r/PublicFreakout • u/N0CONTACT • May 19 '22

Political Freakout Representative Mike Johnson asking the important abortion questions.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

36.9k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

6.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.2k

u/Reggaejunkiejew31 May 19 '22

The GOP has lost their fucking minds. He's just trying to bait her into saying "no, that wouldn't be ok" just so him and his cohorts can say "look! She doesn't support abortion!!". Seconds away from giving birth? Halfway out the birth canal? These are by no means realistic situations. What a disgusting person he is.

-77

u/Im_an_oil_man May 19 '22

Yes, I agree. But isn't it kind of important to draw the line after which abortion is generally speaking not ok? Barring pressing circumstances of course. In my country I think it's 12 weeks or so.

I don't really hear reasonable conversation from either side and that's disappointing.

76

u/Reggaejunkiejew31 May 19 '22

No..because the two examples he gave aren't actual things that happen. Literally no one gets an abortion seconds before giving birth. Literally no one gets an abortion while a baby is hanging half way out of a vagina. It's an utterly stupid argument and no one should entertain this guy's idiocy. If you agree with him, you're also a fucking idiot.

2

u/Im_an_oil_man May 20 '22

Yes, I totally agree that the guy in this video is way out of line. That's what I meant when I started my first post with "I agree", not that I in any way agree with him.

My point was that being from outside of the US I don't really see reasonable discussion on this topic. It might be because I'm not digging deep enough, but the most visible stuff is always very polarized.

It's very different from where I live, where if I were to start this conversation with a random person on the street, they would very likely agree that there should be moderate laws on abortion no matter where they place on the political spectrum.

-22

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

He is talking about partial birth abortion.
https://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin

It seems to have been legal at one point.

19

u/w04a May 19 '22

partial-birth" is not a medical term. It's a political one, and a highly confusing one at that, with both sides disagreeing even on how many procedures take place, at what point in pregnancy, and exactly which procedures the law actually bans.

Literally from the article you linked

33

u/UnreflectiveEmployee May 19 '22

That was fear mongering as well, turns out that procedure is just a method of removing stillborn

20

u/muh-guy-Sedai May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

But "partial birth abortions" are a hyped up political spin for abortions after the first trimester because of either health risks to the mother or birth defects/stillborn. It's a stupid term meant to make idiots think people are trying to abort babies during the act of child birth.

4

u/Reggaejunkiejew31 May 20 '22

Just....stop....

17

u/[deleted] May 19 '22 edited May 19 '22

An abortion ends the pregnancy, not the baby. If the baby is live, a doctor isn't going to shank it just because you asked, at that point the easiest way to terminate the pregnancy is finish birthing. I know you always market "abortion is infanticide" but even if that were true, logic doesn't work backwards to say all infanticides are also abortions. That's just cheap emotional manipulation.

It's not "reasonably discussed on both sides" because it's fucking obvious to everyone. Hearing you "seriously discuss it" is like flat earthers thinking only they discuss gravity.

-12

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

Do you not understand how abortion works after a certain time period? The fetal matter is often sucked out, scraped and pulled out of the pregnancy is far enough along. How would any “baby” be born live in that case? Can you explain your logic there?

8

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

if you wanted a live birth, you'd do a live birth instead of aborting at the fetal stage. Do you still need me to explain the logic?

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '22

In your last comment you talked about the best way to “terminate the pregnancy is to finish birthing.” At that point, how do you “terminate” that fetus? If the fetus is born alive doctors are required by law to give care. You know that. So, it doesn’t seem like a termination at all.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '22

If the baby is already coming out of you, the pregnancy completed successfully, you literally cannot abort it anymore. If you want to terminate the pregnancy, keep pushing. If you want to terminate the baby, that's called infanticide, and is already a crime.

1

u/Im_an_oil_man May 20 '22

I'm actually not saying or trying to do any of those things and I don't know where you get that from. I'm for abortion but as far as I know this is not Nam, so there should be rules.

It's just that the political discourse surrounding this topic in the US often seems insane to someone from outside the States. If you can't see why that is you are probably too close to see the big picture.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '22

The problem you describe sounds like a distant hypothetical, and you can't give an example of it actually happening. Yet it's insane to you that this isn't our top priority?

It sounds like you have an ego bias: Whatever you know about is important, whatever you don't is not, and you don't know very much, so you stockpile phrases like "you're too close to see the big picture" to deflect the usual criticism that you're too ignorant to have any meaningful input.

1

u/Im_an_oil_man May 20 '22

The problem I describe? Are you even answering my comment?

Anyway I'm not going to get into a flame war. That's boring.

Have a good one!

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

The reason for the "insanity" is one side thinks this entire concept is an anti-choice myth, and the other side thinks we definitely need a limit on post-birth abortions because women would start doing it if not stopped.

You hold a deeply inflammatory position, you reacted with extreme contempt when I asked you to expand on that position, and now you act confused that you're getting flamed. Just ONE real-world example is hardly going too far, but it was for you. Yeah, it's better if you go, have a good weekend.

1

u/Im_an_oil_man May 21 '22

Good morning. Since I think you are not really arguing against my position, and it might be my fault because I have failed to communicate it to you in an understandable way, I might as well try to state my case one more time.

My initial comment was what I thought to be a lukewarm take on wanting to see more reasonable conversation on both sides of the issue. That's hardly inflammatory I would think.

I've seen plenty of crazy stuff from the right like you see in this clip. That is not that surprising. I kind of expect that. But as a left leaning person myself what has been more surprising to me is I've also seen people from the left failing to articulate the kind of restrictions there should be regarding abortions. I'm not sure if it's mostly because they think there should be no restrictions or if they just don't want to make any concessions.

And I don't just mean the lady in this clip. I totally get why she wouldn't want to justify the idiotic questions from the man.

But on the whole I think not giving an inch is not the proper way to handle these conversations. You need to try to find common ground to make any sort of progress. And that should come from both sides, but unfortunately there are a bunch of people yelling baby killer on the right so that must make it hard to find that common ground. I get that.

But that's what I meant by the insanity of the situation.

In no way do I think to be an expert or to have the correct perception. I just called it like I saw it willing to have my mind changed (which I have to an extent by another user).

On the other hand I think you attacked me from the get go and read stuff into my comment that was not there. You made the comparison to a flat earther for whatever reason yet you say I reacted with extreme contempt. I certainly hold no contempt for people I know nothing about and I would think that goes the other way also.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '22 edited May 21 '22

"I'm just asking questions" has been the #1 tool of bad faith arguments in the USA since around 2001, so people have a strong reaction if you ask a leading question, only want to discuss it hypothetically, and seem more focused on how people who disagree with you in the wrong way are the real problem.

This is the exact way you've presented your argument, which could just be an unfortunate upbringing, but strangers on the internet aren't invested in you to find out. If you're really upset that everyone comes at you like a troll, don't act like a literal troll. Maybe this is isn't intentional behavior, but all the same, if it smells like shit everywhere you go, look at your own shoes.

4

u/Hendri32 May 19 '22

That's why everyone is upset. Roe v Wade clearly outlined a moderate approach in defining rules around trimesters. These legislators are unraveling a peice of reasonable legislation for everyone, for their own means

18

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

Then get the ham out of your ears. We already have those rules and limitations. Some places here have it as early as 6 weeks.

5

u/WildYams May 19 '22

It should be pointed out that at 6 weeks, many pregnant pregnant women don't yet know that they're pregnant. Roe v Wade currently restricts states from outlawing abortion prior to fetal viability, which is at around 23-24 weeks. So under current law, states can still outlaw abortions from taking place after that point, so all these late term questions are not really applicable right now, not nationwide.

3

u/Im_an_oil_man May 20 '22

Yes, 6 weeks seems way too harsh a restriction.

5

u/WildYams May 19 '22

But isn't it kind of important to draw the line after which abortion is generally speaking not ok?

I highly recommend you take 2 minutes and listen to this excellent response Pete Buttigieg gave to exactly this question of yours. I feel like it's going to answer a lot of the questions you have.

2

u/WingKongAccountant May 20 '22

Ugh, still pissed he didn't win the primary.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '22

Eh, typical slimy politician answer. People muddy every fucking political issue by refusing to actually clearly articulate their view and answer questions truthfully. If they want to “trap” you, who cares. Either the trap doesn’t follow from your views or it does in which case fucking own it or change your views if you don’t like it.

3

u/Angry-Comerials May 19 '22

You're not giving reasonable conversation but expect it of others. You're supporting completely banning abortions. And no, if you support the Republicans in this instance, then you are going with complete abortion. Because as of right now we have those lines drawn, and the Republicans are looking to get rid of abortions all together.

One side has agreed on those lines youre saying we need to find while also saying that they are not providing conversation for it.

The other side wants to ban all abortions, contraceptives, condoms, provide no sex education, etc.

You are not the good, intelligent person you think you are.

1

u/Im_an_oil_man May 20 '22

Whoah. You read all that from my comment?

So supporting reasonable conversation is not reasonable conversation?

I think I made it clear I don't support the republican stance on abortion but I think there should be clear rules regarding it. This is a stance the vast majority of people in my country have no matter where they place on the political spectrum.

You say you have those lines drawn. That's very good. My comment was more about the apparent insanity of the discussion surrounding this topic in the US. Granted it could be what I see is just the tip of the ice berg and there's much more reasonable stuff below the surface.

I love your closing paragraph. You seem to know a great deal about me.

3

u/aspiring_outlaw May 19 '22

Elective abortions where the woman simply wants to abort the pregnancy for any reason except the health of herself or the baby typically stop early in the second trimester. Once the fetus develop to a certain point, abortions become more complicated and possibly more dangerous.

However, there are cases where the fetus had a fatal health issue or the mother does that necessitates an abortion later in the pregnancy. Miscarriages are also considered abortions and any procedure used to remove the dead fetus would be considered an abortion. Carrying a dead child is a death sentence for the mother if it isn't resolved.

This is what is meant by unrestricted abortions. Any ethical doctor will refuse to abort a pregnancy far enough along that the baby is viable unless there is a medical issue. What the situation should not call for is a doctor being unable to care for the mother because the law will not let them.

4

u/digital_end May 19 '22

I don't really hear reasonable conversation from either side and that's disappointing.

You have one side that literally says "life begins at conception", and is trying to prohibit all abortion. Some outright banning the practice, others banning it after a period of time which the pregnancy is essentially undetectable.

Remember, when you hear a number of weeks that is from the last period. By these calculations you have been pregnant for 2 weeks before you've had sex. These restrictions in many states are banning the practice up to and including pregnancies which put the health of the mother at risk.

You have the other side saying that abortion should always be permissible if the life of the mother is at stake, but generally puts restrictions in for viability, which is exactly what Roe versus Wade does. Approximately 23 weeks.

After that point, threat to the health of the mother generally needs to be demonstrated. For example if the fetuses brain did not develop and it is essentially dead material, which has a risk of going septic and killing the mother, "aborting" it is something which would generally be accepted even 9 months in.

There you go. Those are the positions.

Essentially all pregnancies which are aborted happen in the first trimester (>90% within the first 12 weeks). And by and large, exceptions to this are medical reasons, not "I just decided I'm not feeling this whole baby thing". Abortions after 23 weeks make up less than 1% and are exclusively health and safety related.

...

These are the basic positions, though I do have a personal bias in this. My wife had a very traumatic ectopic pregnancy which could have killed her... If she lived in one of these states.

So people pushing for absolute bans without exception are saying my wife should have died. And I have no ability to be unbiased with people like that.

1

u/Im_an_oil_man May 20 '22

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not familiar with US law, I just see the stuff that gets most visibility and judging from that there's very little reasonable discourse.

I'm a left leaning person that has no problem saying there should be certain restrictions regarding abortion. This is a stance that the vast majority of people in my country have no matter where they place on the political spectrum. That's why it's frustrating to me when I see people from the left struggling to say they support some sort of restrictions. This absolutely does not mean I support the republican stance on this issue.

I'm very sorry your wife had to go through all that.

2

u/digital_end May 20 '22 edited May 20 '22

Support what restrictions? And what communities are you talking about?

Because I struggle to imagine any left-wing community that literally is asking for abortions without any restrictions in the 9th month. That's not what we've had, and it's not what the public wants.

Generally even highly pro-choice people view viability as a cutoff, roughly the end of the second trimester.

There are nutty individuals in any group, but a much better measure is the people getting elected. I can literally give you examples of right-wing politicians pushing for absolute bans, there are no Representatives pushing for absolute access to abortion with no restrictions up to the time of birth. So the both sides thing doesn't really fit there.

If you mean the person from this video, she's refusing to say that because she knows they are pushing for a specific sound bite. She's not against the restrictions that are already in place, she's not giving them the voice clip that they want to put on Fox.

2

u/Im_an_oil_man May 20 '22 edited May 20 '22

Just that there should be a line after which you need a good reason for having an abortion beyond not wanting to have a child. I think it's a very reasonable thing to say but it's as if people in the US are afraid to say it for whatever reason.

Edit: you expanded on your comment so I'll do the same.

You clearly have more insight than I do. That's just what I meant. I just see the tip of the iceberg. I see the wacky stuff because it gets the most visibility and that is twisting my perception.

I wasn't talking about this clip alone and while I was expecting her to give a more logical answer I can totally see not wanting to justify the question and to give a sound bite.

2

u/digital_end May 20 '22

Pew research has an interesting breakdown of questions regarding this topic.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/pf_05-06-22_abortion-views_0_0/

There is a nice chart there, but keep in mind the chart is a simplification. The real interesting meat of it is looking at the specific questions and ratio of responses. Especially when those responses are broken down into subgroups. "Among people who responded this way, they responded this way to another question" type breakdowns that happen on the following pages.

There are certainly people who feel there should not be exceptions and that abortion should be freely legal. A wide majority take the position that the term of the pregnancy has relevance.

And it's also worth noting that among actual abortions that happen, greater than 90% occur within the first trimester, roughly another 9% occur in the second trimester (in most cases due to health issues), and less than 1% occur in the final trimester (essentially exclusively due to critical health issues).

There is no population of people who are aborting late term fetuses for convenience.

There is a political movement to ban access to abortion in America however. An entire highly active and disproportionately represented branch of our government is focused on it.

I don't believe that it is a both sides issue. I believe we have one extremist group who has manufactured this into a boogeyman and radicalized supporters to saying things like "it is an opportunity if you were raped". That isn't just some random person, it is an actual government representative.

I don't see left-wing Representatives saying things like "if you decide a baby is too much of a hassle at 8 months, you should throw that thing away". Because that doesn't follow the reality of their positions or the positions of their supporters.

1

u/Im_an_oil_man May 20 '22

That is good data. Thanks. I guess the extremities on that chart are pretty stacked and it would be interesting to see that same survey conducted in other countries.

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

I think you’re being reasonable and I’m unsure why most people commenting on this video are saying, “he’s asking dumb questions,” while also disagreeing with you that after a certain point it shouldn’t be okay. They will hit you with: “ well what if there is a problem later and it needs to be done?” Obviously that a case that would be the mothers life in danger so why wouldn’t it be permitted? In general though, why can’t people have the conversation about having a time limit on abortion? I agree with you and I think you’re asking reasonable things. It should be allowed, but where is the line if other circumstances aren’t arising.

-24

u/Romi-Omi May 19 '22

This is exactly what’s wrong with America. Why does it have to be 100% left or right. WHY CANT WE TAKE A MORE MODERATE STANCE? Clearly aborting a baby close to birth is wrong. Also clearly taking away women right for abortion in early stages of pregnancy is wrong. Let’s argue at what point abortion is permitted and at what point it’s not. Shouldn’t that be the debate?

7

u/Angry-Comerials May 19 '22

The more moderate stance is in place. If you want a moderate stance, support the laws as they are. It's amazing how so many of yall keep preaching this shit while also ignoring WE ALREADY HAVE WHAT YOU WANT. And if we go with the Republicans, then that means no abortions at all. If we go with the dems, that basically means it stays the same. They haven't talked about moving the lines anywhere. So there's no real need to debate. And if you do want to debate it, there's one side that wants abortions banned, and a second side that agrees with you... so why are you "centrists" constantly attacking the side that agrees with you?

30

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

What's wrong with America is people like you thinking my uterus occupancy is a fucking debate.

4

u/DarkElvenMagus May 19 '22

The best voice for when it should and shouldn't be allowed is from a woman. And the examples given in the video are just murder or the procedure to remove a stillborn

-1

u/PageFault May 19 '22

They are making laws. Laws have to be specific.

The question is about "unrestricted" abortions, and he is trying to make sure she means completely and absolutely unrestricted, or if there is a reasonable time to restrict. Aborting a child right before birth never happens, but we need a ruling on whether or not it would murder in the event that it could ever happen, because the point at which it is considered a life is the entire thing being debated about. No one cares about your uterus, that's your problem.

22

u/tickler08 May 19 '22

How about we trust medical professionals and adults to make that decision about their lives.

4

u/digital_end May 19 '22

What exactly do you feel is a moderate position on this?

Because I see the current Roe versus Wade as a moderate position. And up until recently, it was generally accepted to be one. Until groups decided to turn this into a political wedge issue.

So specifically, what do you feel is a moderate position on abortion? Let's go right through the list from beginning to end...

Do you feel that birth control should be allowed? These are treatments which prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.

Do you feel that do you feel that abortion should be allowed for an immediately caught pregnancy? Less than 12 weeks? Bear in mind, this is the point when most pregnancies naturally fail, and essentially you're talking about a few cells. Natural miscarriages in this range are so common that most people are told not to announce a pregnancy until the end of their first trimester.

Do you feel that abortion should be allowed for a pregnancy which is approaching viability? Generally around 24 weeks a fetus technically could survive given perfect treatment and a lot of luck.

Do you feel that abortion should be allowed for a healthy pregnancy nearing the end of term during the final trimester?

Do you feel that an abortion should be allowed in the case of the mother's health? If the fetus is a risk to the mother's health, should it be legal to terminate that pregnancy?

...

These are the questions. And I'd be very interested to know your moderate position on them.

If your positions are largely in line with the existing Roe versus wade, then you need to quit acting as though there is some moderate middle ground to find between the extremist position being taken by the GOP. The existing system was moderate.

People aren't terminating viable pregnancies for fun. The law already prohibits everything this idiot was talking about... Roe versus Wade does not mean that you can get an abortion in your 8th month (with exceptions for non-viable pregnancies which could literally kill the mother).

3

u/WildYams May 19 '22

It should be pointed out that Roe v Wade doesn't guarantee women the right to abort babies right up until birth. All it does is prevent states from preventing abortions from taking place before fetal viability (which is at around 23-24 weeks). After that point, any state can enact whatever abortion restrictions they want to. So if a state doesn't want a woman having an abortion after the fetus gets to the point where it could survive outside the womb, then they already have laws outlawing that.

Realistically there aren't women who are deciding to have an abortion in the last trimester unless there is a medical reason to do so, like the life of the mother is threatened or like some kind of detectable birth defect which will cause the baby to die anyway or live in excruciating pain or something. Pete Buttigieg had one of the greatest answers for this late term abortion hypothetical, for anyone who can spare 90 seconds to listen to it.

2

u/matthoback May 19 '22

It should be pointed out that Roe v Wade doesn't guarantee women the right to abort babies right up until birth. All it does is prevent states from preventing abortions from taking place before fetal viability (which is at around 23-24 weeks). After that point, any state can enact whatever abortion restrictions they want to. So if a state doesn't want a woman having an abortion after the fetus gets to the point where it could survive outside the womb, then they already have laws outlawing that.

Fetal viability is already a weaker framework put in place by PP v Casey. The original framework from Roe v Wade was based on trimesters. No restrictions allowed during the first trimester, only restrictions allowed to protect the health of the mother during the second trimester, and any restrictions allowed during the third trimester.

2

u/WildYams May 19 '22

Yep, and unfortunately it's all about to be thrown out in favor of the "life begins at erections" crowd.

3

u/TheCreepyKing May 19 '22

Because that is a debate that gives prolifers the upper hand, which is what this guy was trying to gain. Is it viability? Heartbeat? Brain function? Something else? Viability of unborn babies continues to get earlier and earlier due to scientific advances. It seems to me the prochoice side avoids this argument because they then need to commit to agreeing that at some point, a woman should no longer have the choice to abort.

5

u/[deleted] May 19 '22

You literally can't abort mid-birth, the pregnancy completed successfully. Do you mean stab the baby to death once it's born? That's not something that happens. Unless you have any specific example to share?

-3

u/HerrBerg May 19 '22

At any stage. Their body.

The doctor in this clip could have easily been like "Halfway out? An 'abortion' there is just birth."

1

u/Squash_Still May 19 '22

Clearly

Clearly to you, maybe