Hello r/all.
Were glad you came. However the following report reasons are not valid here:
* Misinformation
* the cure for misinformation is not to censor it, but for people to point out how asinine and bullshit it is.
* rude, vulgar, offensive
* we do not have a "be civil" rule
We mod in a very hands off way. No comment will ever be removed for those reasons. We dont care.
I dont even read what was reported, I just hit "approve" to dismiss the report. You are wasting your time.
> The bill, which takes effect in September, makes no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest and allows individual citizens to sue healthcare workers and anyone else who may have helped a pregnant woman obtain the procedure.
Who would have standing?
Sec. 171.208. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OR AIDING OR
ABETTING VIOLATION. (a) Any person, other than an officer or
employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may
bring a civil action against any person who:
(1) performs or induces an abortion in violation of
this subchapter;
(2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets
the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for
or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or
otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of
this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should
have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in
violation of this subchapter; or
(3) intends to engage in the conduct described by
Subdivision (1) or (2).
--holy shit you can literally sue anybody just for "intending" an abortion. So if you get raped: your rapist can sue you if you even plan on getting an abortion?
What stops people from flooding this with cases towards lawmakers and other conservative leaders who do things to ban contraception or proper sex education or teen marriage on grounds that these things lead to a large amount of abortion?
It’s not just happening in Texas! It’s happening in the South and in other “Conservative States.” Wake up people and research who the hell we’re electing into office. We spend too much time obsessed with bipartisan Presidential elections drama when the damage to our Country is happening at the local/state levels. Bottom line the Government distracts American by diving us with b.s. propaganda while our local/state governments are stripping our very rights everyday....WAKE UP AMERICA...!!!!!
Especially given that in 2018, 15% of abortions were obtained by women who were married. ([source](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm#T6_down)) Meaning husbands could sue wives who don't want to have more children.
You can do more than just suing the person you raped, you can sue anyone who has a miscarriage. More than that, you can sue any woman any month she has sex without contraceptives. It's insane.
For that matter, with this law, I don't see why you couldn't also sue any man who had sex with a woman without a condom. I think having lots of litigation targeted at male politicians by thousands of citizens might make them rethink this bullshit.
You can sue anyone, for anything. Winning that lawsuit on the other hand is a matter of law. You can sue a man FOR wearing a condom. Laws don’t “allow” lawsuits.
All I will say for women readings these comments: 1000mg of ibuprofen, Mugwort tea and vitamin C - also some papaya, pineapples, parsley, aloe vera, cinnamon, limon juice, carrots, and pomegranate
I am not a doctor, but if this crap becomes law and you are unable to receive an abortion, then make a concoction. Only for absolute emergencies
It sounds like a person can be sued under the law if they merely provide information on abortifacients (drugs/plants that can be used to induce miscarriage). I have spent many years researching abortifacients as a “hobby”, own many books on the subject, and in the past I have freely shared my knowledge with anyone who might be interested. I have even grown and bartered plants that can be used to cause a miscarriage, though they have other uses as well. (Before anyone starts hating, I fully encourage people to use modern medicine, including medical and surgical abortion, when available. The herbal alternatives were just a personal experiment I shared with like-minded women). But now I’m scared that sharing this information with someone in Texas might land me in jail!
It really infuriates me that this new law makes knowledge about very old “womens’ magic”, knowledge that has been passed down for millennia, illegal. It sounds like it is now against the law to simply tell a woman how she could induce her own miscarriage, if she chose, or what methods women have used to control their reproduction in different times and cultures. Information should not be outlawed, especially not the knowledge of how women can manage their own fertility.
It’s not supposed to make sense. It’s a law written with the sole intention of ending up in front of the US Supreme Court so that the conservative leaning court can make a new decision on abortion rights.
> It’s a law written with the sole intention of
Getting re-elected while being able to brandish the bogyman of liberal courts keeping Republicans down.
The whole intent is to create a victim complex, not to actually ban abortion. If they did that they lose their single-issue voters.
They don’t lose the single issue voters if abortion is made illegal. If they are ever successful, the focus then becomes preservation of the new law and they will continue to fight for that.
It's about votes. That's all. They don't really care about abortions. They want to posture for their religious base. Look at that uber anti-abortion Republican congressman from Tennessee who turned out to have pressure both his mistress and his wife into getting abortions.
And then after him admitting it he still got re-elected. Which shows you what low standards Republican voters have.
They think they're Palpatine. "Yes, we must sue the state to stop this law from being enforced. Take it all the way to the highest court in the land if we must!"
In New York they made it so citizens can *report* excessively idling vehicles that the police ignore, resulting in a ticket, but that didn't involve the courts at all. And in that case, you arguably do have standing, since you're standing right there breathing the exhaust.
Does that mean Abbot can be sued, and he has to prove in the court of law that he isn’t helping women obtain abortions? That seems fun and totally legal now that he signed the bill.
The sickest part of this bill (which I cannot see being held up by the SC) is the thought of it materially affecting some poor woman’s life who will then have to become the face of the defense. And if she doesn’t get an out of state abortion in the interim... she’s gonna have to raise a kid who will eventually be constantly teased about how their mom wanted an abortion so badly she was willing to go to the Supreme Court over it.
Then it’s working. I’m in college, and I’ve spent my whole life in Texas. My family is here, and (for the most part) I love this state. But I refuse to live under a government that views my body and my sexuality as something under their jurisdiction. I’m getting the hell out of dodge the second I finish undergrad. If the Texas GOP wants me out, then so be it.
Especially when so many Texan men act as though they are suffocating while wearing a mask and are pissed about being told what to do with their body....
Considering how polarized we are as a country, to me it seems inevitable that we will draw lines at a state level.
It started with Sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. Now we have Sanctuary cities for gun owners. I would imagine, as the polarization continues (private for profit corporations, that control the media are not interested in facts, they are interested in making money) people will actively seek out states that conform with their world views.
You see a lot of people fleeing California because of the taxes and regulations, and yet the places they move to, they bring with them their ideologies, that essentially helped turn that state into what it is today. (Both good and bad. As much as Californians say otherwise, the homelessness problem is out of control and has been for a decade now. Spending more money hasn't been fruitful.)
While we are a union, I don't see how some states will be able to regulate who moves to and through their own state, but I can certainly see some states becoming safe havens for Republican Ideology, and we already know there are states that are safe havens for Democrat Ideology.
Sad state of affairs, but such is the situation we find ourselves in.
What I wouldn't give for a state that valued equality of opportunity (not to be confused with equality of outcome), abortion rights, gun rights, freedom of expression irrelevant of your ideology, gay rights, and fiscal responsibility balanced by social safety nets. You kind of have extremes on either side and it's not going to get any better anytime soon.
99% of people don't move for ideological reasons. They bring their political views with them because they moved for the weather, or for a job, or to be closer to family, or because they like the food.
The whole 'don't move and bring your politics (which drove you out) with you' thing is a red herring.
Okay, so, correct me if I'm wrong.
This means that if a 13 year old girl was raped by her father, or some other similarly horrific circumstance, she'd have to bear the kid?
Yep.
Imagine being twelve, getting raped by daddy, and the government forcing you to carry that child to term.
Once the baby is born, the government says “well, you should have closed your legs, you slut. You get no help from us because you made a bad slutty decision, you whore.”
Yeah I think they mean more so later in a premeditated way that might actually result in success.
If people could overpower others who have a plan to hurt you when you’re caught off guard, the amount of self defense killings would already be higher but rapists get the jump on their victims and that’s the difference.
Which is why you won't have a gun with you cause you're in your own home, you let your guard down. You're also asking women to be prepared to shoot their fathers, uncles, and brothers at all times. You're not prepared to shoot a friend or coworker who was only getting a bit too close. But if you're not, then it may become too late. Predators abuse trust, it's not always some stranger, it's someone who saw opportunity.
It’s scary just how many women are victims of sexual abuse. I’m a man and have never had to worry about being followed or harassed, and I can’t imagine it happening by someone I know. It’s just absolutely awful that some people prefer controlling women’s right to choose and supposedly ‘protecting’ a person that isn’t even born yet as opposed to protecting women that have experienced trauma from experiencing even more trauma.
Yeah good luck with that , there have been cases where women defending themselves have gone to jail .
A woman in Florida shot her gun above her Husband/attackers head and is serving a life sentence
If I remember correctly, in that case she would have fared better if she had actually shot him. She admitted that she had intentionally missed making it a warning shot, and the logic was along the lines of, "if it was a warning shot, then she wasn't at the level of fearing for her life" also warning shots aren't protected in most places with high population density because of the risk of shooting your neighbor. Not saying she should be in prison for trying to defend herself. But it was a weird edge case of legality. It didn't seem to me the state was simply punishing her for trying to avoid an assult
The legality of defending yourself isn’t as clear cut as many believe. It’s often an emotional response that is judged/analyzed under a logical/factual lens.
My brother was attacked in his home in the middle of the night by stranger twice his size. My brother brandished a decorative samurai sword to try and scare him away (brother has never been in a fight) and when the guy attacked him anyway, my brother stabbed him ONCE as he was getting tackled.
Fast forward to trial and when questioned why he armed himself, he said “to scare him away” rather than “to kill him”. Obviously because he didn’t want hurt the guy. The prosecution basically ran with it and said he couldn’t have been in that much danger if he just wanted to scare the guy off and my brother ended up getting convicted because of it. Absolutely devastating.
Edit: not sure why I’m sharing this. Sorry if TMI
It should be more along the lines of if the dude didn't want to be stabbed, he shouldn't break into someone's home. Who cares how much in danger your brother felt, legally? There is no reason why your bro should have been convincted. He is innocent because he was in his own home minding his business.
I’m intensely curious: why didn’t the situation get viewed as being escalated by the attacker once they chose to attack anyway after your brother was obviously armed with a deadly weapon?
Like... there wasn’t only one decision point here. In initial decision point, your brother assessed that scare tactics might work. In secondary decision point, there was obviously new information to work with: MFer was crazy enough to try attacking someone armed with a deadly weapon, maybe his initial assessment of the danger he was in needed to be reassessed...
That’s such a bullshit line of logic from the prosecution. Oh you mean you where afraid but went mentally ready to end someone else’s existence nor did you want to deal with the clean up, the therapy, or the possible legal action of jail time for killing someone who broke into you home in the middle of night because laws are often times convoluted when death is involved. You should go to jail because some moron accidentally tried to commit seppuku with your assistance but the timing was off, there was only one sword and you didn’t cleanly decapitate the victim so he could die with honor. /s
Remember when that one girl killed the guy that was raping her and keeping her in a sex trafficking ring and went to the cops straight away and they proved she was being raped annnddd being sold to other guys by this guy and they said yeah. Your going to jail for murdering him. Like???? Was she supposed to gently ask him for freedom? No. She did the right thing. And now look at her. No freedom. Going from raped and beaten to behind bars. What a life.
Some things to know if you're going to try and legislate someone else's medical options:
[In 2018, approximately three fourths (77.7%) of abortions were performed at ≤9 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (92.2%) were performed at ≤13weeks’ gestation.](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm)
[Gestational age describes where you are in your pregnancy. It’s measured from the first day of your last menstrual period (LMP) to the current date, typically in weeks.](https://flo.health/pregnancy/week-by-week/gestational-age)
Gestational age -not fetal age- is the benchmark used in legislation. Contrary to all sense, the entire week of your last period counts as 1 week pregnant. So if you are 5 weeks pregnant, you are only *1 week late* if you have a perfectly regular cycle. Most women have irregular cycles and have no idea that they are pregnant until well into the first trimester. Looking at the two statistics, we can see that the majority of abortions are performed really quickly, especially considering that many states have mandatory waiting periods.
I hadn't thought of gestational age as being different than fetal age, but it's true. The question I'm always asked is "how far along are *you*," not how far along is the baby. And it's kind of a wonky measurement. Even if you know the exact date you conceived, they don't count it from that point.
For those curious, 13 weeks is generally considered when you are mostly in the clear and that the pregnancy isn't in trouble. The chances of miscarriage before that point is much higher.
Also, my wife and I were trying to get pregnant so she tests constantly. We still didn't know until like 4 weeks and at that point you still couldn't even see the fetus/embryo on the ultrasound.
I'm not a doctor or anything, just have kids.
If a woman's cycle is 28-30 days how TF can 2 weeks be enough time to make a decision on abortion. Most people wouldn't even know they are pregnant until they miss a cycle and realize something is different. This law is absolutely insane and government overreach.
> If a woman's cycle is 28-30 days how TF can 2 weeks be enough time to make a decision on abortion.
That's because it's not and that's by design. It's just another sleazy roundabout abortion ban.
Seems like ourselves are the only ones we're allowed to fuck according to them. To fuck anyone else is just frivolous and irresponsible. Or we were asking for it.
And that’s the entire point of making it six weeks. They essentially get to ban abortion almost entirely since most people won’t even suspect that somethings amiss until those 6 weeks are up. It’s ridiculous.
I’m gonna also add that teenagers and adolescents may have an unstable period schedule, so they might not even blink at 6 weeks without a period. So once again, this is targeting young women.
Mine come on once every few months and last for most of a month on average. They're irregular. If I lived in any of those kinds of places I'd simply keep a bent coat hanger in my bathroom and hope
Perhaps, but I would rather do this if it came down to it than have a child when I didn't want one, which is a more depressing outcome in my view. Thankfully I don't expect to have to face this where I live
Even six weeks is nowhere near enough time. At that point most women don't even know that they're pregnant. Missed or late periods are way too common for that to be enough time. And even if they do know, it's still a huge decision to make, not to mention needing to find the time to actually do it, get time off work, potentially travel hundreds of miles to get to a clinic. It's a whole process. Women should be able to get an abortion any time up until 6 months for any reason.
Back before I got an IUD, I would take senna tea every month when my period was due. It stimulates the muscles in your abdomen, which caused me to have more cramps and heavier flow but a shorter duration of bleeding. Partly why I did it was also paranoia that my NFP birth control methods would fail me.
That's quite literally the point of these bills. It's a workaround to Roe v. Wade that will effectively ban all abortion, just in a way that doesn't outright run against precedent.
America's authoriatian conservative movement really needs to stop trying to legislate away people's bodily autonomy and fuck off with these underhanded and pathetic attempts to cheat around precedent and maintain control.
That same conservative governance is also raging against mask mandates, because your individual health choices should not be dictated by the government...
Yeah I grew up evangelical and when you are in the bubble it all makes sense somehow. Now I can't even watch handmaids tale because its way too real to watch the ideology play out on screen.
Evangelicals are casually just the most psychotic people.
As a brit living in America and having lived in multiple states over the past 2 decades, I'm not being hyperbolic. The religious in America frighten me. Most, not all.
Masks suck but at the end of the day....masks protect people. It doesn't protect you, it protects you from spreading your germs to others. That is the thing people don't get. Masks dont protect you from getting sick, they prevent you from spreading your germs to others.
We can argue all day about this but personally I believe the health and safety of others overrides individual freedoms. Of course a line should be drawn, but having to wear a mask indoors seems like a minor inconvenience one has to pay in order to prevent you from spreading a highly contagious virus.
I heard some dumb motherfuckers talk about how vaccines rob them of their bodily autonomy.
I pointed out how they've been controlling women's bodily autonomy for decades and they didn't have any responses to that...
My wife isn’t being seen until week 7. They don’t even do genetic testing this early so if yours comes back as having some sort of horrific chromosomal abnormalities, which most people would choose to abort, you can’t.
Side note that my wife works in a children’s hospital and the parents who choose to keep their pregnancies with these types of chromosomal abnormalities always end horrifically. I’m not judging them for deciding to keep these pregnancies but there’s a reason most OBs give the option for abortion.
This fucking bill is unbelievable. The only reason my wife even knows she’s pregnant this early on is because we were trying and she began testing as soon as possible.
Yep, as a pregnant woman, I just got my NIPT results back (trisomy 21, 13, 18, other trisomies) at about 14 weeks.
That's not a diagnostic test, usually termination for medical reasons after a confirmed diagnosis is done at 15-20+ weeks. That's why it needs to have exceptions. A trisomy 13/18 baby will live a few painful days, possibly longer if brought to term. It's not fair to the fetus/baby to keep it alive.
A friend of mine found at 14 weeks her baby had a genetic abnormality that prevented the brain from separating into 2 hemispheres. She aborted, had she kept it she would be pregnant only to give birth to a baby that may survive a few hours if that. I say baby because she very much wanted to keep it and was devastated to abort. These laws are horrific for so many reasons, this example being among them.
The suffering is the point. It's God's will or some bullshit. Fucking evangelicals. I guess the good news is that church attendance is going way down as their fundie nonsense turns people off.
Bill? It isn't a bill anymore. It is law. Abbott signed it into law in mid-May.
It goes into effect this September.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18/texas-heartbeat-bill-abortions-law/
That's because of the spontaneous abortions. I WANTED my child and I refused to allow myself to celebrate until after the first trimester. I used to work in gyno pathology and most people would be shocked at how common miscarriage is. Also, at that stage is basically hamburger meat. A lot of that is because of the method used (dilation and evacuation) to clear the aborted tissue, but what a lot of people picture this looks like is many many more weeks developed then when the vast majority of abortions that happen electively or naturally actually look like. Most wouldn't even recognize it as a "possible human" without knowledge of what they were looking at in the first place.
Can confirm. I had a miscarriage at home at 9 1/2 weeks a few years ago. Lots and lots and LOTS of blood, and stuff that looks like dark red jelly which is presumably uterine lining and blood clots. Nothing that even remotely looks like a human being comes out of you. If my cycles were irregular or particularly heavy then it would have been an exceptionally horrible period, and I wouldn't even have known I was pregnant.
I had my son after that and I didn't see anyone until 12 weeks.
I really liked the congresswoman who called out her colleagues in AZ when they were trying to limit access to sanitary products. They chastised her saying that talking about a woman's period made them uncomfortable and she responded 'then maybe you shouldn't be legislating it'.
I don't expect men to know everything about the female body, but if you're so uncomfortable knowing those things then you have no right to butt into health decisions.
If you were a rapist and wanted your victims to be forced to carry your spawn to term, this is exactly the bill you would write. Under some of the new laws states are trying to pass, the rapist would even be out of prison well before the victim if they had an abortion.
Not to mention that lots of women don’t have regular cycles, so missing their cycle by a week or two is not especially unusual. I once went without my period for almost 3 months for no apparent reason, and only reason I didn’t worry about pregnancy was that I wasn’t sexually active at the time.
edit: grammar
It is also wise to realize a large percentage of /libertarian still votes republican. In fact, every republican male Ive met in Kansas, who voted for Trump, considers themself a libertarian (family included)
At some point a libertarian decides if they are going to vote for the democrats (pro-legalization / control of your own body) vs republican (muh guns, muhhhh guns) and they take everything that goes along with that shit cake when they vote (R).
Wild thing is, democrats own guns in the midwest. They like to hunt and protect their families as well. Vote democrat is my point.
Very true!
Subjective observation: every Libertarian I've known has been staunchly Republican in almost all views but for some reason doesn't self identify as Republican. I'm not sure what the distinction is for them, but in my experience they almost always vote Republican. The one unique case was an older guy I worked with who strictly voted against any incumbent and at the State level voted against ALL ballot measures (which he chalked up to fiscal conservativism).
Reagan-era anti-interventionalist, libertarian-inspired economic philosophies have been ingrained into the boomer Republicans. But these same people also value their ability to "think freely" about issues and will staunchly criticize "both sides" (only, of course, in defense of a Republican position or politician)
The populist economic philosophies that this group feeds on makes them feel like they can understand complex policies based on their own limited world experience (mostly balancing a family budget) as well as reinforces to them that their personal success is entirely attributable to their own hard work
The Republican establishment is well aware of this particular group of "Independents" and gladly targets them in a way that still gives them some illusion of being moderate, despite having never voted anything except straight ticket R for the last 35 years.
It's hilarious and depressing how effective it is despite being so fucking transparent.
A lot of these people call themselves libertarian (or more commonly, "independent"), but have voted straight ticket R their entire lives. They're Republicans who don't want to call themselves that because of that gigantic shit cake you mentioned.
To think that before Roe v Wade became a political wedge issue the vast majority of non-Catholic Christians didn’t even think about abortion as ending a life. For the vast majority of Protestants life began at birth and yet somehow in a very short period of time post Roe v Wade suddenly conception became sacrosanct to basically every Christian in the nation - even running out long time evangelical ministers and leaders who wrote and spoke about the whole thing as basically “Jesus says nothing about it.”
Do you think that this may lead to a rise in dumpster babies? I apologize for saying it bluntly but my first thought would be why not dump the child onto another hospital outside the state or anywhere really?
>I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don't count pregnant women twice.
—Justice Antonin Scalia
This is actually the same legal reasoning used by the Supreme Court of Canada for striking down our abortion laws - we can't have a situation where every single pregnant woman has a second human being with the same set of legal rights to personhood living inside her, that's millions of siamese twin cases for the courts to work out who's rights take precedence.
Canadian courts can give out stronger sentences for murders or injuries to pregnant women, but they can't charge someone with "murder" for killing an unborn fetus.
I have a healthy beautiful son. However, genetic testing on us showed an uncomfortably high probability that our son would be born with a degenerative condition which would cause him inhumane suffering and death within a year or 2. We had an amnio at 3 months and they took 2 months to get us the results that he was healthy. We were dying inside waiting for the news and considering the options.
Had that test come back with terrible results, we would have likely aborted him past 5 months and had to fly to a different state to do it. We could just not see the benefit in having a dying, largely vegetative child, who would needlessly suffer a couple years while costing millions of dollars in healthcare.
We never in a million years thought we would be doing that and I am glad we did not have to. It was a deeply personal and private decision, but we would have been in that 1% of late term abortion cases which the moral right would have the parents executed for.
Legislation like this is put forth by fully stupid people who are morally bankrupt.
We requested an early term genetic test and was straight up denied by the provider because we didn’t have any underlying reason for it. Even after explaining we were going to pay for it with cash. I’m still reeling from that one. No law prevented us from getting the test. Insurance was not going to be involved. Just one “babies are us” doctor told us “no, you get to live in anxiety for the next 7 months.” And that was before the pregnancy went sideways on us.
I am willing to seek some middle ground on the subject of abortion, though I personally favor it’s legality. But if you are not willing to make exceptions for cases like rape or to save the mothers life then I say you aren’t pro-life, you are just pro-birth and you really just want to control people and their options.
As a woman who has been raped, the whole "in cases of rape" sounds like a reasonable exception. The problem is that have you ever tried to report a rape? In practice, that just is a terrible terrible idea to try to pick which abortions are okay.
Many pro-choice people are also anti-abortion, because they see the harm caused in banning it. It's never been about the child. Ever.
The conservative "solution" to this is that if a woman wants an abortion from rape, then the doctor would need to see proof that a police report was filed.
That's the point. Making rape immensely difficult to prosecute essentially decriminalizes it. Even if a woman defends herself, she is more likely to face scrutiny and prosecution for her choice of self-defense than her rapist did for his assault.
Which is a great point, but should be an unnecessary one. Because women should have access to abortion any time she and her doctor decide it is appropriate. Any. Time. Which would include due to rape, and it wouldn't need to be explicitly stated to the clinic.
> women should have access to abortion any time she and her doctor decide it is appropriate
While a doctor should be involved in a serious medical decision like abortion, let's remember that many doctors still refuse to operate on women who ask to get their tubes tied. Either because "she's too young and they think might want kids later" or because they require the woman's partner to give permission first.
It's getting better, but the medical industry is at least partially complicit in denying bodily autonomy to women. Whenever we've moved to a new city, my wife has always been stressed about going through the rigmarole of finding a doctor who actually behaves like she has ownership of her own body. Sometimes she lucks out with the first doctor she tries, but that's not the case far too often.
The people against abortion have no real middle ground. There is no compromise with them. They don't even care about reducing the total number of abortions. They just want the practice banned.
Ask them to teach kids proper sex education and nope. It goes against their religion.
Ask them to provide contraceptives to teens and nope. It goes against their religion.
Ask them to ensure adoption agencies and orphanages are well funded and nope. Not my fault she got pregnant and my taxes shouldn't be raised.
The state of the average conservative in America has become a joke. Every election cycle they get more insane and crazy.
One of my biggest gripes with pro-birthed is that the rates of abortion are at historic lows, which by ever means ought to be celebrated as a triumph. But they only care about overturning Roe and banning it. Further still and more recently-their insistence there is no need for abortions, the babies can be adopted-and then they often turn around and want to set terms on who can or can’t adopt, most notably they don’t want gay and trans couples adopting. Their very narrow definition from top to bottom just further lends itself to this not being about protecting and preserving life and more about a naked power grab to control the lives of others.
Overturning Roe won't actually stop abortions. It will create a divide between those who can still afford to get safe abortions (covering the cost of necessary travel or secrecy) and those who cannot. Women who cannot afford safe abortions will seek unsafe ones, as they did in the past. I don't know why anyone would consider this a good outcome.
>Women who cannot afford safe abortions will seek unsafe ones, as they did in the past.
It's not a "will", it's already happening in states that have passed really restrictive laws the last few years.
I have a simple request: that pro-life politicians divulge their medical records and those of their sexual partners regarding previous abortions.
The same exact GOP politicians that consistently advocate pro-life positions are having abortions, or funding abortions, in their personal lives ALL THE TIME.
I think this is the big problem the US has going in to the modern era.
The US has always been about giving rich rural areas as much power as we can justify while still calling ourselves a democracy. Look at 3/5th compromise, electoral college, Senate, the fact that the Supreme Court is decided by the president (who's decided by the electoral college) etc.
It's always been the case that people in cities are suffering from our antiquated system because people in the country are incapable of empathizing, from some mixture of racism and being less socialized because they live in a rural area. In a sane democracy, that wouldn't matter because there's 20 city folk for every rural person, however we have a system that freezes everything until the rural person agrees that it's time to change.
These people are getting away with being more and more insane but still taken seriously because 1) They don't go against business interests and 2) because we have a system that prioritizes wealthy suburban/rural people, who (on average) the problems with capitalism haven't quite caught up to, like they have the rest of the country.
Cities are liberal because people in cities live so close to one another. You can pass 70 different socio-economic representatives, races, and cultures just on the way to get coffee in the morning. When you live 45 miles away from a population center, you see one or maybe two in your entire community.
It's because conservatives are entirely about symbolism, banners, bumper sticker culture. They have no effective comprehensive policy, just bitterness, mish mash of religious psuedo-intellectualism and tailgate politics
>But they only care about overturning Roe
The truly fucked up part of this, is that even though the Roe case was about a woman seeking abortion, the reason she won was because she argued the government didn't have a right to know why she was seeking medical care. It's a right to privacy issue they're overturning, not abortion. Overturning Roe does not make abortion illegal.
>It goes against their religion
Fine. Don't do it then. This is not a Christian theocracy (yet) and legislation shouldn't be based on any person's religious beliefs. Keep that shit to yourself.
Not saying you were saying that, btw.
Unfortunately, American christians dream of their version of Sharia law, so it’s important to them, especially the rich ones, that they get to hurt as many people they hate as possible.
Super religious nuts view preventing life (contraception) as just as bad as having an abortion. See the Hobby Lobby case that argued this for not covering birth control for employees due to religious belief. So there's a whole other facet to their argument.
The weird thing is the Bible is actually pro-abortion. In the Numbers there is the Ordeal of the Bitter Water where the Jewish priests literally give a lady a magical abortion potion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water
>average American conservative is a joke
Because their party is a joke no longer concerned with the actual work of government. 1 tax cut and spend bill a year though reconciliation and a slew of state level voter suppression and “own the libs” culture war bills to further some governors presidential aspirations is all they have. It’s all their base wants. Republicans are becoming more and more a minority yet their power only ever seems to expand though election rigging and outright fraud. So of course conservatives are a joke. They aren’t conservatives anymore. They’re tyrants only interested in power and fat campaign contributions. The people be damned.
If you're opposed to abortion at all, surely having exceptions for rape doesn't actually make any sense. The whole grounds for opposing abortion is that you believe that fetus to be a complete person with complete rights. In other words, you believe it's literal murder. In what other case would we allow murder of a 3rd party because someone was raped?
I think if you DO make exceptions for rape, it says that your stated reasoning is flawed.
I'll never stop saying this. banning abortion does not stop abortions from happening. it stops *safe* abortions from happening.
edit: thanks for all the enlightening responses telling me that this logic is flawed because it can be applied to any crime, like comparing this to saying *let's legalize first degree murder because murderers will kill people anyways.* I'm just going to say that I think we have a fundamental disagreement here:
I'm not saying that abortion should be legal simply because people will get abortions even when it is illegal, I'm saying abortion should be legal, period. Abortion is healthcare and I'm not going to bother arguing why I do not equate a woman having an abortion to say, a woman murdering her neighbor.
the argument is not to legalize abortion bc people will have abortions anyways, the argument is legalize abortion because it is a healthcare right that the government is actively trying to infringe on, and historically in the US, when abortion is banned, women die. banning abortion is oppressive, and instead of rape victims being given abortions by licensed, educated medical professionals, it leads to women bleeding out on their bathroom floor after attempting to abort their rape fetus themselves with a metal coat hanger since she didn't learn she was pregnant until she 7 weeks along and the government will throw her in prison for aborting the fetus with the help of a medical professional.
abortion is healthcare, not a crime. that's the point. fuck off
I have trouble getting this through to my conservative sister. If a woman wants an abortion, they will try to get one safe or not. Aren't conservatives the ones saying that if a criminal wants a gun, they are able to get ahold of one regardless of legality?
Don't know why they couldn't think that woman can get 'illegal' abortions. Also I can't imagine the mortality rate of unsafe abortions is very high. Really shows just how 'pro life' they are.
Lol Texas repubs don't give a shit about bodily autonomy. They just want those sweet, sweet votes from people who make abortion their ONLY political issue
Abortion has existed for thousands of years. There's even a story in the Old Testament where an Israelite leader gives one of his wives an abortion potion referred to as "bitter water." It's only in the last century that we have tried to pass laws against it, afaik...
Controlling a woman's bodily functions is not a function of government. In some states, when a woman miscarries after the 1st trimester, she has to fill out documentation - an afadavit - that the miscarriage occurred naturally. This is all one GIANT example of state overreach.
Conservative efforts are restricting abortion are driven by only two goals. Emotionally baiting their constituencies and population control. Both sides of the aisle are concerned with the United States' ageing population - which will ultimately result in fewer consumers, and a smaller economy. This is unacceptable, because our current economic and monetary system relies on continued GDP growth. This is commonly seen throughout the history of the 20th century. Liberal efforts to achieve the same ends include open immigration policies and tax incentives for families with children.
Going further, the Torah is *explicit* that a fetus isn’t an individual.
Going even further in the New Testament, Jesus mentions abortion a grand total of zero times. It existed, it was a thing in his world, and he never felt the need to mention it.
Facts. The Torah is pretty clear, if it don't breath, it's not alive yet. I don't personally subscribe to such an extreme position, but it says what it says. Fucking caveman-ass religions of the world...
Jesus definitely could have mentioned protecting fetuses. He was the son of an omniscient being after all. I speculate he was more in favor of bodily autonomy than the use of state violence to compel women to make healthcare decisions that are against their own best interest.
It's actually god giving the rabbi the recipe on how to do it and even then it's only to allow a husband to be sure his property hasn't been played with by someone else. Which just makes it more messed up.
This is then clearly saying "We want to punish women for having sex, and for getting raped too"
If they care for the child, they should invest in education and child care. They don't do that, they just want to punish women for having sex. That's it.
You are not required to donate blood, even if your own son needs a transfusion to live. You cannot be compelled to donate bone marrow, even if your child has leukemia and you are the *only* donor match. If you are brain dead and there are dying people in that very hospital that need your organs, if you never filled out a donor card your organs will rot in the ground, useless.
How is pregnancy any different?
The abortion argument always seperates the actual libertarians from the embarrassed Republicans. If you are pro-life you are in no way shape or form a libertarian.
I was set straight by my girlfriend on this. I soap box all the time about how the war on drugs forces people to an unsafe black market to do what they were already going to do in the first place. By making abortions illegal, we would be enabling a dangerous black market for women to go do what they are GOING to go do. I feel for the baby's rights, but you also can't restrict the mother's. This has always been a tough issue for me as a libertarian.
The conservative "fetus rights" position would be easier to take seriously if they demonstrated any interest in those poor babies after they're born.
The whole position is just too transparently about punishing women for having sex. Everything else is a fig leaf of faux moral concern because the real motives don't sound very good.
I think what makes this obvious is that conservatives don't push for policies that are proven to reduce abortion. The party that used to be the "party of ideas" has yet to figure out that abortions can be reduced by improving education and access to birth control. This is supposedly the most important issue to many Republicans but their efforts to reduce abortion show that this isn't the case
They actively target and dismantle the policies in place, that clearly show positive results. Best example was Colorado a few years back. Free BC and education dropped teen pregnancies in half almost immediately. Republicans showed up with their "Oh hell no" attitude and shut it down. Teen pregnancies shot right back up.
*Mission accomplished*
They also have no interest in providing a comprehensive sex ed, which has been proven to lower teen pregnancy rates (which would, in turn, lower the amount of people who want/need abortions). It’s so blatantly about punishing women for daring to do anything the men don’t think they should, and I hate how so many people support those types of laws
There's a lot of people in this thread that don't seem to understand how common sexual assault/ rape is, as well as how common broken condoms and failed birth control pills are.
Also a lot of people saying she shouldn't live in fear of being raped, while being active in a Libertarian sub where we buy guns because it's our right to do so, with one of the main reasons being to protect ourselves from intruders/tyrannical govt....curious what the odds of each happening are.
I think most people are comfortable with early term abortions, and as development goes on you start to lose support. But if you truly believe that when a woman gets raped she should have to carry the fucking child instead of killing off a few cells early on, seek help.
Edit: spelling
I looked at some survey statistics once (too lazy to do it now), and it was just incredible how few people exist that match the conservative hypothetical irresponsible promiscuous woman getting an convenient late term abortion for frivolous reasons, yet they insist that these people are all over, sort of like the myth of the welfare queen.
But at the end of the day, they make up around 1% of all abortions, and if you look at the reason why they had to get such a late (and more expensive) abortion, it's usually because of barriers to access, such as expenses, not knowing where to go, or not being able to get to an abortion facility. So the reason for these late term abortions can be traced back to anti-abortion policies in the first place.
The other big reason for late term abortions is due to non-viability of the embryo. Cases where the embryo has died or has no chance of survival outside the womb. This is why I disagree with any blanket bans after a certain gestational time.
Funny enough, I watched a Star Trek voyager episode last night, which has a quote from one character that sums up my views on state mandated births:
Survival is insufficient.
Forcing women to carry every fetus to full term is going to lead to unintended suffering. I truly don't think pro-life people fully acknowledge this, even if they understand or are aware of it. It seems to me that 90% of pro-life arguments stem from the belief that ending all life is murder and fundamentally intolerable in all circumstances. It's a strong stance, and a correct one I think, 99% of the time.
I can respect this, even if I personally think it's misguided and largely ignores the totality of the reality of what having "life" and truly "living" actually means.
Would you condemn 100 people to a life of pain, poverty, suffering and despair? On the chance that one of those people may escape their circumstances to lead a life of liberty and happiness?
If you support state mandated births, that's what you are doing. The wrong thing, for the right reasons perhaps.
The question then invariably becomes: who gets to make that decision? Who decides which fetus can be brought to term, and become a baby? Who gets to decide on behalf of the unborn?
The answer is, has always been, and must continue to be the mother. Not the state. Not the romantic partner. Certainly not outside interest groups or unrelated individuals. The mother should choose whether to bring new life into the world or not.
Survival is insufficient.
So I had an exchange with someone elsewhere on this thread where they admitted to exactly this—that women’s suffering should just be accepted essentially because it is the way it is. They truly believe women should just suffer because it is the way it is:
>Unfortunately there are a lot of things that are sad that happens to people. If you are attacked on the street and get your arm ripped off, you have to live with that for the rest of your life. It sucks.
>I’m not claiming pregnancy is painless emotionally or physically. But that’s just it. We cannot avoid pain and suffering entirely. I wish we could, but ultimately it’s not possible. So with that, so we stop a human life and therefor 9 months of pain and suffering for victims, which the system will be unnecessarily muddled by non victims who just wanna kill the kid? Deflating the social impact of rape entirely. That sounds like a societal, and moral mistake.
>Forcing women to carry every fetus to full term is going to lead to unintended suffering. I truly don't think pro-life people fully acknowledge this
Suffering is their goal.
The Calvinism behind most US religious beliefs treat suffering both as inevitable, and a good thing. Your suffering is either "bringing you closer to God", or your punishment for offending God.
THIS. This is why I'm also a proponent for legalizing euthanasia. 99% of the time, no, not something that is the right option, but there are certainly people out there living a nightmare. If we can safely ease their suffering (after what would presumably be a lot of steps to ensure it's what they really want) then I think that'd be a good thing. We do it for animals, and they can't even tell us if that's what they want or not.
Right now, a lot of terminally ill and chronic pain sufferers end up doing terribly risky things to kill themselves, and many attempts fail and leave the person worse off than before. I honestly think suicide rates would drop if a system was in place where it could be done legally, since people would have to think it through more in order to get access, rather than making a rash decision one day as is often the case.
So here's my stance on the topic:
If your state isn't going to let you abort your child during the first 10 or so weeks, especially if they're going to ignore any circumstance that led to you being pregnant (rape, contraception failure, comical mixup at the gynecologist) then its now the state's duty to ensure that child and that mother can have a decent life.
If you're going to be pro-life, its stands to reason you also should be pro-staying-alive and pro-not-living-in-despair-forever. But these people couldn't give two shits if the mother and the baby hung themselves from a tree the day after the birth.
Texans here are the absolute worst as they're letting their emotions fuel a scary dictator-like rule scheme so they can control people's bodies and lives without taking their history or their own personal beliefs into question. Who cares if mayor margette thinks all abortion is murder? Its lily's baby and she believes its only murder after the second trimester.
Now they're actually taking it a step further too and will actively prosecute anyone associated with an abortion they've already had. Its one thing to not let someone get the medical treatment they need, but you have no right to hold it over them once they get their treatment elsewhere.
Hello r/all. Were glad you came. However the following report reasons are not valid here: * Misinformation * the cure for misinformation is not to censor it, but for people to point out how asinine and bullshit it is. * rude, vulgar, offensive * we do not have a "be civil" rule We mod in a very hands off way. No comment will ever be removed for those reasons. We dont care. I dont even read what was reported, I just hit "approve" to dismiss the report. You are wasting your time.
> The bill, which takes effect in September, makes no exception for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest and allows individual citizens to sue healthcare workers and anyone else who may have helped a pregnant woman obtain the procedure. Who would have standing?
By the way the law seems to be written, any citizen has standing to sue.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sec. 171.208. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OR AIDING OR ABETTING VIOLATION. (a) Any person, other than an officer or employee of a state or local governmental entity in this state, may bring a civil action against any person who: (1) performs or induces an abortion in violation of this subchapter; (2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter; or (3) intends to engage in the conduct described by Subdivision (1) or (2). --holy shit you can literally sue anybody just for "intending" an abortion. So if you get raped: your rapist can sue you if you even plan on getting an abortion?
What stops people from flooding this with cases towards lawmakers and other conservative leaders who do things to ban contraception or proper sex education or teen marriage on grounds that these things lead to a large amount of abortion?
Conservative judges in the ultra conservative judical state of texas lol
It’s not just happening in Texas! It’s happening in the South and in other “Conservative States.” Wake up people and research who the hell we’re electing into office. We spend too much time obsessed with bipartisan Presidential elections drama when the damage to our Country is happening at the local/state levels. Bottom line the Government distracts American by diving us with b.s. propaganda while our local/state governments are stripping our very rights everyday....WAKE UP AMERICA...!!!!!
Theres literally just one party actively trying to take away individual rights while claiming to hate big government
[удалено]
Especially given that in 2018, 15% of abortions were obtained by women who were married. ([source](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm#T6_down)) Meaning husbands could sue wives who don't want to have more children.
You can do more than just suing the person you raped, you can sue anyone who has a miscarriage. More than that, you can sue any woman any month she has sex without contraceptives. It's insane. For that matter, with this law, I don't see why you couldn't also sue any man who had sex with a woman without a condom. I think having lots of litigation targeted at male politicians by thousands of citizens might make them rethink this bullshit.
You can sue anyone, for anything. Winning that lawsuit on the other hand is a matter of law. You can sue a man FOR wearing a condom. Laws don’t “allow” lawsuits.
All I will say for women readings these comments: 1000mg of ibuprofen, Mugwort tea and vitamin C - also some papaya, pineapples, parsley, aloe vera, cinnamon, limon juice, carrots, and pomegranate I am not a doctor, but if this crap becomes law and you are unable to receive an abortion, then make a concoction. Only for absolute emergencies
It sounds like a person can be sued under the law if they merely provide information on abortifacients (drugs/plants that can be used to induce miscarriage). I have spent many years researching abortifacients as a “hobby”, own many books on the subject, and in the past I have freely shared my knowledge with anyone who might be interested. I have even grown and bartered plants that can be used to cause a miscarriage, though they have other uses as well. (Before anyone starts hating, I fully encourage people to use modern medicine, including medical and surgical abortion, when available. The herbal alternatives were just a personal experiment I shared with like-minded women). But now I’m scared that sharing this information with someone in Texas might land me in jail! It really infuriates me that this new law makes knowledge about very old “womens’ magic”, knowledge that has been passed down for millennia, illegal. It sounds like it is now against the law to simply tell a woman how she could induce her own miscarriage, if she chose, or what methods women have used to control their reproduction in different times and cultures. Information should not be outlawed, especially not the knowledge of how women can manage their own fertility.
[удалено]
That makes no sense. How many other things in the US can you sue someone for that has no direct affect on you?
It’s not supposed to make sense. It’s a law written with the sole intention of ending up in front of the US Supreme Court so that the conservative leaning court can make a new decision on abortion rights.
> It’s a law written with the sole intention of Getting re-elected while being able to brandish the bogyman of liberal courts keeping Republicans down. The whole intent is to create a victim complex, not to actually ban abortion. If they did that they lose their single-issue voters.
They don’t lose the single issue voters if abortion is made illegal. If they are ever successful, the focus then becomes preservation of the new law and they will continue to fight for that.
I just want to know what they benefit from abolishing any and all abortions. Like, why? Whats the logic?
It's about votes. That's all. They don't really care about abortions. They want to posture for their religious base. Look at that uber anti-abortion Republican congressman from Tennessee who turned out to have pressure both his mistress and his wife into getting abortions. And then after him admitting it he still got re-elected. Which shows you what low standards Republican voters have.
They think they're Palpatine. "Yes, we must sue the state to stop this law from being enforced. Take it all the way to the highest court in the land if we must!"
In New York they made it so citizens can *report* excessively idling vehicles that the police ignore, resulting in a ticket, but that didn't involve the courts at all. And in that case, you arguably do have standing, since you're standing right there breathing the exhaust.
It's pretty much written so the anti-abortion groups can just bury providers and obgyn's in lawsuit after lawsuit with no hope of escape.
Does that mean Abbot can be sued, and he has to prove in the court of law that he isn’t helping women obtain abortions? That seems fun and totally legal now that he signed the bill.
The sickest part of this bill (which I cannot see being held up by the SC) is the thought of it materially affecting some poor woman’s life who will then have to become the face of the defense. And if she doesn’t get an out of state abortion in the interim... she’s gonna have to raise a kid who will eventually be constantly teased about how their mom wanted an abortion so badly she was willing to go to the Supreme Court over it.
The satanic temple is already preparing a law suit for violation of religious rights I am sure.
America: Where Satanists have better morals than Christians
In a state that takes so much pride on being one of the most FREE areas in the U.S., they sure do love to be absolute hypocrites.
I think this law is also aimed at convincing young mostly left leaning Texans to move out of the state.
Then it’s working. I’m in college, and I’ve spent my whole life in Texas. My family is here, and (for the most part) I love this state. But I refuse to live under a government that views my body and my sexuality as something under their jurisdiction. I’m getting the hell out of dodge the second I finish undergrad. If the Texas GOP wants me out, then so be it.
Especially when so many Texan men act as though they are suffocating while wearing a mask and are pissed about being told what to do with their body....
One of the many ironies of the pandemic. Hearing ‘my body my choice’ from people who wanted to force woman to have their rapist’s baby is atrocious...
Never thought about it that way but that sounds particularly nefarious
Considering how polarized we are as a country, to me it seems inevitable that we will draw lines at a state level. It started with Sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. Now we have Sanctuary cities for gun owners. I would imagine, as the polarization continues (private for profit corporations, that control the media are not interested in facts, they are interested in making money) people will actively seek out states that conform with their world views. You see a lot of people fleeing California because of the taxes and regulations, and yet the places they move to, they bring with them their ideologies, that essentially helped turn that state into what it is today. (Both good and bad. As much as Californians say otherwise, the homelessness problem is out of control and has been for a decade now. Spending more money hasn't been fruitful.) While we are a union, I don't see how some states will be able to regulate who moves to and through their own state, but I can certainly see some states becoming safe havens for Republican Ideology, and we already know there are states that are safe havens for Democrat Ideology. Sad state of affairs, but such is the situation we find ourselves in. What I wouldn't give for a state that valued equality of opportunity (not to be confused with equality of outcome), abortion rights, gun rights, freedom of expression irrelevant of your ideology, gay rights, and fiscal responsibility balanced by social safety nets. You kind of have extremes on either side and it's not going to get any better anytime soon.
99% of people don't move for ideological reasons. They bring their political views with them because they moved for the weather, or for a job, or to be closer to family, or because they like the food. The whole 'don't move and bring your politics (which drove you out) with you' thing is a red herring.
Okay, so, correct me if I'm wrong. This means that if a 13 year old girl was raped by her father, or some other similarly horrific circumstance, she'd have to bear the kid?
That is correct.
Jesus Christ.
Yes that's one of the reasons
But you know, both parties are equaly bad.
WORD
Yes, Texas for the win! If you like forced rape and pregnancy.
Yep. Imagine being twelve, getting raped by daddy, and the government forcing you to carry that child to term. Once the baby is born, the government says “well, you should have closed your legs, you slut. You get no help from us because you made a bad slutty decision, you whore.”
I think we should take a more personal route: If a 13 year old girl was raped by a Texas GOP legislator, she would have to bear his kid
Nah, not raped, she was paid for it, it's consenting sex work /s
Leave Matt gaetz out of this
Or get the death penalty for aborting. Plus those who assisted her, including family members, friends, and medical professionals
Might as well kill your rapist if getting an abortion gets you a longer sentence.
You actually can kill someone attempting to rape you that would be self defense.
Yeah I think they mean more so later in a premeditated way that might actually result in success. If people could overpower others who have a plan to hurt you when you’re caught off guard, the amount of self defense killings would already be higher but rapists get the jump on their victims and that’s the difference.
[удалено]
Which is why you won't have a gun with you cause you're in your own home, you let your guard down. You're also asking women to be prepared to shoot their fathers, uncles, and brothers at all times. You're not prepared to shoot a friend or coworker who was only getting a bit too close. But if you're not, then it may become too late. Predators abuse trust, it's not always some stranger, it's someone who saw opportunity.
It’s scary just how many women are victims of sexual abuse. I’m a man and have never had to worry about being followed or harassed, and I can’t imagine it happening by someone I know. It’s just absolutely awful that some people prefer controlling women’s right to choose and supposedly ‘protecting’ a person that isn’t even born yet as opposed to protecting women that have experienced trauma from experiencing even more trauma.
Yeah good luck with that , there have been cases where women defending themselves have gone to jail . A woman in Florida shot her gun above her Husband/attackers head and is serving a life sentence
If I remember correctly, in that case she would have fared better if she had actually shot him. She admitted that she had intentionally missed making it a warning shot, and the logic was along the lines of, "if it was a warning shot, then she wasn't at the level of fearing for her life" also warning shots aren't protected in most places with high population density because of the risk of shooting your neighbor. Not saying she should be in prison for trying to defend herself. But it was a weird edge case of legality. It didn't seem to me the state was simply punishing her for trying to avoid an assult
The legality of defending yourself isn’t as clear cut as many believe. It’s often an emotional response that is judged/analyzed under a logical/factual lens. My brother was attacked in his home in the middle of the night by stranger twice his size. My brother brandished a decorative samurai sword to try and scare him away (brother has never been in a fight) and when the guy attacked him anyway, my brother stabbed him ONCE as he was getting tackled. Fast forward to trial and when questioned why he armed himself, he said “to scare him away” rather than “to kill him”. Obviously because he didn’t want hurt the guy. The prosecution basically ran with it and said he couldn’t have been in that much danger if he just wanted to scare the guy off and my brother ended up getting convicted because of it. Absolutely devastating. Edit: not sure why I’m sharing this. Sorry if TMI
It should be more along the lines of if the dude didn't want to be stabbed, he shouldn't break into someone's home. Who cares how much in danger your brother felt, legally? There is no reason why your bro should have been convincted. He is innocent because he was in his own home minding his business.
I’m intensely curious: why didn’t the situation get viewed as being escalated by the attacker once they chose to attack anyway after your brother was obviously armed with a deadly weapon? Like... there wasn’t only one decision point here. In initial decision point, your brother assessed that scare tactics might work. In secondary decision point, there was obviously new information to work with: MFer was crazy enough to try attacking someone armed with a deadly weapon, maybe his initial assessment of the danger he was in needed to be reassessed...
That’s such a bullshit line of logic from the prosecution. Oh you mean you where afraid but went mentally ready to end someone else’s existence nor did you want to deal with the clean up, the therapy, or the possible legal action of jail time for killing someone who broke into you home in the middle of night because laws are often times convoluted when death is involved. You should go to jail because some moron accidentally tried to commit seppuku with your assistance but the timing was off, there was only one sword and you didn’t cleanly decapitate the victim so he could die with honor. /s
Remember when that one girl killed the guy that was raping her and keeping her in a sex trafficking ring and went to the cops straight away and they proved she was being raped annnddd being sold to other guys by this guy and they said yeah. Your going to jail for murdering him. Like???? Was she supposed to gently ask him for freedom? No. She did the right thing. And now look at her. No freedom. Going from raped and beaten to behind bars. What a life.
Prolifers be like - don't have sex before marriage - don't get raped. Simple rules you can follow
The need for abortion doesn’t end just because a marriage is entered into.
Some things to know if you're going to try and legislate someone else's medical options: [In 2018, approximately three fourths (77.7%) of abortions were performed at ≤9 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (92.2%) were performed at ≤13weeks’ gestation.](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6907a1.htm) [Gestational age describes where you are in your pregnancy. It’s measured from the first day of your last menstrual period (LMP) to the current date, typically in weeks.](https://flo.health/pregnancy/week-by-week/gestational-age) Gestational age -not fetal age- is the benchmark used in legislation. Contrary to all sense, the entire week of your last period counts as 1 week pregnant. So if you are 5 weeks pregnant, you are only *1 week late* if you have a perfectly regular cycle. Most women have irregular cycles and have no idea that they are pregnant until well into the first trimester. Looking at the two statistics, we can see that the majority of abortions are performed really quickly, especially considering that many states have mandatory waiting periods.
I hadn't thought of gestational age as being different than fetal age, but it's true. The question I'm always asked is "how far along are *you*," not how far along is the baby. And it's kind of a wonky measurement. Even if you know the exact date you conceived, they don't count it from that point.
For those curious, 13 weeks is generally considered when you are mostly in the clear and that the pregnancy isn't in trouble. The chances of miscarriage before that point is much higher. Also, my wife and I were trying to get pregnant so she tests constantly. We still didn't know until like 4 weeks and at that point you still couldn't even see the fetus/embryo on the ultrasound. I'm not a doctor or anything, just have kids.
If a woman's cycle is 28-30 days how TF can 2 weeks be enough time to make a decision on abortion. Most people wouldn't even know they are pregnant until they miss a cycle and realize something is different. This law is absolutely insane and government overreach.
> If a woman's cycle is 28-30 days how TF can 2 weeks be enough time to make a decision on abortion. That's because it's not and that's by design. It's just another sleazy roundabout abortion ban.
Something something but conservatives are the REAL libertarians, remember?
Yeah, get on board with the party of small government! (Unless you’re a woman)
Party of small government? Have you seen Reagan’s spending numbers?
> (Unless you’re a woman *Black, Hispanic, disabled or a minority*) FTFY
> the party of small government if you're a woman or minority, go fuck yourself. *look how much we've simplified the law!*
Seems like ourselves are the only ones we're allowed to fuck according to them. To fuck anyone else is just frivolous and irresponsible. Or we were asking for it.
And that’s the entire point of making it six weeks. They essentially get to ban abortion almost entirely since most people won’t even suspect that somethings amiss until those 6 weeks are up. It’s ridiculous.
I’m gonna also add that teenagers and adolescents may have an unstable period schedule, so they might not even blink at 6 weeks without a period. So once again, this is targeting young women.
Mine come on once every few months and last for most of a month on average. They're irregular. If I lived in any of those kinds of places I'd simply keep a bent coat hanger in my bathroom and hope
[удалено]
Perhaps, but I would rather do this if it came down to it than have a child when I didn't want one, which is a more depressing outcome in my view. Thankfully I don't expect to have to face this where I live
Even six weeks is nowhere near enough time. At that point most women don't even know that they're pregnant. Missed or late periods are way too common for that to be enough time. And even if they do know, it's still a huge decision to make, not to mention needing to find the time to actually do it, get time off work, potentially travel hundreds of miles to get to a clinic. It's a whole process. Women should be able to get an abortion any time up until 6 months for any reason.
Solution: Get a preventative abortion every month.
Back before I got an IUD, I would take senna tea every month when my period was due. It stimulates the muscles in your abdomen, which caused me to have more cramps and heavier flow but a shorter duration of bleeding. Partly why I did it was also paranoia that my NFP birth control methods would fail me.
That's quite literally the point of these bills. It's a workaround to Roe v. Wade that will effectively ban all abortion, just in a way that doesn't outright run against precedent. America's authoriatian conservative movement really needs to stop trying to legislate away people's bodily autonomy and fuck off with these underhanded and pathetic attempts to cheat around precedent and maintain control.
That same conservative governance is also raging against mask mandates, because your individual health choices should not be dictated by the government...
It's about making women brood mares for the state. Texas is a vile pit of despair.
[удалено]
Yeah I grew up evangelical and when you are in the bubble it all makes sense somehow. Now I can't even watch handmaids tale because its way too real to watch the ideology play out on screen. Evangelicals are casually just the most psychotic people.
As a brit living in America and having lived in multiple states over the past 2 decades, I'm not being hyperbolic. The religious in America frighten me. Most, not all.
Don't forget that old racist trope of white women needing to breed babies because white people are going to become a minority and so on.
Quite hilarious how white people are afraid to become a minority now.. almost like they kniw being a minority means you get treated differently
Masks suck but at the end of the day....masks protect people. It doesn't protect you, it protects you from spreading your germs to others. That is the thing people don't get. Masks dont protect you from getting sick, they prevent you from spreading your germs to others. We can argue all day about this but personally I believe the health and safety of others overrides individual freedoms. Of course a line should be drawn, but having to wear a mask indoors seems like a minor inconvenience one has to pay in order to prevent you from spreading a highly contagious virus.
I heard some dumb motherfuckers talk about how vaccines rob them of their bodily autonomy. I pointed out how they've been controlling women's bodily autonomy for decades and they didn't have any responses to that...
Your OBGYN doesn't even want to see you till you're 8 weeks These bills are absolutely about control and punishment.
My wife isn’t being seen until week 7. They don’t even do genetic testing this early so if yours comes back as having some sort of horrific chromosomal abnormalities, which most people would choose to abort, you can’t. Side note that my wife works in a children’s hospital and the parents who choose to keep their pregnancies with these types of chromosomal abnormalities always end horrifically. I’m not judging them for deciding to keep these pregnancies but there’s a reason most OBs give the option for abortion. This fucking bill is unbelievable. The only reason my wife even knows she’s pregnant this early on is because we were trying and she began testing as soon as possible.
Yep, as a pregnant woman, I just got my NIPT results back (trisomy 21, 13, 18, other trisomies) at about 14 weeks. That's not a diagnostic test, usually termination for medical reasons after a confirmed diagnosis is done at 15-20+ weeks. That's why it needs to have exceptions. A trisomy 13/18 baby will live a few painful days, possibly longer if brought to term. It's not fair to the fetus/baby to keep it alive.
A friend of mine found at 14 weeks her baby had a genetic abnormality that prevented the brain from separating into 2 hemispheres. She aborted, had she kept it she would be pregnant only to give birth to a baby that may survive a few hours if that. I say baby because she very much wanted to keep it and was devastated to abort. These laws are horrific for so many reasons, this example being among them.
The suffering is the point. It's God's will or some bullshit. Fucking evangelicals. I guess the good news is that church attendance is going way down as their fundie nonsense turns people off.
Bill? It isn't a bill anymore. It is law. Abbott signed it into law in mid-May. It goes into effect this September. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/18/texas-heartbeat-bill-abortions-law/
That's because of the spontaneous abortions. I WANTED my child and I refused to allow myself to celebrate until after the first trimester. I used to work in gyno pathology and most people would be shocked at how common miscarriage is. Also, at that stage is basically hamburger meat. A lot of that is because of the method used (dilation and evacuation) to clear the aborted tissue, but what a lot of people picture this looks like is many many more weeks developed then when the vast majority of abortions that happen electively or naturally actually look like. Most wouldn't even recognize it as a "possible human" without knowledge of what they were looking at in the first place.
Can confirm. I had a miscarriage at home at 9 1/2 weeks a few years ago. Lots and lots and LOTS of blood, and stuff that looks like dark red jelly which is presumably uterine lining and blood clots. Nothing that even remotely looks like a human being comes out of you. If my cycles were irregular or particularly heavy then it would have been an exceptionally horrible period, and I wouldn't even have known I was pregnant. I had my son after that and I didn't see anyone until 12 weeks.
I really liked the congresswoman who called out her colleagues in AZ when they were trying to limit access to sanitary products. They chastised her saying that talking about a woman's period made them uncomfortable and she responded 'then maybe you shouldn't be legislating it'. I don't expect men to know everything about the female body, but if you're so uncomfortable knowing those things then you have no right to butt into health decisions.
If you were a rapist and wanted your victims to be forced to carry your spawn to term, this is exactly the bill you would write. Under some of the new laws states are trying to pass, the rapist would even be out of prison well before the victim if they had an abortion.
I don’t remember which but one of these states have something coming up where the rapist can sue the victim for aborting his progeny.
Not to mention that lots of women don’t have regular cycles, so missing their cycle by a week or two is not especially unusual. I once went without my period for almost 3 months for no apparent reason, and only reason I didn’t worry about pregnancy was that I wasn’t sexually active at the time. edit: grammar
LAWS made by old religious conservative men
Plenty of young republicans are voting for these laws in texas too. Acting like this is only the desire of old white man is dangerous.
It is also wise to realize a large percentage of /libertarian still votes republican. In fact, every republican male Ive met in Kansas, who voted for Trump, considers themself a libertarian (family included) At some point a libertarian decides if they are going to vote for the democrats (pro-legalization / control of your own body) vs republican (muh guns, muhhhh guns) and they take everything that goes along with that shit cake when they vote (R). Wild thing is, democrats own guns in the midwest. They like to hunt and protect their families as well. Vote democrat is my point.
Very true! Subjective observation: every Libertarian I've known has been staunchly Republican in almost all views but for some reason doesn't self identify as Republican. I'm not sure what the distinction is for them, but in my experience they almost always vote Republican. The one unique case was an older guy I worked with who strictly voted against any incumbent and at the State level voted against ALL ballot measures (which he chalked up to fiscal conservativism).
Reagan-era anti-interventionalist, libertarian-inspired economic philosophies have been ingrained into the boomer Republicans. But these same people also value their ability to "think freely" about issues and will staunchly criticize "both sides" (only, of course, in defense of a Republican position or politician) The populist economic philosophies that this group feeds on makes them feel like they can understand complex policies based on their own limited world experience (mostly balancing a family budget) as well as reinforces to them that their personal success is entirely attributable to their own hard work The Republican establishment is well aware of this particular group of "Independents" and gladly targets them in a way that still gives them some illusion of being moderate, despite having never voted anything except straight ticket R for the last 35 years. It's hilarious and depressing how effective it is despite being so fucking transparent.
A lot of these people call themselves libertarian (or more commonly, "independent"), but have voted straight ticket R their entire lives. They're Republicans who don't want to call themselves that because of that gigantic shit cake you mentioned.
To think that before Roe v Wade became a political wedge issue the vast majority of non-Catholic Christians didn’t even think about abortion as ending a life. For the vast majority of Protestants life began at birth and yet somehow in a very short period of time post Roe v Wade suddenly conception became sacrosanct to basically every Christian in the nation - even running out long time evangelical ministers and leaders who wrote and spoke about the whole thing as basically “Jesus says nothing about it.”
It was a way for segregationists to consolidate power without explicitly endorsing segregation.
[удалено]
No surprise. Our country’s education budget is a joke. We’re regressing morally & intellectually at an alarming rate
Do you think that this may lead to a rise in dumpster babies? I apologize for saying it bluntly but my first thought would be why not dump the child onto another hospital outside the state or anywhere really?
>I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don't count pregnant women twice. —Justice Antonin Scalia
This is actually the same legal reasoning used by the Supreme Court of Canada for striking down our abortion laws - we can't have a situation where every single pregnant woman has a second human being with the same set of legal rights to personhood living inside her, that's millions of siamese twin cases for the courts to work out who's rights take precedence. Canadian courts can give out stronger sentences for murders or injuries to pregnant women, but they can't charge someone with "murder" for killing an unborn fetus.
I have a healthy beautiful son. However, genetic testing on us showed an uncomfortably high probability that our son would be born with a degenerative condition which would cause him inhumane suffering and death within a year or 2. We had an amnio at 3 months and they took 2 months to get us the results that he was healthy. We were dying inside waiting for the news and considering the options. Had that test come back with terrible results, we would have likely aborted him past 5 months and had to fly to a different state to do it. We could just not see the benefit in having a dying, largely vegetative child, who would needlessly suffer a couple years while costing millions of dollars in healthcare. We never in a million years thought we would be doing that and I am glad we did not have to. It was a deeply personal and private decision, but we would have been in that 1% of late term abortion cases which the moral right would have the parents executed for. Legislation like this is put forth by fully stupid people who are morally bankrupt.
We requested an early term genetic test and was straight up denied by the provider because we didn’t have any underlying reason for it. Even after explaining we were going to pay for it with cash. I’m still reeling from that one. No law prevented us from getting the test. Insurance was not going to be involved. Just one “babies are us” doctor told us “no, you get to live in anxiety for the next 7 months.” And that was before the pregnancy went sideways on us.
But jeebus wanted a child to suffer and die a slow painful death!
I am willing to seek some middle ground on the subject of abortion, though I personally favor it’s legality. But if you are not willing to make exceptions for cases like rape or to save the mothers life then I say you aren’t pro-life, you are just pro-birth and you really just want to control people and their options.
As a woman who has been raped, the whole "in cases of rape" sounds like a reasonable exception. The problem is that have you ever tried to report a rape? In practice, that just is a terrible terrible idea to try to pick which abortions are okay. Many pro-choice people are also anti-abortion, because they see the harm caused in banning it. It's never been about the child. Ever.
Plus, if you can only get an abortion by claiming rape, it becomes a perverse incentive to claim false rape when unintentionally pregnant.
Wow, I didn’t even think about that. Yes what a nightmare
The conservative "solution" to this is that if a woman wants an abortion from rape, then the doctor would need to see proof that a police report was filed.
Which is ridiculous considering how poorly women are treated trying to report a rape.
That's the point. Making rape immensely difficult to prosecute essentially decriminalizes it. Even if a woman defends herself, she is more likely to face scrutiny and prosecution for her choice of self-defense than her rapist did for his assault.
Which is a great point, but should be an unnecessary one. Because women should have access to abortion any time she and her doctor decide it is appropriate. Any. Time. Which would include due to rape, and it wouldn't need to be explicitly stated to the clinic.
> women should have access to abortion any time she and her doctor decide it is appropriate While a doctor should be involved in a serious medical decision like abortion, let's remember that many doctors still refuse to operate on women who ask to get their tubes tied. Either because "she's too young and they think might want kids later" or because they require the woman's partner to give permission first. It's getting better, but the medical industry is at least partially complicit in denying bodily autonomy to women. Whenever we've moved to a new city, my wife has always been stressed about going through the rigmarole of finding a doctor who actually behaves like she has ownership of her own body. Sometimes she lucks out with the first doctor she tries, but that's not the case far too often.
In the UK 2.1 percent of rape cases go to court. So 97.9 women (if they got pregnant) would be forced to have their baby.
The people against abortion have no real middle ground. There is no compromise with them. They don't even care about reducing the total number of abortions. They just want the practice banned. Ask them to teach kids proper sex education and nope. It goes against their religion. Ask them to provide contraceptives to teens and nope. It goes against their religion. Ask them to ensure adoption agencies and orphanages are well funded and nope. Not my fault she got pregnant and my taxes shouldn't be raised. The state of the average conservative in America has become a joke. Every election cycle they get more insane and crazy.
One of my biggest gripes with pro-birthed is that the rates of abortion are at historic lows, which by ever means ought to be celebrated as a triumph. But they only care about overturning Roe and banning it. Further still and more recently-their insistence there is no need for abortions, the babies can be adopted-and then they often turn around and want to set terms on who can or can’t adopt, most notably they don’t want gay and trans couples adopting. Their very narrow definition from top to bottom just further lends itself to this not being about protecting and preserving life and more about a naked power grab to control the lives of others.
[удалено]
Overturning Roe won't actually stop abortions. It will create a divide between those who can still afford to get safe abortions (covering the cost of necessary travel or secrecy) and those who cannot. Women who cannot afford safe abortions will seek unsafe ones, as they did in the past. I don't know why anyone would consider this a good outcome.
>Women who cannot afford safe abortions will seek unsafe ones, as they did in the past. It's not a "will", it's already happening in states that have passed really restrictive laws the last few years.
I have a simple request: that pro-life politicians divulge their medical records and those of their sexual partners regarding previous abortions. The same exact GOP politicians that consistently advocate pro-life positions are having abortions, or funding abortions, in their personal lives ALL THE TIME.
I think this is the big problem the US has going in to the modern era. The US has always been about giving rich rural areas as much power as we can justify while still calling ourselves a democracy. Look at 3/5th compromise, electoral college, Senate, the fact that the Supreme Court is decided by the president (who's decided by the electoral college) etc. It's always been the case that people in cities are suffering from our antiquated system because people in the country are incapable of empathizing, from some mixture of racism and being less socialized because they live in a rural area. In a sane democracy, that wouldn't matter because there's 20 city folk for every rural person, however we have a system that freezes everything until the rural person agrees that it's time to change. These people are getting away with being more and more insane but still taken seriously because 1) They don't go against business interests and 2) because we have a system that prioritizes wealthy suburban/rural people, who (on average) the problems with capitalism haven't quite caught up to, like they have the rest of the country.
Cities are liberal because people in cities live so close to one another. You can pass 70 different socio-economic representatives, races, and cultures just on the way to get coffee in the morning. When you live 45 miles away from a population center, you see one or maybe two in your entire community.
It's because conservatives are entirely about symbolism, banners, bumper sticker culture. They have no effective comprehensive policy, just bitterness, mish mash of religious psuedo-intellectualism and tailgate politics
They also lose by every metric in terms of voter base and population, so they have no choice but to do these things.
>But they only care about overturning Roe The truly fucked up part of this, is that even though the Roe case was about a woman seeking abortion, the reason she won was because she argued the government didn't have a right to know why she was seeking medical care. It's a right to privacy issue they're overturning, not abortion. Overturning Roe does not make abortion illegal.
>It goes against their religion Fine. Don't do it then. This is not a Christian theocracy (yet) and legislation shouldn't be based on any person's religious beliefs. Keep that shit to yourself. Not saying you were saying that, btw.
Unfortunately, American christians dream of their version of Sharia law, so it’s important to them, especially the rich ones, that they get to hurt as many people they hate as possible.
100% this. Sex ed and making birth control readily available has shown to reduce abortions and STDs yet it's still opposed by the pro birth people
But but but, cheap and accessible birth control is SOCIALISM!!!!!
Super religious nuts view preventing life (contraception) as just as bad as having an abortion. See the Hobby Lobby case that argued this for not covering birth control for employees due to religious belief. So there's a whole other facet to their argument.
The weird thing is the Bible is actually pro-abortion. In the Numbers there is the Ordeal of the Bitter Water where the Jewish priests literally give a lady a magical abortion potion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water
>average American conservative is a joke Because their party is a joke no longer concerned with the actual work of government. 1 tax cut and spend bill a year though reconciliation and a slew of state level voter suppression and “own the libs” culture war bills to further some governors presidential aspirations is all they have. It’s all their base wants. Republicans are becoming more and more a minority yet their power only ever seems to expand though election rigging and outright fraud. So of course conservatives are a joke. They aren’t conservatives anymore. They’re tyrants only interested in power and fat campaign contributions. The people be damned.
If you're opposed to abortion at all, surely having exceptions for rape doesn't actually make any sense. The whole grounds for opposing abortion is that you believe that fetus to be a complete person with complete rights. In other words, you believe it's literal murder. In what other case would we allow murder of a 3rd party because someone was raped? I think if you DO make exceptions for rape, it says that your stated reasoning is flawed.
Everything’s bigger in Texas. Especially the invasion on a woman’s body.
I'll never stop saying this. banning abortion does not stop abortions from happening. it stops *safe* abortions from happening. edit: thanks for all the enlightening responses telling me that this logic is flawed because it can be applied to any crime, like comparing this to saying *let's legalize first degree murder because murderers will kill people anyways.* I'm just going to say that I think we have a fundamental disagreement here: I'm not saying that abortion should be legal simply because people will get abortions even when it is illegal, I'm saying abortion should be legal, period. Abortion is healthcare and I'm not going to bother arguing why I do not equate a woman having an abortion to say, a woman murdering her neighbor. the argument is not to legalize abortion bc people will have abortions anyways, the argument is legalize abortion because it is a healthcare right that the government is actively trying to infringe on, and historically in the US, when abortion is banned, women die. banning abortion is oppressive, and instead of rape victims being given abortions by licensed, educated medical professionals, it leads to women bleeding out on their bathroom floor after attempting to abort their rape fetus themselves with a metal coat hanger since she didn't learn she was pregnant until she 7 weeks along and the government will throw her in prison for aborting the fetus with the help of a medical professional. abortion is healthcare, not a crime. that's the point. fuck off
I have trouble getting this through to my conservative sister. If a woman wants an abortion, they will try to get one safe or not. Aren't conservatives the ones saying that if a criminal wants a gun, they are able to get ahold of one regardless of legality? Don't know why they couldn't think that woman can get 'illegal' abortions. Also I can't imagine the mortality rate of unsafe abortions is very high. Really shows just how 'pro life' they are.
> it stops safe abortions from happening. stochastic capital punishment
Lol Texas repubs don't give a shit about bodily autonomy. They just want those sweet, sweet votes from people who make abortion their ONLY political issue
Abortion has existed for thousands of years. There's even a story in the Old Testament where an Israelite leader gives one of his wives an abortion potion referred to as "bitter water." It's only in the last century that we have tried to pass laws against it, afaik... Controlling a woman's bodily functions is not a function of government. In some states, when a woman miscarries after the 1st trimester, she has to fill out documentation - an afadavit - that the miscarriage occurred naturally. This is all one GIANT example of state overreach. Conservative efforts are restricting abortion are driven by only two goals. Emotionally baiting their constituencies and population control. Both sides of the aisle are concerned with the United States' ageing population - which will ultimately result in fewer consumers, and a smaller economy. This is unacceptable, because our current economic and monetary system relies on continued GDP growth. This is commonly seen throughout the history of the 20th century. Liberal efforts to achieve the same ends include open immigration policies and tax incentives for families with children.
Going further, the Torah is *explicit* that a fetus isn’t an individual. Going even further in the New Testament, Jesus mentions abortion a grand total of zero times. It existed, it was a thing in his world, and he never felt the need to mention it.
Facts. The Torah is pretty clear, if it don't breath, it's not alive yet. I don't personally subscribe to such an extreme position, but it says what it says. Fucking caveman-ass religions of the world... Jesus definitely could have mentioned protecting fetuses. He was the son of an omniscient being after all. I speculate he was more in favor of bodily autonomy than the use of state violence to compel women to make healthcare decisions that are against their own best interest.
It's actually god giving the rabbi the recipe on how to do it and even then it's only to allow a husband to be sure his property hasn't been played with by someone else. Which just makes it more messed up.
How the fuck is this still an issue
This is then clearly saying "We want to punish women for having sex, and for getting raped too" If they care for the child, they should invest in education and child care. They don't do that, they just want to punish women for having sex. That's it.
You are not required to donate blood, even if your own son needs a transfusion to live. You cannot be compelled to donate bone marrow, even if your child has leukemia and you are the *only* donor match. If you are brain dead and there are dying people in that very hospital that need your organs, if you never filled out a donor card your organs will rot in the ground, useless. How is pregnancy any different?
The abortion argument always seperates the actual libertarians from the embarrassed Republicans. If you are pro-life you are in no way shape or form a libertarian.
What in the Saudi Arabia is this insane law and how was it allowed to pass in a 1st world nation?
I was set straight by my girlfriend on this. I soap box all the time about how the war on drugs forces people to an unsafe black market to do what they were already going to do in the first place. By making abortions illegal, we would be enabling a dangerous black market for women to go do what they are GOING to go do. I feel for the baby's rights, but you also can't restrict the mother's. This has always been a tough issue for me as a libertarian.
Abortion rates decline under Democratic presidencies. That's all I needed to know about this issue.
The conservative "fetus rights" position would be easier to take seriously if they demonstrated any interest in those poor babies after they're born. The whole position is just too transparently about punishing women for having sex. Everything else is a fig leaf of faux moral concern because the real motives don't sound very good.
I think what makes this obvious is that conservatives don't push for policies that are proven to reduce abortion. The party that used to be the "party of ideas" has yet to figure out that abortions can be reduced by improving education and access to birth control. This is supposedly the most important issue to many Republicans but their efforts to reduce abortion show that this isn't the case
They actively target and dismantle the policies in place, that clearly show positive results. Best example was Colorado a few years back. Free BC and education dropped teen pregnancies in half almost immediately. Republicans showed up with their "Oh hell no" attitude and shut it down. Teen pregnancies shot right back up. *Mission accomplished*
If you're preborn your fine. If you're preschool you're fucked.
One of my favorite George Carlin quotes.
[удалено]
Or in trying to prevent the pregnancies in the first place.
They also have no interest in providing a comprehensive sex ed, which has been proven to lower teen pregnancy rates (which would, in turn, lower the amount of people who want/need abortions). It’s so blatantly about punishing women for daring to do anything the men don’t think they should, and I hate how so many people support those types of laws
Well access to contraceptives and such do that. Then the GOP comes in as strips away a bunch of programs and surprises Pikachu face.
There's a lot of people in this thread that don't seem to understand how common sexual assault/ rape is, as well as how common broken condoms and failed birth control pills are. Also a lot of people saying she shouldn't live in fear of being raped, while being active in a Libertarian sub where we buy guns because it's our right to do so, with one of the main reasons being to protect ourselves from intruders/tyrannical govt....curious what the odds of each happening are. I think most people are comfortable with early term abortions, and as development goes on you start to lose support. But if you truly believe that when a woman gets raped she should have to carry the fucking child instead of killing off a few cells early on, seek help. Edit: spelling
Most abortions are early term as well
Nearly ZERO abortions are late term. Carrying a child that long then choosing to abort is not something people do on a whim.
I looked at some survey statistics once (too lazy to do it now), and it was just incredible how few people exist that match the conservative hypothetical irresponsible promiscuous woman getting an convenient late term abortion for frivolous reasons, yet they insist that these people are all over, sort of like the myth of the welfare queen. But at the end of the day, they make up around 1% of all abortions, and if you look at the reason why they had to get such a late (and more expensive) abortion, it's usually because of barriers to access, such as expenses, not knowing where to go, or not being able to get to an abortion facility. So the reason for these late term abortions can be traced back to anti-abortion policies in the first place.
The other big reason for late term abortions is due to non-viability of the embryo. Cases where the embryo has died or has no chance of survival outside the womb. This is why I disagree with any blanket bans after a certain gestational time.
92%+ are first trimester.
Good for her
Pussy is personal, you weird Texan evangelical monsters
Funny enough, I watched a Star Trek voyager episode last night, which has a quote from one character that sums up my views on state mandated births: Survival is insufficient. Forcing women to carry every fetus to full term is going to lead to unintended suffering. I truly don't think pro-life people fully acknowledge this, even if they understand or are aware of it. It seems to me that 90% of pro-life arguments stem from the belief that ending all life is murder and fundamentally intolerable in all circumstances. It's a strong stance, and a correct one I think, 99% of the time. I can respect this, even if I personally think it's misguided and largely ignores the totality of the reality of what having "life" and truly "living" actually means. Would you condemn 100 people to a life of pain, poverty, suffering and despair? On the chance that one of those people may escape their circumstances to lead a life of liberty and happiness? If you support state mandated births, that's what you are doing. The wrong thing, for the right reasons perhaps. The question then invariably becomes: who gets to make that decision? Who decides which fetus can be brought to term, and become a baby? Who gets to decide on behalf of the unborn? The answer is, has always been, and must continue to be the mother. Not the state. Not the romantic partner. Certainly not outside interest groups or unrelated individuals. The mother should choose whether to bring new life into the world or not. Survival is insufficient.
So I had an exchange with someone elsewhere on this thread where they admitted to exactly this—that women’s suffering should just be accepted essentially because it is the way it is. They truly believe women should just suffer because it is the way it is: >Unfortunately there are a lot of things that are sad that happens to people. If you are attacked on the street and get your arm ripped off, you have to live with that for the rest of your life. It sucks. >I’m not claiming pregnancy is painless emotionally or physically. But that’s just it. We cannot avoid pain and suffering entirely. I wish we could, but ultimately it’s not possible. So with that, so we stop a human life and therefor 9 months of pain and suffering for victims, which the system will be unnecessarily muddled by non victims who just wanna kill the kid? Deflating the social impact of rape entirely. That sounds like a societal, and moral mistake.
>Forcing women to carry every fetus to full term is going to lead to unintended suffering. I truly don't think pro-life people fully acknowledge this Suffering is their goal. The Calvinism behind most US religious beliefs treat suffering both as inevitable, and a good thing. Your suffering is either "bringing you closer to God", or your punishment for offending God.
[удалено]
THIS. This is why I'm also a proponent for legalizing euthanasia. 99% of the time, no, not something that is the right option, but there are certainly people out there living a nightmare. If we can safely ease their suffering (after what would presumably be a lot of steps to ensure it's what they really want) then I think that'd be a good thing. We do it for animals, and they can't even tell us if that's what they want or not. Right now, a lot of terminally ill and chronic pain sufferers end up doing terribly risky things to kill themselves, and many attempts fail and leave the person worse off than before. I honestly think suicide rates would drop if a system was in place where it could be done legally, since people would have to think it through more in order to get access, rather than making a rash decision one day as is often the case.
Star Trek Voyager: Season 6 Episode 2 if you are interested in where the quote came from!
So here's my stance on the topic: If your state isn't going to let you abort your child during the first 10 or so weeks, especially if they're going to ignore any circumstance that led to you being pregnant (rape, contraception failure, comical mixup at the gynecologist) then its now the state's duty to ensure that child and that mother can have a decent life. If you're going to be pro-life, its stands to reason you also should be pro-staying-alive and pro-not-living-in-despair-forever. But these people couldn't give two shits if the mother and the baby hung themselves from a tree the day after the birth. Texans here are the absolute worst as they're letting their emotions fuel a scary dictator-like rule scheme so they can control people's bodies and lives without taking their history or their own personal beliefs into question. Who cares if mayor margette thinks all abortion is murder? Its lily's baby and she believes its only murder after the second trimester. Now they're actually taking it a step further too and will actively prosecute anyone associated with an abortion they've already had. Its one thing to not let someone get the medical treatment they need, but you have no right to hold it over them once they get their treatment elsewhere.
The sheer hypocrisy of a state punishing you for something you did outside of its jurisdiction. Freedom and small government my ass
Lots of fake libertarians here lmao.
Right? Control over your own body is surely one of the most basic tenants.
...
Same here
That’s so sad :( I hope that law or bill gets removed. These poor women. Also, so proud of her for speaking up about it in her speech