By - Hospitalities
I wasn't expecting much and I'm still disappointed!
On another note, please keep our rules in mind while discussing and debating. Most importantly, be safe out there y'all.
Why do I keep getting called Christian? Any time I state my support of limitations on abortion (not a ban) such as end of first trimester and exceptions for rape, incest or death of the mother, I get called a radical fascist Christian. In reality I'm agnostic and just believe people should learn some personal responsibility. My girl is atheist and is even more against abortion than I am. So what makes people tie not being completely pro-abortion to being Christian?
In the US, the pro-life movement is very strongly tied to Christian beliefs/groups. They're a huge part, a lot of the organizing originated with Christian groups, etc.
That's partly due to the beliefs themselves (for most people, their stance on abortion is heavily tied to whether they see it as a person, which is usually related to religious beliefs), and also the history of political organization.
It's a bit of a leap, it's not like 99% of prolife people are Christian. But there is definitely a connection/correlation, so I can see how someone being lazy might assume. It's a stereotype, but it's not out of left field.
That makes some sense but... It's just sort of an idiot thing to say to someone. I mean the limitations I'm in favor of are rather common in a ton of other countries and not just Christian ones either.
I recently watched the show Handmaid's Tale,can't stop myself from thinking that SCOTUS's decision on abortion might be the first step, then there are talks of lawmakers trying to introduce bills to make things harder for women if she want to have an abortion, like making it illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion where it is legal.
It makes me wonder that could be just the beginning to make US just like they show in this series. It is just so scary to even think that.
Do you think things might go to that extreme level just they show in the show Handmaid's Tale?
If we want to let the United States ban abortion then we need to be paying more in taxes to help aid these unwanted baby's. Because everyone who is pro life cares about the baby inside the womb but not outside. Foster care system sucks, adoption is good but there are a lot of people who take advantage of those kids.
I wonder if the stance on pro lifer's will change if they find out that the government wants to raise the taxes for all these unwanted babies. That's the only way I'll accept pro life if there is some good resources for these unwanted baby's. What do y'all think?
"I'm just trying to save a baby's life! I can't solve all the world's problems!"
Then adopt one. 👍🏼
> I wonder if the stance on pro lifer's will change if they find out that the government wants to raise the taxes for all these unwanted babies.
The most common reason for abortion is financial.
So would pro-life people start supporting abortion for financial reasons?
Yes because It will be cheaper if we financed abortion rather than funding a unwanted baby's financial needs like food and whatever else we have already like food stamps, welfare, etc. .
My point is that pro-life people's stance is a moralistic one. I doubt they'd be dissuaded by financial hardship especially as that's very close to what they're fighting against.
That's the thing, it's immoral to let an unwanted baby live when there's no moral support from the government or the parents. It's a double edge sword, it's better to not let a person live through that.
You wouldn't say that about a baby after it's born. The difference is that one side just extends that a few months earlier.
These beliefs are commonly religiously motivated which makes them pretty hard line.
You know you can apply that logic to allow for the culling of anyone who receives some sort of public services?
If we can criminalize crossing state lines to have sex with someone who is legal in that state why can't we criminalize travelling for abortion.
Haven't they just done that?
If states have total bans, what will happen to the ectopic pregnancies? Monitor until the Fallopian tube ruptures and then intervene?
That is exactly what is happening in Texas and Kentucky.
It's will depend on state law. Not all state laws are well defined on what qualifies or not, some do. Some doctors are having to wait until vitals drop (because it ruptured) or similar, to ensure that it qualifies as a 'medical emergency', yes.
All states permit abortion if the life of the mother is at risk. Many prolife states explicitly mention ectopic pregnancies as an excuse for abortion, not that it had to be because of legal definitions and exceptions.
This case revolves around Metaphysical meaning of what a human being is, meaning what human being IS, in a deep philosophical sense. Is a human being just an assembly of random atoms, hence not fundamentally different from non-living beings? OR, is there another part of what constitutes a human being such as soul as some religions claim? We cannot justify both cases with empirical evidence as both claims are metaphysical in nature. I will say this though. The spirit of US constitution that protects Human Rights given naturally by birth, is more in align with the view that humans beings are special beings that are unlike from other things. Why would slavery be wrong? because they are human, and human shouldn't own other humans. But why shouldn't humans own other humans? if it comes down to that, the only viable answer is a religious answer that humans are fundamentally special type of being.
I don't think one has to be religious to believe that humans are a special type of being--we are scientifically quite a bit different than any other creature on Earth.
I don't think it is possible to say that humans are qualitatively different from other beings within the language of science. Evolutionary theory depicts human beings as gradual outcome of natural selection, and thus not qualitatively different from earlier beings, only quantitative difference that can be abridged over time.
Ramifications that you might not know about:
- clinics all over the country are no longer providing abortion services, including life-saving abortions, due to fear of prosecution by their state
- victims of rape and incest can’t get their “exception” abortion without proof that the victim was, indeed, victimized (and no doctor will take the risk anyway)
- women will have to be investigated for homicide before the state determines that their miscarriage was not self-induced (and by the time they get around to it, a lot of these women will die)
- sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other conditions unrelated to pregnancy are having a much harder time getting medication because they could possibly “terminate a current or future pregnancy”
And many, many others…
It’s the latest attempt to keep women in the United States as second class citizens. Stripping away fundamental health care rights and making those rights a criminal offense. What can felons not do? Vote!! They make it so more women can’t vote- less power, less say than we already have. It’s not a matter of religion, it’s a matter of fundamental health care rights. Not to mention, if men could get pregnant, you could get abortions free, paid for by the govt, at every CVS Minute Clinic.
All of the incel cis men in the comments thinking they have a right to an opinion on this matter baffles me, you are completely right in every regard- and *that's* the sad part.
You helped create the pregnancy but you suffer 0% of the physical burden and risk of pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum health. That’s why.
I saw a bumper sticker a few minutes ago that said abortion is the ultimate form of child abuse. 🙃
WHAT?! How many people are taking care of homeless kids, kids in orphanages, or kids ACTUALLY being abused or dealing with parents that didn't want them? How many kids are currently starving that Arent being helped, yet abortions the abuse and in the wrong?! How stupid can people really be?! (Really needed to get this rant out)
Globally, there won't be enough young people to take care of the elderly in a few years. It's becoming an upside-down pyramid with the elderly on top and the young at the bottom, respectively. As birth rate drops and life expectancy increases, humanity will face it's toughest challenge yet.
I should note, the elderly, collectively have done nothing wrong. What is very fucked is the system we have fallen in. And everyone is guilty, some more than others, but nonetheless we are fucked.
It is projected that by 2034 Social Security will run out. What a few generations have relied on for security and safety; the reason they SACRAFiCED their lives, so they could retire and finally spend time with thier families, is in fact crumbling.
Me, at 26 years old in 2022, have no faith in the government itself or the people that inhabit America to get their shit together. Mind you, I'm a first generation Immigrant, but not by choice.
Stripping women/people with uteruses' rights for the sake of "restoring the population" is... Say it with me now, fascist 🥰
Not our responsibility for the "boomers," ya know, the people who's generation was extremely large hence the "boom" part, to not be accommodated for by the own government systems they put in place. If they're so fucked for government spending and geriatric care maybe they should've built a structure to support that instead of crippling the economy with a Capitalist system that supports no one but the top 1%.
Food for thought <3
I wouldn't put it past the one percent that make decisions to try something like that.
I'm all for abortions. I don't care what people do with their own individual lives. I moved out of a state who's policies and leadership I did not agree with and to one that suites my lifestyle, which for me isn't tied to any highschool-like political drama
"The United States is a constitution-based federal system, meaning power is distributed between a national (federal) government and local (state) governments.
Although the Supremacy Clause states that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the “supreme law of the land,” according to the Supreme Court, it is clear that the Constitution created a federal government of limited powers. The Supreme Court has noted that “every law enacted by Congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution.”
These limited powers are set forth as what are termed “enumerated powers” in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. These enumerated powers include, among other things, the power to levy taxes, regulate commerce, establish a uniform law of naturalization, establish federal courts (subordinate to the Supreme Court), establish and maintain a military, and declare war.
In addition, the Necessary and Proper Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to define “implied powers,” those which are necessary to carry out those powers enumerated in the Constitution. In McCulloch v. Maryland, Justice John Marshall set forth the doctrine of implied powers, stating, that a government entrusted with great powers must also be entrusted with the power to execute them.
While the Constitution thus grants broad powers to the federal government, they are limited by the 10th Amendment, which states that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
As James Madison explained, “[t]he powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
These reserved powers have generally been referred to as “police powers,” such as those required for public safety, health, and welfare.
Finally, certain powers are called concurrent powers, which the states and the federal government both may exercise. These can include, for example, setting up courts, levying taxes, and spending and borrowing money. Typically, these are powers necessary for maintenance of public facilities.
As can be appreciated, one of the difficulties in the federal system is determining which entity, if any, has the power to legislate in a particular realm. In general, the problem of conflicting laws between the states and the federal government has given rise to what is called the doctrine of preemption.
Under this doctrine, based on the Supremacy Clause, if a state or local law conflicts with a federal law, the state or local law must give way (unless the federal law is itself unconstitutional, in other words, it exceeds the power of the federal government). As Justice Marshall put it in McCulloch v. Maryland, “[s]tates have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the Constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the Federal Government.”
Under this doctrine, the Supreme Court has indicated that the Supremacy Clause may entail preemption of state law either by express provision, by implication, or by a conflict between federal and state law. If there is an express provision in the legislation, or if there is an explicit conflict between the state law at issue and the federal law, the state law provision is immediately invalid. Field preemption occurs when Congress legislates in a way that is comprehensive to an entire field of an issue. Impossibility preemption occurs when it would be impossible for someone to comply with both state and federal laws. Purposes and objectives preemption occurs when the purposes and objectives of the federal law would be thwarted by the state law."
ABORTION IS SEXIST. If women can kill their fetus, why can't men abandon it?
Woman says my body, my choice. I won't take responsibility and provide for a child. I get abortion. Society responds, hurray! Fuck Republicans and the patriarchy!
Man says my body, my choice. I won't take responsibility and provide for a child. I won't pay child support. Society responds, fuck you! You go to jail!
Far left women are irresponsible and disgusting.
> If women can kill their fetus, why can't men abandon it?
They can abandon the fetus, they can't abandon the child.
Once the child is born, the woman isn't able to abandon it any more than he is.
>They can abandon the fetus, they can't abandon the child.
I agree, Women can sidestep responsibility for their actions, men cannot.
A fetus is a child. Just not developed enough to survive outside the womb.
> A fetus is a child.
Not everyone agrees on that point, hence the disagreement.
The ability to decide you do not want a child ends when the involvement of your own physical body is no longer required. A man doesn't need to physically participate past the point of conception, a woman does.
If two lesbians hire someone to be a surrogate for them and she's pregnant, the lesbians wouldn't be able to decide they no longer wanted to parent either, and the surrogate WOULD be allowed to decide that she is no longer interested and have an abortion, so imo it isn't sexist. Just related to whose body is involved.
Abortion is definitely needed, there are just too many situations in which it is the best and safest option for all parties involved.
I also agree that men shouldn’t have to take care of the child if he did not want to keep the child. Both parties knew the risk behind it, and women shouldn’t be the only ones to be allowed to make the decision to not have the baby. I’m not saying women shouldn’t have the option, they 100% should and it’s ridiculous roe v. wade was overturned, as they’ve done nothing but make it unsafe. However, if a man doesn’t want the baby but the woman wants to keep it, she should be able to raise that baby in her own if the man did not want to be involved. There are also the cases where women take things like used condoms and impregnate themselves, and then manage to win child support. It’s ridiculous that women are the only ones to have the decision to not have the child, while men have no choice as long as a woman wants the child. Both should have the choice to say no
Pro-lifers, what would you say to the pro-choice point that we can only ban safe abortions? (asking for further understanding)
What do you mean only ban safe abortions? Also I am pro life but I believe abortion should be legal. There are other, better ways to stop abortions from happening. Making it illegal doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Wish people would realize that
As in people may resort to back alley illegal abortions which you discuss later in your comment.
Oh ok. Yeah not to mention, I don’t believe that most women who get abortions, do it because they want to get it just to get it. They do it because they feel it’s what’s best for all parties involved. So I don’t believe women who get abortions should be criminalized either
Why don't Americans change the constitution to explicitly make medical privacy a right and protect against forced pregnancy and forced organ donation?
We manage to amend the thing maybe once every several decades. It would be easier to send astronauts to the moon again.
We the people did not change it. Out of our hands for the moment.
Amending the Constitution is pretty difficult, it requires either 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress or 2/3rds of state legislatures to propose an amendment, and 3/4ths of state legislatures to ratify it.
We currently do not have this level of agreement.
Even though 70% of people agree with it. Republican leaders can’t let liberal things pass on principle
Does this really outlaw abortion? I thought they just made it so states COULD outlaw abortion. The supreme court technically only gave the states the ability to outlaw abortions right?
I think AOC said Kavanaugh was responsible for making all abortions illegal, including the ones for ectopic pregnancies where it's basically a miscarriage with technicalities and very dangerous to the mother. But that's not really on Kavanaugh right? I feel like that's a problem with the state legislature.
Is that actually true? It sounds like the battle was already fought and lost, but is it still possible to vote for a state governor that won't, or at least make medically necessary abortions legal? And will the executive order that Biden signed protection access to abortion actually do anything?
What's actually going on?!?
> Does this really outlaw abortion? I thought they just made it so states COULD outlaw abortion.
The latter, but with the caveat that we knew ahead of time several states would do so.
>I think AOC said Kavanaugh was responsible for making all abortions illegal,
She did not say this.
>But that's not really on Kavanaugh right?
That depends on how you weigh predictable consequences of an action. He's not directly responsible for it, but his vote (as one of 6 votes) is what allowed state legislatures to enact that.
>And will the executive order that Biden signed protection access to abortion actually do anything?
Executive orders are for things that are already under control by the executive branch. So Biden can give orders for e.g., a specific agency to something. He can't issue executive orders for whatever generic thing he wants to do, especially if it means giving orders to something that isn't a part of the executive branch.
Making new policy is essentially purely a power of Congress. The only control the President has are things that are delegated to him either via Congress (which is a lot of things, so they tend to have a lot of power. Congress tends to leave a lot of room for interpretation in how to implement various things) or the Constitution. But they can't just whip something up. That's especially true for trying to limit state action.
She kind of did: "Poor guy. He left before his soufflé because he decided half the country should risk death if they have an ectopic pregnancy within the wrong state lines," the prominent progressive "Squad" member wrote on Twitter. "It's all very unfair to him. The least they could do is let him eat cake."
I mean, I think it's kind of a non-issue but I was just wondering if that's actually what the supreme court "decided". But you're right, with Texas purposefully skirting the lines, obviously pretending this decision isn't going to have immediate consequences is being purposefully naieve.
So, Biden's executive order doesn't really do anything? It's just lip service? If Biden can't do anything, why are people protesting outside the white house? Shouldn't they be saying nice things about Biden so we can put more Democrats in Congress in the upcoming election? Isn't shitting on Biden counterproductive?
> She kind of did: "Poor guy. He left before his soufflé because he decided half the country should risk death if they have an ectopic pregnancy within the wrong state lines," the prominent progressive "Squad" member wrote on Twitter. "
I don't see how you could interpret that as "making all abortions illegal"?
She's saying 'half the country' (ie, women), and only in certain 'wrong' states. This is referring to the fact that states like Missouri currently have very restrictive laws, that have been affecting women with ectopic pregnancies. Doctors are waiting for falling hemoglobin or unstable vitals, because Missouri law requires a "medical emergency". (This is risky, and not the normal treatment).
Even if you misinterpret 'half the country' as someone else, that's not all.
>So, Biden's executive order doesn't really do anything? It's just lip service?
It's not nothing, but it's not going to overall overturn much. It'll help on the margins, but he doesn't have a whole lot of power in this area. It's also partially lip service.
>If Biden can't do anything, why are people protesting outside the white house?
A mix of reasons:
a- it's a traditional place to protest/get attention
b- they feel he isn't doing things he *does* have the power to do. For example, it's been reported that he was going to appoint a lifetime pro-life judge, just after Dobbs came out, in a trade with Mitch McConnell. Or using his bully pulpit to make it more of a focus. They've done some stuff, but they could do more (and stuff like this executive order is probably a reaction from this pressure to do more)
c- some people tend to view the president as "guy in charge" regardless of how much power he has in a situation (this tends to be true regardless of the president/issue)
>Shouldn't they be saying nice things about Biden so we can put more Democrats in Congress in the upcoming election?
Hard to say. There is a balance in pressuring Dems to do more (even if they can't overturn it, they can push for hard commitments now), and getting them elected.
And of course, people don't always only maximize electoral benefits. Some of it is just expressing frustration.
From a purely strategic viewpoint, yeah, they probably should be saying nice things. That said, most of the focus seems to be on SCOTUS, not Biden
Overturning Roe v wade is the first step of Republicans’s power move. Just like the climate change case, they are finding loopholes in all these “left” laws and overturning them one by one.
It’s truly embarrassing to see as they are succeeding. In terms of making profit, it might not be so quantifiable at the moment, but the impact/benefit is very significant as this case shows everyone what they can do and what they will do now that the supreme court is on their side.
And yes, it’s about creating more inequality because rich people can always travel to another state for an abortion. It’s only affecting the poor who cannot afford to get out of state.
Could be argued the left found "loopholes" to get the rules being overturned, instated in the first place.
> Could be argued the left found "loopholes" to get the rules being overturned, instated in the first place.
Except they didn't. Five of the Justices who decided Roe were Republicans, and this included the author of the opinion Harry Blackmun. The two Judges who dissented were Byron White (A Democrat) and William Rehnquist (A Republican).
I'm not sure. Maybe they genuinely believe abortion is murder and fighting to end murder would be a good thing right ?
This could be reasonable, but it tends not to fit in the real world. About 10% of pregnancies end in miscarriage and the now nonviable fetus is either reabsorbed by the body or spontaneously aborted. Those spontaneous abortions are not absolutely effective in all cases so it's always a good idea to go with a medical abortion for the mother's safety. To be honest, I'm not sure whether ectopic pregnancies are included in those numbers, but that's another situation where the pregnancy is nonviable and abortions are an effective way of protecting the mother's health.
Generally even pro-life people agree with abortion being legal in these situations, but that means all a pregnant person has to do to get an abortion is to kill the baby themselves. The only way to ensure that abortions are only being used in situations that I deem reasonable is for me to insert myself into every pregnancy in the US, otherwise I'm relying on everyone being honest and following the rules. And that's not how people work.
Also, most of the pro-life people I've seen are religious and their arguments are not 'people are killing babies which is bad' and are instead 'abortion is idolatrous pagan sin and should lead to death' which leaves far less room for nuance. Pregnancy will always be a difficult time for mothers and it won't always go the way they want, so why take away abortion as an option? Only two people, the mother and their OBGYN, need to know the status, progress, and decisions about a pregnancy so why is the State so interested in getting involved?
I think if it really was about murder, they wouldve put a bit of interest in gun control… so after they were born they stop caring?
You can care about murder by ending abortion AND need to do something about gun control as well. You know this right?
You will never end abortion, full stop.
That makes no sense. Believing that citizens should have the right to own firearms, or being against gun control laws, does not mean that a person is 'pro-murder'.
You can disagree with someone without misrepresenting their viewpoint, or assuming malicious motives. Do you honestly believe that pro-gun people want innocent people to be murdered?
Ok, I take back the gun control comment as I see they don’t have to be related. But on abortion, I find it very forced to have to discuss it as murders with anti-abortion people. I also find it hard to call them pro-life since we are talking about a fetus, its not a life to me. But if we are talking about babies after they came out of the womb, then it’s a life. FAnd then it made me feel even more sad/embarrassed to see this is happening in the US when other countries like Canada, Japan, most of Europe made it a simple right…
For anti-abortion people, what do you think should be the solution to childcare? Should states that are banning abortion have a Much bigger funding in childcare?
And what about the mothers who could not get abortions, what kind of extra support can they get when it comes to women health and their finances?
Basically when states don’t give women options to abort, will the government provide enough support for the newborn and the mother? Can they sue the state if the mother died because of pregnancy?
You don't consider a fetus a life, pro-life / anti-abortion people do. You don't consider it murder, they do. That's the whole crux of the issue.
I think both sides have reasonable arguments, but they're rooted in fundamentally different premises and moral values.
And FYI, almost all European countries have stricter aborting laws than the US did before this ruling.
Time to enter the comment section with my trusty hazmat suite
Do we need 15 auto parts stores?
13 should be fine
How will lawmakers come after contraception?
With the fall of Roe vs Wade and abortion being banned in many states, I have seen posts and comments that lawmakers, specifically republicans, will come after birth control, condoms, IUDs, and sterilizations. Have there been any solid plans put forward from high standing politicians? I keep hearing the panic outcry online and in real life and it makes me concerned.
Justice Thomas specifically said that the ruling which make contraception bans illegal was improperly decided in the same way that Roe was improperly decided, so if a case about contraception laws comes to the Supreme court they'll make the same ruling and allow states to ban contraception.
The Supreme Court can't actually rule on things until someone brings a case to them about that thing. So now it's just a matter of whether some state wants to try to pass a contraception ban and take it to the Supreme Court for a ruling.
> How will lawmakers come after contraception?
Things like birth control fall under the same logic that Roe did- which was a right to privacy that derived from the due process clause 14th amendment (the case was Griswold v Connecticut). Under the logic applied in Dobbs, only things explicitly stated in the Constitution can be Constitutional rights. The Constitution (and it's amendments) do not mention privacy or birth control explicitly, so under that logic, it's not protected.
>Have there been any solid plans put forward from high standing politicians?
That depends on what you mean by solid plans. It's not as controversial as abortion, so it's not as big a rallying cry. However, many pro-life people believe various forms of contraceptives to be abortifacients. And several (particularly state politicians) politicians have come out as saying Griswold was wrongly decided
Here is one example, from Missouri (this was before Roe was overturned), that mentioned Plan B and IUDs:
There would likely be a much bigger public uproar, so it's not clear how hard anyone really wants to push this issue.
> so it's not clear how hard anyone really wants to push this issue.
Somebody's going to try.
This is the support to that, but I haven’t heard of any bills or such being put forward to ban contraception. No executive orders from governors or the like. In order to challenge the constitutionality of such a thing, a case would need to be brought forth. Has anyone publicly put word a plan to begin this?
>but I haven’t heard of any bills or such being put forward to ban contraception.
>Has anyone publicly put word a plan to begin this?
That link contains a bill proposal that partially banned contraception. It failed in that case, but otherwise it seems to be exactly what you're looking for.
Is there money to made by banning abortions? serious question.
I do believe to a lot of people it's a moral issue, and I'm not trying to touch that, I'm wondering why else there would be such a push to make a controversial decision like this, how does it benefit people in power? Is someone profiting off abortion bans? like how politicians take money from oil companies to persuade them to be more favorable to the oil industry, but I don't really know if theres an industry that stands to profit off banning abortion. I get maybe it's just political, but the political effects seem to be mixed, some republicans will definitely benefit, but I guess we'll need to see in november if it hurt the party too.
In a for-profit prison system? LOTS of money to be made.
Things like this feel like secondary benefits though, like I can't imagine the prison industrial complex lobbied (or at least lobbied significantly enough) to outlaw abortion just to throw more people in jail. Maybe they'll have a hand in writing news laws to get people prosecuted, but honestly I'm going completely off speculation here and could be wrong.
It's being said they want a population boom. More people means more of a span in the wage gap. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer but if things go back to the way they were more people will. It's a theory. It's classist and racist. Minorities are becoming the majority. They want to stop this so Roe was overturned. This will effect everyone in the lower class but those in the upper class can just go to another state.
On top of that black women have already got it rough with pregnancies. Black women are 3x more likely to die in child birth. Now that number will go higher in the states that banned abortions.
There are so many medical, physical, and mental issues that they did not consider when making this ruling. To me it isn't a moral issue. It's a control issue. They ignore the children once born. Whether in foster care, or in homes they aren't wanted, etc, etc. This was a power play.
Saying black women are 3x more likely to die is a pathetic thing to say man. Should we ban them all from getting pregnant to protect them,
I am no man, I'm a black woman so...
It’s literally a researched statistic? What are you on about lol
I'm on about you being that pathetic you are, you would see every last black person wiped off the earth because of some stupid ass stat
We didn't ban abortions and it's not a stupid ass stat. It's real. Do some research.
1. I’m not even the original guy that commented
2. You’re really reaching here lol, go find a hobby or something. I don’t know if you’re genuinely dumb or being deliberately obtuse
I feel like that's kind of a conspiracy theory. What kind of psychopath wants to ruin peoples lives for profit 18 years down the line? And if anything, with a population boom, wouldn't the population of minority out pace the current majority even faster?
It is and isn't. Also if you know American history you know for centuries people's lives were ruined through racism and classism. For minorities the healthcare system isn't on our side.
You kinda paint a singular picture of this matter. Louis ck said something similar, compared an abortion to taking a shit OR murder; pick 1.
A person can feel abortion is an ok choice but also feel loss at a wanted pregnancy miscarrying. The mourning is over the lost possibly. The lost want. They wanted the potential of this seed.
Would you be sad if a cake fell on the ground when you did not want cake and did not ask for it as much as one on your birthday when you specifically asked for it and it was your favorite?
If one wants to be pregnant, gets pregnant, then miscarries, they become sad because they lost something they WANTED.
I don't believe everyone should be forced to buy a bicycle. When it comes to bicycles, I'm pro-choice. But believe me, if a new bicycle is being built for me in the shop and someone destroys it with a baseball bat, I'll be pissed (even though it was only in the process of being built into a bicycle and wasn't a bicycle yet)!
Don't have unprotected sex maybe and treat life with such disregard. We are at a point now where woman can have one night stand, unprotected. But don't worry because you can terminate the life you created.
You suck, dude
When a woman becomes pregnant, hormones are all over the place. When a miscarriage happens, the woman can feel a sense of dread and loss thus causing mourning due to the hormones. I’d imagine having an abortion causes the same emotions, but they make the choice for a reason. Parasite, clump of cells, whatever. It all comes down to the hormones causing an emotional response. Miscarriages happen sporadically whether someone wants it or not. Emotions may remain the same no matter the experience (I don’t have experience with either so some women may experience something different ) in any case, I’m open to being educated by others perspective.
If a woman is pro-choice she isn’t pro-abortion. She is crying over a miscarriage because it was most likely her choice to keep it and anyone would grieve a child they wanted and expected.
I understand his point though, just because someone wants a baby doesn't change the importance of that babies life. It seems as though when abortion is mentioned the babies life doesn't matter, but when it's a miscarriage it does 🤔
My point is it’s case by case, and the value and importance of that life is and should be determined by the mother and mother only. She decides whether it’s valuable or not. That is her right.
I have to disagree there, no one has the right to place value on another life -we need to get to the root of the problem, the level of careless unprotected sex in young people is through the roof.. they're not being taught about the dangers enough, parents aren't keeping an eye on their kids enough, and contraceptives should be free and distributed amongst schools and college campuses. There should be more contraceptive options as well for those that don't want to go on the pill or for those who have condoms - shouldn't we all be striving towards a place where women don't have to be forced to have a baby, and babies don't have to die too? Surely that's not too much to ask.
> the level of careless unprotected sex in young people is through the roof.
Are you posting from three decades ago?
Teen sex rates are lower than ever.
Also most women who have abortions have children.
If no one has the right to place value on a life, you don’t have the right to determine that it is valuable either. I believe it’s up to the mother. Carelessness and unprotected sex is one thing, but your neglecting to mention rape cases. Do you think a man is going to put on condom before he rapes someone ? No. My rapist drugged me, took off my clothes, did not use a condom, and came inside me against my will. It’s not because I was ignorant, it’s because someone did that to my unconscious body and I was unable to do SHIT about it. Condoms also can break. The birth control pill is only 98% effective. The plan B pill can help in the instances but with Roe V Wade being overturned, birth control methods are becoming less accessible. Also in eptopic pregnancies and miscarriages that are not expelled naturally from the body are only treatable by abortion. I’ll say it again: Abortion is the only treatment. In those cases the fetus is already dead or has 0 chance of survival. They are also deadly to the mother, so you either have an abortion or you die. Roe v Wade being over turned has made no clear exceptions to these cases in which the mother will die. In those cases you aren’t saving “babies” you are killing mothers. Even if you disagree with abortion, Pro-life laws do not protect the mothers who will die from eptopic pregnancies, miscarriages unable to exit the body, and septic uteruses. In those cases I’d argue the living mothers life is way more valuable then a fetus that is already dead, or have 0 chance of survival because it is formed outside of the uterus. Back to the cases of rape, I also value the life and well-being of a victim who CHOOSES to get an abortion (a trauma alone, I would never wish upon anyone) over an unborn fetus that was forced upon her against her will any day. NO rape victim should ever be forced to carry a child that they never consented to. Pro-life makes zero exceptions for these people, and that’s why it’s extremely immoral. It ruins/or kills the lives of the already living. Believe what you want, but to me, it’s not nearly as valuable as the life of the living mother until it is officially born and exits the womb.
I really don't know where you get your information but it is grossly incorrect. There is no way in HELL that any doctor in the United States would ever force a woman to have a baby if her life was at risk! That simply does not happen, maybe 500 years ago but not now.
Yes, you're absolutely correct. Even in the states that have NO exceptions or however they worded it, they technically still ALL say that it's in spite of instances where the mothers life is at risk some say the nuggets life has to be in imminent danger, and some say significant bodily harm, but still.
Just to clarify I am in no way in favor of these harsh if restrictions, I just don't like how much the argument is muddled by bullshit. It's already a heavily emotional debate, that only makes it so much worse...
I hate to tell you this but this is reality in America. It’s fucked.
I don't deny that America is fucked, they need to help pregnant women instead of stripping them from all assistance.. I just dont think abortion is the "cure", they need to sort their shit out over there and rebuild a functioning society from the ground up
Yet they still make it illegal in cases where the woman will die. It’s necessary sometimes. For thousands of women a year. It’s a little percentage but still thousands of women.
No one has the right to DE-value any human life, my bad. Okay I'm very sorry to hear that thay happened to you that's absolutely awful, and in those cases I'd say abortion shouldn't be illegal but it also shouldn't be the first option.. there is so much help out there for rape victims but I do understand sometimes it isn't enough. Rape though is only a tiny percentage of abortions, it does happen but nowhere near as often as an average unwanted pregnancy.
I do think that not allowing plan b is totally wrong, if that's the case (I'm not American so I have no idea what goes on over there). Where I'm from, anything sex related like plan B, certain contraceptives, STD checks are all free, so one might ask if those options are so accessible, then why would we even need abortion? (For context my country is probably even more pro choice than even the most democratic states in America) but its legal, and people take advantage of it so much and it does hurt to see. It shouldn't be illegal, but it should be rare.
As a victim I will say, I would’ve 100% gotten an abortion if I got pregnant from my rapist. This is coming from someone who is pro-choice and wants kids with someone one day. I faced enough trauma from that, (PTSD, panic attacks, self harm, unaliving myself thoughts, debilitating depression) that is not an never how I wanted it to happen. I was an 18 year old freshman in college, only my second semester in. I’m glad they have support systems who people who choose different than me, but I will always be pro-choice because I know I would’ve ended my life if I got pregnant from my rape and couldn’t get an abortion. I believe other women should have that right if they choose too. And I support women who don’t get abortions either. I support what they want to do with their bodies. Period. It’s just in the states they illegalize abortion: no one is the exception. Doctors can’t practice. Also yeah health care sucks, we have to pay for everything out of pocket or pay for expensive insurance that doesn’t even cover everything.
The difference is that is if it was the woman’s choice to keep it. If a woman does want it and then miscarries, she has every right to grieve the child she CHOSE to keep. The difference is what she wanted wasn’t the outcome. She valued and expected that life and then lost it. She determines the value of that life and it’s no one else’s right but her own to determine how important that life is.
Another example: A pro-choice woman who wants a baby, and defines it as a baby, will have to have an abortion to save her life in the case of eptopic pregnancies. In eptopic pregnancies the baby is formed outside of the uterus and it is impossible for the baby to survive. It is also a death sentence for the mother and abortion is necessary for her survival. Doesn’t mean she wanted it to happen, but it does happen to thousands of women. Pro-choice saves her life. Pro-life laws do not. In this case the fetus is in fact parasitic and will kill you. Even if she still defines it as her baby.
So usually if you are having and wanting a child, you can still be pro-choice. It means you don’t want OTHER women to be forced to carry a child if they don’t want to. It’s not because you believe it’s a parasite/fetus/clump of cells. Everyone believes something different. The point is let’s say a women gets pregnant with her husband and they are happy to have a child together and she’s ready to give birth to it and raise it. She can still believe it’s her baby while supporting pro-choice, and a 12 year old girls right to abort a fetus that was forced upon her through violence. Usually if someone has miscarriage and cries over it, it’s most likely because they did not want an abortion and expected to give birth. To assume people who are pro-choice crying over a miscarriage they wanted is “bizarre” is undermining the trauma of what that woman CHOSE to do (to keep it). That takes away from the point of pro-choice and what women want for other women.
Again you can want to be a mother, believe it’s your baby (not a parasite), and cry over a miscarriage, while still supporting another women’s (who may experience rape, eptopic, pregnancies, are underage, unfit, or financially unstable) right to get an abortion. The point is one woman can believe it’s a human baby and still be pro-choice. Other women might think of it differently, which can also depend on how they were impregnated. I would argue a pro-choice mother who wants a child would be more likely to think of it as a baby. A pro-choice rape victim is more likely to label as a “clump of cells” or “parasite” to avoid getting attached to something that was forced upon them, and is in their best interest not to carry. Either way, pro-choice is believe what u want about it, everyone should have a right over what they can do with their bodies. The point is If it’s unwanted that’s her choice. She can define it how she wants. Baby or parasite. Abortions and miscarriages are traumatic for everyone, but is also necessary in some cases for the safety and well-being of the mother. It’s their choice what they do with it, and how they define it.
If you want a child, you would mourn any step along the way that makes that less likely. Plenty of couples deeply mourn when they discover they are infertile, and there isn't even a clump of cells to mourn in that situation.
To be pro choice doesn’t mean you dislike pregnancy or hope for miscarriages or they don’t matter to you, it’s just the concept that women or baby carriers deserve the right to make that choice for themselves and only they can make that decision. You can be pro choice while still desiring a child or being sad about the loss of one
Because if someone wants that pregnancy, they want that clump of cells to become a baby. The miscarriage they may cry over is the loss and grief of what could have been. Pro-choice is simply allowing a woman to have autonomy over her body. No one chooses a miscarriage. If she wants to be pregnant and loses the possibility of a baby, I would imagine that would be heartbreaking.
As someone who was raped several times, I’ll always be pro choice! Women have every right to abortion and making it illegal is against the constitution and bodily autonomy, I think all drugs should be decriminalized as well because my body my choice, but a bunch of bible thumping fucks forcing their beliefs into a whole country is straight up nazi shit. This country is a free one not a dictatorship! To imagine a woman having a rape baby and have that constant reminder of her trauma is beyond sick! I fortunately never got pregnant because I’m a hermaphrodite but I was raped in the woman part and the trauma and ptsd I suffer from rape is severe and interferes with life. It’s absolutely unacceptable to force your beliefs into a whole fucking nation!
I also know herbal medicine and make medicine and know of abortion herbs that do work.
>I know herbal medicine…
And ***THIS*** is what people mean when they say only safe abortions are illegal. Because this shit can get people killed
When religious nut cases make abortion illegal there’s ways to get around it.
No one should be able to take away bodily autonomy especially making it into a law.
Yes, but these “ways” are dangerous. Without a physician to monitor the patient, the risk is increased.
People died from these types of attempts before RvW and more will die today.
Just for the record, most pro-life people are willing to make exceptions for things like rape and when the mothers life is in danger…
Which is, effectively, no exceptions. You have to PROVE to the state that you were raped or that your life was in danger. Until then, no doctor will perform the procedure because they could be facing imprisonment and fines.
Also, if we’re going by pro-life logic, wouldn’t it still be “murder” under those circumstances? Seems arbitrary to say you’re against murder *except for these particular situations that I personally deem acceptable*
Yeah…no they aren’t
I said most. Obviously there are exceptions. Saying that all of them are the same is no different than saying all leftists are communists or all white people are racists.
>i said most
And you haven’t supplied anything to back up that bullshit, out-of-your-ass claim.
Just because you say “most” doesn’t make it true. Where’s the data?
“Making exceptions” for rape or life threatening complications is saying that a woman only gets the right to autonomy *after* she’s been violated. *Only* when she might die. How fucking *compassionate* of you /s
Do you want me to go out and do a pole? Maybe a quick google search? The only people who don’t want that are the occasional extreme politicians. Don’t tell the rest of us what we believe.
Also, using words like “the right to autonomy” is great and all, but please understand where pro life people are coming from. To us, abortion is literally taking the life of an infant. So ya, if there’s not exigent circumstances, we believe it shouldn’t be done.
>the only people who want that are the occasional extreme politicians
Based on ***what***? Another baseless claim.
>to us, abortion is taking the life of an infant
Fetus. If an abortion is happening by the time the *fetus* is viable, then that was a child that was *wanted*. Likely with a name chosen and a nursery in progress. Why would someone wait until that late to have an abortion “just because?”
If you’re willing to make exceptions for complications, then you’re essentially only opposed to early term abortion. Abortions that occur when the fetus is definitely *not* a person. Even if it was, another person does not have the right use your body without your consent. If that were a living, breathing child in need of a kidney, you as a parent cannot be forced to supply a kidney (if you’re a match) because you have bodily autonomy.
I think your position is woefully narrow minded and poorly developed. I don’t have any interest in continuing to respond to you.
Edit: To sun up the point here, I *know* where you’re coming from. I understand your position. I held the same position for years before I changed my mind. I understand the pro-life position. It’s a *stupid*, inherently misogynistic position no matter how you spin it or make it palatable to yourself or others.
It's more complicated than that. The majority of them believes "life begins at fertilization" which is kind of problematic for things like IVF, Plan B pills and ectopic pregnancies.
There's also a lot of people who says making the mother go through with the pregnancy is the "position of least harm", sure the mother might suffer for 9 months but she can put the baby up for adoption, but the baby will live for decades.
Pro-life can range from moderately crazy to batshit crazy. Roe v Wade was kind of the one thing protecting us from the really batshit crazy people and now it's gone. At least I THINK that's what's happening. But to be honest, ever since we got a reality TV star president, I feel like anything can happen.
You’re definitely right that there are some people who are pretty extreme. Black mirror is turning into a reality tv show…
Lol in this case i guess it's more like handmaiden's tale?
Except for the pro-life politicians who represent them.
I did not get pregnant after my rape, but the trauma from that alone had me experiencing symptoms of PTSD, severe panic attacks, depression, self harm, and thoughts of ending my life. If I had gotten pregnant from my rape and no longer had the option abort it, I guarantee I would have ended my life.
I’m the exact same, severe panic attacks, can’t take a shower without my dad home because I was raped in a shower, depression, self harm, anorexia. I would’ve ended it too, especially if it was made illegal,
Abortion is part of bodily autonomy and therefore should be a free choice in a FREE country.
I’m so sorry that happened to you too, and you are not alone. Pro-choice till I die. And agreed—It’s insane that our rights to to OUR OWN bodies are being taken away.
Yeah I’m pro choice till I die, not just about abortion but about the right to do with your own body on anything.
Should We Have a Playerocracy?
Just recently learned, due to the recent abortion ruling, a lot of medical clinics and practices in some states aren't giving certain medications or types of treatment to women under certain age ranges (like below 45) for fear these treatments might instead be used for abortion.
Obviously these policies are being pushed by old hacks with 1 life sexual partner who only had sex a few times to have their children, and being supported by the incel community (whether "official" incels or unofficial Christian fundie "sex is bad" incels).
It's like we're being punished just coz we can fuck! Who else would hate women and think we're "icky" other than incel-types?! My answer, which clearly is not ideal, **kick them out**, you should only be able to hold office or a position of power if you can demonstrate having at least 15 partners, one night stands don't count.
Guess what? People like that at least have a broader understanding of women, they don't hate women, they don't think women are yucky. They don't fetishize punishing women because we might have a baby or we got pregnant. Sure, to be fair, the thought of my state legislature (or what have you) filled with a bunch of Matt Dillons or Don Juans is a tad cringe. However I don't see them banning abortion or denying medical treatments becoz it could inadvertently terminate a pregnancy. Especially not in the way these snarky anti-abortion Ben Shapiro types go about it.
Not picking on Ben Shapiro but perfect example, married, religious fundamentalist, anti-abortion, he thinks sex is wrong but begrudgingly allows it within the confines of a marriage to have children. Some of his quotes "women don't get horny", "women don't enjoy sex", "women don't get wet". Same guy who brags that he's never had premarital sex, has only had sex with his wife, been married once. He speaks with a snarky tone of voice any incel anywhere would talk with.
I'm not getting into a debate about Ben Shapiro or his politics here, just an example. If these people aren't in the game, they really even shouldn't have an opinion. I don't watch NASCAR, I'm not a fan of NASCAR, but I'm not anti-NASCAR, I don't espouse opinions or policies about how NASCAR should conduct their competitions or the standards they should have for their particular league. That's just not my business and furthermore I have no real experience.
I think it's true that men who have had multiple sexual partners have more realistic views on abortion than men who have only had sex with their wives. Personally I also believe that a HUGE part of the problem here is that a lot of people just believe women who have sex for fun need to be punished/have it coming/should have kept their legs closed.
But both of those only contribute to their views on abortion and sex. If someone has views on abortion and sex that I agree with, it doesn't matter how they got there or what their personal life is like.
So true! Like what ever happened to MYODB Mind Your Own Damn Business?!
Anti semite 😬
This is just extremely sad to see. Abortion should be legal. This is a monumental jump back in time. There are a million examples of horrifying stuff where an abortion should be legal. Just now a 10-year-old rape victim needs to go interstate to another facility because abortion is illegal. How in the hell can people still think this is a good idea, when those things are happening? It's just baffling.
The supreme court should be a beacon of morals and values. A couple of smart, grounded people who are as rational as they come. Not the friends donkey dong Doug. Clarence Thomas who really is an idiot, should never be allowed to speak for other people, let alone make decisions for them. It's just sad to see and i am sorry to say, another crack in the once so great united states.
I'm from Europe, always been a fan of the US and contemplated moving there a few times. Never made the jump though, but I was quite US minded, from tv shows, over politics to everything. But with all that is happening now, it just lost so much of its grandeur in the last few years. Maybe those cracks were always, there but now they are clearly visible. I know as an outsider it's not my place to say, but it really is sad to see. The US just went full Florida and lost so much of the positive things they had the last few decades. US, grow the fuck up.
Why is banning abortion not considered discrimination based on sex?
Basically, because it was not judged on that criteria.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is famous for saying that the way Roe was initially ruled was bad, it should have been ruled based on the Equal Rights amendment and sex discrimination.
But the court that initially ruled in favor of Roe was actually a fairly conservative court for the time, with most of the Justices appointed by Republican presidents. They didn't actually want to extend the power of the Equal Rights amendment, so they made a flimsy ruling based on the unenumerated 'right to privacy' instead.
The current court didn't even consider the ERA in their ruling, they just aid 'the idea of a right to privacy in Roe was flimsy, so we're overturning that precedent' and then that's all.
If Democrats ever get control of the court again, they might here another case and rule to protect abortion based on the ERA. But it will probably be decades before there's any chance for that to happen.
It's weird, but abortion is also banned for men. That's how the law works.
That sorta makes sense, but only on surface level for me. Since it technically only AFFECTS those with uterus, why is it not discrimination? It's technically removing body autonomy from one sex and not the other. I think it's kinda a moot point that if biological men were able to produce babies, it would also affect them, because they CAN'T in the world we actually live in. So when considering what's actually possible, this is aimed at solely one biological sex.
cause only one sex can get pregnant
But a man must produce the sperm for a pregnancy - why is that not also regulated then? Women cannot get pregnant by themselves. Yet only one sex is subjected to laws that removes their body autonomy.
I think for the men who made such a shitty move to remove bodily autonomy from women should have dick and balls cut off no anesthesia and fed their balls and cock,
Good luck to you. The Internet will not solve this Problem, I think your parents are correct, talk about it with somebody!
Government shouldn't have authority on your body, period. Just lie taking vaccines is a choice despite its benefits on population.
Personally I am against publicly funded abortion (except circumstances involving rape or risk to mother's health). Let irresponsible people abort out of their own pocket. But it's not up to me to dictate what choice they can make.
Hi, so what would be the refutation in this conversation:
Pro-choice: "Childbearers should not be forced to carry a child"
Pro-life: "We force parents to feed their children, how is this different?"
How do we refute this without interacting with the clash on whether a fetus and a born baby have different moral values?
We force parents to feed their child *or give it up for adoption*.
Parents voluntarily choose to keep their children instead of putting them up for adoption, that choice comes with requirements.
Do we force anyone else to give up their organs or other bodily substances for other people?
> How do we refute this without interacting with the clash on whether a fetus and a born baby have different moral values?
I don't think you can avoid that clash. That is fundamentally what the argument is over.
That said, for that particular phrasing, there is a difference between feeding children, and having to give up bodily autonomy for it. You're expected to feed your child, you aren't forced to say, donated blood/organs.
That's probably going to circle back to whether it's a human life, though
>Pro-choice: "Childbearers should not be forced to carry a child"
>Pro-life: "We force parents to feed their children, how is this different?"
If someone does not understand the difference between independent persons and something that exists entirely inside and dependent on an independent person's body, they're past reasoning with.
Pro life vs Pro Choice is never about "is killing a baby okay" it's always been about "is this clump of cells a baby or a fetus.
so you don't refute it without clashing on if a fetus and a baby have different values, they do, simple, you will find no pro choice who says "yeah lets kill a baby" they just don't acknowledge that the clump of cells a pro life calls a baby is infact a baby...
>Pro life vs Pro Choice is never about "is killing a baby okay" it's always been about "is this clump of cells a baby or a fetus.
No, it hasn't.
I know plenty of pro-choice people who believe in life at conception and would never have an abortion, etc. Doesn't mean they have any interest in restricting someone else's right to do what they will with the contents of their own body.
Most people who are pro choice would argue that it doesn’t matter if it is a baby, if the mother doesn’t consent to her body being used, then her bodily autonomy comes before the fetus’s life. It’s the same reason why the law can’t require you to give blood or someone can’t demand a kidney of you. We can’t even take organs from corpses without consent. Life doesn’t supersede bodily autonomy.
I wholly agree on what you said about autonomy. I do believe consent is best for our general mental health and rape pregnancies should be terminated if the mother wants that
and pro lifers can argue that consent is given when she gets in bed
it’s actually not even a pro life or pro choice thing at that point it’s just ‘did you make a decision that had that risk or not?’
Did you give consent to hosting parasites in your body when you go swimming in parasite-infected waters?
I try to check that the pool is clean before I go swimming
How you missed the point so spectacularly is beyond me
And that’s something I go back and forth on, tbh. Like, whether consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy or not. Anyone who has sense who is having sex accepts that there is a risk, but is that the same as consent? There is a risk every time we so much as cross a road, that doesn’t mean that if we get hit by a car it’s our fault for crossing a road and we should just suffer the consequences. Right?
Anyways yeah that part of the argument I really see both sides of, but what made the decision for me was realizing the dangers of restricting abortion. Pro life says that there should be exceptions in several cases, but when it’s restricted people’s lives are put in danger because they then have to PROVE that they are an exception. I don’t think the cost of lives from failing to act is worth the fetuses that are being “saved.” They can’t comprehend that they are dying. They may feel pain for a moment depending on stage, but they can’t think yet. A woman who is dying because doctors are afraid of being sued for an “unnecessary abortion” understands that she is dying. She knows exactly what is happening to her.
I don’t know if the risk of getting hit by a car when we cross the road is as statistically high as the risk of getting pregnant from unprotected sex. We all agree that crossing the road is an necessary risk to get food etc. Our actions with abortion being illegal will show us if we think that sex for fun is a necessary risk to relieve ourselves hormonally. It’s not like we can’t still have sex for fun: we can use the pull out method …but maybe more of us will think about finding a longterm partner instead and talk about children since it seems more of a risk now. (Obv longterm couples also have sex just for fun…? does that make them sex addicts since it’s not strictly for procreation?? idk?!??)
If the woman had a medical condition related to the pregnancy then doctors would be able to figure that out right away and approve the life-saving surgery immediately. Exceptions which need proof shouldn’t take longer than a few minutes: it’s obvious you weren’t planning pregnancy if you have an IUD, it’s obvious pregnancy won’t carry to term if it’s ectopic, etc.
Everyone keeps saying they should have "codified" Roe v Wade, but even after trying to look up what "codify" means in these terms, I'm still a little lost. Could anyone please ELI5 what that means and/or how it would've protected Roe v Wade?
make it a actual law instead of just precedence.
states could've outlawed abortion before the overturn but then anyone could sue the state using roe v wade as a precedence, basically "oi 50 years we already had this discussion please overrule this state k thx bye"
removing a constitional law (atleast in the netherlands) require more than half of the majority and a new election will be written and after the election the new gov needs to vote on it again and again get 75% of the votes to be in favor.
TLDR: make it constitional so it would be really hard to get rid off, there was never a reason for under obama so the dems didn't do it, but should, they might do if they regain the USSC and reinstate roe v wade though
Question: why is incest mentioned so much regarding abortion?
I find it disgusting, but as evidenced by porn sites, many people like it. Since pregnancy is most often a choice (condoms and pills are pretty effective)(except when it results from rape), why is it mentioned so much as grounds for allowing abortion?
Incest is likely emotionally manipulated into happening through grooming & Stockholm syndrome. It violates the social roles of the family members involved but beyond that it is genetically unfavorable, leads to lower genetic variability and possibly disability/deformation of the fetus due to that. That violation of natural law may be the reason it comes up in abortion talks. Rape comes up mostly for cultural reasons since rape usually still increases genetic variability (if it’s not also incest)…but it violates social law
people are mostly afraid of rape and incent babies...
imagine having a daughter, she could get raped by your brother and get pregnant, She could get raped by a stranger, well nice granddaughter you now have and a daughter with PTSD for having to birth a rapist child, also if your daughter gets into a bad mental state, what do you think she would attack sooner? a wall or the literal personification of her darkest page?
Unfortunately the incest cases that people are talking about when they say "rape or incest" are most often more like "rape AND incest"--it's very common for girls to be sexually assaulted by family members and become pregnant. It's also not uncommon for this to not be forcible rape but rather grooming into a "consensual" sexual relationship.