If abortions are bad, why are the same people who want to ban abortions the ones who want to ban contraceptives? That would do a lot more to reduce abortions in reality than any law can.

That's a straw man. Only 6% of Americans think birth control should be illegal, https://today.yougov.com/topics/health/articles-reports/2022....

>If abortions are bad, why are the same people who want to ban abortions the ones who want to ban contraceptives? That would do a lot more to reduce abortions in reality than any law can.

I would imagine they believe the point of sex is to conceive. Both those things prevent conception.

I agree. They are not actually trying to reduce the number of abortions, they are taking a religious/moral position.

If drugs are bad, then it's good if fewer people get them, whether or not the reduction is spread evenly across different demographics.

Therefore it's okay to use racially-targeted methods of enforcement and arrest poor, ethnic minorities, etc. as long as we get at least a little drug reduction out of it.

If abortions are bad then providing birth control and sexual education to prevent unwanted pregnancies would be good, right? But those are going to be gutted next.

Hmmmm....

I would think programmers of all people can understand complex problems do not have simple solutions. There are variables to weigh, numbers to be analyzed.

And that’s not even getting what is “good” and “bad” and if a laws purpose is to outright outlaw them without thinking of other measures and consequences.

Ah, but this is where it gets fun. Different power centers see abortions from different perspectives. The state wants ( and benefits from ) more taxpayers, while corporates benefit from ensuring workflow is not interrupted by biological needs.

a lot packed into that if - eg you are including categories such as rape victims who are expected to die in childbirth, feel like you should be explicit in the true extent of what you're advocating

When would someone who's expected to die in childbirth be saved by an abortion but not by an emergency C-section?

Because they didn’t have their body subjected to those last, most difficult months of pregnancy.

My own surprise (but very wanted!) pregnancy was easy the first few months - I even skied up through week 16, but around week 30 I started developing back pain and intermittent numbness in some of my toes that is still around, after nearly two years and lots of physical therapy.

And I was always considered to be having a “healthy” pregnancy, and was pretty healthy beforehand. Only unusual thing is that I was 40.

For a more extreme but still realistic hypothetical, I have a severely physically disabled friend who weighs about 60 lbs and requires regular mechanical breathing assistance. She is, as far as she knows, just as capable of getting pregnant as I am. She also knows that she would not survive more than a few weeks of pregnancy.

There are many people capable of becoming pregnant who live somewhere between these two extremes.

Here’s one update:

The horror is already starting. A nurse sent this message to a nurse on TikTok who has a large platform:

I don't have a platform so I can't reach people like you can, but please share this! I work in ** on a small niku/l&d floor. Our trigger laws went into effect immediately after the decision. ofc we had a woman walk in with an ectopic at 11:30pm last night. We had to basically sit on her until the doc could speak with a lawyer. Her ectopic RUPTURED. She then did not get her procedure done for another 9 hours because the doc was working with the lawyer for so long trying to work around the laws and not lose his license. By the time she had her procedure she had over 600cc of blood in her abdomen and she almost died. I am so scared of how often we as nurses are going to see things like this now and not be able to do a damn thing about it. We're all livid at huddle tonight, several of my coworkers were in tears.

I don't think any states have a trigger law that doesn't have an exception for the mother's life being in danger. This makes me doubt the veracity of the rest of the anecdote.

If the emergency C-section is to get the non viable fetus out , how is that still not an abortion?

The only alternative I can think of is that a women should carry the non viable fetus into term for 9 whole months instead of getting it out of her as soon as she can.

Modern hospitals can save babies born as early as 22 weeks. If a full-term birth would kill the mother, then a date between 22 weeks and full term should be chosen that maximizes the chance that both mother and child survive.

Not just women, you're also talking about forced pregnancy/birth of for instance 11 year old girls