Trisomy 18 is not a de facto fatal diagnosis. My three year old nephew has it, and my sister’s family has connected with a lot of other families who have children with Trisomy 18. Medical professionals are still typically taught that T-18 is “incompatible with life,” so medical teams often don’t offer interventions that are regularly offered to babies who do not have T-18. This drives up the mortality rate and reinforces the label of “incompatible with life.” Many of these babies will live happy lives if just given the chance.
But a mother should still be able to choose whether she wants this experience for herself. Raising a healthy child is costly and hard enough, raising a child with severe disabilities will basically take over her life mentally and physically. Everybody should have a right to choose, whether they want it for themselves or not.
@@YuliaBorukhina We are currently funding the Ukranians war in which they take young men off the street and force them to fight in a war. Not a peep of right to choose or bodily autonomy. Instead 95% of democrats fund this enthusiastically. Right to choose is a fraud and always was and will be. The mom can 'choose' not to care for the child.
@@YuliaBorukhina Are you saying that if a baby is born with this condition not seen before birth that the mother should be able to choose to end the life of her baby?
That's what the states are for. A third of the people who voted for the OH measure didn't know what they were voting for. The left is still using the sound bytes/lies that they used 50 years ago to sell Doe v. Bolton, which hardly anyone has ever heard of courtesy of the corporate media.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" Martin Luther King Jr (A Proper Sense of Priorities speech delivered Feb 6, 1968)
@@richardprescott5939 Abortion Extremism or an Abortion Extremist: Definition Allowing an abortion for any reason; selfish irresponsibility, anytime up to birth with some even willing after the birth, not saving the child who lives through a botched abortion, abortion for gender selection, abortion to eliminate the handicapped, stem cell harvesting, body parts harvesting and requiring all to not only accept, but support, perform and fund the horrific act.
@@timmarshall7292 MOST people vote for that no matter what they say. The desire to be able to wipe away "THEIR" responsibility trumps all else. A sad reality
@@richardprescott5939 I see three Camps; All, None, Limited. Most fall into Limited, but not given a chance for the most agreeable solution. Unfortunately, the Nations Moral Compass is certainly edging to Most.
We need a reasonable abortion policy in this country. Europe has 14-16 week abortion bans. They chose that timeframe because at 17-18 weeks, you can determine the sex of the fetus. There is a reason China and India have 22-24 weeks. Trump has said he supports a 16 week ban.
Never understood why people ask who are we to decide and whether they think it makes them seem smart? We are to decide because we are the parents, the doctors, the caregivers. There is no option to undecide. Forbidding abortion is a decision same as allowing. We are to decide because the decision is forced on us.
I'm pro life, but I really think the 'legal exception' should exist in cases like Ms. Cox. I don't think that was representative of the will of the people that are against abortion. Abortion on-demand and arrogantly 'shouting your abortion' are driving forces against abortion. But so are the 'hard liners' on the right. I agree with you, Bari - BOTH sides have done nothing to further a solution. It seems to me that a legal route for an exception is appropriate.
If the only way to find out who got an abortion "unjustly" is by assuming who has sex for pleasure, without due process, forcing birth with those assumptions, imma say the solution to false accusations like this*was* Roe v Wade, and Clarence Thomas took bribes to ignore that precedent. There was a solution. Antiabortion advocates claimed it wasn't good enough but oh I bet they wish they could have some forethought now. They'd probably think Roe was common ground if they had actually read it.
Something like this happened to my mother in the late 1960s. What would have been my younger brother died in the womb without my mother expelling the fetus. Even though the law at the time said she could get an abortion, no doctor wanted to perform the procedure for fear of prosecution. She was forced to carry it for 10 days until she miscarried it into the toilet. By the time that happened she was starting to experience an infection in her abdomen. Even 2 weeks before my mother passed away at the age of 73, she would still break into to tears about this experience.😥 I honestly believe the reason why Democrats never enshrined Roe into law, even when they had control of both houses of Congress is because the threat of losing legal abortion was too good a political scare tactic to sacrifice forever.
I disagree. They probably thought it was a done deal. It only became a hot partisan debate when a Republican operative decided to make it a wedge issue to bring in religious folks.
That's not an abortion. When the fetus is dead depending on how far along the pregnancy was they induce labor or do a D&C. That's medical malpractice. No doctor would have been prosecuted over that. I lean more conservative but most conservatives are pro choice. They don't want abortion bans. They just want limits. Most of Europe is 12 to 15 weeks. Abortion for any reason through all 9 months is legal in many states. Even after the baby is viable.
What happened to your brother and your mother is sad. I understand that trauma. I have lost 5 children in miscarriage including my twin sons. It took me a month of carrying my dead sons in my body before my body responded and worked to release them. Had I elected to the procedure to remove their dead bodies then I could have had my conclusion sooner. I decided to wait for my body to do it. Let’s be clear here…….this is not the same as an abortion. Your mom lost her son and he had already died. Therefore, the procedure she was wanting was NOT an abortion. The baby needs to be alive in order for it to be an abortion by definition.
There is never a reason to kill a child. Admittedly, I didn’t do a lot of research, but what I found didn’t show an increased risk to mothers, their safety, or their fertility if Mom carries her child to term.
"Admittedly I didn't do a lot of research".... Should probably mind your business then and leave the decision to the people who did do the research, know the actual risks to mother, and will actually have to live or die with the consequences of the decision
I also knew 100% from the moment I heard the Supreme Court had resurrected the Abortion issue (& would issue a decision) that this alone would loose the mid-terms for the Reps when they previously had an excellent chance of winning. It was clear as day from the first moment that it was a MASSIVE own-goal.
This issue constantly stresses me out because I'm exactly where you are Bari. I just want a common sense moral position to take on this and neither side seems to want to offer one and so I'm stuck having to ask myself is this the issue I'll vote on or is it not. Cases like Kate Cox make me want to vote left and alot of other things make me want to vote the other way. Republicans have to pry the far evangelical right off of them if they want to stay relevant in the future. You can maintain a moral and even religious position while acknowledging that medical science doesn't just save cancer patients and diabetics but gives women the chance to protect themselves and reduce the chance of horrific suffering of a baby that likely won't live and even if it did would live horribly
Let’s talk about this case. It seems like what is happening here is she wants to deliberately end her child’s life, I.e. kill it, because it may die early or have serious medical problems. Have I misunderstood any facts of the case? If I haven’t, why should it be allowed to kill your child whom doctors have said will likely not survive? Also there are probably tens of thousands of people maybe more walking around today about which some doctors said would not be alive. So that is clearly a bad standard to use for deliberately killing them.
@jordandthornburg No. Kate Cox wanted to prevent irreparable harm to her body due to pregnancy risks. There is no risk-free pregnancy. Just because you donate blood today, does not mean you'll believe you'll be healthy enough to donate tomorrow. Self-preservation is allowed free people. You're telling uterus owners they're not allowed self-preservation. How free can you be if you can't choose who uses your body?
@@freedomishavingachoice3020 "uterus owners" lols, that's one way to describe women. Also, no. You can't kill someone when you've forced them into a position where they need you.
THANK YOU for a well balanced article and attempting to strike a middle ground. I also agree that almost all the arguements I hear seem to be from one extreme or the other, with a huge middle ground that seems to get ignored.
There's a reason for this that Leeja Miller discusses in a recent video (think it was called bad news and why we love it). TLDR tho, we have only extremes for options, because bad news was/is profitable.
Excellent! I am impressed by the clear prioritization of the rational concern for the truth and the acknowledgment and appreciation of the best arguments even from the other side. Well done.
As a pro-life advocate it’s become sadly apparent that a law of no abortion at any time is untenable. The Texas case, in my opinion, was an abysmal failure for the mother and her family. I cannot advocate for ending a life in the womb - regardless of how broken, malformed or incestiously it was conceived. And I think our government has a responsibility to establish moral social guidelines that are reasonable. Aborting is an enormously painful, lifetime decision a woman and her partner makes. It’s between them and God what they choose. It wasn’t reasonable for TX to force this family into a corner. Her health and reproductive future were at stake. That has been an accepted guideline for decades w/most pro-life groups. TX went too far.
@@kaylakuhl1680 no ones ‘beliefs’ are forced on anyone in this country. There are societal laws that are established to maintain a semblance of a humane culture that attempts to protect the vulnerable. W/o legal constraints our society would be in chaos. Life and liberty is a sacred truth for us as individuals. So when do those truths take root? With a secular society we must trust wise, deep thinking, compassionate legal scholars to set limitations or guiderails for citizens to comply with. That is our legal system- its not perfect- none of them are. China forced abortion for years to control population. Abortion care is available in this country and will always be. IMO TX went too far in burdening the Mothers health decision - her pursuit of happiness and liberty were trampled in the angonizing bodily decision she was needing to make.
I maintain that even with the best pro life argument winning in the moral debate, Roe was in fact correctly decided the first time around, because legislating something as intimate and private as pregnancy is a recipe for totalitarianism. It sucks to not be able to control the morality of others through laws, but this is an issue where the consequences of enforcement are far worse than the worst consequences of the crime.
@@rdbordeman I'm aware, that's why I said it sucks to not have a viable way to do that in this case, without destroying the basis of the free and democratic society we currently enjoy. Even if somebody believes that abortion laws are necessary, they're not going to like the broader consequences of the enforcement mechanisms of said laws. Public medical records, intimate body searches, snitching by closest relatives and friends, judicial apathy for completely personal tragedy, legislation of mental health (mandated lack of mental health problems or drug abuse for women), investigation of all tragic accidents - all of these features are necessary for enforcement of abortion laws. Buckle up - it's all coming to a court room near you.
Bari you did an excellent job of questioning and explaining the issues of extreme restrictions on abortion. I agree with your stance there should not be such restrictions. On the other side of the coin. I am a Christian and a lover of life and feel life should not be treated trivially nor the decision that interferes with the miracle of life. My view on abortion is government should exercise as little power as possible. People should be as educated as much as possible on one of the most important decisions of their life and think long and hard on the consequences. Self responsibility is the key for the old enough to know, yet like you, I think it is a travesty that a teen or younger should be forced to have a child and or not by government interference.Government should not add stress to a stressful situation either way. The problem with the abortion issue as you said is it is much more complicated than government laws and or political slogans make it sound.
Thank you. That is the best expression of a pro-life view I've found. It is indeed something that should be treated seriously, but a personal decision that people should be educated on.
@@barbarabigelow9110 except constantly saying that, focusing entirely on the woman's bodily autonomy, completely ignores the fact that abortion isn't JUST about the woman's body. There is another body to consider so there has to be more to the argument than just "a woman should have total autonomy over her body". I mean what if the child she is carrying is a girl? Does that female not have any say over what happens to her body?
A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a life- saving abortion in Texas. Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment. So this judgement did value woman right above life of fetus.
@@lawsattitude1999I don't think the issue was Paxton. The issue, according to TX abortion ban, was the pregnancy did not pose a threat to the LIFE of KC. And that's why TX Supreme Court decided how they did. KC doctor didn't indicate this pregnancy was a threat to her life, only to her future fertility, so when the first judge ruled she could access an abortion Paxton stepped in bc that wasn't in line w the law. I do think many of the states w bans have convoluted & not entirely clear laws where exemptions are concerned, however I don't necessarily think KC case was the best to center the "threat to the life of the mother" debate on. Maybe it should highlight issues with threats to future fertility & maybe that should be something these states consider... But the facts that initially came out in this case weren't the clearest. First it was a fatal fetal dx, then it was a threat to her life, then it was a threat to her fertility. All awhile the courts are making decisions based on the law & the facts which created a whole new fresh set of inaccuracies. Unfortunately this topic will never get resolved as long as the extremes from both sides get all the focus in public debate.
Ms. Weiss, thank you for The Free Press. I'm a subscriber. I just want to ask: is The Free Press better experienced on the website or on Substack? Maybe I'm luddite, but I'm confused as to why the two options exist.
Then why did we have Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton for 49 years, which the Washington Post labeled as creating one of the most liberal sets of abortion laws on the planet?
@@Kelsea-im8obActually every pro-lifer i've seen talking about these situations is outraged. Unanimously outraged. These decisions were made by boomers in our government who understand that our culture is falling apart but don't understand why. So their response is to make our country more strict including abortion laws. There are two types of Pro-Lifers: Young Pro-Lifers. Boomer Pro-Lifers. These groups are two VERY different types of people.
It was never about saving a life though with antiabortion policy. It was about denying uterus owners the right to refuse their body's. Antiabortion leaders lied about their intent to gain support. If the only people we deny the right to refuse their body to the not viable are those with a uterus, our hate is unzipped.
your voice is so sane and true, missing in today's politics. currently pregnant this made me so sad, judging on a women's body health and family through this self minded narrow position is nothing else than cruelty. i wish for women who struggles with such difficult choices to have a new and better reality in the U.S soon
As a Republican I can't agree with this stuff its not good there need to be common sense used with everything else like there is a tome where an abortion is absolutely needed and there's a time where it shouldn't be aloud we need to stop letting the government use both the right and the left to fight each other and make them make common sense changes
The net good early termination brings is the argument. It preserves the uterus for future procreation attempts the earlier it's done. Most people get news from their doctor that the fetus won't be able to have any level of independence, even if they do manage a miracle and survive (most do not). The morality is the net good the uterus owner can bring to the world while not pregnant. Imagine an ER doctor, now imagine them needing bedrest to prevent complications in a pregnancy. How many people perish because that ER doctor was stuck at home waiting on religious extremists miracles? Sometimes abortion is a net good and antiabortionist"s can not tally that net good. It's better just to let us choose who we save with our own bodies. Great question, thanks.
I completely disagree with aborting a wee baby from a rape. It's just adding one evil act to another evil act. Murdering the baby of rape is adding another crime to the first one.
On a subject where everyone involved to inclused the unborn directly and inderecty lose and suffer, all answers are terrible and unjust to some. Stories like this highlight that exact point, to then rely on a justice system to decide whatever the outcome will only weigh the ones who lose the most. If government and the laws it passes and enforces are designed to do the greatest societal good then that is the discussion that has begun to happen as we see displayed here by Bari. Though Bari's admitted senssible compromises will have the same outcome of many who still are forced into horrible outcomes. The difference is the Danish society has come to terms with it's decision through a cohesive social contract and choose not to tear itself apart for it's decision. We in the US are not that and won't be, as long as elections hinge on this issue.
This ,to me as a Chinese ,is unnecessarily making simple issue complicated ,it's women and women alone give birth ,while the husband who has willing and responsbility for the baby can only give some suggestions ,but why it's a men who doen't even know her have a say to their business?
@@gopher7691 The baby likely wouldn't have lived. That's a fair reason to abort much like it's fair to pull the plug on someone who has a terminal illness.
I’m personally pro life for myself, and I am Catholic so I also feel obligated to be pro life as well. However, intellectually I recognize that cases like the ones you’re talking about are why abortion should be legal. I agree compromise and moderate policies are the answer here.
The “who decides who gets to live or die is ridiculous”. The woman having the child with her body gets to decide. It’s her body and her choice. Period. If there was a way to extract the baby easily into I some artificial womb, then you have a point. Stop using disabled and vulnerable members of society as political pawns
So what? What are the other results possible in the 10 percent chance the baby survives? Obviously, Kate Cox was ready to be a mother of any baby, if she determined the gamble wasn't worth it, her opinion should be trusted.
I think this was a reach of misinformation by antiabortion leaders to help them feel better about their serious lack of forethought. So let's throw in Heather Maberry and Allie Phillips. It's not rare enough not to keep abortion legal for them. Antichoice leaders lied. In no free country should people be forced to wait on your religious miracles in agony so you can feel Kosher with your peers. Hard pass.
'If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament' - this is what a friend, a clinician, shared with me as the words spoken by a catholic nun, also a health care professional, in the hospital were both were working.
This is an old canard. Many men love abortion, and the percentage of procedures where men have desperately coerced women into the procedure is probably considerable, when faced with the prospect of 18 years of child support. Support for abortion is almost as high from men as women. Also, the strongest pro-life voices come from women. But this is a well thought out examination by Bari, and now that the issue is returned to the people to decide through their legislatures, the limits will have to be worked out. This case seems a good example of when exceptions should be allowed. The "state by state" present situation does result in people sometimes needing to travel, passing federal legislation would make policy consistent but that has it's own problems as well.
Fair presentation of a difficult topic, however as long as the remedy to incest is abortion without serious punishment for the perpetrator, you are victimizing the young woman twice - the attack and the killing of a child.
I appreciate your balanced delivery of the story. While I'm against abortion as elective birth control because woopsie you got drunk and the condom broke, for example, I could see the Cox case being a valid medical exemption. It was a good faith decision given it was a wanted pregnancy and the diagnostic situation. On the other hand, her doctor claimed Trisomy 18 was an immediate death sentence, then you brought up that Santorum's kid has lived to 15 so far. Seems to me like her life was worth living. So which is it? The doctor also claimed that delivering the baby could risk her future fertility, but did he disclose the risk that an abortion can also harm future fertility? It's a tough one for sure.
This is one of the very best discussions of this issue you are likely to find. Bari impresses me more and more. People like her give me hope for a better environment for us all to grapple with these issues. I come from the other end of the social/political spectrum, but have great respect for Bari's intelligence, but much more than that, her thoughtfulness and good will.
There’s a difference between how you feel, and what you want to criminalize. I support abortion rights throughout pregnancy, because I don’t think women who terminate their pregnancies are murderers and deserve prison.. Also, pregnancy is often too complicated to legislate in the later months, pregnancy is not safe and there can be a lot of complications with mother or fetus
Kate Cox's story is tragic. I'd like to know the numbers of these kinds of cases, it matters. I'd also like more information, including procedural details, for late term abortions. Both sides need to grasp the precise, unmitigated details for the most extreme cases.
I would like more information too but I no longer believe that we can get info on both sides of any contentious issue. The internet has been tainted by people who want to control all debate. Sad. 😢
Do you really think that a woman goes through 7 or 8 months of morning sickness (often lasting all day), pain, peeing, inability to sleep, fainting(in my case), high blood pressure and swollen feet? And one day wake up and say "no, I've changed my mind?" Late term abortions happen because of medical problems of mother and/or fetus. These are wanted children and ut us heartbreaking. Asking for details is a straw man argument.
The numbers are irrelevant. If someone told you to eat out of a bowl of a million candies, but only one was sure to cause you irreparable harm and immeasurable suffering, you'd wonder why I hated you enough to force you to eat out of that bowl. This isn't an extreme case, it's just interesting to antiabortion extremists who suddenly feel responsible for the law hurting uterus owners. As they should. The antiabortion leaders made a mistake by bribing justices to overturn Roe. A huge mistake to ignore precedent.
@@freedomishavingachoice3020 babies aren't made of candy🙄. The baby is a human being and no one has the right to stop a life. It is a very sad situation but the parents have have that responsibility.
I'm pro-life. That being said, the women you spoke about are 1.04% of all abortions. I have absolutely NO problem with it in those cases, especially when it's a child under the age of 18. Their bodies are just not developed enough for pregnancy. The biggest talking point of abortion advocates, that I've heard is for these reasons. What I do have a problem with is the other 99% of abortions. "Safe, legal and rare" has become, in the extreme, birth control. I acknowledge that this is not the norm. I don't know the exact number, but there are a lot of people who want to adopt an infant because they can't have children. Why is having the baby and giving the child up such a stigma? These people are willing to pay for health care and I'm assuming that they will pay the mother as well. Win, win. When women shout "my body, my choice," they're not understanding that they are advocating for an individual who has its own DNA to be killed. It's not their body. And the reasons women have for aborting their children! I'm not ready to be a mom, I can't afford a baby, etc. Accountability! Yes, all birth control can fail. However, there are two options, an implant and Levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG IUD), that have a failure rate between .1 and. 8%. (Compared to the pill which has a 7% failure rate and a condom 13%). The information is on the CDC website. Margaret Sanger advocated for birth control, not abortions. She wanted women to be able to control how many children they had with birth control. For people she called feeble minded, among others she deemed undesirable, she advocated for sterilization. And I've never heard of a pregnant woman, who was planning to get an abortion or not, being murdered and the suspect not being charged for murdering two people. I also hate that while abortions are pushed, there's no offer for therapy to deal with the aftermath. Suffice to say, PP makes a lot of money by pushing abortions while the pregnancy centers who mainly help women who want their babies are vandalized or set on fire. But what do I know? I used birth control pills for the majority of my adult life, including condoms, and I've never gotten pregnant. That and I didn't sleep with more than 10 men. Having a lot of partners, IMO, isn't empowering, just riskier. Just my long-winded 2 cents. ✌🏼
It’s none of your business whether or not a woman carries her pregnancy to term. If a woman is not prepared to be a parent for any reason, she has every right to have an abortion. It’s her body that has to gestate life and becomes irrevocably altered, it’s her life that is placed in jeopardy and she is the one who will bare the brunt of child care duties, with or without a partner.
I'm 99 percent pro-life. But that 1 percent I reserve for people like you. And sometimes this 1 percent outweighs the other 99 percent if the conditions are right. Always enjoy your sane opinions.
There is no medical reason to abort a child for any medical emergency. Cox could have had a C section and let her precious child die with dignity. No one should be able to decide to intentionally kill their children. As to rape, why do we always kill the innocent child but spare the rapist?
The problem with the abortion discussion is as follows. Liberals.... 1. Safe legal and rare...sound familiar? If this was true we wouldn't likely be where we are now. When pro abortion groups went all in, they paraded women out that had had several and were basically using it as birth control. 2. Pro abortion groups were and are actively arguing for abortions up to birth. Virginia Congress as an example. 3. As was pointed out in the video, treating an abortion like you were taking antibiotics to kill an infection. Clearly showing that what's growing inside a woman is nothing to be concerned about. Conservative..... 1. Believing there is little wiggle, room....hard line to fight a hard line. People need to be more responsible with their actions and do what is necessary to prevent the need for an abortion. It needs to be safe....and rare.....it may then be more legal.
absolutely not. in most cases except for the very few, murder is wrong. and so it should be with "abortion". in the case of a rape-induced pregnancy, it is still murder. this is a human being that you are arguing for killing. the only case that i would support killing the child is if the mother is going to die. the mother is going to suffer psychologically? sorry, we ALL suffer psychologically and she is no different. murder is a higher priority wrong than allowing a mother to suffer psychologically. I don't believe in god but as nietschze said god is most definitely dead. swaths of people in the modern world have become so morally bankrupt that they would even consider allowing this. we must fight ostensibly and comprehensively against the justification of murder. limiting it to only the rare cases. because we will fear the blood that washes over us, when the levee breaks.
Abortion is not murder and a fetus is not a baby. The only real justification for masturbation being legal is the fact that the sperm cells reside in the mans body. If there is a living thing inside your body, you have a right to get it out, even if it causes death, even if it is a potential human being. The psychological pain is only half of it. You're forgetting all the physical pain you would be forcing her to endure. Even a well managed pregnancy in a normally healthy woman will cause muscle and skin stretching, loss of calcium (increased risk of osteoporosis and loss of teeth enamel which means more cavities) and other essential vitamins and minerals, loss of blood when giving birth, scarring (stretch marks ARE scars!), temporary or permanent changes to body shape. There are hormonal changes which can lead to permanent liver damage. Should you be forced to live with a tape worm in your stomach because it is "murder" to remove it? Even if it causes you severe mental AND physical pain?
I think we want to live in a society where woman support other women so they can have the baby. We do not make it legal to kill someone because they are willing to risk their own lives to do it. How many new mothers kill their children because of depression. It happens and it is tragic. We are sad that the mother did not get the help they needed to prevent this tragedy from happening.
Denying an abortion for a child who's likely to die. That doesn't ring true at all. There's something here in the story that Bari is leaving out obviously.
Hi Bari, I left a comment a few months ago saying that I disagreed with you on abortion, however, my views have since changed and I now lean toward a more pro-choice position after witnessing the deleterious effects of abortion bans on women’s healthcare and autonomy. I personally would never have an abortion, however, I support other women’s right to elect one for themselves if they deem it to be necessary. Pregnancy is a deeply personal experience that may be traumatic at times, leaving a women physically and mentally broken, thus, how it is handled should be a matter of personal choice based upon fact-based medical information that pertains to an individual’s situation. Thank you for helping me change my mind.
No one ever talked to me about the possibility that my pphood abortion at 17 would leave me unable to conceive. It was a textbook, "safe" clinical procedure yet it changed my reproductive ability permanently. Now in menopause one choice at 17 left me with no choice when I was ready. Not a day goes by that I don't have regret, not only for the abortion, but also for not being a better steward of my body, making better choices rather than being impetuous and lustful. With freedom comes great responsibility...we throw responsibility out the window unless we try to demand it of another. There is no perfect outcome even for those that try to justify their decisions. When we do better about protecting our bodies BEFORE the choice seems necessary we can far reduce the need to even debate the topic. There will always be extenuating circumstances when it comes to health or violence that is out of our control. But when we have the control to make our choices less selfishly it allows room to have a deeper discussion for those women where the need is highest. The rest of us that want freedom without accountability for our actions then use abortion as a power play and contraception have greatly diminished our ability to help our sisters that ultimately need help. Once women can put our own ego, untethered desire, power hunger, or victim ideation aside to make better choices in protecting our minds and bodies FIRST which then will reduce the number of abortions down to only extreme circumstances only then can we make real progress on the debate and find solutions that have little to no division. Otherwise as selfish women we are allowing the destruction of our bodies via abortions become nothing more than another commodity... politicians and activists can fundraise off of, big pharma or medical industries profit from. We willingly allowed ourselves to be pimped out under some guise of being feminists, free spirits, or having body autonomy. we just didn't know who was getting paid by us choosing to open our knees. And we destroy our most vulnerable sisters in the process. Shame on us women for making this more difficult than it should be.
Best response EVER! From one woman to another, thank you for sharing your experience and opinion. Too bad YOU don’t have the attention of all women! I applaud you on your PERFECT stance. Peace to you, Friend. 🧡
I'm gonna try an anology: let's say a firefighter can only save one person from a burning house, but there are two people inside. And let's say a firefighter saves a young person and lets an older person burn alive. You could argue, in a way, the firefighter committed euthanasia - but we all know that's not true. Technically, maybe it's euthanasia, but in reality the firefighter made a tough call the he will relive over and over for the rest of his life. This mom in Texas in the same situation. She has to save a dying baby, and risk her future fertility, or save her fertility and abort the baby. Like the firefighter, you could claim this is technically euthanasia - but we all know it's not. In real life, dramatic life and death choices arise from time to time. There is no "right" answer. Soldiers, police, doctors etc make these decisions and have to live them, haunted by them, for the rest of their lives.
Love your unborn child- every minute you love your unborn child is precious. I had a pregnancy that might have ended my life- and it almost did- but ending my child’s life was NEVER a choice I would make… I would rather die. I don’t regret that and would make that same choice again. Love the child you have in your womb. Your womb should be the safest place for your child- not the most dangerous place. I’m heartbroken I can’t have more children but I’d make the same choice again to let my unborn child live. I also knew a couple who knew their baby boy would perhaps only survive minutes after being born… they loved their child every minute of his short life, they held him for the few minutes that he could breathe after his full term birth and they look forward to living with him in heaven one day… they counted every minute a privilege… that’s what a parents love really looks like…
1:08 Having a baby with a fatal defect does not adversely affect a woman’s future fertility. She can have the baby, allow it to die and then get pregnant with a healthy baby in the future!
I am 100% pro life, but i really appreciate this form of the pro choice argument. Whenever i meet someone of the “shout your abortion” ilk, it feels almost impossible to build any bridge between us. If we all agree that abortions are morally weighty decisions that must be made carefully and rarely, then we can actually discuss WHY they are such difficult choices and whether not we should be the ones making them.
I agree this is a tricky matter to legislate. We can play pretend that setting the time limit will solve the problems. Still, the matter of fact is, we have this whole polarized "lets kill the baby" left movement versus the irrational "let the baby suffer" right movement. Part of me thinks licensing parenthood could be a solution, where couples or individuals who want to be parents can pass competency to get special privileges for abortion. Unplanned pregnancy can be treated into two categories, "non-consent" and "consent." Of course, this one opens a can of worms, as the ladies will just claim rape every time they get pregnant. That can be managed by educating the men to avoid getting wrongfully accused. Maybe I am not thinking it through...
Friendly criticism here, but was Gabriella Gonzalez more or less safe, when she alerted others of her trauma? Sometimes telling someone it wasn't consensual makes them less safe. Therein lies the issue with trying to find out who has intimate time for funsies. The real problem is people considering abortion a crime incorrectly. Refusal of your body to the not viable is not an act with malicious intent. We all do this refusal every day. To condemn only a uterus owner when they do it is so bizarre.
@@freedomishavingachoice3020, I appreciate your respectful comment. I agree with your point, but Gabriella being unsafe due to her claims is a separate debate, as it does not address the issue of an individual needing abortion being criticized or barred in several states and countries. The contending argument from pro-life is "life begins when conceived," and from pro-choice is "women should have autonomy over their bodies". Moreover, we want the law to uphold either of these arguments, as they cannot be upheld together. The idea is to have a solution that allows people like Gabriella (once proven victim) to have the option to abort with society's "blessings" or people like Sara, who are already traumatized and need an abortion but can do so without having to fight in court. Even people who later realize that they won't be able to financially support their unborn child can also try to opt out before being pushed into an irresponsible situation. Also, to prevent other people who either have abortions, like popping a birth control pill, or do it for fetishes. We can't have a universal solution without prioritizing context to better protect "all the individuals" involved. Abortion, according to me, seems better regulated with context. If we have an optional license for parenthood, we can easily identify the responsible individuals, then the victims, then the foul players. As of now developing a context is hard to almost impossible given that we can't analyze an individual with insufficient data and time constraints. Besides, we expect more victims like Gabriella if abortion is made unrestricted, just because then the bad actors can find more ways to be less accountable. At least women can have the pregnancy and then claim child support using DNA testing (statistically, in certain situations, that is more beneficial). Life is complex, and we can't save them all, but we can try to save most of them by prioritizing. Also, this may push us to change our current ways of life, maintaining our freedoms but with responsibility.
@denimhawke593 Child support payments do not fix irreparable harm from pregnancy and childbirth, though. Why are payments a solution when money can't regrow your body? It's not a sufficient way to call wombslavery what it is, either. Gabriella did report her trauma. It did not make her more safe, it made her less safe. I can't be ok with asking uterus owners to be unsafe so I can police promiscuity with my moral compass in a land that supposedly has the freedom so big it rings. Telling people when they must become parents is the opposite of freedom. There can't be exceptions for abortions without making someone save the not viable against their will. That person can not be a free person. It's quite impossible.
If american women werent being such 304s....we wouldnt be in this position. And even if some women werent being 304s, they protected those that did engage in that behavior.
If Bari is only concerned about these rare cases then fine, let’s discuss. But I expect she wants abortion legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy. When done for convenience this is murder and should be illegal
Do you test drive a car before committing to the responsibility of ownership? Please tell me when there is a risk-free free pregnancy, and I'll tell you when immeasurable pain with the risk of irreparable harm and convenience can be considered equal. Just because you donate blood today does not mean you wish to donate blood tomorrow. Self preservation is allowed free people.
@@gopher7691 There is no risk free pregnancy. Every licensed OBGYN on the American board of OBGYN'S would tell you a healthy pregnant person is at more risk of death than a healthy not pregnant person. Please do not lie to vulnerable people online. It is not a victimless grift.
@@freedomishavingachoice3020 after I test drive a car I don’t push it over a cliff if I don’t want it. I’ve heard some weird pro choice analogies before but this may win the prize
For decades the pendulum was in the opposite direction, with the horrible atrocity of unrestricted late term abortions of convenience. So it’s no surprise that when the pendulum is in the opposite direction that opposite spectrum politics would likewise prevail with flawed policy. The heartache of choice is medical uncertainty - which is illuminated by the term “medical practice.” Sometimes diagnosis are incorrect. Laws can only address prevailing moral beliefs with mere hope for actual justice.
Hi Bari, I usually agree with you, however, I will have to diverge on this opinion. I suggest that you have a discussion with either Trent Horn or Lila Rose concerning the pro-life position in these difficult positions. There are medical and moral alternatives to abortion.
Thank you Bari for articulating this so well. I think this represents most of us. Even Trump said a ban without exceptions is a loser at the ballot. The pro-life argument "most scientists agree that life begins at conception" [yet there is no dead phase] and describing 3rd abortion methods is dishonest.
The personhood argument has always confused me for working to convince people to remove their own rights. If I can't use an unwilling body when I'm not viable for life, and I'm a person/human/unique soul...why should a fetus get more rights than me? That's so bizarre. I never could get why that logic worked on so many religious extremists. We're all people yet none of us have the right to an unwilling body.
@@freedomishavingachoice3020 "If I can't use an unwilling body when I'm not viable for life, and I'm a person/human/unique soul...why should a fetus get more rights than me?" Simple, YOU puth them there. YOU forced them into it. I didn't give that child blood cancer or didn't get that person who needs a liver transplant their liver problems.
I did that. After i allegedly laid hands on one of his (similarly sized adult age) male sign bearers who blocked the sidewalk with a sign as a patient attempted to enter the clinic, i scheduled coffee with the pastor (also a protester). Our discussion went for more than an hour. It turns out we were both Grove City College grads.
Bella Santorums wonderful life can only be had through her parents MONEY and RESOURCES. I pray for the families who have no money and/or resources and have disabled children. Abortion should be talked and debated between the mother and her doctor ONLY.
People who support the homicide of babies are no different than those who supported the holocaust. You can’t decide one person is less human than another.
How Human Nature Works Human nature is the desire to receive, also called “desire to enjoy,” and it functions by receiving what is beneficial to itself and rejecting what is harmful. Everything in our lives is built upon this calculation where we first try to distance ourselves from harm, and then seek how to draw ourselves closer to what is beneficial. Human nature also includes a multilayering of systems that work simultaneously on still, vegetative, animate and human levels. One of those systems is our bodily one, which operates involuntarily. If our bodies are healthy, then they know what is good for them and draw that goodness to themselves. After the bodily system, there is the emotional system, which also functions relatively according to instinct. From the emotional system, we move to the mind, and from the mind to the intellect, and so on. That is, we have systems over systems that concurrently work on receiving what is beneficial and rejecting what is harmful. Such is human nature and the essence of our lives. Our every desire, thought and action operates according to the calculation, “How can we receive what is most beneficial to us and reject what is harmful?”
I lean more conservative but im pro choice i just want limits. Most of Europe is 12 to 15 weeks. I think that's a reasonable compromise. Democrats should have passed abortion through the legislature under Obama. That being said the only reason it's become such an issue again is because Democrats have made abortion through all 9 months legal in many states. I don't agree with the Texas situation. I don't agree with the charge against Brittany Watts. But she did try to flush a 22 week old baby down the toilet. That is wrong. That's a small baby. Dead bodies deserve respect. But she may have been in shock. Im glad the charges were dropped.
I don't believe men should be forced to donate a lobe of their liver while they are alive. I understand this saves a life of a taxpaying citizen. The violation of a mans bodily autonomy is creepy. I say we vote no on the states ability to violate mens bodies.
This was a very good article. Isn’t it time to explore an alternative like egg freezing at puberty? We don’t seem to come up with any other choice. Mary Harrington gets the closest to a new perspective.
Regardless of whether the baby is considered not viable....you are causing the child horrid suffering to kill them in the womb. Supporting children with special needs my whole life I cannot imagine these amazing people not being alive!!!! Also....I know someone who's apparently disabled child...diagnosed via amnio....she refused to abort as per recommended and the child was born absolutely normal. How many children have been tossed in the garbage....this is truly an impossible debate. God grieves. My family has been deeply affected by abortion, sadly.
Always in awe of your ability to take on the most challenging subjects with intellectual integrity and empathy. Outstanding journalism.
Trisomy 18 is not a de facto fatal diagnosis. My three year old nephew has it, and my sister’s family has connected with a lot of other families who have children with Trisomy 18. Medical professionals are still typically taught that T-18 is “incompatible with life,” so medical teams often don’t offer interventions that are regularly offered to babies who do not have T-18. This drives up the mortality rate and reinforces the label of “incompatible with life.” Many of these babies will live happy lives if just given the chance.
But a mother should still be able to choose whether she wants this experience for herself. Raising a healthy child is costly and hard enough, raising a child with severe disabilities will basically take over her life mentally and physically. Everybody should have a right to choose, whether they want it for themselves or not.
Abort all deformities.@@YuliaBorukhina
@@YuliaBorukhina We are currently funding the Ukranians war in which they take young men off the street and force them to fight in a war. Not a peep of right to choose or bodily autonomy. Instead 95% of democrats fund this enthusiastically. Right to choose is a fraud and always was and will be. The mom can 'choose' not to care for the child.
@@YuliaBorukhinaOh wow, the pride. You are no different from slave owners. Who else needs to die so that your life is more comfortable?
@@YuliaBorukhina Are you saying that if a baby is born with this condition not seen before birth that the mother should be able to choose to end the life of her baby?
Thank you for your fairness. Life matters. The life of the mother, the life of the baby/fetus. They both matter. 💚
So sad how the only choices we have are either fully allowed, unfettered abortion or no abortion at all.
Need a rational compromise
That's what the states are for. A third of the people who voted for the OH measure didn't know what they were voting for. The left is still using the sound bytes/lies that they used 50 years ago to sell Doe v. Bolton, which hardly anyone has ever heard of courtesy of the corporate media.
It's the nature of the beast. It has to be between a woman and her doctor.
We need to allow women to have full bodily autonomy.
@@barbarabigelow9110No. You guys don't even believe in that. That said, this woman should've been allowed.
It's crazy because under the law she should've been.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"
Martin Luther King Jr (A Proper
Sense of Priorities speech delivered Feb 6, 1968)
It is not pro-life vs. pro choice. It is Pro abortion vs. Anti-abortion. Call it what it is first.
Pro Life vs Pro Choice. Use the terms you wish; however, most are not in favor of Abortion Extremism.
@@timmarshall7292 Whats abortion extremism? Abortion at any time for any reason?
@@richardprescott5939 Abortion Extremism or an Abortion Extremist: Definition
Allowing an abortion for any reason; selfish irresponsibility, anytime up to birth with some even willing after the birth, not saving the child who lives through a botched abortion, abortion for gender selection, abortion to eliminate the handicapped, stem cell harvesting, body parts harvesting and requiring all to not only accept, but support, perform and fund the horrific act.
@@timmarshall7292 MOST people vote for that no matter what they say. The desire to be able to wipe away "THEIR" responsibility trumps all else. A sad reality
@@richardprescott5939 I see three Camps; All, None, Limited. Most fall into Limited, but not given a chance for the most agreeable solution. Unfortunately, the Nations Moral Compass is certainly edging to Most.
We need a reasonable abortion policy in this country. Europe has 14-16 week abortion bans. They chose that timeframe because at 17-18 weeks, you can determine the sex of the fetus. There is a reason China and India have 22-24 weeks. Trump has said he supports a 16 week ban.
RFK Jr. has a path of compromise that would meet 70% or more of the populations demands; Only extremists at each end will keep the topic hot.
Thank you for this thorough, intellectually honest approach to a difficult issue.
Excellent presentation on the hardest decision that any human can become involved with in their entire lifetime!
Never understood why people ask who are we to decide and whether they think it makes them seem smart? We are to decide because we are the parents, the doctors, the caregivers. There is no option to undecide. Forbidding abortion is a decision same as allowing. We are to decide because the decision is forced on us.
I'm pro life, but I really think the 'legal exception' should exist in cases like Ms. Cox. I don't think that was representative of the will of the people that are against abortion. Abortion on-demand and arrogantly 'shouting your abortion' are driving forces against abortion. But so are the 'hard liners' on the right. I agree with you, Bari - BOTH sides have done nothing to further a solution.
It seems to me that a legal route for an exception is appropriate.
someone getting an abortion is none of your business, theese laws do not decrease the number of abortions and only hurt those who need it the most
It’s all right of our business…..and our responsibility. Denying it is part of why we are here. @@Azreillla
If the only way to find out who got an abortion "unjustly" is by assuming who has sex for pleasure, without due process, forcing birth with those assumptions, imma say the solution to false accusations like this*was* Roe v Wade, and Clarence Thomas took bribes to ignore that precedent. There was a solution. Antiabortion advocates claimed it wasn't good enough but oh I bet they wish they could have some forethought now. They'd probably think Roe was common ground if they had actually read it.
You do realize that women can have an abortion for any reason, and we don't have to justify our decision to anyone?
@@sarahrobertson634No, you can't kill for any reason.
Something like this happened to my mother in the late 1960s. What would have been my younger brother died in the womb without my mother expelling the fetus. Even though the law at the time said she could get an abortion, no doctor wanted to perform the procedure for fear of prosecution. She was forced to carry it for 10 days until she miscarried it into the toilet. By the time that happened she was starting to experience an infection in her abdomen.
Even 2 weeks before my mother passed away at the age of 73, she would still break into to tears about this experience.😥
I honestly believe the reason why Democrats never enshrined Roe into law, even when they had control of both houses of Congress is because the threat of losing legal abortion was too good a political scare tactic to sacrifice forever.
It also would've been unpopular to legalize it. Allowing it up to 20 weeks is insane.
They didn’t have the votes.
I disagree. They probably thought it was a done deal. It only became a hot partisan debate when a Republican operative decided to make it a wedge issue to bring in religious folks.
That's not an abortion. When the fetus is dead depending on how far along the pregnancy was they induce labor or do a D&C. That's medical malpractice. No doctor would have been prosecuted over that.
I lean more conservative but most conservatives are pro choice. They don't want abortion bans. They just want limits. Most of Europe is 12 to 15 weeks. Abortion for any reason through all 9 months is legal in many states. Even after the baby is viable.
What happened to your brother and your mother is sad. I understand that trauma. I have lost 5 children in miscarriage including my twin sons. It took me a month of carrying my dead sons in my body before my body responded and worked to release them. Had I elected to the procedure to remove their dead bodies then I could have had my conclusion sooner. I decided to wait for my body to do it. Let’s be clear here…….this is not the same as an abortion. Your mom lost her son and he had already died. Therefore, the procedure she was wanting was NOT an abortion. The baby needs to be alive in order for it to be an abortion by definition.
There is never a reason to kill a child. Admittedly, I didn’t do a lot of research, but what I found didn’t show an increased risk to mothers, their safety, or their fertility if Mom carries her child to term.
"Admittedly I didn't do a lot of research"....
Should probably mind your business then and leave the decision to the people who did do the research, know the actual risks to mother, and will actually have to live or die with the consequences of the decision
@@Blkjewess92 Abortion is deadly to the unborn child - no research needed on that. That is why abortion needs to be illegal.
Bari Weiss - Liberalism WITHOUT the Lunacy.
I also knew 100% from the moment I heard the Supreme Court had resurrected the Abortion issue (& would issue a decision) that this alone would loose the mid-terms for the Reps when they previously had an excellent chance of winning. It was clear as day from the first moment that it was a MASSIVE own-goal.
This issue constantly stresses me out because I'm exactly where you are Bari. I just want a common sense moral position to take on this and neither side seems to want to offer one and so I'm stuck having to ask myself is this the issue I'll vote on or is it not. Cases like Kate Cox make me want to vote left and alot of other things make me want to vote the other way. Republicans have to pry the far evangelical right off of them if they want to stay relevant in the future. You can maintain a moral and even religious position while acknowledging that medical science doesn't just save cancer patients and diabetics but gives women the chance to protect themselves and reduce the chance of horrific suffering of a baby that likely won't live and even if it did would live horribly
Agree that Republicans need to lose the religious right.
Let’s talk about this case. It seems like what is happening here is she wants to deliberately end her child’s life, I.e. kill it, because it may die early or have serious medical problems. Have I misunderstood any facts of the case? If I haven’t, why should it be allowed to kill your child whom doctors have said will likely not survive? Also there are probably tens of thousands of people maybe more walking around today about which some doctors said would not be alive. So that is clearly a bad standard to use for deliberately killing them.
@jordandthornburg No. Kate Cox wanted to prevent irreparable harm to her body due to pregnancy risks. There is no risk-free pregnancy.
Just because you donate blood today, does not mean you'll believe you'll be healthy enough to donate tomorrow. Self-preservation is allowed free people. You're telling uterus owners they're not allowed self-preservation. How free can you be if you can't choose who uses your body?
@@freedomishavingachoice3020 "uterus owners" lols, that's one way to describe women. Also, no. You can't kill someone when you've forced them into a position where they need you.
@@freedomishavingachoice3020well said.
You dove into the most volatile issue in American politics with tact and grace. Well done, Bari!
THANK YOU for a well balanced article and attempting to strike a middle ground. I also agree that almost all the arguements I hear seem to be from one extreme or the other, with a huge middle ground that seems to get ignored.
There's a reason for this that Leeja Miller discusses in a recent video (think it was called bad news and why we love it). TLDR tho, we have only extremes for options, because bad news was/is profitable.
Excellent! I am impressed by the clear prioritization of the rational concern for the truth and the acknowledgment and appreciation of the best arguments even from the other side. Well done.
As a pro-life advocate it’s become sadly apparent that a law of no abortion at any time is untenable. The Texas case, in my opinion, was an abysmal failure for the mother and her family. I cannot advocate for ending a life in the womb - regardless of how broken, malformed or incestiously it was conceived. And I think our government has a responsibility to establish moral social guidelines that are reasonable. Aborting is an enormously painful, lifetime decision a woman and her partner makes. It’s between them and God what they choose. It wasn’t reasonable for TX to force this family into a corner. Her health and reproductive future were at stake. That has been an accepted guideline for decades w/most pro-life groups. TX went too far.
It's weird because I think the law allows it to. Repubs need to call out Paxton or they will cost us this issue.
Forcing your beliefs on others is ridiculous.
@@kaylakuhl1680 no ones ‘beliefs’ are forced on anyone in this country. There are societal laws that are established to maintain a semblance of a humane culture that attempts to protect the vulnerable. W/o legal constraints our society would be in chaos. Life and liberty is a sacred truth for us as individuals. So when do those truths take root? With a secular society we must trust wise, deep thinking, compassionate legal scholars to set limitations or guiderails for citizens to comply with. That is our legal system- its not perfect- none of them are. China forced abortion for years to control population. Abortion care is available in this country and will always be. IMO TX went too far in burdening the Mothers health decision - her pursuit of happiness and liberty were trampled in the angonizing bodily decision she was needing to make.
@@kaylakuhl1680Killing is ridiculous.
I maintain that even with the best pro life argument winning in the moral debate, Roe was in fact correctly decided the first time around, because legislating something as intimate and private as pregnancy is a recipe for totalitarianism. It sucks to not be able to control the morality of others through laws, but this is an issue where the consequences of enforcement are far worse than the worst consequences of the crime.
All laws legislate morality. The question is whose morality is enforced. That’s the whole point in legislation.
The worst consequences of the crime is millions of innocent babies dying by homicide.
@@RobertMurry-s5oIf refusal of your body to the not viable is a crime with malicious intent, you're committing it right now. Go to jail I guess.
@@freedomishavingachoice3020 Murder should illegal. A one year old isn’t viable.
@@rdbordeman I'm aware, that's why I said it sucks to not have a viable way to do that in this case, without destroying the basis of the free and democratic society we currently enjoy. Even if somebody believes that abortion laws are necessary, they're not going to like the broader consequences of the enforcement mechanisms of said laws. Public medical records, intimate body searches, snitching by closest relatives and friends, judicial apathy for completely personal tragedy, legislation of mental health (mandated lack of mental health problems or drug abuse for women), investigation of all tragic accidents - all of these features are necessary for enforcement of abortion laws. Buckle up - it's all coming to a court room near you.
Bari you did an excellent job of questioning and explaining the issues of extreme restrictions on abortion. I agree with your stance there should not be such restrictions. On the other side of the coin. I am a Christian and a lover of life and feel life should not be treated trivially nor the decision that interferes with the miracle of life. My view on abortion is government should exercise as little power as possible. People should be as educated as much as possible on one of the most important decisions of their life and think long and hard on the consequences. Self responsibility is the key for the old enough to know, yet like you, I think it is a travesty that a teen or younger should be forced to have a child and or not by government interference.Government should not add stress to a stressful situation either way. The problem with the abortion issue as you said is it is much more complicated than government laws and or political slogans make it sound.
Thank you. That is the best expression of a pro-life view I've found. It is indeed something that should be treated seriously, but a personal decision that people should be educated on.
Women should have full bodily autonomy
@@Kelsea-im8obThat's not pro-life.
@@barbarabigelow9110
except constantly saying that, focusing entirely on the woman's bodily autonomy, completely ignores the fact that abortion isn't JUST about the woman's body. There is another body to consider so there has to be more to the argument than just "a woman should have total autonomy over her body". I mean what if the child she is carrying is a girl? Does that female not have any say over what happens to her body?
A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a life- saving abortion in Texas. Our ruling today does not block a life-saving abortion in this very case if a physician determines that one is needed under the appropriate legal standard, using reasonable medical judgment.
So this judgement did value woman right above life of fetus.
Yeah. The only problem here is Paxton.
@@lawsattitude1999I don't think the issue was Paxton. The issue, according to TX abortion ban, was the pregnancy did not pose a threat to the LIFE of KC. And that's why TX Supreme Court decided how they did. KC doctor didn't indicate this pregnancy was a threat to her life, only to her future fertility, so when the first judge ruled she could access an abortion Paxton stepped in bc that wasn't in line w the law.
I do think many of the states w bans have convoluted & not entirely clear laws where exemptions are concerned, however I don't necessarily think KC case was the best to center the "threat to the life of the mother" debate on. Maybe it should highlight issues with threats to future fertility & maybe that should be something these states consider... But the facts that initially came out in this case weren't the clearest. First it was a fatal fetal dx, then it was a threat to her life, then it was a threat to her fertility. All awhile the courts are making decisions based on the law & the facts which created a whole new fresh set of inaccuracies. Unfortunately this topic will never get resolved as long as the extremes from both sides get all the focus in public debate.
Ms. Weiss, thank you for The Free Press. I'm a subscriber. I just want to ask: is The Free Press better experienced on the website or on Substack? Maybe I'm luddite, but I'm confused as to why the two options exist.
A very emotional decision for the family to make. It should not be made by a group of judges. "Unsigned opinion?" Real brave. I am with the family.
Then why did we have Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton for 49 years, which the Washington Post labeled as creating one of the most liberal sets of abortion laws on the planet?
Any reasonable person would side with either or both of these women. It's a travesty.
6 weeks is not enough by any stretch
I am pro-life person but I don't understand why they denied her this decision. She seems to have taken it seriously and did her background research.
Because they're pro-life.
@@Kelsea-im8obActually every pro-lifer i've seen talking about these situations is outraged. Unanimously outraged.
These decisions were made by boomers in our government who understand that our culture is falling apart but don't understand why. So their response is to make our country more strict including abortion laws.
There are two types of Pro-Lifers:
Young Pro-Lifers.
Boomer Pro-Lifers.
These groups are two VERY different types of people.
It was never about saving a life though with antiabortion policy. It was about denying uterus owners the right to refuse their body's. Antiabortion leaders lied about their intent to gain support.
If the only people we deny the right to refuse their body to the not viable are those with a uterus, our hate is unzipped.
@williamspears1627 an orange frog is still a frog. An antiabortionist is still in an identified hate group.
Because the story is just propaganda.
your voice is so sane and true, missing in today's politics. currently pregnant this made me so sad, judging on a women's body health and family through this self minded narrow position is nothing else than cruelty. i wish for women who struggles with such difficult choices to have a new and better reality in the U.S soon
As a Republican I can't agree with this stuff its not good there need to be common sense used with everything else like there is a tome where an abortion is absolutely needed and there's a time where it shouldn't be aloud we need to stop letting the government use both the right and the left to fight each other and make them make common sense changes
I'm a dude so I know my opinion on this issue doesn't carry much weight but its time we all figure this thing out
What's the argument that it's morally better to abort a a fetus earlier?
The net good early termination brings is the argument. It preserves the uterus for future procreation attempts the earlier it's done. Most people get news from their doctor that the fetus won't be able to have any level of independence, even if they do manage a miracle and survive (most do not). The morality is the net good the uterus owner can bring to the world while not pregnant.
Imagine an ER doctor, now imagine them needing bedrest to prevent complications in a pregnancy. How many people perish because that ER doctor was stuck at home waiting on religious extremists miracles? Sometimes abortion is a net good and antiabortionist"s can not tally that net good. It's better just to let us choose who we save with our own bodies. Great question, thanks.
Because the kid was dead already. This was simply pulling the plug. I'm pro-life and even I agree.
I completely disagree with aborting a wee baby from a rape. It's just adding one evil act to another evil act. Murdering the baby of rape is adding another crime to the first one.
On a subject where everyone involved to inclused the unborn directly and inderecty lose and suffer, all answers are terrible and unjust to some. Stories like this highlight that exact point, to then rely on a justice system to decide whatever the outcome will only weigh the ones who lose the most. If government and the laws it passes and enforces are designed to do the greatest societal good then that is the discussion that has begun to happen as we see displayed here by Bari. Though Bari's admitted senssible compromises will have the same outcome of many who still are forced into horrible outcomes. The difference is the Danish society has come to terms with it's decision through a cohesive social contract and choose not to tear itself apart for it's decision. We in the US are not that and won't be, as long as elections hinge on this issue.
This ,to me as a Chinese ,is unnecessarily making simple issue complicated ,it's women and women alone give birth ,while the husband who has willing and responsbility for the baby can only give some suggestions ,but why it's a men who doen't even know her have a say to their business?
Keep up the good work Miss Weiss
She did all the right things. The state should not have a say in this case at all.
Who was surprised they blocked the procedure? Not I, even though she was a textbook reason to terminate her pregnancy. There were no winners here.
As a pro-lifer, I 100% agree. Paxton is a POS.
@@lawsattitude1999yet you vote for those kind of people…
Her life wasn’t in danger. She just didn’t want to deal with a diseased baby. The Texas supreme court wasright
@@gopher7691 The baby likely wouldn't have lived. That's a fair reason to abort much like it's fair to pull the plug on someone who has a terminal illness.
I’m personally pro life for myself, and I am Catholic so I also feel obligated to be pro life as well. However, intellectually I recognize that cases like the ones you’re talking about are why abortion should be legal. I agree compromise and moderate policies are the answer here.
How about abortion for sex selection? Should that be legal?
Yeah, and Bella Santorum was born into a family of means that affords her all these pony ride opportunities etc!
It was never about protecting life, it was always about control
No it wasn't. Even pro-lifers are angry about this. FFS, Coulter got upset.
Many of those who are Pro Choice want to force the acceptance of Abortion Extremism.
It's abortion that is about control of the powerless by the powerful
@@lawsattitude1999Yes. It was about protecting life
Yes. It was about protecting life
Controversial opinion but I do not care. White women have been voting for Trump and the Conservative Party for a long time. Votes have consequences.
The “who decides who gets to live or die is ridiculous”. The woman having the child with her body gets to decide. It’s her body and her choice. Period. If there was a way to extract the baby easily into I some artificial womb, then you have a point. Stop using disabled and vulnerable members of society as political pawns
WRONG
Be quiet
I suggest you hear Lila Rose's assessment of the situation. It isn't conclusive that the genetic disease of Kate Cox's baby is terminal.
So what? What are the other results possible in the 10 percent chance the baby survives? Obviously, Kate Cox was ready to be a mother of any baby, if she determined the gamble wasn't worth it, her opinion should be trusted.
I think this was a reach of misinformation by antiabortion leaders to help them feel better about their serious lack of forethought. So let's throw in Heather Maberry and Allie Phillips. It's not rare enough not to keep abortion legal for them. Antichoice leaders lied.
In no free country should people be forced to wait on your religious miracles in agony so you can feel Kosher with your peers. Hard pass.
@@Kelsea-im8ob So feelings are greater than science?
@@michaelschaefer1904yes.
@@michaelschaefer1904 What science?
'If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament' - this is what a friend, a clinician, shared with me as the words spoken by a catholic nun, also a health care professional, in the hospital were both were working.
This is an old canard. Many men love abortion, and the percentage of procedures where men have desperately coerced women into the procedure is probably considerable, when faced with the prospect of 18 years of child support. Support for abortion is almost as high from men as women.
Also, the strongest pro-life voices come from women.
But this is a well thought out examination by Bari, and now that the issue is returned to the people to decide through their legislatures, the limits will have to be worked out.
This case seems a good example of when exceptions should be allowed.
The "state by state" present situation does result in people sometimes needing to travel, passing federal legislation would make policy consistent but that has it's own problems as well.
Fair presentation of a difficult topic, however as long as the remedy to incest is abortion without serious punishment for the perpetrator, you are victimizing the young woman twice - the attack and the killing of a child.
Thank you so much for this balanced commentary!
I appreciate your balanced delivery of the story.
While I'm against abortion as elective birth control because woopsie you got drunk and the condom broke, for example, I could see the Cox case being a valid medical exemption. It was a good faith decision given it was a wanted pregnancy and the diagnostic situation.
On the other hand, her doctor claimed Trisomy 18 was an immediate death sentence, then you brought up that Santorum's kid has lived to 15 so far. Seems to me like her life was worth living. So which is it?
The doctor also claimed that delivering the baby could risk her future fertility, but did he disclose the risk that an abortion can also harm future fertility?
It's a tough one for sure.
Bari Weiss is the sound of reason 👑
She just went to another state & had it done!👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
She could have done this at any time
..total nonsense for this to even be a story
This is one of the very best discussions of this issue you are likely to find. Bari impresses me more and more. People like her give me hope for a better environment for us all to grapple with these issues. I come from the other end of the social/political spectrum, but have great respect for Bari's intelligence, but much more than that, her thoughtfulness and good will.
Bari Weiss has expressed exactly how I feel about the abortion issue and how destruction the extreme positions are to individuals and society.
"Home of the brave and land of the free". Unless you're a woman in a red state.
ASide from abortion, you're good.
Why couldn’t she just have a C-section to remove the baby?
There’s a difference between how you feel, and what you want to criminalize. I support abortion rights throughout pregnancy, because I don’t think women who terminate their pregnancies are murderers and deserve prison..
Also, pregnancy is often too complicated to legislate in the later months, pregnancy is not safe and there can be a lot of complications with mother or fetus
Exactly. Well said.
Every time I hear Bari Weiss talk, I feel a million times more informed. Great stuff, Bari! You’re one of the real ones! 👏
Kate Cox's story is tragic. I'd like to know the numbers of these kinds of cases, it matters. I'd also like more information, including procedural details, for late term abortions. Both sides need to grasp the precise, unmitigated details for the most extreme cases.
I would like more information too but I no longer believe that we can get info on both sides of any contentious issue. The internet has been tainted by people who want to control all debate. Sad. 😢
Do you really think that a woman goes through 7 or 8 months of morning sickness (often lasting all day), pain, peeing, inability to sleep, fainting(in my case), high blood pressure and swollen feet? And one day wake up and say "no, I've changed my mind?"
Late term abortions happen because of medical problems of mother and/or fetus. These are wanted children and ut us heartbreaking.
Asking for details is a straw man argument.
@@marikaelek1139 BS. There are many more reasons that women get LTA. Pressure from men and family not being the least of them.
The numbers are irrelevant. If someone told you to eat out of a bowl of a million candies, but only one was sure to cause you irreparable harm and immeasurable suffering, you'd wonder why I hated you enough to force you to eat out of that bowl. This isn't an extreme case, it's just interesting to antiabortion extremists who suddenly feel responsible for the law hurting uterus owners.
As they should. The antiabortion leaders made a mistake by bribing justices to overturn Roe. A huge mistake to ignore precedent.
@@freedomishavingachoice3020 babies aren't made of candy🙄. The baby is a human being and no one has the right to stop a life. It is a very sad situation but the parents have have that responsibility.
This is a freak case. Should not be used in a meaningful debate.
I'm pro-life. That being said, the women you spoke about are 1.04% of all abortions. I have absolutely NO problem with it in those cases, especially when it's a child under the age of 18. Their bodies are just not developed enough for pregnancy. The biggest talking point of abortion advocates, that I've heard is for these reasons. What I do have a problem with is the other 99% of abortions. "Safe, legal and rare" has become, in the extreme, birth control. I acknowledge that this is not the norm. I don't know the exact number, but there are a lot of people who want to adopt an infant because they can't have children. Why is having the baby and giving the child up such a stigma? These people are willing to pay for health care and I'm assuming that they will pay the mother as well. Win, win. When women shout "my body, my choice," they're not understanding that they are advocating for an individual who has its own DNA to be killed. It's not their body. And the reasons women have for aborting their children! I'm not ready to be a mom, I can't afford a baby, etc. Accountability! Yes, all birth control can fail. However, there are two options, an implant and Levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG IUD), that have a failure rate between .1 and. 8%. (Compared to the pill which has a 7% failure rate and a condom 13%). The information is on the CDC website. Margaret Sanger advocated for birth control, not abortions. She wanted women to be able to control how many children they had with birth control. For people she called feeble minded, among others she deemed undesirable, she advocated for sterilization. And I've never heard of a pregnant woman, who was planning to get an abortion or not, being murdered and the suspect not being charged for murdering two people. I also hate that while abortions are pushed, there's no offer for therapy to deal with the aftermath. Suffice to say, PP makes a lot of money by pushing abortions while the pregnancy centers who mainly help women who want their babies are vandalized or set on fire. But what do I know? I used birth control pills for the majority of my adult life, including condoms, and I've never gotten pregnant. That and I didn't sleep with more than 10 men. Having a lot of partners, IMO, isn't empowering, just riskier. Just my long-winded 2 cents. ✌🏼
It’s none of your business whether or not a woman carries her pregnancy to term. If a woman is not prepared to be a parent for any reason, she has every right to have an abortion. It’s her body that has to gestate life and becomes irrevocably altered, it’s her life that is placed in jeopardy and she is the one who will bare the brunt of child care duties, with or without a partner.
I'm 99 percent pro-life. But that 1 percent I reserve for people like you. And sometimes this 1 percent outweighs the other 99 percent if the conditions are right. Always enjoy your sane opinions.
They thought I was stupid because I went to jail
As an Orthodox Jew - that was so so much wisdom. Thank you Bari
Listen to Allie b stuckey on this case … very good
There is no medical reason to abort a child for any medical emergency. Cox could have had a C section and let her precious child die with dignity. No one should be able to decide to intentionally kill their children. As to rape, why do we always kill the innocent child but spare the rapist?
The problem with the abortion discussion is as follows.
Liberals....
1. Safe legal and rare...sound familiar? If this was true we wouldn't likely be where we are now. When pro abortion groups went all in, they paraded women out that had had several and were basically using it as birth control.
2. Pro abortion groups were and are actively arguing for abortions up to birth. Virginia Congress as an example.
3. As was pointed out in the video, treating an abortion like you were taking antibiotics to kill an infection. Clearly showing that what's growing inside a woman is nothing to be concerned about.
Conservative.....
1. Believing there is little wiggle, room....hard line to fight a hard line.
People need to be more responsible with their actions and do what is necessary to prevent the need for an abortion.
It needs to be safe....and rare.....it may then be more legal.
These cases are being used to test each side of the abortion argument. I respect people's ability to disagree. The unborn are the true victims.
No. The true victims are kids born into shit.
No, women are the true victims here. Especially one who gets arrested for having a miscarriage. That baby was already gone. It's sad, but it's facts.
Yeah. Tho in this case, I feel more sorry for the mother.
Nope the woman are. You don’t
Care about babies
@@kaylakuhl1680 Nah, you are just an ignorant fool. So a good example of a modern lib.
I fail to understand how the abortion under these circumstances can be denied. She should drive to another state.
It shouldn't have been. Paxton is prick.
Excellent. Really well done, Ms. Bari Weiss. I agree
absolutely not. in most cases except for the very few, murder is wrong. and so it should be with "abortion". in the case of a rape-induced pregnancy, it is still murder. this is a human being that you are arguing for killing. the only case that i would support killing the child is if the mother is going to die. the mother is going to suffer psychologically? sorry, we ALL suffer psychologically and she is no different. murder is a higher priority wrong than allowing a mother to suffer psychologically. I don't believe in god but as nietschze said god is most definitely dead. swaths of people in the modern world have become so morally bankrupt that they would even consider allowing this. we must fight ostensibly and comprehensively against the justification of murder. limiting it to only the rare cases. because we will fear the blood that washes over us, when the levee breaks.
Abortion is not murder and a fetus is not a baby. The only real justification for masturbation being legal is the fact that the sperm cells reside in the mans body. If there is a living thing inside your body, you have a right to get it out, even if it causes death, even if it is a potential human being.
The psychological pain is only half of it. You're forgetting all the physical pain you would be forcing her to endure. Even a well managed pregnancy in a normally healthy woman will cause muscle and skin stretching, loss of calcium (increased risk of osteoporosis and loss of teeth enamel which means more cavities) and other essential vitamins and minerals, loss of blood when giving birth, scarring (stretch marks ARE scars!), temporary or permanent changes to body shape. There are hormonal changes which can lead to permanent liver damage.
Should you be forced to live with a tape worm in your stomach because it is "murder" to remove it? Even if it causes you severe mental AND physical pain?
I think we want to live in a society where woman support other women so they can have the baby. We do not make it legal to kill someone because they are willing to risk their own lives to do it. How many new mothers kill their children because of depression. It happens and it is tragic. We are sad that the mother did not get the help they needed to prevent this tragedy from happening.
No matter what, I'm glad she went to another state, instead of being a martyr. Take care of yourself first and worry about politics later
Denying an abortion for a child who's likely to die. That doesn't ring true at all. There's something here in the story that Bari is leaving out obviously.
Hi Bari, I left a comment a few months ago saying that I disagreed with you on abortion, however, my views have since changed and I now lean toward a more pro-choice position after witnessing the deleterious effects of abortion bans on women’s healthcare and autonomy.
I personally would never have an abortion, however, I support other women’s right to elect one for themselves if they deem it to be necessary.
Pregnancy is a deeply personal experience that may be traumatic at times, leaving a women physically and mentally broken, thus, how it is handled should be a matter of personal choice based upon fact-based medical information that pertains to an individual’s situation.
Thank you for helping me change my mind.
No one ever talked to me about the possibility that my pphood abortion at 17 would leave me unable to conceive. It was a textbook, "safe" clinical procedure yet it changed my reproductive ability permanently. Now in menopause one choice at 17 left me with no choice when I was ready. Not a day goes by that I don't have regret, not only for the abortion, but also for not being a better steward of my body, making better choices rather than being impetuous and lustful. With freedom comes great responsibility...we throw responsibility out the window unless we try to demand it of another.
There is no perfect outcome even for those that try to justify their decisions. When we do better about protecting our bodies BEFORE the choice seems necessary we can far reduce the need to even debate the topic. There will always be extenuating circumstances when it comes to health or violence that is out of our control. But when we have the control to make our choices less selfishly it allows room to have a deeper discussion for those women where the need is highest.
The rest of us that want freedom without accountability for our actions then use abortion as a power play and contraception have greatly diminished our ability to help our sisters that ultimately need help.
Once women can put our own ego, untethered desire, power hunger, or victim ideation aside to make better choices in protecting our minds and bodies FIRST which then will reduce the number of abortions down to only extreme circumstances only then can we make real progress on the debate and find solutions that have little to no division.
Otherwise as selfish women we are allowing the destruction of our bodies via abortions become nothing more than another commodity... politicians and activists can fundraise off of, big pharma or medical industries profit from. We willingly allowed ourselves to be pimped out under some guise of being feminists, free spirits, or having body autonomy. we just didn't know who was getting paid by us choosing to open our knees. And we destroy our most vulnerable sisters in the process. Shame on us women for making this more difficult than it should be.
Best response EVER! From one woman to another, thank you for sharing your experience and opinion. Too bad YOU don’t have the attention of all women! I applaud you on your PERFECT stance. Peace to you, Friend. 🧡
Please report all the facts. Cherry picking doesn’t serve anyone.
What did she not report? (Genuine question)
I'm gonna try an anology: let's say a firefighter can only save one person from a burning house, but there are two people inside. And let's say a firefighter saves a young person and lets an older person burn alive. You could argue, in a way, the firefighter committed euthanasia - but we all know that's not true. Technically, maybe it's euthanasia, but in reality the firefighter made a tough call the he will relive over and over for the rest of his life. This mom in Texas in the same situation. She has to save a dying baby, and risk her future fertility, or save her fertility and abort the baby. Like the firefighter, you could claim this is technically euthanasia - but we all know it's not. In real life, dramatic life and death choices arise from time to time. There is no "right" answer. Soldiers, police, doctors etc make these decisions and have to live them, haunted by them, for the rest of their lives.
The chart at 11:40 would be still more informative if showed stats by female/male
Love your unborn child- every minute you love your unborn child is precious. I had a pregnancy that might have ended my life- and it almost did- but ending my child’s life was NEVER a choice I would make… I would rather die. I don’t regret that and would make that same choice again. Love the child you have in your womb. Your womb should be the safest place for your child- not the most dangerous place. I’m heartbroken I can’t have more children but I’d make the same choice again to let my unborn child live. I also knew a couple who knew their baby boy would perhaps only survive minutes after being born… they loved their child every minute of his short life, they held him for the few minutes that he could breathe after his full term birth and they look forward to living with him in heaven one day… they counted every minute a privilege… that’s what a parents love really looks like…
1:08 Having a baby with a fatal defect does not adversely affect a woman’s future fertility. She can have the baby, allow it to die and then get pregnant with a healthy baby in the future!
Love this channel
I am 100% pro life, but i really appreciate this form of the pro choice argument. Whenever i meet someone of the “shout your abortion” ilk, it feels almost impossible to build any bridge between us.
If we all agree that abortions are morally weighty decisions that must be made carefully and rarely, then we can actually discuss WHY they are such difficult choices and whether not we should be the ones making them.
I do not agree that an abortion in the 1st trimester vs the 2nd or 3rd are "morally different." What is the logic behind that statement?
Probably about the fetus's viability outside the womb.
Viability and just people's general discomfort.
I agree this is a tricky matter to legislate. We can play pretend that setting the time limit will solve the problems. Still, the matter of fact is, we have this whole polarized "lets kill the baby" left movement versus the irrational "let the baby suffer" right movement.
Part of me thinks licensing parenthood could be a solution, where couples or individuals who want to be parents can pass competency to get special privileges for abortion. Unplanned pregnancy can be treated into two categories, "non-consent" and "consent." Of course, this one opens a can of worms, as the ladies will just claim rape every time they get pregnant. That can be managed by educating the men to avoid getting wrongfully accused.
Maybe I am not thinking it through...
Micromanaging can cause more problems than it solves. It's best to have a pro-choice system and investigate if something seems suspicious.
Friendly criticism here, but was Gabriella Gonzalez more or less safe, when she alerted others of her trauma?
Sometimes telling someone it wasn't consensual makes them less safe.
Therein lies the issue with trying to find out who has intimate time for funsies.
The real problem is people considering abortion a crime incorrectly. Refusal of your body to the not viable is not an act with malicious intent. We all do this refusal every day. To condemn only a uterus owner when they do it is so bizarre.
@@freedomishavingachoice3020, I appreciate your respectful comment.
I agree with your point, but Gabriella being unsafe due to her claims is a separate debate, as it does not address the issue of an individual needing abortion being criticized or barred in several states and countries.
The contending argument from pro-life is "life begins when conceived," and from pro-choice is "women should have autonomy over their bodies". Moreover, we want the law to uphold either of these arguments, as they cannot be upheld together.
The idea is to have a solution that allows people like Gabriella (once proven victim) to have the option to abort with society's "blessings" or people like Sara, who are already traumatized and need an abortion but can do so without having to fight in court. Even people who later realize that they won't be able to financially support their unborn child can also try to opt out before being pushed into an irresponsible situation. Also, to prevent other people who either have abortions, like popping a birth control pill, or do it for fetishes. We can't have a universal solution without prioritizing context to better protect "all the individuals" involved. Abortion, according to me, seems better regulated with context. If we have an optional license for parenthood, we can easily identify the responsible individuals, then the victims, then the foul players. As of now developing a context is hard to almost impossible given that we can't analyze an individual with insufficient data and time constraints.
Besides, we expect more victims like Gabriella if abortion is made unrestricted, just because then the bad actors can find more ways to be less accountable. At least women can have the pregnancy and then claim child support using DNA testing (statistically, in certain situations, that is more beneficial). Life is complex, and we can't save them all, but we can try to save most of them by prioritizing. Also, this may push us to change our current ways of life, maintaining our freedoms but with responsibility.
@denimhawke593 Child support payments do not fix irreparable harm from pregnancy and childbirth, though. Why are payments a solution when money can't regrow your body? It's not a sufficient way to call wombslavery what it is, either. Gabriella did report her trauma. It did not make her more safe, it made her less safe. I can't be ok with asking uterus owners to be unsafe so I can police promiscuity with my moral compass in a land that supposedly has the freedom so big it rings. Telling people when they must become parents is the opposite of freedom. There can't be exceptions for abortions without making someone save the not viable against their will. That person can not be a free person. It's quite impossible.
If american women werent being such 304s....we wouldnt be in this position. And even if some women werent being 304s, they protected those that did engage in that behavior.
304s still have a right to their bodies
@PP-zb3vt no they lose that right when they endanger babies and weaponize babies against men.
Yeah you’re part of the problem generalizing all woman to be that and acting like a man HAS
NO part in it. Grow the hell ip
If Bari is only concerned about these rare cases then fine, let’s discuss. But I expect she wants abortion legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy. When done for convenience this is murder and should be illegal
Do you test drive a car before committing to the responsibility of ownership?
Please tell me when there is a risk-free free pregnancy, and I'll tell you when immeasurable pain with the risk of irreparable harm and convenience can be considered equal.
Just because you donate blood today does not mean you wish to donate blood tomorrow. Self preservation is allowed free people.
@@freedomishavingachoice3020 her life wasn’t at risk. She just didn’t want to deal with a trisomy 18 baby
@@gopher7691 There is no risk free pregnancy. Every licensed OBGYN on the American board of OBGYN'S would tell you a healthy pregnant person is at more risk of death than a healthy not pregnant person. Please do not lie to vulnerable people online. It is not a victimless grift.
@@freedomishavingachoice3020 after I test drive a car I don’t push it over a cliff if I don’t want it. I’ve heard some weird pro choice analogies before but this may win the prize
@@gopher7691did you ask her or do you like to assume you know everything about a person?
For decades the pendulum was in the opposite direction, with the horrible atrocity of unrestricted late term abortions of convenience. So it’s no surprise that when the pendulum is in the opposite direction that opposite spectrum politics would likewise prevail with flawed policy. The heartache of choice is medical uncertainty - which is illuminated by the term “medical practice.” Sometimes diagnosis are incorrect. Laws can only address prevailing moral beliefs with mere hope for actual justice.
This is a great video. Thank you Bari.
Hi Bari, I usually agree with you, however, I will have to diverge on this opinion.
I suggest that you have a discussion with either Trent Horn or Lila Rose concerning the pro-life position in these difficult positions. There are medical and moral alternatives to abortion.
Thank you Bari for articulating this so well. I think this represents most of us. Even Trump said a ban without exceptions is a loser at the ballot. The pro-life argument "most scientists agree that life begins at conception" [yet there is no dead phase] and describing 3rd abortion methods is dishonest.
The personhood argument has always confused me for working to convince people to remove their own rights. If I can't use an unwilling body when I'm not viable for life, and I'm a person/human/unique soul...why should a fetus get more rights than me? That's so bizarre. I never could get why that logic worked on so many religious extremists. We're all people yet none of us have the right to an unwilling body.
@@freedomishavingachoice3020 "If I can't use an unwilling body when I'm not viable for life, and I'm a person/human/unique soul...why should a fetus get more rights than me?" Simple, YOU puth them there. YOU forced them into it. I didn't give that child blood cancer or didn't get that person who needs a liver transplant their liver problems.
Your last line is dishonest. Both those points by pro-lifesr are 100% true. Also, f*ck Trump. HE'S and even bigger loser on the ballot.
I did that. After i allegedly laid hands on one of his (similarly sized adult age) male sign bearers who blocked the sidewalk with a sign as a patient attempted to enter the clinic, i scheduled coffee with the pastor (also a protester). Our discussion went for more than an hour. It turns out we were both Grove City College grads.
Bella Santorums wonderful life can only be had through her parents MONEY and RESOURCES. I pray for the families who have no money and/or resources and have disabled children. Abortion should be talked and debated between the mother and her doctor ONLY.
As they say, the cruelty is the point
Don't Murder Your Children.
Abortion isn’t murder
@@PP-zb3vt You are no better than the people who supported Hitler and the holocaust. A human is a human.
People who support the homicide of babies are no different than those who supported the holocaust. You can’t decide one person is less human than another.
@@PP-zb3vtIf a mother delivers her baby and immediately stabs it to death, is that murder?
@@cynthiarohr9405 Yes because it is no longer dependent on her body and no longer attacking her body.
Well done. No issue requires more balance than this one. sadly, the politics of today favours ideological extremes by narrow but loud voices
How Human Nature Works
Human nature is the desire to receive, also called “desire to enjoy,” and it functions by receiving what is beneficial to itself and rejecting what is harmful. Everything in our lives is built upon this calculation where we first try to distance ourselves from harm, and then seek how to draw ourselves closer to what is beneficial.
Human nature also includes a multilayering of systems that work simultaneously on still, vegetative, animate and human levels. One of those systems is our bodily one, which operates involuntarily. If our bodies are healthy, then they know what is good for them and draw that goodness to themselves. After the bodily system, there is the emotional system, which also functions relatively according to instinct. From the emotional system, we move to the mind, and from the mind to the intellect, and so on. That is, we have systems over systems that concurrently work on receiving what is beneficial and rejecting what is harmful.
Such is human nature and the essence of our lives. Our every desire, thought and action operates according to the calculation, “How can we receive what is most beneficial to us and reject what is harmful?”
Geez you're doing a great job
I lean more conservative but im pro choice i just want limits. Most of Europe is 12 to 15 weeks. I think that's a reasonable compromise. Democrats should have passed abortion through the legislature under Obama. That being said the only reason it's become such an issue again is because Democrats have made abortion through all 9 months legal in many states. I don't agree with the Texas situation. I don't agree with the charge against Brittany Watts. But she did try to flush a 22 week old baby down the toilet. That is wrong. That's a small baby. Dead bodies deserve respect. But she may have been in shock. Im glad the charges were dropped.
Paxton and the state has zero business doing this nonsense.
I don't believe men should be forced to donate a lobe of their liver while they are alive. I understand this saves a life of a taxpaying citizen. The violation of a mans bodily autonomy is creepy. I say we vote no on the states ability to violate mens bodies.
This was a very good article. Isn’t it time to explore an alternative like egg freezing at puberty? We don’t seem to come up with any other choice. Mary Harrington gets the closest to a new perspective.
Infertility involves more than just eggs. There are several factors that could keep a pregnancy from happening.
Bari rocks because she discusses actual stuff, in detail.
Excellent!
Totally agree. Pro choice . If more people minded their own business and cared more for their own family we would all be better off.
Regardless of whether the baby is considered not viable....you are causing the child horrid suffering to kill them in the womb. Supporting children with special needs my whole life I cannot imagine these amazing people not being alive!!!!
Also....I know someone who's apparently disabled child...diagnosed via amnio....she refused to abort as per recommended and the child was born absolutely normal. How many children have been tossed in the garbage....this is truly an impossible debate. God grieves. My family has been deeply affected by abortion, sadly.