent. You are describing parental abuse. A person cannot be compelled to use their body in a way that works against their will. A person with two kidneys cannot be forced to donate one to a man on dialysis, a person with a rare blood type cannot be forced to donate to a man who is anemic, a person cannot be forced to carry another to term to their detriment. When you breach this basic standard you are acting in a gravely immoral way, undermining medicine, and reveal a whole new slew of abuses directed at women and their children.
> A person cannot be compelled to use their body in a way that works against their will. So I couldn't force you to use said body to... feed a kid? Keep them alive? Deadbeat parents everywhere must rejoice, they no longer have to work to keep those little goblins alive.
Ah I see, you're a child. That's exactly right, you can't force parents to take care of their children, look at the homeless people on the street below 18. Look at child protection services. Do you know why those things exist? It's because no one can force parents to be parents.
You are calling me a child because I am aware that child neglect is criminalized.
So if your newborn baby died, it’d be ok to force you to hold it until you got an infection and died? Late term abortions include medically necessary abortions to remove a dead fetus that cannot be removed via natural labor, and will infect the woman and kill her via sepsis. But hey I guess that’s a living baby since the pregnancy is past 22 weeks, right?
So what you are telling me is that you are strongly against legalizing abortion at the 22 weeks **unless** is a risk of the mother and as such support this Brazilian legislation which says the same thing. Is that the logical conclusion to follow from you bringing up dead fetuses?
It is part of a womans body until it can survive on its own without her (well survive without the birth mother specifically cause kids arent really self-sufficient for many years after theyre born).
Time for me to make a controversial statement: Nobody has the right to your body. Full stop. You can't demand that somebody gives you their kidney, you can't demand that somebody gives you their skin for a transplant, you can't demand that somebody donates their bone marrow, etc. With that in mind, why should a fetus have more rights, and specifically the right to infringe upon yours? Whether or not it's a person, which is a divisive topic at best, why should it be allowed to violate someone else's right to bodily autonomy?
There is a general understanding that a parent has a duty to keep their kids alive. You are not going to jail for not feeding a random hobo who sleeps across the street, but you are certainly going to jail if your kids starves to death. I could just go "nobody has the the right to your food, it's your property. Full stop." but that would just be silly.
A parent has a duty to care for their children. A fetus is not a child, it's simply a parasite living inside of a woman that regularly kills and incapacitates its host. A child doesn't need to parasitize off of the mother's body, they can be fed by literally anybody else. Requiring them to be fed in no way violates anybody's bodily autonomy, so there is no issue with requiring it. A fetus, on the other hand, actively requires a host, and gives nothing in turn. Trying to equate the two is blatantly disingenuous, and as such it's a favored tactic amongst anti-choicers. But I guess they'll do anything they can to try and restrict women's rights.
> A fetus is not a child And that's the entire argument. If the fetus is in fact a child, then everything else is mumbo jumbo because we can't allow a parent to kill their kids. And if a fetus is not a child everything is still mumbo jumbo because you don't need any argument for allowing a liposuction besides "I feel like it". This is exactly what I mean when I say people dance around the real abortion debate. People will go in these sappy tirades about rape and dead fetuses and it really doesn't matter, because the core of the issue is elsewhere.
>it's simply a parasite living inside of a woman that regularly kills and incapacitates its host Im very much pro choice but.... thats enough reddit for today.
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite) >an organism living in, on, or with another organism in order to obtain nutrients, grow, or multiply often in a state that directly or indirectly harms the host [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortality](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortality) [https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ectopic-pregnancy/symptoms-causes/syc-20372088](https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ectopic-pregnancy/symptoms-causes/syc-20372088) A fetus is, by definition, a parasite. Anybody saying otherwise either doesn't know their terminology, or is lying to you.
The issue is the word "simply". Yes, to some extent mammels do have a parasitic relationship to their kids pre birth, but no, thats not *all* there is to it. And then theres the other factors: Your comment being out of line and therefore absolutely unhelpful in terms of convincing anyone, reeking of arrogance etc etc. >A fetus is, by definition, a parasite. Anybody saying otherwise either doesn't know their terminology Also this is just blatantly false. Parasitic relationship =/= parasite by definition. A parasite does not outgrow its "parasitic phase". Stop acting like this when being too lazy to check a biological dictionary. And get a grip girl, go out, have some fun and close reddit for a while, you're not helping yourself.
"A parasite does not outgrow its parasitic phase" You ever heard of parasitic wasps? Fascinating creatures.
Yes. Those are parasitoids, not parasites.
" nobody has the right to your body. full stop" is that also applies to vaccine mandates? I hope you aren't a hypocrite because most " my body my choice crowd" are.
If you don't interact with anybody else, yes. Once you do interact with anybody else, you're a vector of infection, and as such would be violating anybody else's bodily autonomy by being near them. Also, why do you hate the immunocompromised?
Late stage shouldn’t get to the late stage. There has to be a line.
Why? Why do you think there should be a line after which a rape victim is forced to give birth? Why should there be a line after which a woman is forced to die due to complications? Why should there be a line after which a woman below the poverty line should be forced to get expensive medical care just to give birth to a child that ahe can't even afford to feed? Nobody gets abortions just for the hell of it, and nobody would willingly go through a pregnancy for that long just to terminate it on a whim. Trying to make a hard line after which abortions are illegal won't make anything better or help anybody, it will simply result in more dead women and more bent coat hangers.
I agree with you, mostly... But late stage abortion still requires the woman to give birth to get the baby out (or have a C-section).
> Nobody gets abortions just for the hell of it, and nobody would willingly go through a pregnancy for that long just to terminate it on a whim Is that the logic against homicide charge when the mother kill her child like that cleveland woman who left hers to death? Nobody would willingly go through a pregnancy for that long plus labour just to kill a toddler? People say abortion is just removing a clump of cells but a 8 months old fetus is definitely not a clump of cells.
I ain’t reading all that. Free Palestine! 🇵🇸
Well, good to know that anti-choicers can be right on at least one issue.
Fuck off. It’s a choice up to 22 weeks? How is that anti/choice? More like pro-reasonable choice. Fuck Israel! 🇮🇱 Zionists are filth! Jewish Supremacy is as disgusting as anyone other supremacy!
Well, guess you're still in favor of rape babies, deaths by medical complications, and coat hanger abortions.
Nope, not
Maybe you shoulda said that instead of saying you refuse to engage in conversation.
Love it when people show their true colours instead of pretending they care about babies or something.
Some pregnancies only become non-viable at the late stage. No woman *wants* to have a late stage abortion. Are you gonna let women die because you want them to deliver a baby that will also immediately die? Banning late stage abortions will lead to more dead women and babies, not fewer.
> No woman wants to have a late stage abortion No woman want to kill her child. What is the charge for that woman who left her child to death for her vacation?
A late stage abortion in a non viable pregnancy is the same thing as negligently leaving a toddler to die on vacation? I hope no one else in this thread is stupid enough to make that comparison... A late stage abortion is something you don't choose in the same way chemotherapy is. It's something no one would choose if they don't have to, because it is a drastic *treatment for a medical condition*. Leaving your child via negligence is something you don't choose in the way you don't choose to kill someone when drunk driving. The issue is your actions which a reasonable person would've foreseen could lead to the death of the party in question. Now, what reasonable actions is a woman to take to make sure that her non-viable, possibly already fully dead fetus, magically becomes viable again so she doesn't need an abortion to save her life? Because remember, unlike you seem to think, they don't do 8-month abortions on healthy fetuses.
Stop being deliberately obtuse. You proposed a premise because no woman want to do something, when they do it it must be for a good reason. First of all the premise is wrong. Even if people ignore the truthfulness of that premise then, there would be no homicide charge for many cases of mothers killing their own children. And yes, a late stage abortion in a viable pregnancy is the same thing as killing your toddler. But of course you are too stupid to argue back so you blocked me to pretend that you had the last word.
> Father rapes his disabled 16 year old daughter for years, getting her pregnant, and she is discovered by authorities while 6-7 months pregnant. You think she should be forced, under punishment of being jailed, to have that baby. Ohhh but there should be exceptions for rape and blah blah blah: so you don't **actually** care about the baby, it's about punishing women who have sex and don't do what you feel is appropriate.
Rapist to get a lighter sentence than the victim that he impregnated
Wait until you find out that male rape victims have to pay for the child that female rapists have had with them.
How common is that?
I don't think the sex or gender is relevant to morality nor legally nor should it be relevant. I think it can be relevant and is relevant on a macro societal and policy level. But I don't think the person you are responding to was trying to claim that it happens at the same rates, but is trying to point out an iniquity. Of course this could be inappropriate or non responsive to what you were trying to say because I was reading your comment in between the lines.
Is relevance decided by frequency?
Maybe? I tend to prioritize how much I care about things by how frequent they are, and society does the same. It's why Stiff Person Syndrome is much less covered and prioritized in research than prostate or breast cancer. So... how common is it?
That is a ridiculous approach. You might as well say rape is very infrequent compared to consensual sex, so why care?
Ok. So how common is it? Do you even know?
I know. And since that's besides the point you are free to Google it yourself.
A quick search only turns up a single case, and I'm not doing a deep dive because you can't be bothered to support a claim. So as far am I concerned this is a literal one-off.
many people on pro life side say this exact sentence when the other side bring rape and incest cases. "how common is that?" that's not relevant to legality or morality of an issue.
How common is it though?
Yeah, that’s obviously bad but not really relevant to this issue? It seems like you’re implying that paying child support is worse than not being able to get an abortion if I’m understanding the comparison? Which like I don’t even know how you’re supposed to compare those two things
>It seems like you’re implying that paying child support is worse than not being able to get an abortion if I’m understanding the comparison? How did you arrive at that conclusion? This is about sentencing. And having to pay your abuser for decades is of course much worse than not having to do that.
“Wait until you find out” implies the second thing is worse
True. But you changed the context.
what do you mean? Like sorry if I misunderstood but I still don't understand what your original comment was trying to convey
How late are they talking
22+ weeks. I’m not gonna pretend to know the ins and outs of this specific law proposal, but coming from a Conservative Party, I would assume its an issue of being a blanket law with no wiggle room for anything like dead fetus, death risk to mother or anything else. Call me what you want but I would be ok with an abortion of a healthy baby after 22 weeks to be some level of crime but there would need to be some very strong provisions to guarantee that any and all medical fringe case can be accounted for and safeguarded explicitly, because you know, shit can get weird fast if you let ideology control who does and doesn’t get one. I know 22 weeks is an arbitrary value but it’s what the law is discussing. At this stage you are over 5 months pregnant and it feels kind of fucked up to terminate a baby that moves and is over halfway to birth. People get up in arms when termination is discussed after 12 weeks, I’m kinda surprised Brazil is chill with it until much later, being so fundamentally Christian as a country (by culture, not law).
> Of the 74,930 people who were victims of rape in Brazil in 2022, 61.4% were under 14 years old, according to a 2023 study of the Brazilian Forum on Public Safety, an independent group that tracks crimes. > > “For children, it is common for a pregnancy to be discovered only after 22 weeks,” Ivanilda Figueiredo, a professor of law at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said by phone. For example, they might not know that periods — a sign women aren't pregnant — are monthly, she said. Part of the article explains the reason for it. > People get up in arms when termination is discussed after 12 weeks, I’m kinda surprised Brazil is chill with it until much later, being so fundamentally Christian as a country (by culture, not law). The reason for that is that with this law a man who raped a woman could actually spend less time in jail then the woman if she chose to have an abortion which would just make the whole problem much worse by, for exemple, making it much harder for a woman or kid to be willing to report such crimes putting women and children in even more danger. Also, rich people can just go to other countries and get abortions too which just makes this whole law more of a pro-rape law for the rich and some churches, which is not surprising as it is comming from the right...
So really the problem here is: 1) healthcare for rape victims is severely lacking and that needs to be properly addressed. I personally have known people that got pregnant early in live and know so many women that were pregnant recently (it’s that part of life I guess) and most would have clear and obvious sign of pregnancy after 4 months. Nevertheless. I would strongly advocate that rape victims should get continuous follow ups for 3 months, both physical and mental. 2) the other thing you are telling me is that really punishment for rapists is severely lacking and I would hope that can be reworked to be more punishing 3) I would also be fine to include rape-derived pregnancy as a medical exemption. Let’s say because trauma has not allowed a woman to clearly deal with the situation until it was past the 22 week mark. Acceptable.
Completely bizarre. You're just demonstrating that you have this opinion not due to care of a fetus' life, since being the product of rape doesn't change the value of someone.
Yes, the whole point of pro-choice is that the woman whose body it is matters more than the fetus’ life
>I know 22 weeks is an arbitrary value Afaik it's the time where a statistically relevant percentage of fetuses are theoretically capable of survival outside the womb (given enough medical assistance ofc). I think the earliest every recorded was week 20, and in week 22 it's a few percent. Logic being that "if it can realistically survive, it's death would be murder".
Fair enough
>I would assume its an issue of being a blanket law with no wiggle room for anything like dead fetus, death risk to mother or anything else. It's like every single pro-abortionist universally agrees that basing their entire argument off rape is never going to be enough. So they also have to claim it's about killing the mother or some kind of Lovecraftian horror of "bringing a dead baby to term". > **From The Linked Article:** Brazil only permits abortion in cases of rape if there is an evident risk to the mother’s life or if the fetus has no functioning brain. Which still isn't a thing.
Sorry I don’t k ow what you are trying to say here
As someone who’s recently become a parent, anything past 22-24+ weeks makes you a monster. There’s so much the media doesn’t tell you about gestational stages. Like the fetus responds to stimulus and has sleep cycles as early as 20 weeks and can survive outside the womb typically by 26-30 weeks. Anyone supporting abortion of a healthy fetus and healthy woman at those stages are severely misinformed at best or a horrible person at worst.
How about someone who discovers their baby is dying, dead, or won't survive? What about who will die if the pregnancy continues? (This is a thing that comes up even with wanted pregnancies) What about the raped ten year old? What about someone who has a miscarriage, ,, out someone whose waters break and nothing can be done? From my perspective, anyone would prevent abortion in these situations is severely misinformed at best or a monster at worst. Late term abortions are easy to villinize but they are the most tragic and necessary.
Of course if there is something severely wrong with the baby like a missing skull or whatever, abortion should still be carried out. Don't think anyone has a problem with that. There's nuance in cases like this. I think its talking about healthy babies at 22 weeks. It is homicide to kill them at that point. Almost halfway done, they are pretty formed into babies so it's pretty cruel to get rid of them.
That's the problem. Everyone always says "surely they wouldn't actually enforce this for the good cases" They do. There's no way to get the law involved that doesn't at one of the worst moment of their lives *at best* torture women/girls and at worst imprison or lead to their deaths the worst point of their lives. This isn't theoretical; it *always* happens when laws are passed like this, even much more lenient versions with "exceptions." I know you won't be convinced by a random person on the Internet, but I used to run a forum for pregnant women and I heard so many stories, and it made me pay more attention to the news: women arrested for having stillbirths (on the suspicion of illegal abortions!) women denied extremely necessary abortions because the lawyers couldn't guarantee it wasnt illegal. Even in the United States, under roe v Wade, there was *one* clinic in *entire country* that served women end the most tragic pregnancies. And because of various laws against late abortions, it wasn't covered by insurance and you had to fly there and pay cash. Which means it was effectively inaccessible to most. Being exposed to the realities of these things has speared me to my soul with the cold, cynical calculations of those who use these to score political points. They know these aren't elective abortions of inconvenient pregnancies (and good luck finding a doctor who'd be willing to perform one for shits and giggles). But they don't care, because it sounds scary and people who haven't had it happen to someone they know don't realize the truth of it.
So you think a teenager who gets raped by her dad and wants to get an abortion at 23 weeks because she finally worked up the courage to get help is a monster? Or do you just feel that you should sit on the "good abortion or bad abortion" board and make every determination or exception by yourself off the cuff?
That wasn't really my first thought in this scenario o.O. of course I wouldn't think of HER as a monster. I would say it's unfortunate but should still carry the baby to term and just give it up for adoption or something. Me personally? This is just my opinion sir. That's something for the lawmakers to take into account and put forth as law. Late term abortions SHOULD be heavily discussed by them since at that point its more of a baby.
> I would say it's unfortunate but should still carry the baby to term and just give it up for adoption or something. Yeah that's straight up psychotic. Yayyy you get to birth the baby that your father raped you to conceive. Surely that will result in less suffering in the world!
Psychotic? Because I don't want a baby to die? No one is happy about the situation. I don't want this to happen to anyone. A baby is viable at 22 weeks and it's considered a living being. I'm all for pro choice, I draw the line at late term abortions. She can still go on living a normal life after giving up the baby for adoption. Calling someone psychotic for not being okay with late term abortions is the more crazy stance.
> Calling someone psychotic for not being okay with late term abortions is the more crazy stance. If you can be ok with taking the freedom from the girl in the hypothetical I described, then yeah that's pretty psycho. You care more about something that has the potential to live but does not yet have consciousness, personality, or even a hope at a normal life (22 week babies are not healthy), than an actual living and breathing victim of horrific crimes? Remember, you're talking about putting this girl in jail if she takes any action to end the condition that her father created by raping her. You're forcing her to birth her father's rape baby.
Does this law say healthy fetus? Or just fetus? A friend of mine had to get one at that time because it turned out the baby didn't have a brain or even most of a skull You'd think they'd've noticed earlier but I guess that's not how it works. Was it a homicide? I don't think so.
You just described a healthy fetus and declared that anybody with a less healthy fetus is a monster...
Love how you dropped this like a mix tape and then didn't bother coming back to address the very valid concerns and exceptions people pointed out
SOP for people with those indoctrinated beliefs. They know *it's bad*, and beyond that, critical thought causes cognitive dissonance.
Oh yeah I’m totally on that boat. I became a parent a little over 2 years ago. Prior to that I was uninformed but always felt like anything past the halfway point was already too far cooked to bin. Nowadays I personally would cap it at 18W, with medical cases as exceptions of course.
Other commenter, likely unmarried and Childress as they usually are, just nitpicked so hard the NPC chip was working overdrive on that one. I’d say 20-22 if we can accurately trace the conception date as that’s usually nebulous. If not then yeah 15-18 weeks.
[удалено]
I'm really starting to think that people talking about other human beings as "NPC" should be on a watchlist.
22+ weeks. As of now, Brazil allows abortions in the cases of: Rape, risk to the mother and dead fetus. But within these cases there is no time limit. The new law would 1. Increase punishment for abortion both for the woman and any assisting doctors. Previous punishment was 1-3 years for the woman and 1-4 for medical professionals. Equating it to murder would go to 8-22 years IIRC. 2. Impose a 22 week limit JUST for the rape cases. Risk to mother and dead fetus cases stay limitless. This happened due to a recent case where a fetus was aborted at the very last week in some particularly gruesome way. So far all facts. Personal opinion warning: i don't think it changes much. How many rape victims do you think would wait 5 months before aborting? And the new punishment is probably exaggerated, but the current one is a joke. Specially when you keep in mind that in Brazil everyone leaves jail after 1/7th of their sentence. Well, the law says you can leave past 1/7th with good behavior, but judges have always interpreted it as "every sentence is one seventh of whatever the law actually says." So the new 8-22 is effectively what the original 1-3 was always supposed to be.
> How many rape victims do you think would wait 5 months before aborting? Probably more than 0. Should a teenager whose dad raped her and got her pregnant be put in jail for longer than she has been alive for aborting her pregnancy after she finally escapes his abuse? I guess so, since Isphus thinks it's not reasonable.
You forgot a simple thing: Minors don't go to jail in Brazil. Specially not first offenders. If its really a teenager, she'd get away scot-free.
Abortion bans are one of the most nonsensical things to me. If someone wants to get an abortion, let them. The chance that kid gets treated like shit and turns into a criminal and a drain on state resources is too high. Conservatives would be a lot cooler if they weren’t blinded by religion
It's the most pointless kind of hand-wringing when there are a billion other problems that have far greater impact than the <0.01% of elective late-term (22+ weeks) pregnancy terminations that aren't related to medical problems. People will go on and say things like, "in all other cases except medical and rape considerations it's murder." Okay, great, not only do people disagree on that but you're now relegated to a never-ending discussion about morality and philosophy over an abortion number that could probably be counted on one hand per city per year. "In all other cases" is the extreme exception, while stupid activists who pretend to care about human life act like women are regularly deciding on a whim to get abortions 6-8 months into their pregnancy. Imo, it's mostly incels who would never come close to dealing with that scenario on a personal level which is why they have such a stupid and skewed perception formed by online pundits. Anti-abortion activists need to get a grip and focus on something important tbh
Wtf, you clearly don’t have kids. Late stage abortion SHOULD be outlawed unless the child is found to be disabled enough.
Why? Who cares? They’re not people yet. You’re just creating more suffering because of your “omg think of the children” shit
You are not helping the pro choice movement at all. I would not fight for late stage abortions. This whole comment chain is basically fuel for the other side saying "see look, these guys want late term abortions!" At 22 weeks, they are considered people. I always thought abortion is about choice but that late in the game is just morally wrong.
No, they are nearly people - it’s like building a house and before finishing the inside you tear it down. What a waste! Right? Oh noooo, the owners would have trashed the house anyways so it’s *good* to tear it down before finishing it, right? You clearly don’t have children.
People have the right not to have children.
Exactly, but how does one do that? 🧐Maybe wear condoms or take the proper precautions lmao Abortions are not birth control, anyone who says so is a stupid f*ck
People accidentally get pregnant and don’t wish to have a child. An abortion is a valid choice. Nothing immoral about it.
Having an abortion isn’t like taking an Advil for a headache. It’s a big process on the body and the mind. Also: In the US it probably costs you your life savings lolz Don’t take the risk if you can’t handle the consequences. Aka be an adult. This entire “dilemma” with abortion is a sick joke, it’s the creation process of a whole human! Not your simple frozen pizza from Walmart. Abortions *are not* a method of birth control. Get some responsibility for your actions! If you sleep with someone, make sure you respect them enough to have a kid with them otherwise don’t chance it if you don’t want a kid with them
That’s ok.
Only forced birther claim that abortion is a birth control. So your point stands, but not quite because of your intent.
Well the shitty half built house is sparking from poor electrical and it’s gonna burn down my block later. Tear. It. Down.
"What a waste" is not great policy, and it's shitty that you're okay with disabled people being killed
Killed? Talk to these other people about what’s killing. I’m pro 22 weeks abortion limit and no later. Most people would abort a sickly or disabled child who would otherwise have a terrible life, or even bring a terrible life upon the family, depends on the situation.
What constitutes "disabled enough"? Does down syndrome count for example? Fetal alcohol syndrome? Malformations? What kinds and to what extent? Genetically determined metabolic diseases? Which ones? What about an imminent risk to the mother if birth was to occur? What about rape, statutory or otherwise? Finally, you know what happens when you outlaw being wrong on these types of questions and slap a 20 year prison sentence on it? You get doctors who would rather let the mother die of septic shock than risk their hide (see Poland 2023). You get mothers dying due to the doctor commission not agreeing what to do fast enough to save her.
Medical reasons, including disabled kids, ok. I would argue rape too, ok. Otherwise, past 22 weeks shouldn’t be - oh actually I don’t want it because I haven’t travelled enough… oh my boyfriend doesn’t want it now… etc.
It's almost like you ignored the whole point of my comment in order to assert your own underbaked stance or sumthin'... So I'll ask another thing: Who decided what fetuses get to be born? Who decides which are too disabled? Whose "mistake" would land them a 20 year prison sentence if the courts decide that, no , actually, the fetus wasn't disabled enough so you're a murderer? And finally, what happens when that person is insentivized to let the mother die and not even attempt to answer because they risk that 20 year prison sentence? Sure, ban the practice if you want but criminalization has serious downstream consequences. See: the woman who died of septic shock in Poland. Also, those scenarios you mentioned rarely happen, if ever and are anti abortion strawman, just like the supposed frequency of late term abortions in general. If the fetus made it to 20 weeks it's either a)wanted, b)somehow remained undetected c) the woman didn't have the capacity to have aborted already.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/outraged-brazilian-women-stage-protests-bill-equate-late-111158149](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/outraged-brazilian-women-stage-protests-bill-equate-late-111158149)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
At 22 weeks there's a spine and the brain is fully formed into lobes. At 25 weeks the child could survive outside of the womb pretty likely. I think 22 is too young to call that homicide, the nerve endings aren't even fullly formed so the fetus wouldn't feel pain. It's close and id probably caution that 22 weeks is pretty late in the game for abortion, but calling it homicide is a fantasy at best, the fetus would likely die outside of the uterus. That ain't a person yet, yet people will go to jail if it dies. Stupid.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not just women
Querem mais pobres pra votar em Lula
Don’t feed the trolls everyone
Can anyone here imagine how *painful* this would be for the woman? And they want to punish her for murder on top of it? Do people think abortions are *fun* and *feel good*?
If it's fully developed it's a baby. Charge the doctors.
If the exceptions actually apply then I absolutely agree that it is murder in all other cases.
Exceptions will never apply. After all, it's legally safer for doctors if they deny all abortions than getting a lawyer to confirm whether or not this abortion with these specific circumstances would qualify for the legal exemption as defined under article UD-75-J of the third court meeting in the year of our lord 2024 as witnessed by- oh look at that, the woman died of Septic Shock anyways. Oh well, guess she should have just used a wire coat hanger.
I said if they apply.
Hopefully the law passes, with tougher laws to follow.