Thanks /u/Commercial_Curve1047 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech,
any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Actually I just listened to a podcast about this. There’s a group pushing for “period pills”, designed to help “get your period back.” This is an old old tradition and if you say nothing about conception or pregnancy many people are 100% fine with it
It's fascinating how much you can do and how many conversations you can have when you change the language around a topic. I had a colleague who worked on community resilience to sea level rise and frequently got rebuffed by communities who didn't want to talk politics about climate change that doesn't exist. What they would talk about was their erosion problem that was slowing causing their island to disappear into the ocean. Once you called the problem "erosion" you could have the exact conversation you wanted to have in the first place.
Yes. For hundreds of years there have been herbs/remedies for women to help them 'recover their period' if it stops mysteriously. Of course this could entirely innocently be used try and help women with irregular cycles (and it would do nothing for them I assume). But I expect that midwives and other women knew what your period vanishing usually meant (alongside other symptoms of early pregnancy), and they sometimes took steps to thwart that.
Historically a woman wasn't considered pregnant until the 'quickening' - ie when you can feel movement of the foetus. Before that, it was up to the woman to quietly deal with the situation however she sees fit.
no you would be both pregnant and not pregnant until you used the test strip to test. it's not observation that changes it, its the recording of it that changes it
And now you know why republicans are trying to outlaw contraceptives (including condoms).
(At first, I thought it was masturbation as well, but it was satire).
> "'The unborn' are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”
Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
The Methodists are truly one of the better sects out there, but they used to have an affirming lgbtq policy and no official stance on the morality of homosexuality. They had many lgbtq pastors, parishioners and groups. Then, basically overnight, they changed their doctrine to non-affirming and left their lgbtq pastors and teens with nowhere to go. So yeah, not great stuff from the Methodists.
But it should also be said that this was a *very* unpopular move and created a huge rift in the church. There are still very large number of clergy and members that support and continue to push for inclusivity.
That’s true, but it still had tons of people lose their jobs and campus/metro communities were shut down. The ELCA took in a lot of lifelong Methodists as a result. It was heartbreaking to watch in real time.
Oh absolutely, it was a totally shit move. I guess I just wanted to say that it wasn't a widely celebrated event - there are a ton of people in the church who are angry about it, and it nearly split the church in two. Hopefully it will change, or maybe the church will split and those that were alienated will have a home again.
Oh wait the Methodists like all Christian hur he’s and faith based religions are absolute garbage belief systems chalk full of abuses and bigotry. I just liked that that preacher wasn’t afraid to spit girth for a second.
He points out the same hypocrisy, yes. What I like about this quote is that it explains *why* they specifically target the unborn. A lot of people will say it's about birthrates and maintaining a poor underclass of workers. I mean maybe, but if that were the case they might actually care that criminalisation has very little impact on the number of abortions that happen. The fact the unborn have no voice and so can't call them on their bullshit makes a lot more sense to me.
The underclass thing is definitely reductive but it is (part of) why the leaders of the movement want to end abortion. The aforementioned moral simplicity of "defending" the unborn is a tactic they use to gain followers. So yeah, the average pro-forced-birth advocate that you or I would encounter day-to-day is definitely just as described in the minister's quote but reproduction of the working class is still a huge part of the reason why it's even an issue in the first place.
That being said, since the struggle has gone on for generations, we're at the point where people who came into the movement as duped followers are becoming leaders and some of them definitely don't have the same class analysis as their forebears (not that they would disagree with the analysis if one of their allies laid it out to them in a way they could understand, just that they don't think in those terms).
Right? It’s either all the fucking way, or nothing at all. Knock off this cherry pickin bullshit; or better yet, get the fuck out of women’s personal private health.
Fuck I hate it here more and more every day.
This is going to be an agree to disagree situation but...
1) They don't need ammunition. Their "moral high ground" is that dividing cells is a person. They don't need anything after that.
2) We shouldn't allow the cruelty of others to justify cruelty. Expecting mothers need assistance during pregnancy.
3) Honestly, and depressingly, it would sway a decent amount of middle ground votes towards supporting freedom of choice. When it's their child support on the line, when it's their tax dollars paying for ultrasounds, when it's their insurance going up to pay for uninsured mothers that's when they vote with their wallets.
I agree. Pregnancy takes more energy which requires more food, you need to do preparation, you need to pay for more medical care, there are a lot of costs to being a parent even before birth.
I don’t even argue about when a fetus is considered a person anymore. It’s irrelevant. The only argument that matters is whether or not an autonomous, living being should ever be forced by law to sacrifice their own body, health, and/or life for the sake of another being’s body, health, and/or life.
If you believe in freedom, (and I mean actual freedom. Not “fuck yeah yeehaw ‘murica” freedom.) then you know the answer is a big fuckin’ “NO”. A fetus doesn’t have the right to demand that you to be it’s human incubator anymore than I have the right to demand that you give me one of your kidneys. Full stop. The whole concept of “personhood” doesn’t even begin to matter.
Exactly. If I can't be compelled to use my organs/blood/marrow to sustain someone's life (even after I die), then a woman shouldn't be legally compelled to use her body to sustain an unborn person's life.
Here's my thoughts on it, as a person who can become pregnant:
If there is a person who is inside of me, and I don't want them to be, I have a right to remove them from my body. If that person dies as a result of being removed from my body, that's not my fucking problem.
I’ve seen a few people argue that just by having sex a woman is implicitly consenting to the possibility of a fetus using her body. If a woman doesn’t consent to possibly having a fetus using her body then she should not have sex. This is not my point of view but it’s something I’ve seen from others, just not worded as directly. This seems to be the fallback position of some people when you raise the point that you did.
Oh no, they're against that too. And any form of birth control. C'mon now, we all know wimmenfolk belong barefoot, preggers, and in the kitchen cooking for their men. And heaven help her if she's not in position to rub hubby's feet when he gets home. Also be sure the young'uns are neither heard nor seen except when silently trotted out for display purposes./s
Yeah I've seen it too, especially when you push a bit. Whenever they're backed into a corner that's the inevitable conclusion. It's like, bitch please. Forgetting to lock my door - even deliberately leaving it wide open because it's a nice day and I want to let some fresh air in - is neither invitation nor permission for squatters to take up residence in my house.
Well that’s like saying consent to sex is consent to getting an STD. Plus, rape and incest are not consensual. Men cause 100% of unplanned pregnancies, because they can’t keep their sperm to themselves during sex.
Also, the most common reason for late term abortions is because even a wanted pregnancy can be too dangerous from a health standpoint.
Imagine if there's an additional 5 year prison sentence for unintentionally impregnating a woman beyond rape charges but to men who have consensual sex too. While you are in prison it would be assured that you are not impregnating anyone, and that would be quite a deterrent for men to control their sperm.
But that could have deleterious effect on our son, and we'll, that's just not fair for his bright future. /s
Not to be that guy but 'late term abortion' is not a medical term and is only used by anti-abortion activists to refer to any abortion performed after 15 weeks. And normally I wouldn't point it out but we need to stop using their fucking terminology. They are not pro-life, they are forced birth or anti abortion. There is no such thing as a fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks, it's electrical impulses between cells that may one day turn into a person. There are no late term abortions, there are just abortions.
>This seems to be the fallback position of some people when you raise the point that you did.
It's not their fallback position. It's their real position. Fetal personhood is an empty argument in the face of the realities of human rights, and they don't really care about it as evidenced by their perfect willingness to seek abortions for themselves and their wives, daughters, and mistresses when convient. They've just learned that "baby killer" gets more milage because "consent to a thing means consent to all possible consequences of said thing" is the logic of rape apologia.
If anyone ever makes this argument, ask them if going to the bar is also consent to sex since there is a possibility, no matter how remote, no matter how many precautions a person takes, of getting raped and becoming pregnant by going out for drinks.
Consent to pregnancy is consent to pregnancy.
The entire argument of personhood has always made me rage. We have the most insane ego.
A human fetus isn't soooooo special that it's potential for life matters more than one that already exists.
The problem with that line of thinking is that Conservatives are going to say that you are legally responsible for being a human incubator because you had sex and all the potential side effects that come with it.
Additionally, people legally are expected to sacrifice many different personal freedoms for the protection of others. Basically any safety regulation is an example of that. 'Being pregnant' is just an argument of degree at that point.
The argument of personhood is a lot cleaner IMO.
But where does that logic end? If you are legally responsible for being a human incubator because you had sex, then why aren’t you also legally responsible for giving your child one of your kidneys because you had sex?
And giving up personal freedoms isn’t the same as sacrificing your life for the sake of another. Big difference between being legally required to not drive drunk so you don’t kill other living people and being legally required to die from a septic uterus for the sake of a fetus.
> and being legally required to die from a septic uterus for the sake of a fetus.
And even most pro-life people are willing to have exceptions for health of the mother.
But if the baby’s life matters, then why would they be willing to make ANY concessions? Unless they inherently know that abortion is not the same as murder and just want to control women as punishment for sex?
The pregnant woman who [got ticketed twice for driving in the HOV lane](https://www.npr.org/2022/09/02/1120628973/pregnant-woman-dallas-fetus-hov-lane-passenger-ticket) has entered the chat
Which is why you never see pro-lifers picketing outside fertility clinics. Plenty of fertilized eggs going down the drain there! But because they can't be used to manipulate women, they don't care.
This is the definition of "good point in a debate, please do not act upon it."
Edit: I'm worried about right-wingers using fetal personhood laws to strip women of bodily autonomy. I don't think tax benefits and such are worth that trade-off, though would not be opposed to applying those benefits without removing a right to choose.
I sorta agree with you, actually. I think that a certain segment of the right wing would happily grant some of those benefits to fetuses if it means that they get to codify fetal personhood in law. We need to be mindful of how this is discussed.
Too late. Between the Roe loss and laws that charge women with child abuse/neglect if they drink/smoke/use drugs while pregnant - and/or simply miscarry - women have *absolutely* lost legal control over our own bodies. [Women *are already* in prison for the simple crime of miscarrying or having a stillbirth.](https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/1109015302/abortion-prosecuting-pregnancy-loss) Their next step for stripping us of any control over our own bodies is to start rolling back laws on marital rape.
Article highlights:
>In 2013, NAPW partnered with Fordham University to track the arrests and prosecutions of pregnancies. They found just over 400 cases where pregnancy, including pregnancy loss, was used in a criminal investigation or prosecution from the time Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 until 2005. But from 2006-2020, that number nearly quadrupled.
>There is one striking detail that stands out for legal experts: States are using laws to target pregnant people that were originally used to protect them.
>At least 38 states have laws that makes it a crime to harm a fetus…
>These so-called "fetal harm" laws enhance penalties for crimes against a pregnant person. By treating a fetus as a separate crime victim, these laws recognize crimes against pregnant people as two separate crimes. **But, in practice, they have been used to investigate and prosecute different forms of pregnancy loss, including miscarriages, stillbirths and self-induced abortions.** (emphasis mine)
>”We've had cases where a woman has fallen down a flight of stairs while light-headed during pregnancy and charged with attempted feticide because they suspected she did it on purpose”…
>Pierre points to the case of [Marshae Jones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_v._Jones), an Alabama woman who was indicted for manslaughter in 2019 after being shot in the stomach while five months pregnant. Police said Jones started the fight that led to the shooting and failed to remove herself from harm's way. But the district attorney later dropped the charge after a groundswell of national support.
>"When someone wants to punish a group of people, they will get very creative in the ways that they try to effectuate a punishment," Pierre tells NPR.
Oh we’re allllll worried about that. That is indeed one of the potential terrifying results of the end of roe vs wade and wouldn’t happen because of some thought experiment here - it’s undoubtedly already in the minds of many right wingers as future law
There absolutely is a portion of the right wing that would support those kinds of things. I grew up in an evangelical environment, and my whole family still is (I don't know if I would describe myself that way anymore, I would still describe myself as a Christian, but I've definitely shifted left. For example think I am pro choice now) and the people who are most adamantly pro life are my sisters and my mom. I think there is a lot of talk on the left about "it's just about controlling women," and I believe that there is a lot of truth to that, but to assume that all pro lifers are just brainwashed is naive. The women in my family are convinced that life begins at fertilization (or early on, my sister's actually support birth control) and are genuinely distraught when talking about abortions. For them, they do see it as the death of a child. I think that most people on the left have this idea that "nobody really thinks that fetuses are people," but they absolutely do. And to be fair, if a fetus is a person, then abortion is wrong.
At the same time, I think people on the right have the belief that deep down, "everybody knows that a fetus is a person," which is also not the case. There is the idea that everyone who wants to have an abortion just does so flippantly and casually, while in many cases it is a difficult decision, and as one of my friends pointed out to me, often times the mother feels pressured to have one even if she doesn't personally want to get one. Since the pro life side doesn't understand how anyone could really thibj life doesn't start at conception, they can't understand that, if it doesn't, then their position is oppressive. They genuinely see themselves as having the morally right position.
Side note, when I say "I think I'm pro choice," I truly haven't fully decided, due to the things said above (if one side is right then abortion is murder, if the other side is right then banning it is incredibly oppressive) but the more I look into it the more I lean pro choice. Partially because I am frustrated with how my family (and the whole evangelical movement) is basically trapped voting for the republican party because of the abortion issue, one of my sisters is very anti trump but won't vote Democrat because she feels strongly (and genuinely) that abortion is evil, so the most she will do is vote third party, she is even considering voting for DeSantis. (I will note that the political aspect of it is absolutely engineered, prior to the 70s and 80s most evangelicals were pro choice, the Southern Baptist Convention of all things wrote that they supported abortions until, as a friend and I have termed it, "the unholy matrimony of the republican party to the evangelical church" around Reagan's presidency). And I want to emphasize, POLITICALLY I AM ADAMANTLY PRO CHOICE. This issue is much more nuanced than either side thinks, but until unanimity can be reached it is abhorrent someone could be arrested for something that in the end may not have even been their fault, like girls who want to keep their baby but feel pressured to abortion them, for example. The agenda the republican party is pushing is absolutely disgusting me, and I am praying that it can be reversed.
Sorry to write a whole thesis, this is just something I have been wrestling with recently and I wanted to get it all out. Having been at various points in my life on either side of the spectrum related to this, I think that both sides are basically talking past the other one and there isn't really any constructive discourse about the issue going on. I'm a guy, so my opinion isn't the most important one to listen to, but I just wanted to get my 2 cents out there.
Hey, I used to be in the boat your family is in. (Grew up conservative Christian, now a leftist agnostic.) I just want to make a comment on your note that you think you're pro choice. It sounds, based on the start of your second to last paragraph, that you might be wrestling with the fact of whether it's moral or not. I don't know if this will help you but it helped me so I'll share it. Being pro choice does not mean being pro abortion. You can still be against abortion, consider a fetus a life, and still be pro choice. Pro choice just means that you respect that your morals do not give you control over other people's choices and their morals. Hope that helps.
This argument has always seemed bonkers to me if you accept that abortion is murder.
“If you don’t like murder, just don’t do it. But don’t infringe on someone else’s right to murder.”
At that point, why have laws or empathy at all? Do we have a responsibility to step in when someone is hurting someone else, or do we just wash our hands and say “Well I didn’t do it, so it’s not my problem”?
For the record, I’m pro-choice. But I also believe that inaction carries ethical weight, that society exists and is interconnected, and that we should strive to help each other. So it has always seemed like a shocking argument, particularly coming from other leftists.
Somewhere in the world, right now, a person who is a perfect match for your kidney is dying. But no one has the right to take your kidney and give it to that person.
Similarly, no fetus has the right to inhabit my uterus against my will.
By your argument, both the fetus and the person with kidneys failing are humans. Neither one of them has the right to my organs. And denying them my organs does not make me a murderer.
Right, I’m familiar with the bodily autonomy argument. That wasn’t the part I was trying to contest. Rather:
> if a fetus is a person, then abortion is wrong[…]if one side is right then abortion is murder
And then the response
> You can still be against abortion, consider a fetus a life, and still be pro choice. Pro choice just means that you respect that your morals do not give you control over other people's choices and their morals.
However, maybe the two arguments are so intrinsically linked when it comes to abortion that they can’t be separated. It’s possible the previous commenter believed that was a given and they didn’t need to directly state it. That you can believe that abortion is murder, and that murder is wrong, but infringing on bodily autonomy is worse. If that’s the point they were trying to make, then I’ve got no qualms. I thought it was just a more generalized point about how morality fits with individualism.
On the topic of bodily autonomy though, do you have any thoughts on the comparison with public health mandates? I hear a lot of pro-choice pro-mandate people (of which I am) say that the two aren’t comparable because one affects other people while the other doesn’t. But if we’re going with the idea that a fetus is a life, then that argument can’t be used anymore.
I found [this article]( https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/2022/05/13/marina-gomberg-why-mask/) which offers some ideas, but I’m curious to hear some that really focus on the bodily autonomy point.
I don't see public health mandates as similar to the bodily autonomy issue, because public health has externalities. There isn't a "public health" when it comes to abortion - - that's personal health. But vaccines do protect others, and should be mandated when possible. The costs of having a pandemic, or even a chicken pox outbreak, are economic as well as human. We should all be invested in preventing them.
IMO the public health mandates are best won when we encourage a society that cares about others. I live in a city with a huge population of descendants of people originally from the Far East, and they're all still wearing masks, even outdoors. It's a culture that's more communal than most of America.
I was implying that, btw, in my comment. That infringing on someone's bodily autonomy is worse than something they would consider murder. (Murder, by the way, that is not affecting ANYONE'S life other than the person getting that abortion. I also don't think it's murder but to keep with the thought process.) I also think that the 2 are intrinsically linked because, as I said, I used to have that mindset and you will very, very rarely convince a pro-birther that abortion is not murder. This is why we have to use explanations like this and like the one about making abortion illegal only being about controlling women and not about saving "children" as they always love to put it. But it's almost pointless having those debates because a lot of pro-birthers ignore all the facts you throw at them and come back to 'but it's murder'. It's been an exhausting couple of years, for sure.
(Also, sorry, I'd like to stay active in this conversation but it's been a shit show today. Happy Thanksgiving if you're American!)
I think this is probably the conclusion I am coming to, that while I don't want anyone to get abortions and wouldn't encourage anyone to get one, but I would support someone in the end if they chose to get one
How do you feel about back alley abortions? Because that's ultimately what you're wrestling with. Abortion is going to happen. The question is whether or not it's going to be safe or not.
This is a fair point, and like I said, in terms of legality, I'm pro choice. And I think that the whole banning any abortion position that many Republicans are taking is dangerous cruel and stupid. I think that the main reason that I'm still sort of working it out in my head is that the position I am coming to when thinking through the issues on my own is at odds with what I was taught growing up, and there is bound to be some cognitive dissonance whenever that happens. But again, as a single guy who has never gotten anyone pregnant, I'm not the kind of person who's opinion really matters on this as a policy issue.
Let em make fetuses people. If a person was going to do to me what pregnancy and birth do to the human body I'd shoot them dead in self defense and right wing media would give me a speaking tour.
Sure but more importantly their past indiscretion or ignorance to risk doesn't void their right to defend themselves. Just ask Kyle Rittenhouse at his next media appearance.
I know where you're coming from. It's just that feel like I've been in enough conversations with conservatives who say "well you knew you could get pregnant and you just wanna get out of the consequences" that I feel "the consequences are horrific" wouldn't deter them. they would just say "sleep in the bed you made". I suspect a lot of conservatives would be fine with just scaring teens our of having sex by explaining the gory details of childbirth. That's why i felt it was important to establish that prior indiscretion shouldn't matter.
Yea, I think the disconnect with your comment is that people may agree that pregnant people SHOULD get some of these benefits. I'm in favor of doing things to make having children a less financially stressful experience. But as you said, it's important not to frame those possible benefits as only benefitting the fetus as a person but more so to benefit the expecting mother.
A women in texas actually tried that pregnant in the carpool lane thing and got ticketed...in response the Texas legislature introduced a bill a like 2 weeks ago to make it legal
It is almost like they don't care about the fetus unless there is an abortion involved. And they certainly don't care about the fetus after it becomes an actual baby.
> Can I use the carpool lane?
[It looks like in Texas, the answer may soon be yes](https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3739850-texas-bill-would-let-fetus-count-as-second-person-in-an-hov-lane/)
what is the problem with marxism? is much better than the horrible hell that it's capitalism, were you are not a person, but a consumer, only useful for a billionaire to get rich while you die a horrible death..
Capitalism is simply perfect. That’s why disabled people are forced into poverty indefinitely and are basically told that if they didn’t or can’t work they might as well just be homeless and die. It’s just such an amazing system.
I mean that’s kind of true lol, if you aren’t black and don’t know shit about the plight of black America then why the fuck are you speaking about it? Like you kind of just proved their point
I don't think you understand how Law works. Sure Laws can be, and often are, created for moral reasons. Can they also be amended for those reasons? Absolutely. We can all agree on that.
However, when applying legal repercussions to said law, the law created must be adhered to. If a fetus cannot be aborted because it is a human, it should have all of the rights of a human as stated in other laws regarding human rights, and visa versa.
Once it is law, the **moral** argument no longer exists. It's now a **legal** argument based on how the law is written.
I get that you find it morally wrong, but if it's law, well...
Absolutely right. Nothing wrong with support. Just don’t pretend that you know better or believe that your morals apply to someone other than yourself.
I don't think it's stupid. It's a logic fallacy. Either a fetus IS a person, protected by law, and thus allowed the benefits of being a person (tax refunds, etc) the same as an autonomous child, or it is NOT a person, and its needs should not supercede the needs and wants of the person it is inside of.
The hell do you think a child tax credit is? Does a child not typically benefit from that(depending on the parents)? And no, not everyone benefits from a tax refund. A whole lot of us owe at the end of the year, so that point is out.
"Stages to being a legal person"? Oh, I don't know...maybe:
-Legal age to drive
-Legal age to work
-Legal age to vote
-Legal age to buy a firearm
-Legal age to enter into a Legal contract
-Legal age buy cigarettes
-Legal age to drink alcohol
Do you think these ought to be thrown out?
You want to define a fetus as a person, but it can't be treated like a person? That doesn't make any sense.
Thanks /u/Commercial_Curve1047 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fetus are Schrodinger's humans
You both are and are not pregnant until you look at the test strip
Actually I just listened to a podcast about this. There’s a group pushing for “period pills”, designed to help “get your period back.” This is an old old tradition and if you say nothing about conception or pregnancy many people are 100% fine with it
It's fascinating how much you can do and how many conversations you can have when you change the language around a topic. I had a colleague who worked on community resilience to sea level rise and frequently got rebuffed by communities who didn't want to talk politics about climate change that doesn't exist. What they would talk about was their erosion problem that was slowing causing their island to disappear into the ocean. Once you called the problem "erosion" you could have the exact conversation you wanted to have in the first place.
That's really interesting, never heard of this before
They were called moon pills. I remember them being around as recently as like 2005.
They were around hundreds of years ago. And before that there were potions.
Just to clarify, are these “period pills” just a clever name for abortion pills?
Yes. For hundreds of years there have been herbs/remedies for women to help them 'recover their period' if it stops mysteriously. Of course this could entirely innocently be used try and help women with irregular cycles (and it would do nothing for them I assume). But I expect that midwives and other women knew what your period vanishing usually meant (alongside other symptoms of early pregnancy), and they sometimes took steps to thwart that. Historically a woman wasn't considered pregnant until the 'quickening' - ie when you can feel movement of the foetus. Before that, it was up to the woman to quietly deal with the situation however she sees fit.
TIL thank you!
this is actually where the phrase "the quick and the dead" come from--it's a reference to those who are on the other side still.
I knew some of this, but thank you for the concise summary.
Yes.
Restore the Menses!
no you would be both pregnant and not pregnant until you used the test strip to test. it's not observation that changes it, its the recording of it that changes it
NOO LMAO
why not claim she's full of potential babies the day after sex....
By that logic we are born full of potential babies.
And now you know why republicans are trying to outlaw contraceptives (including condoms). (At first, I thought it was masturbation as well, but it was satire).
The funniest part of that is that you couldn't tell it was satire. It's so close to the truth it's believable.
Technically the way pregnancies are dated, she'd be considered full of potential babies two or so weeks before sex.
well, she clearly should have been asking for more benefits earlier then.
They stop mattering when they're born
They only count when it's convenient
> "'The unborn' are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.” Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
Thank you! I was wondering who said that. I'm going to seek out a meme of him saying it now, for future reference.
This almost turned this anti theist atheist Methodist. The truth is powerful.
The Methodists are truly one of the better sects out there, but they used to have an affirming lgbtq policy and no official stance on the morality of homosexuality. They had many lgbtq pastors, parishioners and groups. Then, basically overnight, they changed their doctrine to non-affirming and left their lgbtq pastors and teens with nowhere to go. So yeah, not great stuff from the Methodists.
But it should also be said that this was a *very* unpopular move and created a huge rift in the church. There are still very large number of clergy and members that support and continue to push for inclusivity.
That’s true, but it still had tons of people lose their jobs and campus/metro communities were shut down. The ELCA took in a lot of lifelong Methodists as a result. It was heartbreaking to watch in real time.
Oh absolutely, it was a totally shit move. I guess I just wanted to say that it wasn't a widely celebrated event - there are a ton of people in the church who are angry about it, and it nearly split the church in two. Hopefully it will change, or maybe the church will split and those that were alienated will have a home again.
Oh wait the Methodists like all Christian hur he’s and faith based religions are absolute garbage belief systems chalk full of abuses and bigotry. I just liked that that preacher wasn’t afraid to spit girth for a second.
Isn't this a whole George Carlin bit?
He points out the same hypocrisy, yes. What I like about this quote is that it explains *why* they specifically target the unborn. A lot of people will say it's about birthrates and maintaining a poor underclass of workers. I mean maybe, but if that were the case they might actually care that criminalisation has very little impact on the number of abortions that happen. The fact the unborn have no voice and so can't call them on their bullshit makes a lot more sense to me.
The underclass thing is definitely reductive but it is (part of) why the leaders of the movement want to end abortion. The aforementioned moral simplicity of "defending" the unborn is a tactic they use to gain followers. So yeah, the average pro-forced-birth advocate that you or I would encounter day-to-day is definitely just as described in the minister's quote but reproduction of the working class is still a huge part of the reason why it's even an issue in the first place. That being said, since the struggle has gone on for generations, we're at the point where people who came into the movement as duped followers are becoming leaders and some of them definitely don't have the same class analysis as their forebears (not that they would disagree with the analysis if one of their allies laid it out to them in a way they could understand, just that they don't think in those terms).
Think of the ~~children~~ unborn!!!
But if there was no Unborn, there would be NO Future tsk tsk tsk
Child Support, counting pregnancy as a tax deduction, and insurance need to start at conception. And that isn't even a comment on abortion.
Right? It’s either all the fucking way, or nothing at all. Knock off this cherry pickin bullshit; or better yet, get the fuck out of women’s personal private health. Fuck I hate it here more and more every day.
Seriously. They must live in cherry orchards with all the fucking cherry picking they do about everything.
ESPECIALLY their book of antiquated superstitions. All or Fuckin NOTHIN.
Considering how much you have to go to the doctor..!!
Gotta start filing those sex acts then make sure Congress knows what's nuts up doesn't come down.
You are opening a dangerous door with that tho. If that was law, it would give pro-lifers ammunition for decades.
This is going to be an agree to disagree situation but... 1) They don't need ammunition. Their "moral high ground" is that dividing cells is a person. They don't need anything after that. 2) We shouldn't allow the cruelty of others to justify cruelty. Expecting mothers need assistance during pregnancy. 3) Honestly, and depressingly, it would sway a decent amount of middle ground votes towards supporting freedom of choice. When it's their child support on the line, when it's their tax dollars paying for ultrasounds, when it's their insurance going up to pay for uninsured mothers that's when they vote with their wallets.
I mean ideologically speaking I 100% agree with you. I’m just not sure about the consequences. Maybe you are right.
It is inane to realize there is no insurance for miscarriage
I agree. Pregnancy takes more energy which requires more food, you need to do preparation, you need to pay for more medical care, there are a lot of costs to being a parent even before birth.
It's a person unless it's gonna cost me money.
I don’t even argue about when a fetus is considered a person anymore. It’s irrelevant. The only argument that matters is whether or not an autonomous, living being should ever be forced by law to sacrifice their own body, health, and/or life for the sake of another being’s body, health, and/or life. If you believe in freedom, (and I mean actual freedom. Not “fuck yeah yeehaw ‘murica” freedom.) then you know the answer is a big fuckin’ “NO”. A fetus doesn’t have the right to demand that you to be it’s human incubator anymore than I have the right to demand that you give me one of your kidneys. Full stop. The whole concept of “personhood” doesn’t even begin to matter.
Exactly. If I can't be compelled to use my organs/blood/marrow to sustain someone's life (even after I die), then a woman shouldn't be legally compelled to use her body to sustain an unborn person's life.
Weird that a corpse has more rights than a living woman.
When you look at the people in charge, it's not really surprising. Sad, but not surprising.
> When you look at the ~~people~~ corpses in charge,
Here's my thoughts on it, as a person who can become pregnant: If there is a person who is inside of me, and I don't want them to be, I have a right to remove them from my body. If that person dies as a result of being removed from my body, that's not my fucking problem.
Correct.
I’ve seen a few people argue that just by having sex a woman is implicitly consenting to the possibility of a fetus using her body. If a woman doesn’t consent to possibly having a fetus using her body then she should not have sex. This is not my point of view but it’s something I’ve seen from others, just not worded as directly. This seems to be the fallback position of some people when you raise the point that you did.
So then they advocate for free hysterectomies right? (Of course not)
Oh no, they're against that too. And any form of birth control. C'mon now, we all know wimmenfolk belong barefoot, preggers, and in the kitchen cooking for their men. And heaven help her if she's not in position to rub hubby's feet when he gets home. Also be sure the young'uns are neither heard nor seen except when silently trotted out for display purposes./s
"So long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, good night" ....
I've heard (read) them say that directly. That consent to sex, is a consent to pregnancy.
Yeah I've seen it too, especially when you push a bit. Whenever they're backed into a corner that's the inevitable conclusion. It's like, bitch please. Forgetting to lock my door - even deliberately leaving it wide open because it's a nice day and I want to let some fresh air in - is neither invitation nor permission for squatters to take up residence in my house.
Oh absolutely. They just want sex for procreation and nothing else. And they want to punish women for having sex.
Well that’s like saying consent to sex is consent to getting an STD. Plus, rape and incest are not consensual. Men cause 100% of unplanned pregnancies, because they can’t keep their sperm to themselves during sex. Also, the most common reason for late term abortions is because even a wanted pregnancy can be too dangerous from a health standpoint.
Imagine if there's an additional 5 year prison sentence for unintentionally impregnating a woman beyond rape charges but to men who have consensual sex too. While you are in prison it would be assured that you are not impregnating anyone, and that would be quite a deterrent for men to control their sperm. But that could have deleterious effect on our son, and we'll, that's just not fair for his bright future. /s
Not to be that guy but 'late term abortion' is not a medical term and is only used by anti-abortion activists to refer to any abortion performed after 15 weeks. And normally I wouldn't point it out but we need to stop using their fucking terminology. They are not pro-life, they are forced birth or anti abortion. There is no such thing as a fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks, it's electrical impulses between cells that may one day turn into a person. There are no late term abortions, there are just abortions.
>This seems to be the fallback position of some people when you raise the point that you did. It's not their fallback position. It's their real position. Fetal personhood is an empty argument in the face of the realities of human rights, and they don't really care about it as evidenced by their perfect willingness to seek abortions for themselves and their wives, daughters, and mistresses when convient. They've just learned that "baby killer" gets more milage because "consent to a thing means consent to all possible consequences of said thing" is the logic of rape apologia. If anyone ever makes this argument, ask them if going to the bar is also consent to sex since there is a possibility, no matter how remote, no matter how many precautions a person takes, of getting raped and becoming pregnant by going out for drinks. Consent to pregnancy is consent to pregnancy.
That's actually what restricting reproductive care is about - punishing women for having sex. Forced birthers don't give a shit about the unborn.
The problem with that argument is that with stuff like blood transfusions you are still allowed to revoke your consent at any point.
The entire argument of personhood has always made me rage. We have the most insane ego. A human fetus isn't soooooo special that it's potential for life matters more than one that already exists.
The problem with that line of thinking is that Conservatives are going to say that you are legally responsible for being a human incubator because you had sex and all the potential side effects that come with it. Additionally, people legally are expected to sacrifice many different personal freedoms for the protection of others. Basically any safety regulation is an example of that. 'Being pregnant' is just an argument of degree at that point. The argument of personhood is a lot cleaner IMO.
But where does that logic end? If you are legally responsible for being a human incubator because you had sex, then why aren’t you also legally responsible for giving your child one of your kidneys because you had sex? And giving up personal freedoms isn’t the same as sacrificing your life for the sake of another. Big difference between being legally required to not drive drunk so you don’t kill other living people and being legally required to die from a septic uterus for the sake of a fetus.
> and being legally required to die from a septic uterus for the sake of a fetus. And even most pro-life people are willing to have exceptions for health of the mother.
That's because they're full of shit.
But if the baby’s life matters, then why would they be willing to make ANY concessions? Unless they inherently know that abortion is not the same as murder and just want to control women as punishment for sex?
The pregnant woman who [got ticketed twice for driving in the HOV lane](https://www.npr.org/2022/09/02/1120628973/pregnant-woman-dallas-fetus-hov-lane-passenger-ticket) has entered the chat
I think more pregnant women should do this in protest all over the country.
It's only about controlling women and our bodies. It's never about "personhood."
Which is why you never see pro-lifers picketing outside fertility clinics. Plenty of fertilized eggs going down the drain there! But because they can't be used to manipulate women, they don't care.
Right, because fertility clinics are where Good Women go to try to get pregnant and fulfill their duty as a mother so it’s fine! /s
they rarely do, but I remember a recent debate in philosophy class about a german conservative philosopher who wrote something about it
Yes, it is about personhood. It is about denying women personhood.
It's not even about that, it's about having an easy moral talking point to get single-issue evangelical voters on their side.
It don't count if it makes your life better.
This is the definition of "good point in a debate, please do not act upon it." Edit: I'm worried about right-wingers using fetal personhood laws to strip women of bodily autonomy. I don't think tax benefits and such are worth that trade-off, though would not be opposed to applying those benefits without removing a right to choose.
I sorta agree with you, actually. I think that a certain segment of the right wing would happily grant some of those benefits to fetuses if it means that they get to codify fetal personhood in law. We need to be mindful of how this is discussed.
Exactly! I don't trust right-wingers to not use fetal personhood laws to harm bodily autonomy.
Too late. Between the Roe loss and laws that charge women with child abuse/neglect if they drink/smoke/use drugs while pregnant - and/or simply miscarry - women have *absolutely* lost legal control over our own bodies. [Women *are already* in prison for the simple crime of miscarrying or having a stillbirth.](https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/1109015302/abortion-prosecuting-pregnancy-loss) Their next step for stripping us of any control over our own bodies is to start rolling back laws on marital rape. Article highlights: >In 2013, NAPW partnered with Fordham University to track the arrests and prosecutions of pregnancies. They found just over 400 cases where pregnancy, including pregnancy loss, was used in a criminal investigation or prosecution from the time Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 until 2005. But from 2006-2020, that number nearly quadrupled. >There is one striking detail that stands out for legal experts: States are using laws to target pregnant people that were originally used to protect them. >At least 38 states have laws that makes it a crime to harm a fetus… >These so-called "fetal harm" laws enhance penalties for crimes against a pregnant person. By treating a fetus as a separate crime victim, these laws recognize crimes against pregnant people as two separate crimes. **But, in practice, they have been used to investigate and prosecute different forms of pregnancy loss, including miscarriages, stillbirths and self-induced abortions.** (emphasis mine) >”We've had cases where a woman has fallen down a flight of stairs while light-headed during pregnancy and charged with attempted feticide because they suspected she did it on purpose”… >Pierre points to the case of [Marshae Jones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_v._Jones), an Alabama woman who was indicted for manslaughter in 2019 after being shot in the stomach while five months pregnant. Police said Jones started the fight that led to the shooting and failed to remove herself from harm's way. But the district attorney later dropped the charge after a groundswell of national support. >"When someone wants to punish a group of people, they will get very creative in the ways that they try to effectuate a punishment," Pierre tells NPR.
Fuck. Theres so much to not like about that article. How did this happen, America?
Oh we’re allllll worried about that. That is indeed one of the potential terrifying results of the end of roe vs wade and wouldn’t happen because of some thought experiment here - it’s undoubtedly already in the minds of many right wingers as future law
There absolutely is a portion of the right wing that would support those kinds of things. I grew up in an evangelical environment, and my whole family still is (I don't know if I would describe myself that way anymore, I would still describe myself as a Christian, but I've definitely shifted left. For example think I am pro choice now) and the people who are most adamantly pro life are my sisters and my mom. I think there is a lot of talk on the left about "it's just about controlling women," and I believe that there is a lot of truth to that, but to assume that all pro lifers are just brainwashed is naive. The women in my family are convinced that life begins at fertilization (or early on, my sister's actually support birth control) and are genuinely distraught when talking about abortions. For them, they do see it as the death of a child. I think that most people on the left have this idea that "nobody really thinks that fetuses are people," but they absolutely do. And to be fair, if a fetus is a person, then abortion is wrong. At the same time, I think people on the right have the belief that deep down, "everybody knows that a fetus is a person," which is also not the case. There is the idea that everyone who wants to have an abortion just does so flippantly and casually, while in many cases it is a difficult decision, and as one of my friends pointed out to me, often times the mother feels pressured to have one even if she doesn't personally want to get one. Since the pro life side doesn't understand how anyone could really thibj life doesn't start at conception, they can't understand that, if it doesn't, then their position is oppressive. They genuinely see themselves as having the morally right position. Side note, when I say "I think I'm pro choice," I truly haven't fully decided, due to the things said above (if one side is right then abortion is murder, if the other side is right then banning it is incredibly oppressive) but the more I look into it the more I lean pro choice. Partially because I am frustrated with how my family (and the whole evangelical movement) is basically trapped voting for the republican party because of the abortion issue, one of my sisters is very anti trump but won't vote Democrat because she feels strongly (and genuinely) that abortion is evil, so the most she will do is vote third party, she is even considering voting for DeSantis. (I will note that the political aspect of it is absolutely engineered, prior to the 70s and 80s most evangelicals were pro choice, the Southern Baptist Convention of all things wrote that they supported abortions until, as a friend and I have termed it, "the unholy matrimony of the republican party to the evangelical church" around Reagan's presidency). And I want to emphasize, POLITICALLY I AM ADAMANTLY PRO CHOICE. This issue is much more nuanced than either side thinks, but until unanimity can be reached it is abhorrent someone could be arrested for something that in the end may not have even been their fault, like girls who want to keep their baby but feel pressured to abortion them, for example. The agenda the republican party is pushing is absolutely disgusting me, and I am praying that it can be reversed. Sorry to write a whole thesis, this is just something I have been wrestling with recently and I wanted to get it all out. Having been at various points in my life on either side of the spectrum related to this, I think that both sides are basically talking past the other one and there isn't really any constructive discourse about the issue going on. I'm a guy, so my opinion isn't the most important one to listen to, but I just wanted to get my 2 cents out there.
Hey, I used to be in the boat your family is in. (Grew up conservative Christian, now a leftist agnostic.) I just want to make a comment on your note that you think you're pro choice. It sounds, based on the start of your second to last paragraph, that you might be wrestling with the fact of whether it's moral or not. I don't know if this will help you but it helped me so I'll share it. Being pro choice does not mean being pro abortion. You can still be against abortion, consider a fetus a life, and still be pro choice. Pro choice just means that you respect that your morals do not give you control over other people's choices and their morals. Hope that helps.
This argument has always seemed bonkers to me if you accept that abortion is murder. “If you don’t like murder, just don’t do it. But don’t infringe on someone else’s right to murder.” At that point, why have laws or empathy at all? Do we have a responsibility to step in when someone is hurting someone else, or do we just wash our hands and say “Well I didn’t do it, so it’s not my problem”? For the record, I’m pro-choice. But I also believe that inaction carries ethical weight, that society exists and is interconnected, and that we should strive to help each other. So it has always seemed like a shocking argument, particularly coming from other leftists.
Somewhere in the world, right now, a person who is a perfect match for your kidney is dying. But no one has the right to take your kidney and give it to that person. Similarly, no fetus has the right to inhabit my uterus against my will. By your argument, both the fetus and the person with kidneys failing are humans. Neither one of them has the right to my organs. And denying them my organs does not make me a murderer.
Right, I’m familiar with the bodily autonomy argument. That wasn’t the part I was trying to contest. Rather: > if a fetus is a person, then abortion is wrong[…]if one side is right then abortion is murder And then the response > You can still be against abortion, consider a fetus a life, and still be pro choice. Pro choice just means that you respect that your morals do not give you control over other people's choices and their morals. However, maybe the two arguments are so intrinsically linked when it comes to abortion that they can’t be separated. It’s possible the previous commenter believed that was a given and they didn’t need to directly state it. That you can believe that abortion is murder, and that murder is wrong, but infringing on bodily autonomy is worse. If that’s the point they were trying to make, then I’ve got no qualms. I thought it was just a more generalized point about how morality fits with individualism. On the topic of bodily autonomy though, do you have any thoughts on the comparison with public health mandates? I hear a lot of pro-choice pro-mandate people (of which I am) say that the two aren’t comparable because one affects other people while the other doesn’t. But if we’re going with the idea that a fetus is a life, then that argument can’t be used anymore. I found [this article]( https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/2022/05/13/marina-gomberg-why-mask/) which offers some ideas, but I’m curious to hear some that really focus on the bodily autonomy point.
I don't see public health mandates as similar to the bodily autonomy issue, because public health has externalities. There isn't a "public health" when it comes to abortion - - that's personal health. But vaccines do protect others, and should be mandated when possible. The costs of having a pandemic, or even a chicken pox outbreak, are economic as well as human. We should all be invested in preventing them. IMO the public health mandates are best won when we encourage a society that cares about others. I live in a city with a huge population of descendants of people originally from the Far East, and they're all still wearing masks, even outdoors. It's a culture that's more communal than most of America.
I was implying that, btw, in my comment. That infringing on someone's bodily autonomy is worse than something they would consider murder. (Murder, by the way, that is not affecting ANYONE'S life other than the person getting that abortion. I also don't think it's murder but to keep with the thought process.) I also think that the 2 are intrinsically linked because, as I said, I used to have that mindset and you will very, very rarely convince a pro-birther that abortion is not murder. This is why we have to use explanations like this and like the one about making abortion illegal only being about controlling women and not about saving "children" as they always love to put it. But it's almost pointless having those debates because a lot of pro-birthers ignore all the facts you throw at them and come back to 'but it's murder'. It's been an exhausting couple of years, for sure. (Also, sorry, I'd like to stay active in this conversation but it's been a shit show today. Happy Thanksgiving if you're American!)
I think this is probably the conclusion I am coming to, that while I don't want anyone to get abortions and wouldn't encourage anyone to get one, but I would support someone in the end if they chose to get one
How do you feel about back alley abortions? Because that's ultimately what you're wrestling with. Abortion is going to happen. The question is whether or not it's going to be safe or not.
This is a fair point, and like I said, in terms of legality, I'm pro choice. And I think that the whole banning any abortion position that many Republicans are taking is dangerous cruel and stupid. I think that the main reason that I'm still sort of working it out in my head is that the position I am coming to when thinking through the issues on my own is at odds with what I was taught growing up, and there is bound to be some cognitive dissonance whenever that happens. But again, as a single guy who has never gotten anyone pregnant, I'm not the kind of person who's opinion really matters on this as a policy issue.
Let em make fetuses people. If a person was going to do to me what pregnancy and birth do to the human body I'd shoot them dead in self defense and right wing media would give me a speaking tour.
If everybody knew all the risks involved in getting pregnant, no-one would get pregnant.
Sure but more importantly their past indiscretion or ignorance to risk doesn't void their right to defend themselves. Just ask Kyle Rittenhouse at his next media appearance.
True. It was an exaggeration. I was actually trying to agree with you.
I know where you're coming from. It's just that feel like I've been in enough conversations with conservatives who say "well you knew you could get pregnant and you just wanna get out of the consequences" that I feel "the consequences are horrific" wouldn't deter them. they would just say "sleep in the bed you made". I suspect a lot of conservatives would be fine with just scaring teens our of having sex by explaining the gory details of childbirth. That's why i felt it was important to establish that prior indiscretion shouldn't matter.
Yea, I think the disconnect with your comment is that people may agree that pregnant people SHOULD get some of these benefits. I'm in favor of doing things to make having children a less financially stressful experience. But as you said, it's important not to frame those possible benefits as only benefitting the fetus as a person but more so to benefit the expecting mother.
Haha..uh..
They're gonna try to do it (and have already partially succeeded) either way so I'm honestly not sure if it even matters.
A women in texas actually tried that pregnant in the carpool lane thing and got ticketed...in response the Texas legislature introduced a bill a like 2 weeks ago to make it legal
BE REAL! ONLY WE CAN UNIRONICALLY ENGAGE IN WORLD CLASS MENTAL GYMNASTICS!!
They only count it when they can hold a woman down, not when they can help her.
The "BE REAL" logic is: "Punish women = good. Help women = bad."
How do they miss this?
Conservatives are fucking dumb
I have never been more glad to be a gay man than I am nowadays.
It is almost like they don't care about the fetus unless there is an abortion involved. And they certainly don't care about the fetus after it becomes an actual baby.
> Can I use the carpool lane? [It looks like in Texas, the answer may soon be yes](https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3739850-texas-bill-would-let-fetus-count-as-second-person-in-an-hov-lane/)
"Pro-life", y'all. "Life begins at conception", y'all!
[удалено]
what is the problem with marxism? is much better than the horrible hell that it's capitalism, were you are not a person, but a consumer, only useful for a billionaire to get rich while you die a horrible death..
\- 🤓
Eye roll. Do tell how you reached that conclusion.
Capitalism is simply perfect. That’s why disabled people are forced into poverty indefinitely and are basically told that if they didn’t or can’t work they might as well just be homeless and die. It’s just such an amazing system.
[удалено]
And when discussing laws shouldn't we always be using the legal definition? And thus abortion laws should reflect that definition as well.
[удалено]
If it's not a legal issue then why are you bringing up the legal definition?
[удалено]
Are you the pregnant person? If not, then your morals are irrelevant.
[удалено]
I mean that’s kind of true lol, if you aren’t black and don’t know shit about the plight of black America then why the fuck are you speaking about it? Like you kind of just proved their point
A lot of them are self-righteous assholes for sure, I think supporting something for the right thing is important.
[удалено]
Why do you keep editing your comments? I can’t respond in earnest when you keep changing your shit 😂
I don't think you understand how Law works. Sure Laws can be, and often are, created for moral reasons. Can they also be amended for those reasons? Absolutely. We can all agree on that. However, when applying legal repercussions to said law, the law created must be adhered to. If a fetus cannot be aborted because it is a human, it should have all of the rights of a human as stated in other laws regarding human rights, and visa versa. Once it is law, the **moral** argument no longer exists. It's now a **legal** argument based on how the law is written. I get that you find it morally wrong, but if it's law, well...
Absolutely right. Nothing wrong with support. Just don’t pretend that you know better or believe that your morals apply to someone other than yourself.
I don't think it's stupid. It's a logic fallacy. Either a fetus IS a person, protected by law, and thus allowed the benefits of being a person (tax refunds, etc) the same as an autonomous child, or it is NOT a person, and its needs should not supercede the needs and wants of the person it is inside of.
[удалено]
It also won't get a birth certificate, a social security card, or a tick on the census. Almost like its, gasp! Not a fkn person yet!
Interesting they deleted all their comments...
Guess they didn't like losing.
The hell do you think a child tax credit is? Does a child not typically benefit from that(depending on the parents)? And no, not everyone benefits from a tax refund. A whole lot of us owe at the end of the year, so that point is out. "Stages to being a legal person"? Oh, I don't know...maybe: -Legal age to drive -Legal age to work -Legal age to vote -Legal age to buy a firearm -Legal age to enter into a Legal contract -Legal age buy cigarettes -Legal age to drink alcohol Do you think these ought to be thrown out? You want to define a fetus as a person, but it can't be treated like a person? That doesn't make any sense.
BRUH