I don’t think any woman who seeks an abortion, is unaware that it will kill the foetus. Having to listen to the heartbeat seems performative IMO.

The heartbeat develops in weeks 5-6 and can be heard from around week 10. You can have a legal abortion in Italy until 90 days/~13 weeks.

AFAIK it’s 14 weeks in France and Spain, 18 weeks in Denmark and Sweden, 22 in NL etc. just for some context.

Friendly reminder that at the 6th week, when the heartbeat is detectable, the body is still undecided whether it will keep the fetus. It's not an indicator of anything - just something we're emotionally attached to as humans.

20-25% otherwise healthy pregnancies end spontaneously before the 12th week and it's a mechanism used in non-surgical abortion.

At the 8th week my SO's gynecologist made an offhand remark not to get attached just yet, because we were still within the window where that happens.

> but I also think that it's a good idea to know what you're doing

Why do so many people say this about women and their bodies? You seriously think the vast majority of women considering an abortion haven’t given it much thought? Should they all have to face more obstructions and guilt trips and patronizing lectures because a handful maybe don’t? It’s ridiculous.

As for the “heartbeat” standard, I’m not getting in to it, suffice to say that should not be a bar here for deciding a woman’s rights.

> I stand by this comment, downvote all you like folks.

I wasn’t going to until this part of your comment.

[dead]

> That's clearly already a child and I will object.

Not your body, not your choice.

Late stage abortions in order to protect the live of the pregnant woman happen. Unviable pregnancies happen. You know what happens in countries where abortion laws are so strict that even a medical emergency will land the doctor in legal trouble? The pregnant woman dies during or before childbirth.

> Hang on, how is listening to the heartbeat mental torture?

It's guilt-tripping based on an unscientific view of pregnancy. A foetus' heart starts beating way before it is even remotely close to being a child rather than a lump of cells.

> If it was so clear-cut the issue wouldn't be so polarising.

It's polarising because the topic is so very useful to get religious people who want to impose their holy book on everyone else to vote for you.

It's torture because abortion is never a trivial decision to make - by the time a person has decided to get an abortion and not become a parent we should respect their wishes. If a decision has been made there's no reason to cause pointless emotional grief before executing the operation.

It has absolutely no medical function apart from further traumatizing a woman who's already in a really shitty situation.

No one's saying abortion should be possible at 8 months. At 6 weeks when there's a heartbeat it's barely a bag of cells.

> Hang on, how is listening to the heartbeat mental torture?

How about if the state decided that it wouldn't force you to donate your organs to some dying person who needed them, but every time there was a person who needed your your organs and you declined you would have to sit and listen to their heartbeat for 20 minutes. Really sit and think about the person you're deciding to kill. After all, if you don't give your body to someone who needs it, you've killed them.

You'd be cool with that, right?

"Torture" is definitely hyperbolic, but being forced to listen to the heartbeat of the fetus is not something that's based on any kind of science or rational argument, it's quite transparently emotional manipulation.

I agree with you that it's a delicate issue, I really do. I'm also tired of taking infinite psychic damage trying to steel-man the arguments of people who are clearly not interested in operating at the level of steel.

The whole point is to imply you are killing a baby. Like literally. The only reason for that law is that.

There is no medical reason. It does not address rational part of decisiom making either. It is an attempt at forced emotional guilting by medical professional. And to drag you through it.

Just want to point out, it’s polarising because it’s a wedge issues that divides voting blocks neatly, and nothing to do with it being The Issue that it is.

More people die from obesity, cars, flu, preventable illness, etc. But we discuss endless this one issue… it’s for political science reasons not humanity/moral/etc reasons.

> That's clearly already a child and I will object.

Clearly you believe in the primacy of preserving life. I am wondering if your belief extends to after the child is born?

In 2022 there were about 65k abortions in Italy, two thirds of which were with ru486. All of them completely legal and paid for by the national health care. Not sure there is a need for pills over mail.

> No one, whether a doctor or not, should be forced by the state to end the life of any being.

I feel you. But that right not to kill, conflicts with the autonomy of women. Which is more important?

> I do not trust any state, government or ruler with the power to compel speech or action.

France, and many other countries, makes it a crime (misdemeanour I think?) not to help people. If I see someone about to die, and I could prevent that, and I don’t, then I could go to jail.

This is textbook compelled action, and I fully condone it. If you don’t help someone from immediate danger you’re trash, and you should pay the consequences.

> of course doctors should not be forced, that's ridiculous, but the SSN should prioritise hiring non-objecting doctors, at least in areas where there isn't enough coverage (in the same way it should prioritise hiring other specialities as needed).

I agree, they should!

But what do you do if your society just does not have enough people (nevermind doctors) who share the beliefs of pro-choicers?

At the point where you cannot find enough people to carry out an order for one side of an issue, it's a signal that the society itself has already taken a stand on the issue.

> This last one is less a belief, (one week before birth the baby is clearly viable), than it is a value system.

Upthread, a response to me indicated very clearly that, even at 1 day before delivery, it should be the mother's choice.

There's a lot of nuance here, with clearly many people stuck in denial: this is not a binary question. There's a spectrum, all the way from 1 day after conception to 1 day before delivery.

The pro-choicers are pretending that all the pro-lifers want to outlaw the morning after pill. The pro-choicers are also not doing themselves any favours by actually, on this story alone, positioning themselves as supporting 1-day-before-delivery abortions.

Everyone has a line they'll draw. Not everyone's line is in the same place.

> Even so, you are deliberately dismissing rape victims that got pregnant[1], what is their recourse?

To have the legally available and free abortion that is offered within the first 90 days of their rape?

"After you get back from the war, your reward will be a wife and household."

I zeroed in on khalic's mention of "far right populism" which I thought was a universal term, but skrebbel made it sound like that doesn't apply to Italy (but I still think it does), so I clarified.