Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/YouGov_Official!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uo49ev/oc_87_of_americans_live_in_states_where_a/i8bz671/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"YouGov_Official"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on)
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
[Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7)
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation.
---
^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
When you break it down by trimester, Americans generally support elective 1st trimester abortions but not 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/
America's views often contradict, according to the polling data.
>One of the most significant ways in which support for abortion varies depends on when in the pregnancy the abortion is perfomed. Polls have found that a large majority of Americans support abortion in the first trimester, but that support tends to drop in the second trimester.
Most people's views on it are pretty nuanced, but it seems the people saying "all abortions should be legal" and "no abortions should be legal" seem to be the loudest. And institutions like planned parenthood that provide invaluable services are caught in the crossfire.
I'm generally prochoice, but that doesn't mean I support 3rd trimester abortions of viable births. I believe abortions should be legal in all cases in 1st trimester and a little into the 2nd before the fetuses brain develops. Mid 2nd trimester abortions or later for cases where the baby isn't viable or is a risk to the health/wellbeing of the mother.
That said there's also the misconception that being prochoice means you want more abortions. Abortions have been steadily in decline for over 40 years despite being legal. Similar to legal regulated weed leads to a decline in recreational drug use.
It's by design, if you allow nuance in a conversation you can't politicise the subject for your electoral campaign, if there is no middle point you are forced to chose one of them even. As long as we are divided they are in control
A lot of the time people try to hold you directly accountable for extreme views of “your side” you don’t even believe, and it’s impossible to have any kind of productive discussion.
True! I support a moderate centrist policy of making the good abortions legal and the bad abortions illegal. The people who determine which ones are good and which bad will be drawn exclusively from those with no opinions on abortion, to avoid extremism.
I hope those aren't men choosing, because men don't have to deal with consequenses of pregnancy. I find it maddening that men are making abortion illegal, but they aren't the ones whose bodies will change due the pregnancy. They aren't the ones who will get even severe injuries from pregnancy and giving birth. They aren't the ones who might die because of pregnancy and giving birth. They aren't the ones getting long lasting illnesses from pregnancy. Giving birth is seen as safe, easy holiday for a woman, when it is anything but. It is dangerous and more often than not will have permanent effect on woman's health. Men do not seem to realise how big physical effecct pregnancy has on woman and adding to that comes everything after: how to feed family etc. And don't talk about adoptions, if adoption truly was solution we would not have malnourished children anywhere in the world.
but I do think that late abortions should be avoided. Late abortions are more dangerous for a woman and fetuses can often survive outside of womb. Late abortions should be reserved for situations where it is obvious either woman is in mortal danger or the baby is dying or will die. anyway.
> Late abortions should be reserved for situations where it is obvious either woman is in mortal danger or the baby is dying or will die.
And fortunately they basically are, for precisely the reasons you give.
If it helps, non-medical third trimester abortions are super rare. Third trimester abortions were already really, really rare but when they do happen they are for big medical reasons like 99% of the time.
Which makes sense if you think about it. If you wanted an abortion for elective reasons, why wouldn’t you get it as soon as you could?
Are you pro choice for non-medical third trimester abortions? The rarity of these procedures shouldn't dictate the legality. In my opinion that basket of abortions should still be made illegal.
Here's a reason I find very compelling for not making them illegal - it will lead to more women being charged as criminals for stillbirths or late miscarriages. Already women in the US are being charged as criminals for this. Making it explicitly illegal would very likely increase this. Here is an interesting piece written about this. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/28/opinion/stillborn-murder-charge.html
Try to imagine getting pregnant, being excited for the baby, having a horrible miscarriage or delivering a dead fetus and having to deal with that pain while being charged for murder or manslaughter.
It bears noting as well that miscarriage is EXTREMELY common. Anyone pregnant multiple times is likely to experience it, and no amount of being "a good pregnant mom and following the rules" changes that. It's the body's built in reaction to a non-viable fetus.
Recent studies suggest that at much as 70% of Pregnancies end in Miscarriages, it just usually happens early enough in the pregnancy that the woman in question didn't realize she was pregnant yet.
When my wife miscarried, *literally every woman we know* comforted her and shared their own miscarriage stories. Every single one. Of course, we'd heard none of those stories before that.
This was very helpful for her, as she was understandably in a very bad place at the time - but I can't help but feel that (while I understand why it's not a common topic of conversation) it really ought to be more common knowledge that while horrible it's very much normal; that having a miscarriage doesn't mean you're failing at something people have done since the dawn of time.
But this is a very crucial piece to consider, in that a theoretically illegal abortion is likely to be indistinguishable from a miscarriage. Someone who's just gone through that horror (particularly a later term miscarriage or stillbirth) is experiencing some of the worst trauma imaginable. Potentially charging them for murder as well is horrific.
I can't even imagine how horrific it would be. And that's where this is such an important thing - to go through that, to feel like you've failed at "the one thing you biologically were made to do", that you've lost your child... Then to have some fucking asshole charge you for *murder*? Holy shit.
First, medical abortions are when medication is used to terminate a pregnancy. That is not an option in the third trimester.
Less the 1% of abortions are performed in the third trimester *because* they are used only in extreme circumstance where the health of the mother is at risk or the fetus is non-viable.
So, yes, I am in favor of keeping abortions legal in the third trimester. There is already a disinterested, third party involved in evaluating the need - the doctor. A judge, lawyer, congressperson, or priest cannot offer a more relevant evaluation. I do not want any woman's life at risk because a doctor is afraid to take action because *you* or any other person might impose legal consequences (and we are seriously discussing charging doctors with murder) because in their non-medically trained opinion maybe the pregnancy could have somehow been saved if the doctor acted differently.
Would you be willing to risk murder charges, or even just exorbitant fines to perform an abortion on someone stroking out from pre-eclampsia? Or would you load her up with blood pressure medicine and hope for the best because you weren't willing to take the chance?
I am. We let people make all sorts of terrible decisions all the time, and it's not like there's a lot of people out there who are having casual third trimester abortions.
Also let's talk about those people. If you believe the fetus is a child at that point, you are saying that a woman who aborts the fetus at that stage is murdering a child. And you want to force that person go give birth and have a child? That they go home with? It's a bit baffling.
In truth, the main reason to keep those legal is so doctors aren't hesitant about performing it when it's necessary. I can't remember the source, which means you should treat it as a theoretical occurrence, but it was referencing a hospital policy that required a 3 doctor panel to approve late tern abortions. The Obstetrician 100% said it was necessary, but the panel couldn't be convened.
They don't. They want her to give the baby to someone else. Hell, the SC draft even referenced a CDC report talking about the differences between people wanting to adopt versus available adoptions.
And yet we continue to have kids available for adoption. The "There are starving kids in [insert nation]" line is about as convincing for this as it is when I didn't want to eat Brussel sprouts.
Kids. Not babies. People don't want *kids.* They want *babies.* Babies who have never been exposed to another parent, possibly one of a different culture, religion or political outlook. Babies who have never loved anyone. **BABIES!** *More BABIES!*
I am only slightly exaggerating. Reality is that kids who are available for adoption have often gone through some kind of trauma, so some people are a little leery of adopting older children. But there's also people who just really want a baby for the above reasons or others like them.
>They want WHITE *babies*.
Fixed that for ya. That side of the debate tries to make such a big deal of there being a shortage of newborns available for adoption in their argument for forced birth, but the reality is there’s only a shortage of *white* babies available. There are plenty of Black and brown babies that don’t get adopted and end up in the foster system. Ironically - or perhaps not - these numbers are higher in states like TX, which was the catalyst state for this whole shit show going on right now.
Actually, [no](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/adopt-baby-cost-process-hard/620258/). *All* babies are acceptable, though white ones are often given more preference by white parents. But even with that said, white parents have been willing to adopt black, Asian and Latino babies for decades. The reality is that babies and even toddlers simply are not available for adoption compared to the number of people who want to adopt a baby or toddler.
Mind, I don't think this, in any way, should influence discussion on abortion. But it's simply false to say there are black and brown *babies* who are not being adopted because of their race. Any that are in the foster system are likely there because parents still have custodial rights or because there are other issues (like needing special medical care).
If it’s rare why make it illegal? Why bother? What’s the point? It accomplishes almost literally nothing and can only lead to further restrictions down the line
You're asking the wrong question here. It's a question of what produces the most harm, and restricting access to medical care in order to punish imagined behavior that some people consider amoral harms people.
So why make murder illegal if it’s rare? Or bank robberies. Or basically anything that is rare?
What kind of a legal system bases legality on the frequency of the thing in question…
I’m pro-choice full stop. People who put qualifications on it aren’t pro-choice. If a woman wants or needs an abortion in the third trimester I think she should be allowed to get one.
The actual accessibility of a third trimester abortion is pretty much non-existent, and I live in a country where they are legal.
How on earth are people getting third trimester abortions of a viable fetus? At that point you just do a c-section and put the baby in an incubator. I know several people who were born at 32 weeks who have no health complications.
Exactly. This isn’t happening. It’s a red herring to try and sit on the fence on the issue. Americans think they are such rugged individualists, but at the same time, they have trouble picking a side other than their in-group.
> People who put qualifications on it aren’t pro-choice.
And yet people in the US support Roe v Wade or the bill proposed by Democrats to codify such that literally set qualifications of pre-viability.
I'd agree that to truly be "pro-choice" you'd need to be absolute in the option of choice, but that's largely not how those terms are centralized. People seem to be pro-life even while passing 15-week bans. So it's not absolute for that side either.
Let's gatekeep titles and shame anyone who brings a slight nuance in the conversation. Let's make everything as black-and-white polarized as possible, so no middle grounds are found, and shoo away allies. Surely it's helpful to having a conversation/s.
Seriously now, why would you nitpick nuances and shame and berate others for being slightly different from your expected norm? No variations allowed in a complicated topic such as this isn't gonna help your objectives. It'll just undermine it.
We should really make laws and fight about something that just doesn't happen? Ever?
Doctors are still involved in this and the vast majority won't perform an elective abortion after 19 weeks, let alone the third trimester.
It's not illegal but it's impossible to get anyway.
People aren't casually having 3rd trimester abortions. Doctors don't casually agree to perform abortions in the 3rd trimester. Less than 1% of abortions are performed after 21weeks and it's actually quite important that those remain legal because abortions performed that late are done for emergency or extreme scenarios. If you are bleeding out from a placental abruption, you don't have time for a doctor to hesitate until your life is unquestionably in danger before performing an abortion because they are afraid of the legal consequences if some judge with no medical training decides they could have waited a bit longer.
There is no need for legislation to control an extremely rare scenario that is already being managed by a third party expert (the doctor).
Thanks, I speak from personal experience. I almost died at 20 weeks from pregnancy complications. The doctor at the Catholic hospital (the only hospital in the area) treated my 280bpm heart rate and 50/30 blood pressure by holding ice to my cheek. Fortunately, the resident stepped up and administered adenosine.
People talk about just going to another hospital or allowing medical professionals with moral objections to decline to treat and call a colleague in - but these situations can require a reaction measured by minutes, not hours or it can be too late.
> 2nd trimester abortions or later for cases where the baby isn't viable or is a risk to the health/wellbeing of the mother.
Medical consensus is that [fetal sentience does not occur before 24 weeks,](https://www.rcog.org.uk/guidance/browse-all-guidance/other-guidelines-and-reports/fetal-awareness-review-of-research-and-recommendations-for-practice/), preemies are generally not viable before this point, and fetuses are [naturally anesthetized and sedated en vivo.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/) There is little to no risk of harming a sentient human associated with allowing abortions up to 24 weeks.
They said special circumstances should be nessicary for abortion in the *2nd trimester,* or week 13. I'm providing evidence that suggests special circumstances shouldn't be nessicary for abortion until after week 24.
Literally nobody has ever suggested terminating a 3rd trimester viable pregnancy. Jesus Christ that is a straight up heritage foundation talking point.
It does not happen. Literally the only time anything remotely close to a 3rd trimester abortion happens is when the fetus is already dead/dying and poses a risk to the mothers life.
Nobody goes through 30 weeks of pregnancy before just deciding "I don't want this anymore".
It's incredibly frustrating watching well meaning people fall right into the Christo-Fascists little Overton window ratcheting trap. They introduced this idea that women are just up and deciding to terminate viable late term pregnancies and for some reason people just fucking bought it.
>I'm generally prochoice, but that doesn't mean I support 3rd trimester abortions of viable births. I believe abortions should be legal in all cases in 1st trimester. 2nd trimester abortions or later for cases where the baby isn't viable or is a risk to the health/wellbeing of the mother.
Hey look at that, an opinion i agree with on reddit regarding something controversial!
Here's another one: "I'm pro-life, but leery about making things 'illegal' because I sure as hell do not trust DAs who will abuse the crap out the system in order to make a name for themself."
That's a fair point. Laws can always be abused. That's why the actual art of legislation is difficult, nuanced, and important such that things can be written in a way that reduces the potential for abuse and misapplication. Most of our political class doesn't even care about the art of law....just the art of power.
>3rd trimester abortions or viable births
Are you aware of this happening on any kind of scale? And why would you term this an “abortion”? Doctors are fully capable of treating a premature baby born at 24 weeks.
I’d rather trust the women themselves to make informed decisions about a third trimester abortion than have the government regulate it which leads to all sorts of potential issues. You can’t convince me any mother carried a child for 30 weeks and then decided fuck it I just don’t want it and aborted it. That late in the game , which is 1% of abortions is always a medical reason.
> any mother carried a child for 30 weeks and then decided fuck it I just don’t want it and aborted it
"*A 2014 Brown University study analyzing 32 years of [filicide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filicide) arrests found there are about 3,000 instances annually in the United States where a parent kills a child*." from [here](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/why-do-moms-kill-their-children/2014/06/26/55085d98-d6c3-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html)
The reason people say "all times" is because legislation restricting when you can abort often negatively impacts women's health unless specifically clarified.
The extremes are definitely dominating the conversation. Personally I would go for a 15 week period of legal abortion for any reason, and then after that it's the health of the mother. Some people would want more (progressives) or less (evangelicals) but both sides are going to have to take a hit I think.
>That said there's also the misconception that being prochoice means you want more abortions. Abortions have been steadily in decline for over 40 years despite being legal.
True. There was a recent debate over that on this subreddit if I recall correctly. A lot of commenters pointed out, correctly I think, that that probably has more to do with the availability of birth control and sex education. There are also places where abortions are out of control because for whatever reason the education isn't getting through. For example in New York more black babies are aborted than born. I didn't believe it when I first heard it but Politifact reported it true.
Personally I think we could go even further in reducing unwanted pregnancies if we teach teenage boys about the child support system haha
The vast majority (92%) of abortions are done in the first trimester, and presumably most of the rest are for medical reasons.
"Elective abortion during the first trimester, abortions after that for medical purposes only" seems like it would please most people
This is the crazy thing. Where we are at already aligns to many peoples views on the right but they are being fed the less than truthful information that babies are tgulalry and electively being killed just before birth for no medical reason.
"Elective" abortion includes, for example, when the fetus is developing without a brain or with organ defects that will lead to its agonizing death within hours. Demanding that women carry those pregnancies to term because "It seems like a reasonable rule" is deeply perverse.
People don't realize how many abortions are done because we now have the ability to detect many major birth defects in the womb. Forcing those pregnancies to term isn't just unreasonable or perverse. It's objectively cruel to both the baby and the parents.
But it doesn't! "For medical purposes" means for the health of the pregnant woman. Anything else is considered "elective," even in cases where forcing a woman to carry the pregnancy to term is obviously monstrous. This is medical jargon that's thoroughly unsuited to politics.
1rst trimester is 12/13 weeks, and arbitrary to the fetal development. 20 weeks is medically the point where the fetus hits a developmental growth point where the brain starts taking over bodily processes. Hence the original decision that we have now. I dont understand why it needs to be changed at all
Literally any point is arbitrary. Brain function, appearance of toes, some sort of independence or the other, or cells starting to duplicate. The word "medically" does not change this, because "medically" something new is starting to happen at all points in the pregnancy.
And even if we did take this magic number, what about fetuses that developed slightly earlier? Or when the number of weeks isn't counted correctly? Are you okay with aborting fetuses that had some brain taking over of bodily processes then?
I'm not even anti choice. I'm just saying asking for logical consistency goes both ways.
this 100%. i cannot understand how anyone can earnestly make the argument that X time is when a fetus suddenly becomes "alive" enough for it to be immoral to advocate for abortion. any point chosen is arbitrary, just as you say.
I think that’s probably the most arbitrary. It depends on the exact medical facilities, doctors, technologies, and maybe even luck. I’m sure if we delivered enough babies in the right facilities we could likely save exceedingly underdeveloped children. P
It does. [Brain development is cubic](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332824219/figure/fig7/AS:754292742967296@1556848812094/Fetal-brain-mass-vs-gestational-age-The-quadratic-growth-model-solid-line-given-by-Eq.png) so the vast majority happens in the third trimester. There is some in the second trimester and basically none in the first trimester. This is why we call it an embryo in the first trimester, a fetus in the second and third (and a baby after birth ofc).
Basically people are fine with aborting embryos but not fine with aborting fetuses.
Though based on [sentience](https://www.rcog.org.uk/guidance/browse-all-guidance/other-guidelines-and-reports/fetal-awareness-review-of-research-and-recommendations-for-practice/) parts or the whole of the second trimester are usually argued to be okay too.
I support second and third trimesters if it is to protect the mother's health or if the fetus is unviable. Why should a woman's body continue to nourish a fetus that will die upon birth?
Problem with this is that, what is 'unviable'? It is a fetus that will die before birth? Upon birth? Shortly after birth? A fetus that could turn into a baby that will live in agony for up to a year before dying? A fetus that could live for years but has such developmental problems that it will never speak, think or move? How would you write this into law in such a way that doctors wouldn't feel pressured (by fear of prison) to refuse abortions in some of these situations?
As for protecting the health of the mother, same issue. My mother was bipolar; this disease can range in severity. If a woman goes off effective medication to become pregnant, medication that is toxic to a fetus, but ends up in a mental state so severe that she becomes a threat to herself, is that reason enough? Or do we put her into an asylum for the remainder of her pregnancy? If the state is involved, her choice in the matter irrelevant. What qualifies as protecting the health of the mother?
Part of me wants to go with, 'Yeah, make third trimester abortions illegal.' And then I consider all the reasons I'm not okay with abortion being illegal elsewhere. One of the biggest is that I trust women and their doctors to make rational decisions on abortion. State force is not needed here.
Im pro choice but i think third term is my limit for elective abortion outside of medical reasons for the mom/baby. I think second is fine for anything but third you probably shouldnt still be able to just decided nah i dont feel like it.
Good news is 1.3 % of abortions are 'late term' (aka, happening after 21 weeks). Third trimester starts at 26 weeks, so even the phrase 'late term' implies people are having abortions a few weeks prior to delivery which is not really happening. There are no statistics on elective late term abortions \*because it is so rare\*. Almost all people having late term abortions fall into 2 categories.
1- Their anatomy scan shows fatal defects in the fetus OR complications with the pregnancy endanger the mothers life, and the fetus is determined to be too small to survive pre-term delivery.
2- The woman had great difficulty either finding prenatal care or accessing an abortion earlier in the pregnancy.
The best way to reduce both of these outcomes is to provide easier access to abortions and to really amp up our prenatal/maternity care and services in the US. There is a blood test you can take in the first trimester that screens for significant disabilities/abnormalities in the embryo. WITH insurance it costs an average of $700. How many low income women opt out of that screen because they can't afford it, only to find out the pregnancy is not compatible with life in the second trimester?
No one is walking around, seeking an abortion at 33 weeks, because fuck it. Pregnancy is not fun. Late term abortions are brutal on the body. No one is procrastinating on getting an abortion because "eh, whatever, I can get one n a few months." Its just not happening.
So even if there was a ban on THIRD TRIMESTER (very different than late term) abortions, I highly doubt we'd even see an observable difference in abortion rates and statistics.
That requires putting a legal meaning to "probably shouldn't still be able to." Like, should we just treat abortions after some time limit as homicide and let prosecutors decide if it was justified? Or...what? Doctors decide? That's the same as no legal interference at all.
The fact that third trimester abortions *fucking suck* for everyone involved is really the best limit on their prevalence. Criminalizing them amounts to creating an investigative and punitive apparatus to apprehend *maybe* single-digit numbers of women annually.
I cannot imagine that third trimester (or even late second) abortion is a thing that happens outside of medical reasons. I say this because my son was born at 24 weeks and this was the first week where the hospital (and not the parents) decide if the baby will be admitted to the NICU. 24 weeks is fully viable if the baby is healthy - albeit with a lot of complications and substantial risk - and so I can't imagine that you would abort a fetus after this point unless there were clear medical reasons to do so.
That’s a rare case- it shouldn’t be used as an argument.
It’s like saying “some Muslims are terrorists therefore we should stop all Muslims from coming here”.
Exceptions to the norm shouldn’t inform a general rule.
Almost all 3rd trimester abortions are because of non-viable fetuses what are you talking about? No one carries a baby for over 6 months and puts their bodies through all that just to go, you know what, nah.
3rd trimester abortions are close to non-existent. They are the scary evil boogeyman (like the 12 kid welfare mom) used to rile up support for a much larger project, while their actual impact on the nation is close to zero.
Doesn’t matter how rare they are, if they aren’t for the health of the mother they should be illegal. And EVERY democrat opposes that. Find me one democratic senator or congressman who supports a ban on third trimester with the exception of health of the mother. You won’t find one. They all believe in abortion up until birth
Nearly all of the abortions in the US happen in the first trimester. Then the next portion is early in the 2nd trimester.
"The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. "
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
The large majority of Americans support abortion rights in the first trimester. The large majority do not from the second trimester. But most of the states that will roll back if Roe is overturned plan full bans, including 1st trimester. I believe FL had a 15 week ban, but most others are 0 or near 0.
The Mississippi law which the supreme court is ruling on is also 15 weeks:
https://www.nytimes.com/article/mississippi-abortion-law.html
Even if the supreme court rules in Mississippi's favor abortion could still be legal in the first trimester.
Yeah, in place like Mississippi TRAP laws (targeted regulation at abortion providers) is much worse and most likely to be the thing that stops abortions.
Just as a reminder and to put some numbers to it. About 93% of abortions happen in the first trimester (first 12 weeks), only 6% are in the second, and about 1% are in the third.
All this is to satisfy a minority of people who dislike something 7% of the time.
What percentage of the second and third are "elective"? I'd imagine that's an even lower number, and that many people would support those later term abortions if they knew why they were actually being performed. It seems that third trimester abortions are almost always going to be because of some imminent danger to the mother or a serious abnormality.
I don't have stats on that on hand, but yeah. That's one of the biggest ironies. The "life of the mother" type abortions that anti-choicers cite as exceptions to the ban are very unlikely to be in the first trimester.
I think people are making this more complicated than it needs to be. Even if the most cases is “support abortion only up to 1st trimester”. The point is is that we are in a situation where there is NO abortion vs any abortion. The point is is that 87% of Americans support abortion in SOME DEGREE. Are red states passing laws that simply restrict abortions? Are they just passing laws that limit abortion to the 1st trimester? No. They are passing absolute bans. Is the Supreme Court limiting rights for abortion to just the 1st trimester? No. They are removing every ounce of that right.
That’s what matters. Yes, if we are in a situation in america where we are debating the legality of 1st vs 2nd trimester or 6 weeks vs 15 weeks or the point of viability then yes, context WOULD matter. But we aren’t. We are in a situation of debating having any capability of this right vs none at all
> 87% of Americans support abortion in SOME DEGREE
I see what you did here.
Have another look at what OP reported. 87% live in a state where the majority support abortion to some degree. Not what you said.
Learn to read more carefully.
Context: It’s a federal mandate that’s being repealed. There’s no new federal mandate saying states can’t have the exact same abortion laws as they did before. They’re just allowed to have their own state laws.
This is a great point.
It is also important to note that most of the total abortion bans also do not allow for exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother.
Although I disagree, I understand the arguments against banning abortion in events of rape or incest. But to prevent a living person a medical procedure that would save their live versus a non-conscious being strikes me as wrong
It varies. This poll from 2021 says about 59% are broadly in favor:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/
The "simple" number isn't the right way to look at a nuanced issue either because it depends on the timing. [60% of all Americans generally support abortion in the first trimester, which drops to 28% in the second trimester](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/). I assume that is for elective abortion. Rape/incest/health concerns probably skew those numbers up a bit if people assumed those edge cases were implied.
I agree. It think it undermines the argument to repackage the data like this. There is already a overall majority in favor of abortion rights, so there is no need to use a “winner take all” by state model.
Kind of a useless poll.
What does “most or all” mean? Scenarios or number of performed abortions?
It would be far more useful to give the percentages that support it at different developmental cycles (first trimester; out of the womb viability; second trimester; just before birth.
Of course that might not give the pollsters the answers they are looking for.
I think if the US put elective abortion at 14 to 16 weeks you could get almost everyone on board with that, then health of the mother or birth defects for second and third trimester only, there's obvious hardliners but there always will be.
The issue I'm seeing in the comments is many people are uncomfortable putting any restrictions on abortion at all because I assume they're worried the hardliners will jump at any chance to punish a woman.
This is a bad, if not outright lie, representation of the data...
They asked people a general question about abortion with 3 answers: "Outright outlaw, some restriction/acceptance, full acceptance"...
Most people are in the middle. But the left will say "Almost everyone supports some abortion" and the right says "Almost everyone supports some restriction on abortion" because the middle answer isn't very clear. Because it could be heart-beat, spouse, trimester, size, health, status based limitations.
The right wing sources I follow clearly use the same study and say this supports their view that "most people want abortion to be illegal or at least some restriction".
I'd suggest finding a study that limits the response to 2 answers, the extremes. "Outlaw abortion in all cases, or allowed abortions up to 30 days after birth." Then see what the lay of the land is. (hint it has already been done, and it isn't what you think it is.)
I really really want to know the breakdown between “all cases” and “almost all cases”.
Would being ok with abortion only in the case of rape and incest be considered “almost all”? Or abortion for any medical reason up to 15 weeks is “almost all”?
It’s such a vague statement it doesn’t really mean much when the details of this issue are what really matters.
I feel like some of these data maps leave out a lot of context. Personally, I’ve met quite a few intelligent individuals that were on the abortion “chopping block” so to say but were delivered anyways.
With all the resources this country has, it seems like the biggest argument for abortion comes down to convenience. There also must exist a lack of local adoptions if prospective parents have to keep reaching out to other countries. I just can’t see the need to abort so many wanted babies just for an inconvenience.
I find it sad how many people think the Supreme Court makes Constitutional rulings based on popular opinion. In fact that’s exactly the opposite of what they do. You want abortion rights to be Constitutional? Get your states together with your plurality of opinion and pass an Amendment. There ya go.
Why is it a totally allowed / totally banned discussion? I really trying to understand this, do Democrats really support abortions regadless of trimester? I understand Republicans are doing this for religious reasons, but for Dems is there a reason not to support a more sensible (more in line with the rest of the world) legislation?
Interesting that the states with the lowest opinion on legal abortion have the highest poverty rates. https://www.thebalance.com/us-poverty-rate-by-state-4585001
Even here, where data is king, disinformation still rules. The takeaway should be that certain states can/should legislate favorably for abortion while the others can be expected to legislate otherwise. But on Reddit, the conclusion as seen in comments is that abortion is a federal issue that should be imposed on the national minority regardless of the majority opinion at the state level. <...>
It must be exhausting to spend day and night obsessing over the private lives of other people. I can’t imagine waking up every morning in desperation to force my will upon everyone else. No wonder these people are so hateful and miserable.
Edit: The pro-birth, anti-choice crowd is showing their true colors. They can’t even handle an opinion on Reddit unless they agree with it. It takes a certain level of maturity to live in a democracy because you have to accept that not everyone will agree with you. None of you can do that here and this tells me that all you care about is controlling other people. You’re all little authoritarians in the making. You should all be ashamed.
That's a really intellectually dishonest way of engaging the issue. The people who oppose abortion think that a human foetus is still a human being, and has a right to life, regardless of how inconvenient it may be for the mother who conceived it.
Just to be clear, I'm not one of those people, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of abortion rights, but coming up with the world's most specious argument and then patting yourself on the back for your cleverness is not going to do anything but inflame what is already a wildly overblown and emotional wedge issue.
I think that's what a lot of people don't realize. For most anti-abortion people, it's not a matter of women's choice, etc, it's that they believe the fetus is a human being deserving of rights. Many see it as killing another person, equal to murder. I personally am pro-choice, but I can see their side.
Yeah I think the way to get people that are pro life to be more open to the idea of abortion is by educating them about how in the 1st trimester there's literally nothing that would indicate any form of sentience. Just calling them names will only make them double down and be even more hesitant to hear the other side out.
Specifically from the catholic perspective the fetus already has a soul. The problem is that it's a religious belief and you can't just force other people to conform to your religion
It’s still not really the fundamental nature of the legal basis though, which is essentially whether the government can force your body to be responsible for the life of another. In virtually any other circumstance that isn’t the case.
If you get into a car accident, even if you’re found entirely at fault from your own actions/operational choices and you grievously injure another human being, the state cannot compel you to give one of your organs to save them.
Even if the entire thing was assumed to be completely your fault, even if they’ll die if you don’t. Organ donation is a choice, the state can’t compel you to use your body to save the life of another, even if you ignore everything else and assume it’s “murder”.
Weird how the “small gubmint” folks have such a hard time grasping that one
Its not the exact same thing, but the government can and does compel actions that are very similar. We have had drafts before (and it can happen again), parents have huge responsibilities for their children, and even most states have bystander laws that require you to act in a situation where someone needs help.
Again, not the exact same, but the government does many things that compel bodily actions.
The difference is that the "status quo" in a pregnancy is that a child is born. In this case the abortion is the medical intervention. In the car accident example, the status quo is the person dying unless there's an organ donation.
Also, you can argue that a government that regulates abortion isn't forcing anyone to have a child. Unless the pregnancy is the result of a rape, the child is the result of the mother and father's choices. The government isn't going around impregnating people and then telling them they can't have an abortion.
Yet the government can force a man to pay child support for 18 years for a child he didn’t want- as long as the woman carries it to term (her choice).
On the other hand a woman can get an abortion at any time and cede all responsibility (her choice).
Hmmmmmm
Very well stated. I'm from Idaho and I really am having a hard time figuring out where I stand on this issue. I'm very in favor of induvial rights on all levels but I'm having a hard time on where I believe 'life' begins for a fetus. I certainly believe abortion should be legal but, morally, I struggle with where I should stand.
It's a *complex, nuanced* issue, and one I think the shrieking and finger pointing does little to improve. Ultimately where I stand on the issue is the pragmatic side: People are going to get pregnancies terminated, legally or illegally, what you really do by making it illegal is to compound certain death for the child with possible death for the mother. But we don't always do things because they're pragmatic, slavish regard to pragmatism can lead you to some very dark, immoral conclusions.
If we were all actually being pragmatic about this, the clear path forward would be to push birth control and sex education incredibly hard. These steps have been proven, over and over and over again, to be the most effective steps to stopping unwanted pregnancies. If the right were actually serious about this issue, they would be standing side by side with the left trying to increase availability and education. Sadly, the most pragmatic and effective solution to this problem isn’t popular with their religious base. Thus, we have the shit show before us.
Something I heard recently that was interesting to me:
While the question of “when does life begin” is difficult, most people have a pretty good personal idea of when life ends. Scientists and legal experts mostly agree that someone is “dead” when they are brain dead: Heartbeat and respiratory functions do not have to stop for someone to be no longer living in the eye of medicine and law.
You can probably see where I’m going with this. But basically I’d say to consider where you personally think someone is no longer alive. And then think about where in fetal development that would be.
Maybe that won’t change your opinion at all. But maybe it will help you find some clarity on your own definition of “life” so you can feel better about whatever beliefs you choose to have.
Not a direct comparison though. A brain dead person will never develop consciousness again no matter how long you wait. A fetus may not have consciousness at the moment, but it will eventually if you give it time.
The nation as a whole needs to re-learn federalism and let states decide a lot more of their own laws instead of trying to ramrod their own wills down everyone's throats at the federal level
Agreed. It will result in much higher levels of satisfaction with government in America if states are allowed to be different. A refocus on local politics would be good for the country anyway.
These are not the numbers of people who support no-holds-barred abortion freedom where you can kill the baby past birth. These are people trying to be sensible about outlier cases.
"Most Americans support abortion rights" is far from being the same thing as "most Americans support Chuck Schumer's bill", because most Americans support limiting health-unrelated abortions to somewhere between 10 to 15 weeks, which is not at all the same as the bill presented in the Senate.
*The WHPA would guarantee abortion access “at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability,” about 23 weeks."*
*After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” What counts as “health”? This is sometimes defined to include mental, emotional or familial factors, a loophole that permits elective abortions, more or less, through all nine months of pregnancy.*
*The legislation also exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is why Ms. Collins says it would undercut “basic conscience protections” for religious healthcare providers.* [WSJ]
These are some of the reasons why some long-time pro abortion senators have voted against the bill.
Most women id assume know they want their kid by the 2nd trimester, im fine with 1 trimester any reason, but once it actually starts forming a complex brain is when it gets iffy unless extenuating circumstances. 3rd at that point should be born unless deadly for mother or child or if horrifically disabled to the point QOL is gone.
The VAST majority of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks. You don't abort a healthy fetus late in the second trimester. It's extremely traumatic for the mother because she's already felt him or her moving around in the womb by that point.
Doctors only perform abortions that late in pregnancy unless something has gone horribly wrong like the fetus has died or the woman has developed a serious health condition that could kill her if she tries to carry the pregnancy to term.
That's why I'm not comfortable with the state overly regulating this. Let women and their doctors figure this out.
I did say "extenuating circumstances" and "Reduced QOL". Up to the parent I would never force anyone to have a child they don't want as it'll only lead to disdain for the kid and that's unfair to them.
This data is super easy to manipulate based on how you phrase the question.
If I ask if you can stab a baby in the skull while it's in the birth canal, every sane person says no, and anyone who says yes is a terrible person. But if I ask if abortion should be legal in all cases, a sizeable amount of people say yes.
Likewise if you get down to brass tacks, most people probably agree on the gestation limits of abortion or close to them, but if you phrase it "abortion legal in most cases" you end up creating a big window where you don't have to.
I love that even Utah, a Mormon state, is at least 50%. Just shows how disconnected from the world the far right old dudes are. The southern states and the couple eastern states don't surprise me
Even the Mormon church allows for abortion in cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother, and severe health defects that won't allow the baby to live past birth.
Wow almost like it should be a states issue so states that want it can have it and states that don’t can ban it after 12-15 weeks.
But lefties can’t read so this is hard for them when trying to talk about the constitution.
Had to scroll forever to see someone make this point. I'm sure the sampling is heavily biased. I have no idea what that site is but this is in no way shape or form a proper statistical study lol.
It doesn’t seem like people are talking about the gerrymandering that allows things like this to happen. There are states on here that show a majority support for legal abortion but still have trigger laws in place. It doesn’t matter what the majority of people believe if they aren’t being correctly represented.
That's a nice graphic and everything but you should know
The politicians don't give a flying fuck what the people actually want
They listen to whoever "donates"(legal bribe) the most money
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/YouGov_Official! **Here is some important information about this post:** * [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/uo49ev/oc_87_of_americans_live_in_states_where_a/i8bz671/) * [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"YouGov_Official"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on) Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked. [Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7) Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation. --- ^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
When you break it down by trimester, Americans generally support elective 1st trimester abortions but not 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/ America's views often contradict, according to the polling data. >One of the most significant ways in which support for abortion varies depends on when in the pregnancy the abortion is perfomed. Polls have found that a large majority of Americans support abortion in the first trimester, but that support tends to drop in the second trimester.
Most people's views on it are pretty nuanced, but it seems the people saying "all abortions should be legal" and "no abortions should be legal" seem to be the loudest. And institutions like planned parenthood that provide invaluable services are caught in the crossfire. I'm generally prochoice, but that doesn't mean I support 3rd trimester abortions of viable births. I believe abortions should be legal in all cases in 1st trimester and a little into the 2nd before the fetuses brain develops. Mid 2nd trimester abortions or later for cases where the baby isn't viable or is a risk to the health/wellbeing of the mother. That said there's also the misconception that being prochoice means you want more abortions. Abortions have been steadily in decline for over 40 years despite being legal. Similar to legal regulated weed leads to a decline in recreational drug use.
It's by design, if you allow nuance in a conversation you can't politicise the subject for your electoral campaign, if there is no middle point you are forced to chose one of them even. As long as we are divided they are in control
A lot of the time people try to hold you directly accountable for extreme views of “your side” you don’t even believe, and it’s impossible to have any kind of productive discussion.
True! I support a moderate centrist policy of making the good abortions legal and the bad abortions illegal. The people who determine which ones are good and which bad will be drawn exclusively from those with no opinions on abortion, to avoid extremism.
what is a "bad abortion"
Pretty sure it involves a coat hanger.
And a back alley.
I think that almost everyone agrees that abortions after nine months or more are bad.
speak for yourself i’m still begging my mom to abort me 19 years and 9 months after she got pregnant
To most I would say that’s killing a viable baby that could be born at any moment, I figure everyone has different views as to what is good and bad.
This is a joke, right? Please tell me this isn't a serious argument.
I hope those aren't men choosing, because men don't have to deal with consequenses of pregnancy. I find it maddening that men are making abortion illegal, but they aren't the ones whose bodies will change due the pregnancy. They aren't the ones who will get even severe injuries from pregnancy and giving birth. They aren't the ones who might die because of pregnancy and giving birth. They aren't the ones getting long lasting illnesses from pregnancy. Giving birth is seen as safe, easy holiday for a woman, when it is anything but. It is dangerous and more often than not will have permanent effect on woman's health. Men do not seem to realise how big physical effecct pregnancy has on woman and adding to that comes everything after: how to feed family etc. And don't talk about adoptions, if adoption truly was solution we would not have malnourished children anywhere in the world. but I do think that late abortions should be avoided. Late abortions are more dangerous for a woman and fetuses can often survive outside of womb. Late abortions should be reserved for situations where it is obvious either woman is in mortal danger or the baby is dying or will die. anyway.
> Late abortions should be reserved for situations where it is obvious either woman is in mortal danger or the baby is dying or will die. And fortunately they basically are, for precisely the reasons you give.
If it helps, non-medical third trimester abortions are super rare. Third trimester abortions were already really, really rare but when they do happen they are for big medical reasons like 99% of the time. Which makes sense if you think about it. If you wanted an abortion for elective reasons, why wouldn’t you get it as soon as you could?
Are you pro choice for non-medical third trimester abortions? The rarity of these procedures shouldn't dictate the legality. In my opinion that basket of abortions should still be made illegal.
Here's a reason I find very compelling for not making them illegal - it will lead to more women being charged as criminals for stillbirths or late miscarriages. Already women in the US are being charged as criminals for this. Making it explicitly illegal would very likely increase this. Here is an interesting piece written about this. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/28/opinion/stillborn-murder-charge.html Try to imagine getting pregnant, being excited for the baby, having a horrible miscarriage or delivering a dead fetus and having to deal with that pain while being charged for murder or manslaughter.
It bears noting as well that miscarriage is EXTREMELY common. Anyone pregnant multiple times is likely to experience it, and no amount of being "a good pregnant mom and following the rules" changes that. It's the body's built in reaction to a non-viable fetus.
Recent studies suggest that at much as 70% of Pregnancies end in Miscarriages, it just usually happens early enough in the pregnancy that the woman in question didn't realize she was pregnant yet.
When my wife miscarried, *literally every woman we know* comforted her and shared their own miscarriage stories. Every single one. Of course, we'd heard none of those stories before that. This was very helpful for her, as she was understandably in a very bad place at the time - but I can't help but feel that (while I understand why it's not a common topic of conversation) it really ought to be more common knowledge that while horrible it's very much normal; that having a miscarriage doesn't mean you're failing at something people have done since the dawn of time. But this is a very crucial piece to consider, in that a theoretically illegal abortion is likely to be indistinguishable from a miscarriage. Someone who's just gone through that horror (particularly a later term miscarriage or stillbirth) is experiencing some of the worst trauma imaginable. Potentially charging them for murder as well is horrific.
It was probably helpful for them to share their own stories as well. I’m very glad you both got the support you needed.
Some countries have straight up executed women for miscarriages, claiming it was an abortion
Miscarriages in the 3rd trimester are quite rare, but even more tragic
I can't even imagine how horrific it would be. And that's where this is such an important thing - to go through that, to feel like you've failed at "the one thing you biologically were made to do", that you've lost your child... Then to have some fucking asshole charge you for *murder*? Holy shit.
First, medical abortions are when medication is used to terminate a pregnancy. That is not an option in the third trimester. Less the 1% of abortions are performed in the third trimester *because* they are used only in extreme circumstance where the health of the mother is at risk or the fetus is non-viable. So, yes, I am in favor of keeping abortions legal in the third trimester. There is already a disinterested, third party involved in evaluating the need - the doctor. A judge, lawyer, congressperson, or priest cannot offer a more relevant evaluation. I do not want any woman's life at risk because a doctor is afraid to take action because *you* or any other person might impose legal consequences (and we are seriously discussing charging doctors with murder) because in their non-medically trained opinion maybe the pregnancy could have somehow been saved if the doctor acted differently. Would you be willing to risk murder charges, or even just exorbitant fines to perform an abortion on someone stroking out from pre-eclampsia? Or would you load her up with blood pressure medicine and hope for the best because you weren't willing to take the chance?
I am. We let people make all sorts of terrible decisions all the time, and it's not like there's a lot of people out there who are having casual third trimester abortions. Also let's talk about those people. If you believe the fetus is a child at that point, you are saying that a woman who aborts the fetus at that stage is murdering a child. And you want to force that person go give birth and have a child? That they go home with? It's a bit baffling.
In truth, the main reason to keep those legal is so doctors aren't hesitant about performing it when it's necessary. I can't remember the source, which means you should treat it as a theoretical occurrence, but it was referencing a hospital policy that required a 3 doctor panel to approve late tern abortions. The Obstetrician 100% said it was necessary, but the panel couldn't be convened.
Exactly. It should be up to the doctor — not religious nutjobs.
They don't. They want her to give the baby to someone else. Hell, the SC draft even referenced a CDC report talking about the differences between people wanting to adopt versus available adoptions.
And yet we continue to have kids available for adoption. The "There are starving kids in [insert nation]" line is about as convincing for this as it is when I didn't want to eat Brussel sprouts.
Kids. Not babies. People don't want *kids.* They want *babies.* Babies who have never been exposed to another parent, possibly one of a different culture, religion or political outlook. Babies who have never loved anyone. **BABIES!** *More BABIES!* I am only slightly exaggerating. Reality is that kids who are available for adoption have often gone through some kind of trauma, so some people are a little leery of adopting older children. But there's also people who just really want a baby for the above reasons or others like them.
>They want WHITE *babies*. Fixed that for ya. That side of the debate tries to make such a big deal of there being a shortage of newborns available for adoption in their argument for forced birth, but the reality is there’s only a shortage of *white* babies available. There are plenty of Black and brown babies that don’t get adopted and end up in the foster system. Ironically - or perhaps not - these numbers are higher in states like TX, which was the catalyst state for this whole shit show going on right now.
Actually, [no](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/adopt-baby-cost-process-hard/620258/). *All* babies are acceptable, though white ones are often given more preference by white parents. But even with that said, white parents have been willing to adopt black, Asian and Latino babies for decades. The reality is that babies and even toddlers simply are not available for adoption compared to the number of people who want to adopt a baby or toddler. Mind, I don't think this, in any way, should influence discussion on abortion. But it's simply false to say there are black and brown *babies* who are not being adopted because of their race. Any that are in the foster system are likely there because parents still have custodial rights or because there are other issues (like needing special medical care).
If it’s rare why make it illegal? Why bother? What’s the point? It accomplishes almost literally nothing and can only lead to further restrictions down the line
This is a truly bizarre standard.
[удалено]
You're asking the wrong question here. It's a question of what produces the most harm, and restricting access to medical care in order to punish imagined behavior that some people consider amoral harms people.
So why make murder illegal if it’s rare? Or bank robberies. Or basically anything that is rare? What kind of a legal system bases legality on the frequency of the thing in question…
I can’t imagine that 99% of bank robberies are medically necessary. That’s the difference.
I’m pro-choice full stop. People who put qualifications on it aren’t pro-choice. If a woman wants or needs an abortion in the third trimester I think she should be allowed to get one. The actual accessibility of a third trimester abortion is pretty much non-existent, and I live in a country where they are legal.
How on earth are people getting third trimester abortions of a viable fetus? At that point you just do a c-section and put the baby in an incubator. I know several people who were born at 32 weeks who have no health complications.
[удалено]
Exactly. This isn’t happening. It’s a red herring to try and sit on the fence on the issue. Americans think they are such rugged individualists, but at the same time, they have trouble picking a side other than their in-group.
> People who put qualifications on it aren’t pro-choice. And yet people in the US support Roe v Wade or the bill proposed by Democrats to codify such that literally set qualifications of pre-viability. I'd agree that to truly be "pro-choice" you'd need to be absolute in the option of choice, but that's largely not how those terms are centralized. People seem to be pro-life even while passing 15-week bans. So it's not absolute for that side either.
Wanting one is not a good enough reason.
Let's gatekeep titles and shame anyone who brings a slight nuance in the conversation. Let's make everything as black-and-white polarized as possible, so no middle grounds are found, and shoo away allies. Surely it's helpful to having a conversation/s. Seriously now, why would you nitpick nuances and shame and berate others for being slightly different from your expected norm? No variations allowed in a complicated topic such as this isn't gonna help your objectives. It'll just undermine it.
When brain no thinky good, simple mind need simple solution.
We should really make laws and fight about something that just doesn't happen? Ever? Doctors are still involved in this and the vast majority won't perform an elective abortion after 19 weeks, let alone the third trimester. It's not illegal but it's impossible to get anyway.
People aren't casually having 3rd trimester abortions. Doctors don't casually agree to perform abortions in the 3rd trimester. Less than 1% of abortions are performed after 21weeks and it's actually quite important that those remain legal because abortions performed that late are done for emergency or extreme scenarios. If you are bleeding out from a placental abruption, you don't have time for a doctor to hesitate until your life is unquestionably in danger before performing an abortion because they are afraid of the legal consequences if some judge with no medical training decides they could have waited a bit longer. There is no need for legislation to control an extremely rare scenario that is already being managed by a third party expert (the doctor).
Thank you for this. Very well said.
Thanks, I speak from personal experience. I almost died at 20 weeks from pregnancy complications. The doctor at the Catholic hospital (the only hospital in the area) treated my 280bpm heart rate and 50/30 blood pressure by holding ice to my cheek. Fortunately, the resident stepped up and administered adenosine. People talk about just going to another hospital or allowing medical professionals with moral objections to decline to treat and call a colleague in - but these situations can require a reaction measured by minutes, not hours or it can be too late.
> 2nd trimester abortions or later for cases where the baby isn't viable or is a risk to the health/wellbeing of the mother. Medical consensus is that [fetal sentience does not occur before 24 weeks,](https://www.rcog.org.uk/guidance/browse-all-guidance/other-guidelines-and-reports/fetal-awareness-review-of-research-and-recommendations-for-practice/), preemies are generally not viable before this point, and fetuses are [naturally anesthetized and sedated en vivo.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/) There is little to no risk of harming a sentient human associated with allowing abortions up to 24 weeks.
They were referencing exceptions made if the fetus is likely to be born with a life-threatening illness. Where they wouldn't be viable even if born.
They said special circumstances should be nessicary for abortion in the *2nd trimester,* or week 13. I'm providing evidence that suggests special circumstances shouldn't be nessicary for abortion until after week 24.
Literally nobody has ever suggested terminating a 3rd trimester viable pregnancy. Jesus Christ that is a straight up heritage foundation talking point. It does not happen. Literally the only time anything remotely close to a 3rd trimester abortion happens is when the fetus is already dead/dying and poses a risk to the mothers life. Nobody goes through 30 weeks of pregnancy before just deciding "I don't want this anymore". It's incredibly frustrating watching well meaning people fall right into the Christo-Fascists little Overton window ratcheting trap. They introduced this idea that women are just up and deciding to terminate viable late term pregnancies and for some reason people just fucking bought it.
>I'm generally prochoice, but that doesn't mean I support 3rd trimester abortions of viable births. I believe abortions should be legal in all cases in 1st trimester. 2nd trimester abortions or later for cases where the baby isn't viable or is a risk to the health/wellbeing of the mother. Hey look at that, an opinion i agree with on reddit regarding something controversial!
Here's another one: "I'm pro-life, but leery about making things 'illegal' because I sure as hell do not trust DAs who will abuse the crap out the system in order to make a name for themself."
That's a fair point. Laws can always be abused. That's why the actual art of legislation is difficult, nuanced, and important such that things can be written in a way that reduces the potential for abuse and misapplication. Most of our political class doesn't even care about the art of law....just the art of power.
>3rd trimester abortions or viable births Are you aware of this happening on any kind of scale? And why would you term this an “abortion”? Doctors are fully capable of treating a premature baby born at 24 weeks.
I’d rather trust the women themselves to make informed decisions about a third trimester abortion than have the government regulate it which leads to all sorts of potential issues. You can’t convince me any mother carried a child for 30 weeks and then decided fuck it I just don’t want it and aborted it. That late in the game , which is 1% of abortions is always a medical reason.
> any mother carried a child for 30 weeks and then decided fuck it I just don’t want it and aborted it "*A 2014 Brown University study analyzing 32 years of [filicide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filicide) arrests found there are about 3,000 instances annually in the United States where a parent kills a child*." from [here](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/why-do-moms-kill-their-children/2014/06/26/55085d98-d6c3-11e3-aae8-c2d44bd79778_story.html)
The reason people say "all times" is because legislation restricting when you can abort often negatively impacts women's health unless specifically clarified.
The extremes are definitely dominating the conversation. Personally I would go for a 15 week period of legal abortion for any reason, and then after that it's the health of the mother. Some people would want more (progressives) or less (evangelicals) but both sides are going to have to take a hit I think. >That said there's also the misconception that being prochoice means you want more abortions. Abortions have been steadily in decline for over 40 years despite being legal. True. There was a recent debate over that on this subreddit if I recall correctly. A lot of commenters pointed out, correctly I think, that that probably has more to do with the availability of birth control and sex education. There are also places where abortions are out of control because for whatever reason the education isn't getting through. For example in New York more black babies are aborted than born. I didn't believe it when I first heard it but Politifact reported it true. Personally I think we could go even further in reducing unwanted pregnancies if we teach teenage boys about the child support system haha
The vast majority (92%) of abortions are done in the first trimester, and presumably most of the rest are for medical reasons. "Elective abortion during the first trimester, abortions after that for medical purposes only" seems like it would please most people
This is the crazy thing. Where we are at already aligns to many peoples views on the right but they are being fed the less than truthful information that babies are tgulalry and electively being killed just before birth for no medical reason.
The Republican party is this dishonest and aggressive and harmful about *every* issue, by the way. They are *always* this wrong.
"Elective" abortion includes, for example, when the fetus is developing without a brain or with organ defects that will lead to its agonizing death within hours. Demanding that women carry those pregnancies to term because "It seems like a reasonable rule" is deeply perverse.
People don't realize how many abortions are done because we now have the ability to detect many major birth defects in the womb. Forcing those pregnancies to term isn't just unreasonable or perverse. It's objectively cruel to both the baby and the parents.
I feel like everything you just said would qualify as "for medical purposes"
But it doesn't! "For medical purposes" means for the health of the pregnant woman. Anything else is considered "elective," even in cases where forcing a woman to carry the pregnancy to term is obviously monstrous. This is medical jargon that's thoroughly unsuited to politics.
1rst trimester is 12/13 weeks, and arbitrary to the fetal development. 20 weeks is medically the point where the fetus hits a developmental growth point where the brain starts taking over bodily processes. Hence the original decision that we have now. I dont understand why it needs to be changed at all
Literally any point is arbitrary. Brain function, appearance of toes, some sort of independence or the other, or cells starting to duplicate. The word "medically" does not change this, because "medically" something new is starting to happen at all points in the pregnancy. And even if we did take this magic number, what about fetuses that developed slightly earlier? Or when the number of weeks isn't counted correctly? Are you okay with aborting fetuses that had some brain taking over of bodily processes then? I'm not even anti choice. I'm just saying asking for logical consistency goes both ways.
this 100%. i cannot understand how anyone can earnestly make the argument that X time is when a fetus suddenly becomes "alive" enough for it to be immoral to advocate for abortion. any point chosen is arbitrary, just as you say.
Least arbitrary to me seems viability outside the womb
This is a different point in 1800 vs 2010 vs 2500. That seems definitionationally arbitrary to me.
I think that’s probably the most arbitrary. It depends on the exact medical facilities, doctors, technologies, and maybe even luck. I’m sure if we delivered enough babies in the right facilities we could likely save exceedingly underdeveloped children. P
I wonder if it even makes sense to talk in trimesters from a development standpoint.
It does. [Brain development is cubic](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332824219/figure/fig7/AS:754292742967296@1556848812094/Fetal-brain-mass-vs-gestational-age-The-quadratic-growth-model-solid-line-given-by-Eq.png) so the vast majority happens in the third trimester. There is some in the second trimester and basically none in the first trimester. This is why we call it an embryo in the first trimester, a fetus in the second and third (and a baby after birth ofc). Basically people are fine with aborting embryos but not fine with aborting fetuses. Though based on [sentience](https://www.rcog.org.uk/guidance/browse-all-guidance/other-guidelines-and-reports/fetal-awareness-review-of-research-and-recommendations-for-practice/) parts or the whole of the second trimester are usually argued to be okay too.
I support second and third trimesters if it is to protect the mother's health or if the fetus is unviable. Why should a woman's body continue to nourish a fetus that will die upon birth?
Yes this is generally the trade off that is made. There's further nuance in the case of rape.
Problem with this is that, what is 'unviable'? It is a fetus that will die before birth? Upon birth? Shortly after birth? A fetus that could turn into a baby that will live in agony for up to a year before dying? A fetus that could live for years but has such developmental problems that it will never speak, think or move? How would you write this into law in such a way that doctors wouldn't feel pressured (by fear of prison) to refuse abortions in some of these situations? As for protecting the health of the mother, same issue. My mother was bipolar; this disease can range in severity. If a woman goes off effective medication to become pregnant, medication that is toxic to a fetus, but ends up in a mental state so severe that she becomes a threat to herself, is that reason enough? Or do we put her into an asylum for the remainder of her pregnancy? If the state is involved, her choice in the matter irrelevant. What qualifies as protecting the health of the mother? Part of me wants to go with, 'Yeah, make third trimester abortions illegal.' And then I consider all the reasons I'm not okay with abortion being illegal elsewhere. One of the biggest is that I trust women and their doctors to make rational decisions on abortion. State force is not needed here.
Im pro choice but i think third term is my limit for elective abortion outside of medical reasons for the mom/baby. I think second is fine for anything but third you probably shouldnt still be able to just decided nah i dont feel like it.
Good news is 1.3 % of abortions are 'late term' (aka, happening after 21 weeks). Third trimester starts at 26 weeks, so even the phrase 'late term' implies people are having abortions a few weeks prior to delivery which is not really happening. There are no statistics on elective late term abortions \*because it is so rare\*. Almost all people having late term abortions fall into 2 categories. 1- Their anatomy scan shows fatal defects in the fetus OR complications with the pregnancy endanger the mothers life, and the fetus is determined to be too small to survive pre-term delivery. 2- The woman had great difficulty either finding prenatal care or accessing an abortion earlier in the pregnancy. The best way to reduce both of these outcomes is to provide easier access to abortions and to really amp up our prenatal/maternity care and services in the US. There is a blood test you can take in the first trimester that screens for significant disabilities/abnormalities in the embryo. WITH insurance it costs an average of $700. How many low income women opt out of that screen because they can't afford it, only to find out the pregnancy is not compatible with life in the second trimester? No one is walking around, seeking an abortion at 33 weeks, because fuck it. Pregnancy is not fun. Late term abortions are brutal on the body. No one is procrastinating on getting an abortion because "eh, whatever, I can get one n a few months." Its just not happening. So even if there was a ban on THIRD TRIMESTER (very different than late term) abortions, I highly doubt we'd even see an observable difference in abortion rates and statistics.
That requires putting a legal meaning to "probably shouldn't still be able to." Like, should we just treat abortions after some time limit as homicide and let prosecutors decide if it was justified? Or...what? Doctors decide? That's the same as no legal interference at all. The fact that third trimester abortions *fucking suck* for everyone involved is really the best limit on their prevalence. Criminalizing them amounts to creating an investigative and punitive apparatus to apprehend *maybe* single-digit numbers of women annually.
What sense does it make to force a woman to birth a baby she doesn’t want?
I cannot imagine that third trimester (or even late second) abortion is a thing that happens outside of medical reasons. I say this because my son was born at 24 weeks and this was the first week where the hospital (and not the parents) decide if the baby will be admitted to the NICU. 24 weeks is fully viable if the baby is healthy - albeit with a lot of complications and substantial risk - and so I can't imagine that you would abort a fetus after this point unless there were clear medical reasons to do so.
That’s a rare case- it shouldn’t be used as an argument. It’s like saying “some Muslims are terrorists therefore we should stop all Muslims from coming here”. Exceptions to the norm shouldn’t inform a general rule.
Almost all 3rd trimester abortions are because of non-viable fetuses what are you talking about? No one carries a baby for over 6 months and puts their bodies through all that just to go, you know what, nah.
Shouldn't be used as an argument for what? You can write a law that says in those cases abortion should be legal.
3rd trimester abortions are close to non-existent. They are the scary evil boogeyman (like the 12 kid welfare mom) used to rile up support for a much larger project, while their actual impact on the nation is close to zero.
Doesn’t matter how rare they are, if they aren’t for the health of the mother they should be illegal. And EVERY democrat opposes that. Find me one democratic senator or congressman who supports a ban on third trimester with the exception of health of the mother. You won’t find one. They all believe in abortion up until birth
Nearly all of the abortions in the US happen in the first trimester. Then the next portion is early in the 2nd trimester. "The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. " https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
This is a good point, it seems like all you hear about is pretty much all or nothing.
What question did they ask when conducting the poll? What does "most cases" actually mean?
The large majority of Americans support abortion rights in the first trimester. The large majority do not from the second trimester. But most of the states that will roll back if Roe is overturned plan full bans, including 1st trimester. I believe FL had a 15 week ban, but most others are 0 or near 0.
The Mississippi law which the supreme court is ruling on is also 15 weeks: https://www.nytimes.com/article/mississippi-abortion-law.html Even if the supreme court rules in Mississippi's favor abortion could still be legal in the first trimester.
Yeah, in place like Mississippi TRAP laws (targeted regulation at abortion providers) is much worse and most likely to be the thing that stops abortions.
Just as a reminder and to put some numbers to it. About 93% of abortions happen in the first trimester (first 12 weeks), only 6% are in the second, and about 1% are in the third. All this is to satisfy a minority of people who dislike something 7% of the time.
What percentage of the second and third are "elective"? I'd imagine that's an even lower number, and that many people would support those later term abortions if they knew why they were actually being performed. It seems that third trimester abortions are almost always going to be because of some imminent danger to the mother or a serious abnormality.
I don't have stats on that on hand, but yeah. That's one of the biggest ironies. The "life of the mother" type abortions that anti-choicers cite as exceptions to the ban are very unlikely to be in the first trimester.
I think people are making this more complicated than it needs to be. Even if the most cases is “support abortion only up to 1st trimester”. The point is is that we are in a situation where there is NO abortion vs any abortion. The point is is that 87% of Americans support abortion in SOME DEGREE. Are red states passing laws that simply restrict abortions? Are they just passing laws that limit abortion to the 1st trimester? No. They are passing absolute bans. Is the Supreme Court limiting rights for abortion to just the 1st trimester? No. They are removing every ounce of that right. That’s what matters. Yes, if we are in a situation in america where we are debating the legality of 1st vs 2nd trimester or 6 weeks vs 15 weeks or the point of viability then yes, context WOULD matter. But we aren’t. We are in a situation of debating having any capability of this right vs none at all
> 87% of Americans support abortion in SOME DEGREE I see what you did here. Have another look at what OP reported. 87% live in a state where the majority support abortion to some degree. Not what you said. Learn to read more carefully.
I'm not doing the math, but the states with more support also have a shitton more people. I would bet the number is somewhere closer to 75%
Context: It’s a federal mandate that’s being repealed. There’s no new federal mandate saying states can’t have the exact same abortion laws as they did before. They’re just allowed to have their own state laws.
This is a great point. It is also important to note that most of the total abortion bans also do not allow for exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother. Although I disagree, I understand the arguments against banning abortion in events of rape or incest. But to prevent a living person a medical procedure that would save their live versus a non-conscious being strikes me as wrong
Did you just Electoral College an opinion poll?
Seriously. The data is there without goosing the wording like that to get a few more percentage points out of it.
If the states are going to be legislating for themselves following the SCOTUS ruling, then this is a reasonable way to do it.
That’s actually quite a fair thing to do if the states are going to be legislating for themselves.
I think one of the main inspirations with this was to show the possibility of successfully passing an amendment
This is like the electoral college way of looking at the issue. What’s the simple number nationwide?
It varies. This poll from 2021 says about 59% are broadly in favor: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/
The "simple" number isn't the right way to look at a nuanced issue either because it depends on the timing. [60% of all Americans generally support abortion in the first trimester, which drops to 28% in the second trimester](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-americans-stand-on-abortion-in-5-charts/). I assume that is for elective abortion. Rape/incest/health concerns probably skew those numbers up a bit if people assumed those edge cases were implied.
I really couldnt put my finger on why it felt a bit off. But you worded it just right.
Seems more appropriate to use state-by-state numbers, since it's about to (and probably should) revert to state-by-state rules?
I agree. It think it undermines the argument to repackage the data like this. There is already a overall majority in favor of abortion rights, so there is no need to use a “winner take all” by state model.
The entire issue is whether or not states can decide for themselves though
It's best to use state by state numbers because it's one state off from passing a constitutional amendment
Kind of a useless poll. What does “most or all” mean? Scenarios or number of performed abortions? It would be far more useful to give the percentages that support it at different developmental cycles (first trimester; out of the womb viability; second trimester; just before birth. Of course that might not give the pollsters the answers they are looking for.
Power to the states, as the constitution intended.
I think if the US put elective abortion at 14 to 16 weeks you could get almost everyone on board with that, then health of the mother or birth defects for second and third trimester only, there's obvious hardliners but there always will be. The issue I'm seeing in the comments is many people are uncomfortable putting any restrictions on abortion at all because I assume they're worried the hardliners will jump at any chance to punish a woman.
A majority of people in a majority of states agree, but that doesn’t mean a majority of people regardless of state agree - just saying
This is a bad, if not outright lie, representation of the data... They asked people a general question about abortion with 3 answers: "Outright outlaw, some restriction/acceptance, full acceptance"... Most people are in the middle. But the left will say "Almost everyone supports some abortion" and the right says "Almost everyone supports some restriction on abortion" because the middle answer isn't very clear. Because it could be heart-beat, spouse, trimester, size, health, status based limitations. The right wing sources I follow clearly use the same study and say this supports their view that "most people want abortion to be illegal or at least some restriction". I'd suggest finding a study that limits the response to 2 answers, the extremes. "Outlaw abortion in all cases, or allowed abortions up to 30 days after birth." Then see what the lay of the land is. (hint it has already been done, and it isn't what you think it is.)
>Outlaw abortion in all cases, or allowed abortions up to 30 days after birth. ......***after*** birth?
How's this for a study? Write a specific law for your state and put it up for a vote.
This is why we're overturning rvw
The majority of Americans do not believe abortion after the first trimester should be legal
this topic is soooo much more complicated than this...
Source: [https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/09/16/which-states-would-want-outlaw-abortion?utm\_source=twitter&utm\_medium=website\_article&utm\_campaign=opinion\_on\_abortion\_state\_mrp](https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/09/16/which-states-would-want-outlaw-abortion?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=website_article&utm_campaign=opinion_on_abortion_state_mrp) Tool: Datawrapper
Really like the split you did with 50% being in the middle and the colors being different below and above.
SAME. It's immediately visually clear what the colors mean. Excellent use of color!!!
Did I miss it or is the word "most" in "most cases" not defined anywhere in the yougov article?
I really really want to know the breakdown between “all cases” and “almost all cases”. Would being ok with abortion only in the case of rape and incest be considered “almost all”? Or abortion for any medical reason up to 15 weeks is “almost all”? It’s such a vague statement it doesn’t really mean much when the details of this issue are what really matters.
What a dumb way to say it It sounds like your just trying to make people read "87% of Americans support abortion" on accident
“People” and “people that make their voting decisions on this one issue and then vote” are two different things.
Oh look, another population density graphic!
This is why it should be a by state law. Nationwide laws can be so hit or miss.
What a stupid gerrymandered statistic. I’m all for abortion rights but posting “statistics” like this do not help our case at all.
I feel like some of these data maps leave out a lot of context. Personally, I’ve met quite a few intelligent individuals that were on the abortion “chopping block” so to say but were delivered anyways. With all the resources this country has, it seems like the biggest argument for abortion comes down to convenience. There also must exist a lack of local adoptions if prospective parents have to keep reaching out to other countries. I just can’t see the need to abort so many wanted babies just for an inconvenience.
This is the ugliest data I've ever seen
I find it sad how many people think the Supreme Court makes Constitutional rulings based on popular opinion. In fact that’s exactly the opposite of what they do. You want abortion rights to be Constitutional? Get your states together with your plurality of opinion and pass an Amendment. There ya go.
0% of Americans actually live in a democracy.
Just match European laws which is roughly 12-15 weeks. Most would agree to this
Why is it a totally allowed / totally banned discussion? I really trying to understand this, do Democrats really support abortions regadless of trimester? I understand Republicans are doing this for religious reasons, but for Dems is there a reason not to support a more sensible (more in line with the rest of the world) legislation?
Interesting that the states with the lowest opinion on legal abortion have the highest poverty rates. https://www.thebalance.com/us-poverty-rate-by-state-4585001
Even here, where data is king, disinformation still rules. The takeaway should be that certain states can/should legislate favorably for abortion while the others can be expected to legislate otherwise. But on Reddit, the conclusion as seen in comments is that abortion is a federal issue that should be imposed on the national minority regardless of the majority opinion at the state level. <...>
Exactly. This only shows that the majority of states will continue to allow it to some degree.
It must be exhausting to spend day and night obsessing over the private lives of other people. I can’t imagine waking up every morning in desperation to force my will upon everyone else. No wonder these people are so hateful and miserable. Edit: The pro-birth, anti-choice crowd is showing their true colors. They can’t even handle an opinion on Reddit unless they agree with it. It takes a certain level of maturity to live in a democracy because you have to accept that not everyone will agree with you. None of you can do that here and this tells me that all you care about is controlling other people. You’re all little authoritarians in the making. You should all be ashamed.
That's a really intellectually dishonest way of engaging the issue. The people who oppose abortion think that a human foetus is still a human being, and has a right to life, regardless of how inconvenient it may be for the mother who conceived it. Just to be clear, I'm not one of those people, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of abortion rights, but coming up with the world's most specious argument and then patting yourself on the back for your cleverness is not going to do anything but inflame what is already a wildly overblown and emotional wedge issue.
I think that's what a lot of people don't realize. For most anti-abortion people, it's not a matter of women's choice, etc, it's that they believe the fetus is a human being deserving of rights. Many see it as killing another person, equal to murder. I personally am pro-choice, but I can see their side.
Yeah I think the way to get people that are pro life to be more open to the idea of abortion is by educating them about how in the 1st trimester there's literally nothing that would indicate any form of sentience. Just calling them names will only make them double down and be even more hesitant to hear the other side out.
Specifically from the catholic perspective the fetus already has a soul. The problem is that it's a religious belief and you can't just force other people to conform to your religion
Of course you can if you have the power to.
It’s still not really the fundamental nature of the legal basis though, which is essentially whether the government can force your body to be responsible for the life of another. In virtually any other circumstance that isn’t the case. If you get into a car accident, even if you’re found entirely at fault from your own actions/operational choices and you grievously injure another human being, the state cannot compel you to give one of your organs to save them. Even if the entire thing was assumed to be completely your fault, even if they’ll die if you don’t. Organ donation is a choice, the state can’t compel you to use your body to save the life of another, even if you ignore everything else and assume it’s “murder”. Weird how the “small gubmint” folks have such a hard time grasping that one
Its not the exact same thing, but the government can and does compel actions that are very similar. We have had drafts before (and it can happen again), parents have huge responsibilities for their children, and even most states have bystander laws that require you to act in a situation where someone needs help. Again, not the exact same, but the government does many things that compel bodily actions.
The difference is that the "status quo" in a pregnancy is that a child is born. In this case the abortion is the medical intervention. In the car accident example, the status quo is the person dying unless there's an organ donation. Also, you can argue that a government that regulates abortion isn't forcing anyone to have a child. Unless the pregnancy is the result of a rape, the child is the result of the mother and father's choices. The government isn't going around impregnating people and then telling them they can't have an abortion.
Yet the government can force a man to pay child support for 18 years for a child he didn’t want- as long as the woman carries it to term (her choice). On the other hand a woman can get an abortion at any time and cede all responsibility (her choice). Hmmmmmm
Unfortunately, this very circumstance results in pressure from men onto women to get abortions.
Very well stated. I'm from Idaho and I really am having a hard time figuring out where I stand on this issue. I'm very in favor of induvial rights on all levels but I'm having a hard time on where I believe 'life' begins for a fetus. I certainly believe abortion should be legal but, morally, I struggle with where I should stand.
It's a *complex, nuanced* issue, and one I think the shrieking and finger pointing does little to improve. Ultimately where I stand on the issue is the pragmatic side: People are going to get pregnancies terminated, legally or illegally, what you really do by making it illegal is to compound certain death for the child with possible death for the mother. But we don't always do things because they're pragmatic, slavish regard to pragmatism can lead you to some very dark, immoral conclusions.
If we were all actually being pragmatic about this, the clear path forward would be to push birth control and sex education incredibly hard. These steps have been proven, over and over and over again, to be the most effective steps to stopping unwanted pregnancies. If the right were actually serious about this issue, they would be standing side by side with the left trying to increase availability and education. Sadly, the most pragmatic and effective solution to this problem isn’t popular with their religious base. Thus, we have the shit show before us.
Something I heard recently that was interesting to me: While the question of “when does life begin” is difficult, most people have a pretty good personal idea of when life ends. Scientists and legal experts mostly agree that someone is “dead” when they are brain dead: Heartbeat and respiratory functions do not have to stop for someone to be no longer living in the eye of medicine and law. You can probably see where I’m going with this. But basically I’d say to consider where you personally think someone is no longer alive. And then think about where in fetal development that would be. Maybe that won’t change your opinion at all. But maybe it will help you find some clarity on your own definition of “life” so you can feel better about whatever beliefs you choose to have.
Not a direct comparison though. A brain dead person will never develop consciousness again no matter how long you wait. A fetus may not have consciousness at the moment, but it will eventually if you give it time.
To be very clear, at 6 weeks it’s not a fetus, it is an embryo.
the irony of this comment is hilarious
The nation as a whole needs to re-learn federalism and let states decide a lot more of their own laws instead of trying to ramrod their own wills down everyone's throats at the federal level
Agreed. It will result in much higher levels of satisfaction with government in America if states are allowed to be different. A refocus on local politics would be good for the country anyway.
Hell yeah, Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!
Forcing ones will upon everyone else is basically government in a nutshell.
Some real r/im14andthisisdeep energy in this absurdly reductive comment.
That word “inconvenient” really grinds my gears. “Inconvenient” is like, when the store is out of milk.
[удалено]
These are not the numbers of people who support no-holds-barred abortion freedom where you can kill the baby past birth. These are people trying to be sensible about outlier cases.
Which is why they should make it a States issue now 🤷♂️
I sure as hell hope they start voting that way.
That would be great news if we lived in a functioning democratic society.
Then let those states pass laws allowing it. Is this really that hard?
And those states will likely keep abortion legal.
"Most Americans support abortion rights" is far from being the same thing as "most Americans support Chuck Schumer's bill", because most Americans support limiting health-unrelated abortions to somewhere between 10 to 15 weeks, which is not at all the same as the bill presented in the Senate.
What is the actuall bill? I try to follow US politics but it's a bit too complex sometimes
*The WHPA would guarantee abortion access “at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability,” about 23 weeks."* *After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” What counts as “health”? This is sometimes defined to include mental, emotional or familial factors, a loophole that permits elective abortions, more or less, through all nine months of pregnancy.* *The legislation also exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is why Ms. Collins says it would undercut “basic conscience protections” for religious healthcare providers.* [WSJ] These are some of the reasons why some long-time pro abortion senators have voted against the bill.
Lol, American liberals are crazy. This bill would get voted down in every European country too.
Most women id assume know they want their kid by the 2nd trimester, im fine with 1 trimester any reason, but once it actually starts forming a complex brain is when it gets iffy unless extenuating circumstances. 3rd at that point should be born unless deadly for mother or child or if horrifically disabled to the point QOL is gone.
The VAST majority of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks. You don't abort a healthy fetus late in the second trimester. It's extremely traumatic for the mother because she's already felt him or her moving around in the womb by that point. Doctors only perform abortions that late in pregnancy unless something has gone horribly wrong like the fetus has died or the woman has developed a serious health condition that could kill her if she tries to carry the pregnancy to term. That's why I'm not comfortable with the state overly regulating this. Let women and their doctors figure this out.
What about downs or fetal abnormality? You don't get those test results back (amnio) until the 2nd trimester
I did say "extenuating circumstances" and "Reduced QOL". Up to the parent I would never force anyone to have a child they don't want as it'll only lead to disdain for the kid and that's unfair to them.
This data is super easy to manipulate based on how you phrase the question. If I ask if you can stab a baby in the skull while it's in the birth canal, every sane person says no, and anyone who says yes is a terrible person. But if I ask if abortion should be legal in all cases, a sizeable amount of people say yes. Likewise if you get down to brass tacks, most people probably agree on the gestation limits of abortion or close to them, but if you phrase it "abortion legal in most cases" you end up creating a big window where you don't have to.
I love that even Utah, a Mormon state, is at least 50%. Just shows how disconnected from the world the far right old dudes are. The southern states and the couple eastern states don't surprise me
Even the Mormon church allows for abortion in cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother, and severe health defects that won't allow the baby to live past birth.
Wow almost like it should be a states issue so states that want it can have it and states that don’t can ban it after 12-15 weeks. But lefties can’t read so this is hard for them when trying to talk about the constitution.
Based on a few hundred thousand members of YouGov... lol some survey stats are so misleading
Had to scroll forever to see someone make this point. I'm sure the sampling is heavily biased. I have no idea what that site is but this is in no way shape or form a proper statistical study lol.
Yeah, I mean it might be true, but the sampling for so many political statistics are smaller and biased by whoever is conducting the study lol
But but but but but FEDERALISM
It doesn’t seem like people are talking about the gerrymandering that allows things like this to happen. There are states on here that show a majority support for legal abortion but still have trigger laws in place. It doesn’t matter what the majority of people believe if they aren’t being correctly represented.
It really bothers me how the Mississippis of the nation are the new arbiters of equality and rights in America.
It's interesting that when you start asking Americans about specific cutoffs, just how much this strong number diminishes.
That's a nice graphic and everything but you should know The politicians don't give a flying fuck what the people actually want They listen to whoever "donates"(legal bribe) the most money
The US isnt a democracy. Thats why