- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: OT conundrum - Birth Rates Declining and Abortion Regulation
Posted on 6/19/25 at 10:01 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 6/19/25 at 10:01 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
A thriving society is built on families, as in a married man and woman having children and raising them, specifically with the mother staying home with the children
Nailed it.
0
Posted on 6/19/25 at 10:11 pm to Odysseus32
quote:wat?
My angle is that people are less likely to have children in a state where if something goes wrong more than 10 weeks in they can’t handle the situation without risking the mother’s life. Source - We currently won’t have children in this state. When we decide to have kids we will move to a state with more liberal abortion laws in case something goes sideways.
Please don’t procreate
Posted on 6/19/25 at 11:18 pm to Odysseus32
quote:
Seems like heavily regulating abortion would facilitate only unwanted pregnancies being carried to term.
Unrelated and if anything literally the opposite.
Also the pregnancy was wanted because the act of sex was wanted. Also, it doesn't make a shite whether the baby is wanted. It's a baby. Don't kill them.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 11:23 pm to Odysseus32
quote:
people are less likely to have children in a state where if something goes wrong more than 10 weeks in they can’t handle the situation without risking the mother’s life.
You people are either insane or liars. Read the law. An exception for life of the mother exists. Christ, you people believe the stupidest propoganda.
I also am to understand that C sections resolve effectively all "life of the mother" scenarios anyway.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 9:01 am to Barbellthor
There has never been a need to have an abortion to save the life of the mother.
The baby may have to be removed to save the mother before that baby could survive outside the womb but that’s not an abortion.
Key fact of an abortion. You have to kill the baby before you remove it. If you kill it after removal that’s murder.
The baby may have to be removed to save the mother before that baby could survive outside the womb but that’s not an abortion.
Key fact of an abortion. You have to kill the baby before you remove it. If you kill it after removal that’s murder.
This post was edited on 6/20/25 at 9:04 am
Posted on 6/20/25 at 9:13 am to lsudad2011
quote:Right..it's called a c-section. Never understood that train of thought. We need to kill this 32 week old baby in-utero to save mom. UMMM no you don't, just have a c-section and both will be ok.
The baby may have to be removed to save the mother before that baby could survive outside the womb but that’s not an abortion.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 9:36 am to Darth_Vader
For every kid you have it’s 25% off your tax load.
4 kids and your tax free.
Every kid after four is a grant for a bigger home.
Divorce and you back pay your taxes.
4 kids and your tax free.
Every kid after four is a grant for a bigger home.
Divorce and you back pay your taxes.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 11:50 am to Odysseus32
quote:
Source - We currently won’t have children in this state. When we decide to have kids we will move to a state with more liberal abortion laws in case something goes sideways.
I get what you are saying. There are some fetal abnormalities that guarantee that the baby won’t survive past a year. I don’t believe that a woman should be forced to carry a child to term just to watch it die after 6 months. That’s a personal choice, and the state should stay the hell out of it. And I think you are correct that the emotional and physical toll is so great in that circumstance that it could ultimately reduce the total number of children that a family has, especially if the woman is near the end of her reproductive years.
What I think you are missing is that most severe fetal abnormalities will not be picked up until a woman’s 20 week scan at the earliest. Even if you were looking for them and going to a specialist with advanced ultrasound equipment, the baby simply isn’t developed enough to see the most severe defects until around 20 weeks. I think under Roe most states down south denied abortion after 22 weeks anyway. What I am saying is that women have always left the state to receive abortions in the type of circumstance that you are concerned about. Nothing has changed in that regard. Moreover, the odds of severe fetal abnormalities are very low and can never be fully controlled. Don’t let fear stop you from starting a family. Having kids will be the best decision you ever make.
Posted on 6/20/25 at 11:58 am to Odysseus32
quote:
My angle is that people are less likely to have children in a state where if something goes wrong more than 10 weeks in they can’t handle the situation without risking the mother’s life.
That is a legitimate concern. But maybe these people will rethink this issue when their women start dying from something that can be easily prevented.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News