Revolting that this is now a “crime.”
Yep they’re trying(and succeeding at in some states) to frame women as cattle. Where the fetus no matter what the viability is, or the danger to the women’s health, and her socioeconomic status in regards to being able to raise a kid(with little to no help from the state that made her carry the fetus to term without any social safety net and if their is one it’s completely underfunded and has lack of easy access. Wtf is going on in peoples minds that think this is alright? I swear the alt right and republicans just give lip service “ small government” while they laugh all the way to the bank and damn well make sure that their daughters,wife’s, mistresses have access to those health services that is “plebs” are not privy too. /end rant
Jailing women. Jailing gay people. Killing Trans people. Banning books. Get ready the GOP/Nazi party is spreading their wings.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
In Nebraska, The 12-week ban includes exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. This might indicate it was more of a socio-economic / psychological reason, which are not sufficient grounds under the law to terminate the offspring after that point.
It doesn’t matter when the effect prevents basically everyone from getting an abortion.
Not “everyone”. There are exceptions for rape, incest, and mortal danger to the mother.
Good luck getting a doctor to perform an abortion under those conditions. Whose responsibility is it to verify that the condition is met? Doctors are very afraid of being sued. Most just won’t perform any abortions just in case. This is the intended effect.
Could you imagine telling other people what medical procedures they are allowed to have?
Land of the free, my ass.
Because it is a garbage law
“According to court documents, Celeste Burgess was in her third trimester of pregnancy when she consumed the abortion pills, making the procedure illegal as per Nebraska law.”
I think this would be illegal in almost every western country.
deleted by creator
“According to court documents, Celeste Burgess was in her third trimester of pregnancy when she consumed the abortion pills, making the procedure illegal as per Nebraska law.”
I think this would be illegal in almost every western country.
What would be revolting is if this wasn’t a crime. She then hid the “human remains.” I understand you’re probably pro-choice, but is this the hill you want to die on?
People like you just read the headline and reaction as if you know the whole story?
Abortion should be legal at any trimester, for any reason. No one has the right to use your body without your consent (unless Republicans succeed). Pretty sure that’s how it is in Canada.
Abortion should be legal at any trimester, for any reason.
I disagree, but once again, almost any western nation disagrees with you.
No one has the right to use your body without your consent
There’s a decent argument bringing a life into this world by choice is consent.
Pretty sure that’s how it is in Canada.
Canada is one of the very few nations to decriminalize abortions totally.
Great, so Canada got it right, and you’re obviously swinging the weight of “western nations” as if it has any relevance. What matters is what can be argued to be correct, and I’ve argued that using bodily autonomy. You’ve argued… You’re right because most western nations agree. Totally barbaric and ignorant of my argument, but that’s obvious. You completely misunderstand consent, but that’s not surprising. I was taught that consent can be withdrawn, but you imply like she has to sit there and take it if she consented originally. Bizarre view of consent you have.
Great, so Canada got it right
No, they enacted a policy that you agree with. That doesn’t make it ‘right.’
and you’re obviously swinging the weight of “western nations” as if it has any relevance.
It does, we’re most comparable with other first world countries and specifically western countries. Pretty much in every comparable metric where we want to see how we’re doing, we compare it to first world european nations.
What matters is what can be argued to be correct
There is no ‘correct’ - just because you agree with it, doesn’t mean every single country needs to listen to you and enact policies you agree with. You have mad main character syndrome.
Believe it or, people disagree with some of your opinions, and that doesn’t make them ‘wrong’
Removed by mod
do you actually argue why abortion should be legal or illegal.
Because that’s not my argument, that’s what you want to argue.
I’m simply stating that almost every single other western country, even ones that are much more liberal than the U.S., has laws restricting abortions in the scenario that this woman had an abortion. If the U.S. is a shithole 3rd world country because of this, those nations surely are as well.
Nebraska’s abortion policy at this time was more liberal than europes, who we offten compare our policies to.
I’m also arguing that just because you think a policy would be good, doesn’t make it ‘right’ for the other 7 billion people in the world.
surprising really, Canada could use more citizens/a higher tax base. really, very few people in Canada, all told
Where is your evidence that “almost every western nation disagrees with you”? Because I’ve seen many polls that say otherwise.
Almost every single one has the limit under 14 weeks.
Notable exceptions: Netherlands - 24 weeks Iceland - 22 weeks Sweden - 18 weeks
None of these countries would permit an abortion at 28 weeks, let alone let her keep the babies remains.
None of these countries would permit an abortion at 28 weeks, let alone let her keep the babies remains.
The article sheds no light on why she needed a late-term abortion. If something is permissible and publicly funded, chances are a person gets it done early, in a clinic, without hesitation. In case of wanting an abortion, delay is harmful, having to travel, smuggle something or fear something (or gather money) is harmful. Also note: those countries have a separate schedule for normal and exceptional conditions. Which is generally not possible in a political environment that has banned abortion (some cities in Nebraska - yes, in the US, cities can regulate abortion, very strange for me). Some examples that I know of:
Estonia:
- under normal conditions, 12 weeks
- under exceptional conditions, 22 weeks (risk to health, severe foetal disease, raising the child is prevented by health or sanity, the pregnant is under 15 or over 45)
Finland:
- under normal conditions, 12 weeks
- under exceptional conditions, 20…24 weeks (foetal abnormality gives a limit of 24 weeks)
Latvia:
- under normal conditions, 12 weeks
- for medical reasons, 22 weeks
You said disagree. Since when have laws been indicative of current public opinion?
The country as a whole has laws that disagree with it.
The U.S. doesn’t permit honor killings, as a country we’re against it.
In Iran, it’s legal, the country agrees with it.
It’s not that hard to understand.
deleted by creator
Some people do it even years after birth, so there are always someone pushing it.
Point is that “tour right To swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”
At some point those cells become person wether that is after three months, nine months or nine years is up to debate. I think medical professionals are best equipment to advice us.
I don’t believe you will find many doctors willing to do abortion in 7th month.
“(your) right To swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”
Exactly, If you care so much transplant it into your uterus.
You are arguing in favor of abortion when you say “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” I can’t believe you don’t see that. The principle says that we are generally free, but we don’t have the right to harm or infringe upon someone else. But, that’s exactly what’s happening when a woman is forced to give from her body to support a child. You are giving the child the right to swing their fist wherever, regardless of who it harms.
The cells are a person from the very beginning. They are a person, and it is not wrong to abort them. It’s the most compassionate way to interpret our autonomy rights. The alternative is forced incubation.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
If
You gotta make a series of bold assumptions to believe her only option was to get an abortion pill at 28 weeks and hold onto the babies remains.
She had 20 weeks to get an abortion, which is more liberal than almost all progressive european countries.
deleted by creator
I don’t know the exact scenario, only the facts presented in the article
The woman had 20 weeks to get an abortion, instead she took an abortion pill at 28 weeks and held onto the babies remains.
I’m sure during the 5 months, she could have found a day to drive and get an abortion if it was important to her.
I do believe there should be more abortion clinics available, but have you ever lived in a rural state? The 3 are in the largest cities in the state, where nearly 50% of the population lives.
Putting an abortion clinic in a town of 1,000 people doesn’t make sense for clinics. I think your disgust comes from your lack of understanding rural america.
deleted by creator
Hard dissagree. It’s wrong in Nebraska, wrong in Germany, and wrong everywhere else where the standard is some date before birth.
That’s fine, but that still makes the comment I’m responding to absurd.
'revolting that this is now a ‘crime’ - it’s almost always been a crime in almost every civilized country for the last 200+ years.
It’s not a crime in at least seven US states, and would not be prosecuted in at least 13 more because of the vague definition of viability.
Killing a baby at 28-weeks of pregnancy and hiding the body is illegal in the vast majority of the US, including in blue states.
The actual crime she was nabbed for was illegally hiding human remains. Her mother who provided the abortion pills is the one actually going to be in a lot more trouble it sounds like.
This has always been a crime in the US.
Third trimester. No.
You don’t know the circumstances because the article does not give them. Don’t be a fuck head. It is quite possible that there were medical complications that were discovered past 20 weeks.
Then the doctors would have advised her on what to do. I doubt “take black market pills to force a stillbirth and then hide the body” were the doctors orders.
Would they really though? If there’s legislation in place that could cost a doctor their license or even put them in jail, then they wouldn’t be able to recommend that or do the procedure themselves. This is a huge part of the reason why there’s now a huge shortage of OB/Gyn doctors in red states, because they just can’t practice medicine with one arm tied behind their backs with these ridiculous laws all over the place.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ob-gyn-shortage-roe-v-wade-abortion-bans/
If abortion is banned after 20 weeks, a doctor cannot advise on abortion.
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
It is quite possible
Sounds like you don’t know the circumstances. This is why we have a jury of our peers.
The circumstances are laid out.
The circumstances of why she sought an abortion so late are NOT laid out in this article.
The circumstances of what she did are laid out. And they are disgusting.
I don’t know all of the facts. But the ones presented are enough.
deleted by creator
It should not be a crime. The trimester is irrelevant. If the child had been born, it would have no right to anyone’s body. In the womb, it should have no right to someone’s body either. Pro-lifers have tricked you into arguing for unethical trimester-based bans. If it’s wrong to kill that baby after a certain number of weeks, it’s wrong to kill it before then too. To compromise, to allow abortion before a certain trimester but not after, is to make a mockery of the pro-life position, which says abortion is murder (but if you do it early you get a pass). There is nothing wrong with a late-term abortion compared to an early abortion. The child does not have a right to use someone without their consent.
Your opinion is outside of both science and morality
Seems like you wanted to actually argue something, so please expand on your comment by explaining why it’s outside both science and morality, otherwise you’re not really having a discussion.
Removed by mod
“In May, Burgess pleaded guilty to a felony charge of removing or concealing human skeletal remains.”
Yes, I think hiding and/or stealing human remains should remain a crime.
It was always a crime to secretly force a stillbirth at 28 weeks and then bury the body without telling anyone. 28 weeks is almost 7 months (edit: math is hard). She had plenty of time to do it legally.
wow, time sure is crazy, 28 weeks for 8 months, and then 24 weeks for the remaining 4
I wish people wouldn’t talk about pregnancy in terms of months.
40 weeks is at typical pregnancy. A nice, round, simple-to-remember number.
28 weeks is a pregnancy in the 6th month, just as a matter of fact. 28 weeks is also basically the earliest you would ever call someone in the third trimester and is the earliest a pregnancy is typically thought to have the possibility of viability.
There are quite a few medical complications that can be found after the 20 week ban. It is possible she did not discover it until after that. The article does not give information on the circumstances.
As for what she is being charged with, improper disposal of a body, that seems proper assuming there was some sort of biohazard issue.
28 weeks is 6.2 months.
agree. fetuses can live outside the womb starting at ~24 weeks, whether you are pro life or pro choice i think (and hope) most of us can agree abortion at 28 weeks is very wrong. i dont understand how people can think otherwise. plus the article says nothing about the fetus posing any dangers to her health.
Absent more information, we cannot assert it was definitely wrong. You’ve intentionally framed this as “the article says nothing about the fetus posing any dangers to her health” which I have to assume is an intentional lie of omission. What the article actually says is nothing at all about the health of the fetus. It does not imply there was no danger to her health. It says nothing. Likely because it is an unknown.
What we do know about a 28-week abortion is that such an abortion was not part of a normal, healthy plan. Late-term abortions like this are almost certainly from someone intending to carry to term who has some kind of crisis. We do not know the nature of severity of the crisis.
In such a crisis generally, the community and the state should’ve been there to help them navigate it and reach an outcome that kept her as whole as possible while doing what is possible to keep the child alive. This was possibly a viable pregnancy. But I totally understand, especially to a teenager and in the current political environment of a place like Nebraska, being rightly too frightened to reach out for help.
We can not agree on that because we have no fucking clue on the circumstances. It’s possible she learned of a medical complication for the fetus after 20 weeks. It is possible that it is really difficult to get an abortion in Nebraska and it took a couple months to be able to obtain the resources to do it.
We do not know because the information is not provided. It is possible that somehow after carrying a fetus for 28 weeks and likely knew for 22 of those weeks, she decided she no longer wanted it. We do not know but that seems unlikely to me.
To pretend that abortion after some arbitrary limit, should be illegal, is to make a mockery of pro-choice and bodily autonomy arguments. It even makes a mockery of pro-life. The whole thing is a complete joke. If you think abortion is murder, then agreeing to a term - based compromise is agreeing to let people murder children as long as they’re not too old. A compete mockery of pro-life. In reality, the arguments for bodily autonomy are so strong that everyone should have the right to abort at any term, because no one has the right to use someone else’s body without their consent (Republicans are changing this).
When you support these arbitrary term-based bannings, you’re giving in to the social manipulation of pro-lifers who have successfully manipulated you into a compromise that supports their position.
Being pro-choice requires you accept abortion at any point is morally acceptable.
It does not mean it is desirable. You can have a preference that an abortion late term not happen. It’s just a preference for individuals to behave more charitably, after all. And you’re free to institute policies that make it less likely to happen so long as those policies do not trample on an individual’s ownership of their own body. For example, you can create financial incentives to complete the pregnancy – cover the person’s living and healthcare expenses or flat pay them to do it.
It’s telling that the “pro-life” types aren’t out here advocating for these kinds of policies that prevent individuals from WANTING to have abortions. If they truly were concerned about murder, they’d be out there making education and contraception available and pregnancy care available and cheap. They’d be expanding things like TANF. All sorts of policies that are normally part of the agenda of the same people that tend to be pro-choice.
deleted by creator
Yep. Know why she did it? Desperation + living in a state that already made it hard to get abortions, but also doesn’t provide good prenatal care. Nebraska has one of the higher infant mortality rates in the country (though it still pales in comparison to Mississippi).
You know why she did it?
deleted by creator
So you are certain?
deleted by creator
So happy to hear that you are certain.
You know why she did it too.
Removed by mod
Did this article hit a nerve on you or something? You’re spamming the thread and not even contributing with anything of value
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
Either a bot or someone being weird. Blocking just to be safe. Bye 👋
Ok. 7 months abortion is not ok.
Especially without a medical professional and then hiding the body.
If course I am a bot because you don’t agree with me.
28 weeks is about 7 months.
I don’t know you.
She wasn’t charged for the abortion, she was charged for hiding the remains. Did anyone read the article here?
Yes. I read the article. I know that already. The fact that she felt she had to do this is an indictment of Nebraska.
Removed by mod
regardless, it’s the law. if you want it changed, move to Nebraska, get residency, start a grassroots campaign, get elected to State government, and draft a bill into law.
you’re free to do that, after all - self government is one of our many freedoms. many other countries don’t allow people to do anything about how the government works.
These people care more about an unborn baby than they do about the baby after it’s born. Actually sad.
If every one of these anti-abortion assholes want to start taking the babies of families who cannot raise them then it wouldn’t be seen as just a disgustingly hypocritical movement. That is not the case. If you want to start forcing women to have babies they can’t care for but you don’t want to take care of the consequences of that, you are the problem.
Nobodies out here delivering fully sized aborted babies for shits and giggles. Pregnancies are painful and traumatic enough.
Removed by mod
I read the article, people who stand outside abortion clinics disuading people from getting abortions when they’re within the term time is the problem. It’s also possible to have invisible pregnancies. The article doesn’t contain enough to go into but you can’t deny that protesting and harassment outside of abortion clinics would scare people away from doing it legally. Which now it’s made harder.
The article and the story presented do not include what you are talking about.
No shit, I’m questioning why she didn’t go through the usual routes to get help. You know. responding with thought on what I think about the story… what you’re complaining about
Removed by mod
yeah, it’s obvious that they didn’t read the article
Doesn’t seem like you read the article.
What a shithole State.
Shithole country
So weird to see people get bent out of shape over someone taking medication, especially since we do not have healthcare or childcare in this country.
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
This was before the change in the law. It is certainly possible that there were medical issues or that Nebraska made it extremely difficult to get an abortion. I wish the article offered more details. 28 weeks is extremely late for an abortion.
If I am reading this right, this sentencing is not even for the abortion. It is for hiding the body.
For her, yes. The mother is being charged with providing an illegal abortion.
Not sure what the rules are for disposing of a late term abortion or what they should be.
I think it’s an illegal abortion because she is not licensed to provide abortions. At least that’s what I recall reading on this elsewhere. I could be mistaken as it would still have been illegal by state law of 20 weeks at the time. I do believe what this mother did is reckless. She provided a medical procedure that she isn’t qualified to oversee. All that being said, I’m pro choice, but I don’t know that this case really represents what people are saying it does.
This argument is circular since abortions after 20 weeks are prohibited. All of the qualified medicinal professionals are not allowed to provide late term abortions thus no qualified person could provide the medical care she needed. The fault is not with the mother for doing something unsafe but the state that requires that only unsafe conditions exist for the procedure.
I was talking about what the mother is specifically being charged with. I did a little extra looking and that charge (abortion by someone other than a licensed physician) was dismissed as she is pleading guilty to illegally providing an abortion after 20 weeks, false reporting, and tampering with human remains. I agree that restrictions on abortion have the potential to lead to unsafe abortions. I also think it’s true that someone unqualified should not attempt it. Both can be true I think.
That’s what I’m talking about as well. A rise in back alley abortions and thus abortions done by unqualified practitioners are a direct consequence of abortion bans. No one would need to hide “human” remains if a legal abortion was available. No one would be forced to find a provider who is available rather than qualified if the abortion was legal. One should not be judged for taking irresponsible measures if that is all that is available.
Here is a source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/
Idk that I can get with that last statement as a blanket for all cases, but I understand your point. Abortion should be legal and we as a society can still agree that someone unqualified shouldn’t be offering/providing them. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Laws that prevent non-medical doctors from performing medical procedures would cover this, so making it specific to abortion isn’t necessary. I read an interesting write up on Jezebel about how these kinds of cases are really probing to see what the public will accept and that makes a lot of sense.
It represents a poor person who did what she could and is now being punished. What are you even talking about?
The state law that was in place prior to the overturning of Roe v. Wade would have had the same result for this mom and daughter. Not saying I agree with the 20 week ban, but that was the law. My point is that this case is being pushed so hard as a “look what happens after Roe v. Wade is overturned” and that just isn’t the case. There are other examples that illustrate that point more concisely.
Unless you have details other reports don’t have, I don’t think we really know why they did this at 28 weeks. I have not seen anything that said they couldn’t afford it prior to 20 weeks so they did it themselves. I’ve seen a bunch of comments here that insert details that have not been part of any reporting I’ve seen. That’s not to say there isn’t more info out there I have not seen.
You’re a moron
They wouldn’t be in the position where the mother would have to be the one providing the service were the service still legal for professionals to provide
I’m a moron? Fuck off with all that. There’s zero evidence for what you’re saying. You’re talking out of your ass based on assumptions.
She aborted at 28 weeks when the law at the time was 20 weeks.
She also hid the remains.well, yeah - it’s a criminal act. you can’t just go around hiding bodies in the bushes, that’s unsafe and a clear ethical violation
Extremely late indeed and no medical professional advised it.
deleted by creator
I fucking did.
Probably?
Removed by mod
We’re not in fetus territory, here. A premature baby born at 28 weeks has an 80-90% chance of surviving and is unlikely to have any health issues.
The article doesn’t say why they waited so long to reach this decision, but on the face of it this case starts to blur the line between abortion and murder.
A baby born at 28 weeks is absolutely likely to have health issues. What the fuck are you talking about? That would be extremely premature.
A healthy fetus has a good chance of surviving, sure. But what if she found out that the fetus had a severe medical issue that would not see it live long outside the womb? That is significantly different. The article does not give detail on that.
The face of it does not provide detail. I agree that this blurs the line but the line is blurry because of the lack of information.
It doesn’t matter what the age of the child is. Abortion at any age is not murder, because no one has the right to use someone else’s body without their consent (until Republicans succeed at allowing this). You’re arguing that a fetus has no right to someone’s body, until it grows up and reaches a magical “goldilocks zone” where it’s not too old, not too young, but juuust right. Then you say, “can’t abort, it’s alive, it has a right to use someone’s body without their consent!” and, then, once it’s born, it loses that right! The entire situation you’ve been manipulated into agreeing to, makes a complete mockery of the very pro-life values it’s supposed to espouse.
Without facts hard to figure out what happened.
Facts are presented.
Based on these facts as presented a crime was committed. What jurisdiction permits abortions at 28 weeks without a good cause?
I think we agree
Edit: NVM I misread
Thanks for reading
it’s like 12 weeks now, so presumably the next person to attempt this will get a lot more than a 90-day slap on the wrist
Just to point out something the headline is missing:
I’m the united states 99% of abortions happen before the 21st week. For every state that has any sort of time limit on abortion, the absolute latest is the 25th week.
At some point, there needs to be a cut off. At some point we should all be able to agree that the baby is too far along to be aborted. This girl took a pill at the 28th week, which was far beyond when it was designed to be taken.
Now I don’t know if 28 weeks should be old enough for a criminal charge, but it’s definitely not as black and white as the headline makes it seem
Sure. I think that cutoff should be at birth. Because why should we have any baby born that will not be cared for?
so 20 minutes before the birth, you think it should be fine if the mother terminated the pregnancy?
That is an…odd take
Abortion is a termination of a pregnancy. 20 minutes before birth, the proper abortive procedure is a caeserean section. Regardless, no one should have the right to use someone’s body without their consent, which means there should be no term-based limits. If someone doesn’t want to give from their body to support another person, they should not be compelled (but are). Anyone agreeing to term-based limits has made a joke of their own position. It’s not murder if it’s before some arbitrary line you set, then it’s murder until the baby is born, then back to not being murder. You flip flop back and forth pretending you have justification and everything you’re doing is reasonable. There is no justification. If it’s murder than the whole thing should be banned, but it’s not murder, so the whole thing should be permissible. Compromising is playing into anti-choice’manipulative hands.
You’re actually making a really good point that I never thought of, I just wish you weren’t so antagonistic about it. I think you know that when the general public is talking about abortion, they’re referring to the destruction of the fetus/unborn baby. Further, having a discussion about when the cut off is isn’t being flip floppy or being manipulated, it’s a complex problem despite how black and white you describe it.
That said, I’d never considered the idea that after a certain point, the abortion should consist of an early induced labor as opposed to the destruction of the fetus.
That’s because they’ve been brainblasted with the slogan that abortion is murder. The only response is counter-slogan. Abortion is healthcare.
You say it’s a complex problem. I assert you’ve been conditioned to believe it’s a complex problem. The right to bodily autonomy gives a right to end the condition of pregnancy at any stage, whatever happens to the baby. What’s complex is convincing a population that isn’t even listening and has themselves been conditioned to not even realize the value of argument and so, they forgoe it.
my opinion is that the cutoff is viability. until the fetus can survive on it’s own without significant intervention, it’s not a living person. if the baby can be delivered and survive/thrive with minimal intervention, you’re past the cutoff.
but, it’s worth noting that i am not someone who can carry/deliver, so grain of salt and all. and, additionally, this is a compromise mentality. i ultimately think that the issue of abortion should 100% be between a person and their doctor with zero influence or regulation by government agencies.
For the record, she was, probably, past that. My wife was born at 20 weeks, over three decades ago.
at 28 weeks, that’s entirely possible. but i also know that every pregnancy is different and no one-size-fits all approach to this particular metric would work. which is why, at the end of the day, it should be between a patient and their doctor alone.
I cannot carry a child either, but I feel if there should be a cutoff it would be when the baby would be truly aware. Brain activity isn’t even enough to qualify. The fetus knows what’s going on whether or not it can understand is different. Minimize pain.
I cannot carry a child either, but I feel if there should be a cutoff it would be when the baby would be truly aware. Brain activity isn’t even enough to qualify. The fetus knows what’s going on whether or not it can understand is different. Minimize pain.
Sure, I respect that. If that’s where you want to draw the line for your own (theoretical) abortion, I’m fine with you being able to make that choice for yourself.
So in that case, if a baby is fully viable with confidence that it would live if born today, you still think they should be allowed to be aborted?
Yes, I thought i was clear about that.
You were, I was just verifying because I’ve never seen anyone with this extreme of a view. Christians like to say we want to murder babies, this is just the first time I’ve ever seen anyone who kind of fits the bill.
It’s not a baby until it’s born. It’s still a fetus even if it would have been viable if born. Any other deadline is going to be either arbitrary and not a good fit for some subset of cases. Also, wanting something to be legal is not equitable with wanting something to happen, and you should avoid falling prey to that false logic. I don’t think the person you are replying to is saying they would celebrate a last minute abortion, just that they think it shouldn’t be something that the blind hand of the legal system is applied to
It’s not extreme. It’s bodily autonomy. My right to my body should be as absolute as the right you believe you have to your own body. No one can take from your body without your permission (unless you have a uterus and are pregnant in the US) . Setting term-based limits makes a complete mockery of bodily autonomy and of pro-life. It can’t be reasonable to think abortion is murder after a certain number of weeks, but permissible before. Surely, it’s murder before. But pro-lifers pretend they’re rational and manipulate the populace into agreeing their being reasonable and rational by setting these limits. Nowhere do they address the argument of bodily autonomy, because they can’t, and so the next thing to do is lie, cheat, and steal the American populace, who has been trained to accept this kind of stupidity culture.
Nothing extreme about it, people just don’t realize how early a fetus can be viable with today’s medical expertise, so using that as a standard makes no sense.
so it’s ok if someone chooses abortion a few weeks before they’re due?
I can’t think of a compelling reason to prohibit it.
The criminal charges aren’t for the abortion, they’re for hiding the remains. Did anyone read the article here?
Yeah I feel like a lot of people will make a reactionary comment without reading the whole article. Obviously if the mothers life is at risk or the baby just isn’t viable then a late-term abortion is the right move, but 24 weeks is 7 months. Easy for us to say with no baby inside us I guess, but that’s (imo) very late for an ‘I don’t want a baby’ abortion.
There’s definitely a conversation to be had around whether this girl had suitable access to healthcare, to secure termination earlier. I guess only she and her mother know the answer to that. Women should have a right to choose if they’re going to have a baby, afaik from the article the cutoff was 20 weeks at the time of the offence, any women reading this… is it likely to be 17 in today’s world and not realise you’re pregnant for 7 months?
What’s the problem with 28 weeks?
Yes, it’s clear that there must be a cutoff date. Personally, I like the biblical standard: baby’s first breath.
Seems News is just “US News”. I gave up all interest in US politics after the 2016 primaries. Good luck with fixing your shit. I’m out.
Of course it is. The US invented the internet. Everything defaults to the USA unless specified otherwise
maybe because the US is very controversial because bad decisions get made constantly? when other governments make horrible brainrot-level decisions, that gets international attention as well.
Nebraska shit hole state. Never will I go there.
Did you read the article?
deleted by creator
I can elaborate on any point of this story as reported. If you actually read it.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Well I guess I will continue to make an ass of myself.
Thanks.
LOL.
Any point of the article.
You are calling me little?
Any point of the article.
Removed by mod
I went there and it was actually dope. People so friendly, the food was delicious.
There was a tornado when I went there that ran right by us, it was oddly cool (mainly bc it was my first time experiencing one).
I’m also a POC, so I heard a lot of people like you that said I would just feel unwelcomed. Couldn’t have been further from the truth.
Considering no one would want to have an abortion in the third trimester if they couldn’t help it, this is either a situation of them being blocked from having an abortion at every turn earlier or a case where they wanted the baby, but found out that it was going to harm the mother and the state would do nothing about it because an unborn fetus trumps the life of the mother.
That’s a bold assumption given the lack of evidence we have supporting either of those situations.
What do you think the reason is for her keeping the baby remains?
It’s a much less bold assumption than to make the claim that she merely didn’t want the baby in her third trimester just because.
As for your question, that further implies it’s the second scenario that I listed.
It’s a much less bold assumption than to make the claim that she merely didn’t want the baby in her third trimester just because.
She took the abortion pill and held on to the babies remains. It’s not a bold assumption that she’s just a nut case, it’s a more bold assumption that she’s 100% innocent.
As for your question, that further implies it’s the second scenario that I listed.
So you would keep the babies remains instead of…disposing of it in some way?
If she wanted the baby in the first place, but was then in a situation where the baby was going to be stillborn and would be harmful for her to birth normally? Then yeah, she would be incredibly sad about having to have an abortion and would want to keep the remains of the baby she had wanted.
If
Once again, you have to make a series of bold assumptions to believe that she’s in the right here.
And you making the assumption that she’s a “nut case” is less bold than logical options such as wanting the baby, but there were complications?
And you making the assumption that she’s a “nut case”
My opinion, based on the facts of the story, is that she’s a nut case. I’m not assuming anything, the article plainly lays it out, she illegally obtained an abortion pill to kill her 28 Week baby, and held onto the remains.
If you don’t think that’s what a nutcase would do, that’s fine, but I’m not making any assumptions, I’m basing my opinion off the facts presented in the article.
Well done GOP/Nazi party. Putting young women in jail for taking control of their own bodies. Shame on you.
Killing a baby at 28-weeks of pregnancy and hiding the body is illegal in the vast majority of the US, including in blue states.
a yes, if the fetus has complications and gonna kill you, you can’t abort because “pRo-Life” while the mother dies
That…isn’t what happened here. Why are you talking about a completely different situation?
Do you have additional link with info to add about this case?
The article does not mention any life threatening issues with the pregnancy.yep, they don’t mention, because now it isn’t an excuse or she die, or she going arrested, and the news don’t provide enough information anyway, just look at the news about mothers goibg sick because can’t get health care
Yeah, I’ve been wondering if that’s a possible reason she did it: one day the fetus stopped moving and she panicked. Knowing that women have died/almost died because doctors were scared to remove the dead fetus.
Removed by mod
Wow this is so dehumanising that even though i live in India , which yall identify as a third world country feels like otherworldly shit !
“In May, Burgess pleaded guilty to a felony charge of removing or concealing human skeletal remains.”
They let you hide and steal bodies in India? Guess I learned something new today.
She probably did it coz of the stupid law !
from brasil, if the baby has complication that can kill the mother, abortion is allowed, i guess, in the USA lamb of free, both die, imright??
usa the most third world country of all third world countries
if the baby has complication that can kill the mother, abortion is allowed
Nowhere in the article is it claimed this was the case. Why are you talking about a completely different situation?
if the baby has complication that can kill the mother
Which was not the case in this situation
deleted by creator
If you have addtional links to information about this case I would be fine taking a look and reanalyzing my position.
If not, please refain from making things up. It pushes people who are more open minded away from your position.
I don’t know any reasonable person that would say the U.S. is a worse country than india. Between the caste system, gang rapes and extreme poverty experience by a huge portion of your population and arranged marriage culture, it’d be tough to convince most.
America isn’t perfect, we’re a new country with a lot of kinks to work out, but you couldn’t pay me enough to get me to move to india.
I don’t know any reasonable person that would say the U.S. is a worse country than india. >
Well at least we still have affordable healthcare to begin with. Every year americans fly to new delhi to get admitted to Indian hosptials 🥹 coz they cant afford healthcare in their own country!
Between the caste system, gang rapes and extreme poverty experience by a huge portion of your population and arranged marriage culture,>
While one can argue racism in the united states and we do punish rapists here ,for year 2021 , us reported around 200k rapes while india did 20k comparing the population and all , but lets not make a comparison there. The women in india can at least legally abort ( no matter what the reason for not wanting the child is) while arranged marriages are part of culture that some may follow ,you dont have to get into one.
America isn’t perfect, we’re a new country with a lot of kinks to work out, but you couldn’t pay me enough to get me to move to india. >
India is relatively new when compared to the US and despite of the abject proverty that you claim , people with minimum wage can still afford to eat and have a place to live ! We arent at mercy of few capitalists , at least not yet ! And please , no one asked u to move !
that why i totally aprove changing how we categorize third and first world countries
Well historically it was based on countries who supported the US and countries who did not support anyone !
Correct.
ah, so when you disagree, you just shift the goalposts?
A huge number of people did not read the article.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
“In May, Burgess pleaded guilty to a felony charge of removing or concealing human skeletal remains.”
If that is the case, people are a lot stranger then I thought. I thought not hiding and/or stealing human remains was something most people supported. Learned another new thing today
deleted by creator
My understanding is that the law for abortion was 20 weeks at the time. That was more inline with European standards.
Regardless, you cannot just hide the remains. If that were legal bad clinics would be in there right to dump remains.
Either way you seem to be making a lot of assumptions. If you have links about this case that have more context of the situation I would be happy to read them.
I am a -1.5 by - 4.21 on the political compass if that makes you feel superior.
deleted by creator
You made the assumption that she could not receive abortion healthcare in the allowed 20 weeks at the time. I do not want to form my opinion on an assumption or feeling. I am going by what the article state since no one else has provided links to additional information on this case.
She was sentenced for the crime she admitted guilt to. Seems fair from the information I have.
You arguments may hold up better in the case of the mother when her sentencing come up.
“Who cares. The political compass is a fucking joke that nobody should be taking seriously.”
You appear to as you try to throw ideas that challenge you into buckets when you say “Sure is easy being a conservative, isn’t it?”
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
For those who did not read the article:
She was 28 weeks (6.5 months) pregnant. The survival rate for babies born at at 28 weeks is 80%. ( source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117667/ ). This wasn’t a fetus, this was a fully formed baby.
I fully support right to choose, but this wasn’t abortion…it was murder followed by coverup. Everyone getting riled up over the social justice of this has plenty of things to be riled up over these days, but this isn’t one of those things.
deleted by creator
Go look up “28-week baby” on google images and get back to me about your bullshit.
deleted by creator
At what point do you think it’s unethical? Or do you have no line that can’t be crossed. At 28 weeks, it’s a fully formed baby that can survive outside the womb with an 80% survival rate…that’s way past any reasonable and ethical line.
Are you capable of reason? Let’s hear yours.
deleted by creator
You know Republican hoarding guns to keep a tyrannical government at bay? Well, this seems that tyrannical government.
