Science Abortions are for everyone – it’s time for fully inclusive services - Abortions4All - ITT: arguments for post-birth abortion

A conversation on how we think about abortion access and how inclusive our services are is long over due. For far too long, the abortion movement has championed access for all those that require abortion care but with little acknowledgement of the wider structures that govern our reproductive health.

While it is estimated that a quarter of all pregnancies end in abortion – the idea that abortion is always a clear choice is far too simplistic and minimises the experiences of lots of those seeking abortion care. Recent Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) data revealed that black women are more likely to report a consecutive abortion compared to their white and Asian counterparts.

While the difference is small, there are many reasons for this that typical pro-choice narratives simply fail to address. Those racialised as non-white are likely to be paid 10% less than their white counterparts even when educational attainment is adjusted for. Black women are at heightened risk of experiencing intimate partner violence and less likely to receive adequate support when they do report it.


Black motherhood is plagued with sterotypes of young black teenage mothers who are incompetent or dependent on governement welfare. A recent report into maternal deaths within the UK revealed that black women are five times more likely than their white counterparts to die in childbirth and black babies are more likely to be stillborn. These statistics are not clearly explained by increased comorbidities (the presence of more than one disorder in the same person) or socio-economic conditions amongst black people. A recent Royal College of Obstetric and Gynaecology event highlighted how prejudice and unconscious bias affects the healthcare provided to black patients, including having their pain taken less seriously.

For many black women, becoming pregnant goes beyond traditional anxieties like “how will I cope?” Instead, some consider the rather traumatic question: “Could I die?”

The circumstances for gender non-conforming people is even more bleak with very few medical studies on their experiences of accessing healthcare. In one small study, the majority of respondents were not using contraception, as they incorrectly believed that gender-affirming hormones would also act as contraception, leaving them at possible risk of unplanned pregnancy. While data from the US shows that poor reproductive health is even greater among black trans and non-binary people, with significant rates of sexually transmitted infections and HIV; there is very little information on their experiences of accessing healthcare within a UK context.

It is difficult to determine how many gender non-conforming people are accessing abortion services as the current Department of Health reporting forms fail to include a box that collects gender information. However, the same form still includes a section on marital status, which is as useful as my passport has proven to be in 2020. Despite limited public health data, we do know that trans and non-binary people have poor sexual and reproductive health, but our institutions still treat this population as if they do not exist. How can you advocate for service improvement for populations that are not recorded as existing in the first place?

William Horn, a freelance writer who was originally based in London but now lives in Brooklyn, started taking gender affirming hormones nearly 10 years ago. He told me he feels that healthcare providers fail to consider anything outside of taking hormones.

Frequently, arguments against trans inclusive facilities position trans people as a threat to our safety – despite the data actually showing that cis-gender people continue to be much more of a threat to theirs. For those trans men and non-binary people who do continue with their pregnancy, there is little medical information available and many experience transphobia and erasure from services. There is an increase in intimate partner violence experienced by pregnant people, so we as providers should consider the additional mental burden that continuing with a pregnancy may take on those that already live in a world where survival can be a challenge.

The idea that individuals choose to have an abortion is outdated and fails to account for the structural dimensions that can lead some groups to have an one. Until we start to both acknowledge and understand these within our healthcare system, our abortion services will continue to overlook large groups of people and fail to take a holistic approach to their life circumstances.

In the United States, more providers are familiar with terms such as reproductive justice, a term coined by women of colour to highlight how structural oppression affects reproductive health – the application to the UK continues to lag behind. Recent Black Lives Matter protests where black pregnant women hold signs expressing their concern for the safety of their unborn child has brought to the fore how these issues overlap and intersect; we can longer address them in isolation.

Mara Clarke founder of the Abortion Support Network, an organisation that ensures those that require an abortion have access to the financial means to do so, says: “We know that many of our clients have been migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, members of the Irish traveller community. We don’t ask our clients who they are or how they got pregnant. We don’t ask if they are women or what their gender identity is. We don’t care, and we know that women and pregnant people with money can access services without having to explain or justify themselves. As an abortion fund, we want any person who needs an abortion to have that same experience.

While many in the sector are starting to understand the importance of acknowledging the diverse experiences of abortion, it is integral to providing good quality care that we go a step further and demand better research, data collection and information on the experiences of those that are most marginalised by society.
It is time that we build our movements with diverse experiences in mind and it is time that our abortion services reflected the stories of the communities that we serve.
 
So are you or are you not pro-suicide and/or eugenics?

Abortion is infanticide. If people aren’t going to take care their of their children they should just get their uterus removed and/or tubes tied.


Getting sterilized is foolproof. None of them ever consider that though because after they’re done riding the cock/pussy carousel they may want a person-shaped pet to play with.

Sterilisation is not foolproof.

Vasectomy is more than 99% perecent effective, but that’s not foolproof.

All forms of female surgical sterilisation are 99% plus effective, but that’s not foolproof. Tubal occulsion is slightly less effective than Mirena.

Total hysterectomy is 100% effective, but due to the catastrophic effects of induced early surgical menopause in young women, it won’t be performed for contraceptive reasons only.

Anyone who is fucking with the relevant equipment on board needs to know that there is always a chance of pregnancy. You can make it a small chance, but it’s always a chance.
 
I though you won't have early menopause if you only get a partial hysto i.e. you yeet the uterus but leave the ovaries in? Because that's what I want.

That said hystos are notoriously hard to get approved for even for medical reasons. One of my friends went through like 3 or 4 doctors before she found one willing to give her one even though she had a shitton of painful medical problems, all because she was 29 and didnt have any kids.
 
So do you agree with Mama Nails demanding her braindead daughter Jahi be not removed from a ventilator for years until the rest of her body finally went the way her brain did? You agree with her putting on the worst Weekend at Bernie's remake ever and acting like a corpse was somehow alive and capable of recovery?

You've demonstrated yourself incapable of doing anything more than bringing up outlier examples as a weak attempt to shock, yet you've managed to reach new depths of idiocy. Now, you fail to even be relevant.

Lest I be accused of avoiding another worthless query: she was brain dead. The family had to actively fight to keep her body on life support despite this, but the body was already decomposing and life support would have only staved off decomposition. There was nothing to command life-sustaining function in the body itself, and the body ceased to grow.

If you're going to be depraved, at least stand by your depravity instead of bringing up irrelevancies and pure shock value in order to legitimize the whole institution as not killing children. Even when I don't consider depraved the act of aborting ectopic or otherwise hopeless pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother, I still recognize it as a necessary evil that indeed kills a child for the sake of saving as many lives as possible (as both mother and child would die otherwise). Your inability to make a case of value has led you to argue eugenics, where you can effortlessly say you're "sparing a child an unpleasant life"-- something that you can say for any kind or level of mental or physical impairment, or even just based on not being willing to shoulder the responsibility of parenthood despite being equipped for it in every way.

And if the rationale is to spare the child an unpleasant life, well... their life must be equally worthy of "abortion" after their birth.
 
You've demonstrated yourself incapable of doing anything more than bringing up outlier examples as a weak attempt to shock, yet you've managed to reach new depths of idiocy. Now, you fail to even be relevant.

Lest I be accused of avoiding another worthless query: she was brain dead. The family had to actively fight to keep her body on life support despite this, but the body was already decomposing and life support would have only staved off decomposition. There was nothing to command life-sustaining function in the body itself, and the body ceased to grow.

If you're going to be depraved, at least stand by your depravity instead of bringing up irrelevancies and pure shock value in order to legitimize the whole institution as not killing children. Even when I don't consider depraved the act of aborting ectopic or otherwise hopeless pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother, I still recognize it as a necessary evil that indeed kills a child for the sake of saving as many lives as possible (as both mother and child would die otherwise). Your inability to make a case of value has led you to argue eugenics, where you can effortlessly say you're "sparing a child an unpleasant life"-- something that you can say for any kind or level of mental or physical impairment, or even just based on not being willing to shoulder the responsibility of parenthood despite being equipped for it in every way.

And if the rationale is to spare the child an unpleasant life, well... their life must be equally worthy of "abortion" after their birth.
A fetus isnt a child. Not yet, anyway. As I've mentioned, most abortions happen very early when the fetus is a little shrimpy thing that isn't even remotely sentient or aware.

Pregnancy is something that can straight up kill you and forcing someone to be pregnant when they don't want to be is a human rights violation. Even if you consider a fetus equal to an actual, born person no one has the right to use someone else's body without consent. That's why shit like organ and blood donation isnt mandatory and why even with corpses there has to be some form of consent to take tissue or organs from them.

And yeah, I really do think it's less cruel to abort a fetus long before it has any awareness or sentience than to force it to grown into a child that's just going to suffer horribly.

If you hate abortion so much, look into getting sterilized yourself.
 
A fetus isnt a child. Not yet, anyway. As I've mentioned, most abortions happen very early when the fetus is a little shrimpy thing that isn't even remotely sentient or aware.

What the hell does size have to do with anything? Does being smaller or less developed than the person next to you render you less human? Are children inferior to adults because they haven't developed their secondary sex characteristics?

Your rationale for dismissing a fetus as "not a child" is completely determined by how photogenic you take the fetus to be, which is why you think that it actually matters that we're typically not dismembering fetuses when they're aborted.

Pregnancy is something that can straight up kill you

It typically doesn't, because the body is designed for it at the time the average woman gets pregnant.

Even if you consider a fetus equal to an actual, born person no one has the right to use someone else's body without consent.

You are actually deficient.

You're required by law to take care of your child, and if you decide to not feed them because you decided that your body-- and by extension, the fruits of its labor-- aren't their entitlement, nobody will have sympathy for you when you get locked up for child abuse. Your organ donation comparison is absolutely puerile. The fetus isn't some sort of intruder into your body that can be evicted at will as a result-- you brought the fetus into your body as a result of having sex.

You have no legs to stand on, so you dance around with these barely spurious arguments like there's anything of value in between your ears, jumping to another one that may not even have relevance when you get pinned down for one. It's like you're reading off a list of pro-choice arguments without any regard to actual meaning.

If you hate abortion so much, look into getting sterilized yourself.

Do you actually like advocating for murdering the absolute most vulnerable among us because of your defective instincts prompting you to reproduce without actually reproducing? Or did you think you were being clever?
 
Última edición:
For some reason I get the feeling that the people ITT (and on A&N in general) who get their panties in a wad over abortion are people who will never possibly need one:thinking:
 
For some reason I get the feeling that the people ITT (and on A&N in general) who get their panties in a wad over abortion are people who will never possibly need one:thinking:
For some reason I get the feeling that having had sex is the only thing the dopamine-addled cue ball you call your brain can consider an accomplishment.
 
Lab grown tissue does not array itself into a whole human body.
Why does that matter?

What does a whole human body even mean? Plenty of people are born with missing limbs. What body parts are necessary for a body to be whole and count as human, in your eyes?

The issue at hand isn't "what makes a human life important", it's "what constitutes a human life". If the subject descends from humans and the subject is not dead, then they are human and need to be spoken of and treated as such.
By that definition, lab grown tissue is a human life.

And yes, the issue is what makes a human life important. I think beating heart cadavers are technically living humans but they should be treated like plants. No mind, no importance.

The "thinking and feeling" litmus test is myopic and generally poor; you're unable to definitively state the very moment the child begins to "think or feel" during gestation, and the child develops greater and greater awareness as they grow-- indeed, there are perceptual features (e.g. object permanence) the child doesn't develop until months down the line. The resultant implication that they must be "less human" is nonsensical, however-- there's no such thing. You're either human or you're not. They possess a "soul" merely by continuing to live.
Humans can't think without a brain or feel without nerves, that's a fact. It applies to full grown humans as well as fetuses.

There is little to no public discussion about sterilization, and nary a campaign to make sterilization in your youth more acceptable in medicine. Abortion is generally framed as birth control, for when all other birth control fails.
Sterilization carries risks and isn't foolproof. Someone who got sterilized might still want to get an abortion.
 
Última edición:
Why does that matter?

What does a whole human body even mean? Plenty of people are born with missing limbs. What body parts are necessary for a body to be whole and count as human, in your eyes?

What's necessary is evidence that the fetus is in fact the offspring of a male and female (i.e. we know they're the product of gestation). That by itself constitutes "wholeness"-- lab grown tissue is only living in its cellular sense and from its creation is, by definition, only a component of a body. Its destiny by itself is not, nor can it ever be, a human being.

Suggesting lab grown tissue is human life is the "but when u madturbate you kill billions of lives" argument in a different color.

And yes, the issue is what makes a human life important. I think beating heart cadavers are technically living humans but they should be treated like plants. No mind, no importance.

You're wrong, though. Beating heart cadavers have no innate life sustaining processes on account of their brain death and definitive inactivity-- it's why they're "cadavers". They'll never actually regain that function outside several means, all artificial.


Humans can't think without a brain or feel without nerves, that's a fact.

The comatose have brains yet cannot feel nor think. We do not write them off as non-human.

Furthermore, there are functions of the brain (e.g. recognition of object permanence) that aren't developed in the newborn. The autistic, in particular, do not have a developed sense of theory of mind. Does not possessing the full gamut of thought manage to render one less human?

Sterilization carries risks and isn't foolproof.
Neither is abortion, but so many people see to it that they contort, conceal, and euphemize to convince others that they're not in fact advocating for the killing of the most vulnerable population so they (not others) can excise the responsibility inherent to sex.

The only means of birth control that is 100% effective when used, perhaps, is not having sex.
 
Última edición:
I hope you don't define the concept of murder by it's legal status. That's one of the stupidest things ever written on this site.

You can think it's dumb all you want. REEEing doesn't make you right.

If you don't want to have kids, use protection. I really don't see why so many people have issue with this.

Birth control can fail. I really don't see how so many people don't get this.

If you don't want to need an abortion, simply don't have sex.

That ain't gonna happen. Are you a robot? People are going to have sex.

Is that a "have sex" argument?

No, it's pointing out that all of the people sperging about this have dicks.
 
Having a heartbeat doesn't mean having consciousness. People who are braindead have heartbeats. Cows have heartbeats. Flies have heartbeats. Doctors keep the heart of corpses beating to keep their organs fresh before they transplant them into someone else.
I didn’t know we were talking about magic giving cows and corpses the power to be babies.

It's weak minded and selfish to want to take proper care of your children? Raising a kid in a bad household or giving it up for adoption so it becomes trapped in the foster care system seems cruel. And why blame the mother alone? Oopsie babies happen to married couples too.
Do you actually believe we should genocide all the poor people to save them from themselves or you just being ducking stupid again? Pro-aborts can at least make logically consistent arguments.

It seems risky if you want children later, though, because not all reversal surgeries are successful.
Children deserve better parents than cold blooded murderers you exceptional psychopath.

It's not an infant yet. You can REEEEE all you want, but that doesn't make you right. And it's not murder either. Murder is unlawful. Abortion isn't.
For now anyways. Anti-life rhetoric just screeching about “muh poosy/muh dick.” Maybe you evil, worthless sacks of shit actually believe the garbage that spews out of your mouths, but it’s all just so to make you feel better about yourselves.

Sterilisation is not foolproof.

Vasectomy is more than 99% perecent effective, but that’s not foolproof.

All forms of female surgical sterilisation are 99% plus effective, but that’s not foolproof. Tubal occulsion is slightly less effective than Mirena.

Total hysterectomy is 100% effective, but due to the catastrophic effects of induced early surgical menopause in young women, it won’t be performed for contraceptive reasons only.

Anyone who is fucking with the relevant equipment on board needs to know that there is always a chance of pregnancy. You can make it a small chance, but it’s always a chance.
It’s an acceptable risk for anti-life women. They can get a free, tax-payer provided inconvenience abortion (not because of a medical abnormality, rape, or incest) one time, and after that it’s a free hysterectomy.

I think it's less that people assign value to the shell rather than the soul, then it is assigning value to something that could potentially have a soul.
Anti-lifers really shouldn’t be bringing in their retarded religious beliefs. Every god or semi-divine in every real religion would definitely hate or at least be very angry at them.
 
Última edición:
For now anyways. Anti-life rhetoric just screeching about “muh poosy/muh dick.” Maybe you evil, worthless sacks of shit actually believe the garbage that spews out of your mouths, but it’s all just so to make you feel better about yourselves.
We're not anti-life. You're the one who values entities the size of kidney beans over actual living, breathing, thinking, and feeling people.

How many unwanted babies have you adopted?

If you don't like abortion, don't have one. It's none of your business what people do with their own bodies.
 
What about babies like the Hartley Hooligans? They could survive without machines but had no sentience.
What's the point of this question? What does it have to do with my position? The Hartley Hooligans weren't beating heart cadavers. They were alive, despite their lack of brains.

They're human, they just have the mental life of plants. I think it's fine to pull the plug on them if they have little to no chance to get out of their coma. They're also much more complex organisms than single celled zygotes.
And a newborn is less complex than a fully grown adult-- what's your point? Both are complex by virtue of their being human as opposed to single-celled bacteria.

If they can feel emotional pain, killing them is wrong in my book.
The cruelty of an act isn't determined by whether any party is able to recognize said cruelty-- it's determined by the act.

I don't know whether people with undeveloped minds count as less or more human than others. I see no point in trying to quantify sentient people's humanity.
Then why are you attempting to quantify sentience at all?

Not having sex is easy when you're single but when you're in a happy committed relationship, abstinence gets old fast. You'll see when you get married.
I'll see that it's okay to kill my children because no method of birth control outside not having sex is 100% guaranteed to work?

I'm an agnostic atheist, but...

According to traditional Christianity, if fetuses have souls, abortion would be a merciful act because it means sending your offspring straight to heaven before they have the chance to displease god. If they die in the womb, they can't become Atheists and go to hell lol.
You don't understand "traditional Christianity". Just about every church institution considers abortion murderous violence against a child. It looks at it as equivalent to murdering a newborn. At best, it's a necessary evil.

We're not anti-life.
You think that killing children is okay because they're small.

How many unwanted babies have you adopted?

And she contorts some more.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one. It's none of your business what people do with their own bodies.
What people do in the dark manifests in the light, as the person who committed the acts in that dark does so with the mind that still exists in the light. Such people interface with future generations, influencing them in their own words, their social/political contributions, and more. To deny this demonstrates ignorance, but of course you would have a thought so juvenile that also exposes your insecurity.

After all, your dopamine-addled brain only has the power to point out technicalities and banal pro-choice talking points. @Fangsofjeff is as wrong as you are, but he smells of his mother's milk far less.
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo