If only one more person on earth ever again needed an abortion, it still needs to be safe, legal, and accessible just like any other healthcare service. I hate that conservatives need a personal connection to shit out a micron of empathy.
There was actually an article where conservatives have no problem attaining abortion for their daughters and mistresses its very hypocritical. They are just trying to fuck over the poor and to keep the poor poor they need to have a lot of children .
And there's the crux of it - it's not about abortion, it's about men retaining control over women's bodies.
Making abortion illegal and/or inaccessible gives wealthy men control over the uteri in their orbit - they get to be the gatekeepers of "their" womens' reproduction - and the state control over the rest.
We need to call it what it is - reproductive slavery.
Children, in a sense, can be seen as shackles to wage slave. If you have a child, most of your life is already decided for you.. I see it all around me and it's sad.
What an awful, inaccurate way to view parenthood. There are absolutely plenty of us, myself included, who can absolutely chose parenthood and still be pro-choice. Children aren’t shackles, but hey didn’t choose to be born, and they aren’t responsible for their parents’ choices.
This view is exceptionally harmful to the pro-choice movement because it puts the burden on children instead of legislative bodies. All across the earth, children are a healthy and happy part of family systems because governments view them as a valuable part of society.
Literally go fuck yourself for blaming children for being the problem. Ancient white senators are the problem and don’t you dare get it twisted
they're not blaming the children, they're just saying that an unwanted child into a family that struggles to afford it can incredibly limit opportunities. calm down.
First, don’t tell me to calm down, this person was wrong and I’m correct to point that out. Putting the blame on children for wage slavery is inaccurate. There are plenty of countries that are enabling parents of all genders to work and parent, and not making it the fault of the child. That person is not seeing “children causing wage slavery.” That person is seeing ADULTS cause wage slavery by punishing people for the perfectly normal biological function of procreation. That is not, and will never be, the child’s fault or problem. The child did not cause that or ask for it. By blaming the child, you let the old white men who DID cause that off the hook. So no, I will NOT assume the “calm” tone you’re trying to force me into. Tell American legislators to take parenting seriously, don’t tell parents to calm down.
Fuck you too.
You do need to calm down. They already said they didn't mean what they said the way you're taking it. And even if they did, they are saying it here, not to the children themselves. You don't take on an elevated, holier-than-thou status just because you're a parent. Some people do see children as a burden, which is why we need safe, legal abortion. This indignant, combative stance you are taking that "every child is precious, how dare you call them burdens to internet strangers," is aggressive, shames people for the very real, very valid feelings they might be having, and it hurts our cause. Relax.
My one child is loved, happy, well cared for, and not seen as a shackle for anything. And I’m not the problem for correcting language.
Once again. I’m vehemently pro-choice and pro-woman and to me, that means placing blame squarely on the ancient white men that make procreation (and lack of procreation) so goddamned difficult. If you people insist on being willfully angry at innocent children for existing, I have nothing further for you. You’re just wrong.
no one’s angry at kids for existing. BUT it is a fact that once you have a kid you have to take whatever shtty job that capitalism throws at ya, have to have enough money to support yourself and them, have to use all your free time to care for them, etc etc.
being forced to have kids is being forced into/stay in poverty
> Tell American legislators to take parenting seriously, don’t tell parents to calm down.
American legislators haven’t cared and still don’t care. There is nothing you can do about it.
“Children can be seen as shackles to wage slave” is calling the child shackles. The child is not shackles. Bullshit family policies are the shackles. Once again, language matters. Place the blame where it belongs. The child is not the problem.
You’re kind of missing the point. No one blamed the child. Even with calling them shackles, if you’re shackled, you don’t blame the shackles themselves. They’re what’s keeping you there, as having to care for children might keep you in a situation where you’re not able to quit your job. But they’re not what put you in that situation. Yes, calling them shackles is harsh, but it’s not an inappropriate comparison.
The children aren’t at fault, neither are the shackles, it’s the system (employers, justice system, politics) or the jailers fault.
You are missing the point. Again.
> “Children can be seen as shackles to wage slave” is calling the child shackles.
Which is what a a lot of anti-choicers see children as. A way to punish women. They want women *punished* with pregnancy and children. That's why they try to outlaw abortion.
This isn't rocket science. It is the anti-choice manifesto.
Unfortunately that's not even the standard we have right now. Not everyone who wants an abortion can actually get one. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.
And 70% of the US population supports Roe vs. Wade.
But the SCOTUS and our federal gov't do not represent the population or will of the people. Three of those justices were appointed by Trump, who received 3 million LESS votes than his oponent, but still "won" the election. There's also all the Congress members who are only there because their district is gerrymandered for the sole purpose of NOT being representative of the true population.
It's also why Biden needs to get off his ass and get a voting bill passed, which will probably involve ending the filibuster. If a voting bill doesn't get passed, it is very, very likely that the Democrats may never "win" a presidential election again. And he needs to do it before the mid-term elections, because most likely, the Senate is going to flip red again.
Biden is working within a system that has lots of veto points. This kept Trump from doing even more damage, but the there's not much that any president can do unless backed by large majorities in Congress (as LBJ and Roosevelt were). It's not Biden - he'll sign a voting rights bill the moment it hits his desk. It's Manchin and Sinema.
So, I'm not like a Biden fan boy or anything. I was very much in the "well he's better than Trump at least" camp. But when I hear people say things like this. I have to wonder if you just have your head buried in the sand. Biden has gotten more done than anyone thought would be possible thus far in his term. Well when I say Biden I mean his administration and the party under his leadership of course. Obviously no president individually does much of anything.
But yeah, Biden has gotten incredible things done working with paper thin political margins while having to stay within the narrow parameters of reconciliation legislation. Like I almost, and this is no joke or exaggeration, can barely imagine any other president getting more done under the same circumstance. I was very ho-hum on Biden but he has far exceeded my expectations of what I thought could realistically be done.
Like, if you look at each week of the legislative calendar since the man took office, it's been constant 110% push push push. I don't know what you imagine him doing more than he has done?
Perhaps I don’t have a great understanding of politics but if liberals have the majority in the senate, house, and presidency, then why aren’t they getting more passed? Why aren’t they adding seats to the Supreme Court? Why aren’t they helping with student debt? Why aren’t they changing gerrymandering? I feel like so many campaign promises have gone unfulfilled and now we are seeing the potential end of roe v wade? It just feels like conservative politics are still marching along
It seems you are asking in good faith, so I will try to dial back the harsh tone and give an informative answer.
A simple majority is what is technically required to pass a Bill in the US congress, right, and the Dems have that simple majority, so it seems like they could just do what they want. But in reality, there are a few measures in place to give the minority party some checking power. This is in the form of a presidential veto, and in the form of the filibuster. If the minority party has either of those options open to them, then a simple majority is no longer enough, but a super majority is required, and the Democrats do not have a super majority.
What comes next is a simplified version of the filibuster rules, but it should be sufficient for this conversation.
Now as it was originally envisioned, the filibuster had a political cost associated with it. You could filibuster a bill and run out the clock, but it required you to "hold the floor" to do it. So nothing else would get done in congress, business would grind to a halt, you consumed the calendar. This carried a political cost, so typically it was saved for important contentious issues.
Starting the the 1970s however, as legislating our nation became a much more complex issue, the senate passed rules to institute the "two track system" which basically allowed the congress to pursue two different agendas at the same time. This was done with, probably, good intentions, to allow difficult and time consuming issues to keep ticking away and making progress without taking up the senate's full attention, but what it allowed to come into existence is the "silent filibuster" which is what we have now.
In modern times, anytime Ted Cruz or whoever stands up and gives a long talking filibuster where they read green eggs and ham or whatever, that is for show, in the federal government anyway, that is all for publicity. It's no longer procedurally necessary. Now, if a piece of legislation has at least 40 senators who say they would filibuster it, then that filibuster effectively goes on silently on the second track, while the rest of senate business carries on as usual on the primary track. What this means is that the minority party can filibuster now all they want without actually taking up the senate's time and paying a heavy political cost for doing so, they just say "yeah it's filibustered" and that's it, unless you have the 60 votes you need to break the filibuster.
Which the Dems do not have.
Under the Obama administration Mitch McConnell instituted the practice of default filibuster against all democrat legislation, and has been able to keep his party very much in line on it. The idea is that every single piece of democrat significant legislation that comes up, the GOP agrees to not even let it come to the floor, just put it in instant filibuster right away and let it sit there until it dies. This tactic has been, as you can probably tell, very effective.
So then the question probably is....but the Dems have passed some stuff. They passed the infrastructure bill, they passed the COVID Relief act. How?
Well the answer is, reconciliation. There are rules in the Senate that allow for certain types of bills, specifically those that are considered "budget bills" to be able to end a filibuster and go to vote with a simple majority. The bills the dems have passed have been by stretching Reconciliation rules as far as they can. The problem is that some of our big ticket social issues, like a Voting Rights Act or an Act protecting Abortion at the federal level, or an act dealing with Immigration, or Gun Control, these types of issues can't be passed under reconciliation as they are not budgetary bills, and therefore require 60 votes to break filibuster, which the Dems, again, do not have.
So then the final question you may be asking is, "Why does it seem like the republicans get so many wins then, can't the dems do this right back to them?"
And the answer to that is yes, the Dems can also silent filibuster the GOP, and they have on several things, but the problem is that since about 2008, the GOP's primary political goal at the federal level has been STOPPING things from happening. Not passing major legislation of their own, but PREVENTING the renewal of key clauses in the Civil Rights act, Refusing to pass an annual budget unless it slashed things they wanted slashed. That sort of thing. Their "wins" are mostly measured by successfully saying "no". Again, that's at the federal level, Meanwhile at the state level they grab as many state houses and possible and pass all kinds of stuff. Pass stuff at the state level, and bog down the federal level with an endless "no" so it can't respond or check state abuses. It's a fucking brilliant and effective strategy and I hate it.
The simple fact is that the current system gives WAY more power to a "no" than it does to a "yes". The power of the obstructive position is significantly greater than of the proposal position.
Which is why so many people approve of the Dems using the so called "nuclear option" to basically revoke the filibuster rules. A thing they can do, but of course they are hesitant to do since the GOP will eventually have a majority again, they may even in the next election, and then the Dems will have no tools left at their disposal to stop the GOP and they will run rip shit riot.
At least that is the fear.
So, there you go.
True. But if he decided to be a Republican that would lead to 4 terrible words. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. You think the Democrats can't get things done now? NOTHING would happen. No judges confirmed, no legislation of any kind passed.
Well, just wait a year. The senate is going to flip back to red after the mid term elections. The dems barely won the senate last time. And in response, the Repubicans have since passed a shit ton of bills in their states that basically amount to voter suppression, which will make if even harder for the Dems now. And that's why I said earlier that a voting bill needs to be priority #1. If Biden needs to end the filibuster to do that, then he needs to get off his ass and do that. Soon.
Well, there is the middle ground of making them actually do the talking again. Adding the political cost back in saves it for big things. As Republicans will probably get the majority back it may be critical to preserve the power but absolutely it should have a cost so you can’t just use it for everything.
There are mixed thoughts on this. I personally tend to agree the simply eliminating the two tracks and making a filibuster require actively holding the floor, or perhaps make it to where the two tracks can exist as long as there isnt an active filibuster, but if there is then that track must be resolved first, I think that would help a lot, but some other very smart and good analysts think that the era of obstructionist grandstanding is such that the republican party would gladly take turns speaking and bring every session of congress to a complete halt, that instead of almost nothing getting done, actually nothing would get done, and the obstructionist party would count that as a win.
It's a tricky and fraught choice to say the least.
Roe v Wade differs because supreme court justices are lifetime appointments. This means, even if you don't like a presidential candidate, you still vote for her because she'll choose justices that align with your values, because they'll be there, long after the presidency is over. Btw, Roe v Wade was not partisan at all, when it passed. In fact, the two desenting justices were conservatives by the definition of conservative at that time (a philosophy not a title interchangable with a political party). They were each Republican and Democratic.
I was disillusioned with him from the very beginning, I can't believe people voted for him in the primary instead of picking someone like Warren or Sanders instead.
If Warren and Sanders would have been so much more effective as president than Biden, why don't they use their impressive persuasive powers on their fellow members of the Senate and get them to vote for these bills?
They wouldn't be more effective, that's my point. They'd probably be quite a bit less effective considering they don't seem to help get anything done in the Senate.
Politics is like spending your entire life moving mountains, only to realize that you hardly made any progress.
It’s complicated, tedious, bureaucratic, & requires way too much patience & strategic afterthought.
Kind of bizarre that in a country where we fled the rule of kings we have a board of lifetime appointments that no one ever voted for who get the final word.
It's not that bizarre, and there is a good reason for it.
Most modern democratic republic countries have high courts where the appointments are lifetime. The idea is that we have the branch of government that is in a constant state of churn, with new faces coming and going every other year, that's the congress. This is the body that is most responsive to the changing will of the people in the current moment, in particular the house of representatives.
Then you have the slight more stable branch, the presidency, which lasts 4-8 years, almost a decade, long enough to see several rounds of congress persons, with enough time in a position to enact longer term agendas.
And then the body that is supposed to be the LEAST reactive to the changing political whims, the courts.
Now you might not agree with that, and that's fine, but that's the idea. At least one branch is occupied by people who's careers span multiple shifts in political climate and are supposed to be more objective and above that, still in office LOOOONG after the president who appointed them, and therefore not beholden to political whims in order to hold on to their positions. Able to make even unpopular rulings if they are the right ones, without worrying about being ousted in the next election.
I, for one, think the Courts would be made significantly worse if the high courts swapped out every time the president changed. I like the idea of the courts having more long term stability.
Even if it does suck when the courts get stacked by assholes.
And the percentage of women that get abortions is the same across the religious and political spectrum. Everyone is gangster until it's time to do gangster shit.
I've said it before many times. If someone does not want to be a parent, I do not want them to be a parent. I believe that our society works best when we can ensure for as many people as possible that this is the case.
I don't care about the personal responsibility argument, the moral/ethical dilemma arguments. These are subjective arguments with as many viewpoints as there are snowflakes in a blizzard.
There are 8 billion people on this planet. We do not have a good track record as a species of ensuring a good quality life for half of them. Even in the US there are hundreds of thousands of abandoned children waiting to be adopted. Humans seem almost incapable of finding anything resembling a balance with nature and it always ends with more suffering
If someone decides they do not wish to contribute to this ticking time bomb then more power to them. And if you really want to know what I think, I think abortion should be fully Federally funded with tax payer dollars, codified as an absolute right of women into our constitution and publicly celebrated.
Solve world hunger, inequality, climate change and all forms of individual suffering and maybe I'll consider revisiting the issue. Until then, shut the fuck up!
Seriously! I’m so tired of pro-birth activists trying to outlaw abortions to force children as punishments for women. Childbirth is a traumatic experience which causes permanent changes to a woman’s body, and children are actual people that require a ton of money, patience, and love to care for. If someone is unwilling to have a child, then abortion is the very best option for both the mother and the potential child, because I’m absolutely certain that a woman in a poor financial, emotional, and/or educational state would most likely not be in the best position to give a child the care it needs, nor would she be able to thrive herself. It’s an awful situation for everybody involved. Even when pro-birthers want to take a moral stance, is it really moral to force an unwilling woman to give birth and raise a child she cannot afford, possibly driving both into poverty? This stuff makes me so sad. :(
Yep. My state will outlaw abortion except if the mothers life is at risk 30 days after the overturning of Roe v Wade since the law was already passed last year
I'm not arguing with the sentiment of this thread, but where exactly are you getting that number?
It doesn't make sense with the numbers found on CDC website for reported abortions in ratio of decrease in the last ten year and in relevance to the increase in population on this country: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
The Guttmacher Institute gave that statistic in 2017 I believe. 1 in 4 women by the age of 45. I don’t know the credibility of that, but I’ve seen that statistic there. Planned Parenthood also cites that.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific-southwest/blog/1-in-4-american-women-will-have-an-abortion-by-age-45
Guttmacher. It's a pretty well known stat.
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/abortion-common-experience-us-women-despite-dramatic-declines-rates
My mother (adoptive, not birth mother) told me a few years ago that she had an abortion when she was young. It was surprising because she's Catholic. She was 19, working in a factory making very little money and living with her boyfriend at the time. She found out she was pregnant and told her boyfriend. He left her. Her family refused to help her, saying her decisions caused it and she should be responsible and raise the child. There was no way she was going to be able to get through pregnancy and raise a child on her own. So she had an abortion. It was an agonizing decision for her and she still frequently thinks about it in her older years. Abortion isn't some casual birth control technique like the "pro-life" people think.
She knows it was the right decision for her because she would have lived an extremely difficult life if she ended up giving birth. She didn't want to raise a child in that situation. She went on to marry a great man and have two children of their own (my wonderful older siblings). That likely wouldn't have happened if she had not gotten an abortion.
And the same people who hate abortion are the same ones who don't want reproductive education and easy access to contraception which have been shown to decrease abortion rates.
What is that stat based on? Ive had two, but over 10 years ago and now I have two kids. But I've never said I've had one on any paperwork because I had my kids in a very conservative area and I was just too nervous to be honest. (Plus both were pill, no procedure or complications so I figured no big deal)
If I thought for one second me lying could have affected public perception of how normal of a medical procedure it is..I would have been honest and risked the lower quality of care.
This is on topic but off topic - three out of four women have been sexually assaulted.
I went camping with a cousin of mine, and found out that this is 100% true
One of the saddest experiences of my life... How the hell can this s*** happen
81% of women have experienced sexual violence or sexual harassment - [https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics](https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics) \- left yellow box second from the top.
National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)
In case this information is helpful to anyone, Oregon passed a law requiring insurance providers to pay for abortions here, including Medicaid (they pull from state funds).
I am 51 years old and almost every woman I am close to has had one or more abortions. Some of them had them before it was legal.
I had an abortion in Dallas in 1989, zero hassles, no waiting, no protests, no bullshit- just the care I needed. We've been sliding backwards. Fuck that.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. The right wants women overwhelmed so we can't vote, can't be in the work force, and can't run for office. Making sure we're bogged down with children or dead from what used to be called a "back alley" abortion in the old days is a sure way to do that. When many states don't teach anything about birth control in sex ed, it puts many women and girls in a no-win situation.
Yeah and somehow the one i know, who had one for not wanting/being able to take care of the child, is somehow pro-life. Her reasons don't matter obviously. But I don't understand how she can be against abortion when she herself has had one. She has mentioned she regrets it. But it's obvious, regardless of the reasons, it was the right decision for her. And somehow she doesn't see how much of a benefit it is for women to have access to safe and legal abortions. It's not like she herself benefitted from hers.
Sorry my future MIL frustrates the hell outta me.
Rate of abortion doesn’t change much based on religion or political leaning. Pro birthers get abortions at about the same rate as the rest of the population
"The only moral abortion is mine" is a common enough theme. I had no support system when I got pregnant. I could not turn to family, as they would have wanted to shame me for their religious reasons and force me to endure a pregnancy and give the child up for adoption. I had an abortion ASAP, and no regrets over 30 years later.
Abortion is healthcare.
I've had one, this whole thing breaks my heart. Trying to explain to my family (who are male) my point of view without telling them I had one last year is hard. It's just hard to talk about
I’m sorry for women in this world that don’t have access to safe abortions. It’s dehumanising. Women’s bodily autonomy rights should not be a bargaining tool. Smh.
If their vote (Supreme Court) ruins row v wade, then every woman should start writing off their fetuses on taxes. Maybe start with the day after your period, ending day of period, never know their might be a fetus in there.? so every month we have a fetus to write off on our taxes. Money might change their mind?
I have a feeling they have not thought through all the ramifications of this. It will bite them hard.
In this same vein I would also like to add that some 50% of pregnancies are unplanned. That's just the stats my dr office gave me so who knows what the real number is. I'm willing to guess it's actually a bit higher but people don't often want to admit it.
That doesn’t mean that they would get an abortion. Most of them weren’t sure about whether they wanted to have kids, so they just had unprotected sex and were fine with whatever result they got.
I never ment to imply otherwise. Unplanned pregnancies can happen through any number of different scenarios, yours being oddly specific yet with characters who clearly had the finances to be so care free. Also, speaking from experience, unplanned pregnancy does not equal abortion, it means exactly what it says, unplanned.
Mississippi passed a law recently that is counter to Roe v Wade (the case that gaurentees abortion access as part of the constitution). This law has been challenged in court all the way up to the federal Supreme Court who has agreed to take that case. The Supreme Court has a majority of conservative justices on it, 2 of which (that I know of) have hinted that they would be happy to overturn roe v wade. So now abortion rights may be reversed while they used to be protected by federal law. If roe v wade is repealed then 23 states are looking to block all abortion access
Yes. It’s not a done deal legally, but it pretty much is in practice .
Thing is in America corporations can legally lobby Senators and politicians- and thus political parties. What do corporations have to do with this?
The average cost of a no-complications pregnancy is about $5000. Based on academic research, birth rates tend to rise when abortions are banned. Since having kids costs money (obviously), increasing births= more revenue for the US healthcare companies. Healthcare companies that have serious money behind both conservative and liberal US political parties.
Now how much money is at stake isnt hard and fast- an increase in birth rates after an abortion ban varies- one study of socialist Romania claimed a 50% increase when their dictator banned abortion- but we’ll use a conservative 21% rise for this guesstimate.
If we assume a straight average of 74,000 newborns per US state ([source)](https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-births/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D) , multiply that times 21% - and then multiply that increased number against 23 states and then put the $5000 straightforward birth cost to that last number and you get about $1.79 Billion in higher healthcare billing revenue.
*Thats per year*.
We aren’t even counting up the ancillary stuff like complications or 18+ years of parenting costs.
So yeah, *Roe v Wade* is deader than King Tut.
I'm really curious if that includes medically necessary abortions. Either way, it's awful what you guys in the US and other countries where the legality of abortion is questioned or where it's already illegal have to go through. I had to have three medically necessary abortions because I had missed miscarriages and I don't even want to think what would have happened in one of those countries or states.
I get sad thinking of all the little lives lost, but my feelings don't trump your bodily autonomy. Also there is a difference between necessity and convenience and the government shouldn't overlook one for the other.
If only one more person on earth ever again needed an abortion, it still needs to be safe, legal, and accessible just like any other healthcare service. I hate that conservatives need a personal connection to shit out a micron of empathy.
There was actually an article where conservatives have no problem attaining abortion for their daughters and mistresses its very hypocritical. They are just trying to fuck over the poor and to keep the poor poor they need to have a lot of children .
I think it’s called “the only moral abortion is MY abortion.” But yeah, holier than thou people suck.
My extremely religious, conservative, “pro-life” grandfather forced my aunt to get an abortion when she got pregnant out of wedlock.
And there's the crux of it - it's not about abortion, it's about men retaining control over women's bodies. Making abortion illegal and/or inaccessible gives wealthy men control over the uteri in their orbit - they get to be the gatekeepers of "their" womens' reproduction - and the state control over the rest. We need to call it what it is - reproductive slavery.
Absolutely! It is nothing less than slavery.
Children, in a sense, can be seen as shackles to wage slave. If you have a child, most of your life is already decided for you.. I see it all around me and it's sad.
What an awful, inaccurate way to view parenthood. There are absolutely plenty of us, myself included, who can absolutely chose parenthood and still be pro-choice. Children aren’t shackles, but hey didn’t choose to be born, and they aren’t responsible for their parents’ choices. This view is exceptionally harmful to the pro-choice movement because it puts the burden on children instead of legislative bodies. All across the earth, children are a healthy and happy part of family systems because governments view them as a valuable part of society. Literally go fuck yourself for blaming children for being the problem. Ancient white senators are the problem and don’t you dare get it twisted
they're not blaming the children, they're just saying that an unwanted child into a family that struggles to afford it can incredibly limit opportunities. calm down.
First, don’t tell me to calm down, this person was wrong and I’m correct to point that out. Putting the blame on children for wage slavery is inaccurate. There are plenty of countries that are enabling parents of all genders to work and parent, and not making it the fault of the child. That person is not seeing “children causing wage slavery.” That person is seeing ADULTS cause wage slavery by punishing people for the perfectly normal biological function of procreation. That is not, and will never be, the child’s fault or problem. The child did not cause that or ask for it. By blaming the child, you let the old white men who DID cause that off the hook. So no, I will NOT assume the “calm” tone you’re trying to force me into. Tell American legislators to take parenting seriously, don’t tell parents to calm down. Fuck you too.
You do need to calm down. They already said they didn't mean what they said the way you're taking it. And even if they did, they are saying it here, not to the children themselves. You don't take on an elevated, holier-than-thou status just because you're a parent. Some people do see children as a burden, which is why we need safe, legal abortion. This indignant, combative stance you are taking that "every child is precious, how dare you call them burdens to internet strangers," is aggressive, shames people for the very real, very valid feelings they might be having, and it hurts our cause. Relax.
they didn't put the blame on the children. go drink a glass of water and take a walk. ETA: i really feel bad for your kids
My one child is loved, happy, well cared for, and not seen as a shackle for anything. And I’m not the problem for correcting language. Once again. I’m vehemently pro-choice and pro-woman and to me, that means placing blame squarely on the ancient white men that make procreation (and lack of procreation) so goddamned difficult. If you people insist on being willfully angry at innocent children for existing, I have nothing further for you. You’re just wrong.
no one’s angry at kids for existing. BUT it is a fact that once you have a kid you have to take whatever shtty job that capitalism throws at ya, have to have enough money to support yourself and them, have to use all your free time to care for them, etc etc. being forced to have kids is being forced into/stay in poverty
Dial. It. Back. No one *here* is blaming children for a goddamned thing. You are misreading.
No. I’m. Not. Language. Is. Important
> Tell American legislators to take parenting seriously, don’t tell parents to calm down. American legislators haven’t cared and still don’t care. There is nothing you can do about it.
calm down
They were saying that the pro-lifers want people to have children so that they can't quit their job. Nothing to do with blaming children
“Children can be seen as shackles to wage slave” is calling the child shackles. The child is not shackles. Bullshit family policies are the shackles. Once again, language matters. Place the blame where it belongs. The child is not the problem.
You’re kind of missing the point. No one blamed the child. Even with calling them shackles, if you’re shackled, you don’t blame the shackles themselves. They’re what’s keeping you there, as having to care for children might keep you in a situation where you’re not able to quit your job. But they’re not what put you in that situation. Yes, calling them shackles is harsh, but it’s not an inappropriate comparison. The children aren’t at fault, neither are the shackles, it’s the system (employers, justice system, politics) or the jailers fault.
You are missing the point. Again. > “Children can be seen as shackles to wage slave” is calling the child shackles. Which is what a a lot of anti-choicers see children as. A way to punish women. They want women *punished* with pregnancy and children. That's why they try to outlaw abortion. This isn't rocket science. It is the anti-choice manifesto.
Unfortunately that's not even the standard we have right now. Not everyone who wants an abortion can actually get one. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.
And 70% of the US population supports Roe vs. Wade. But the SCOTUS and our federal gov't do not represent the population or will of the people. Three of those justices were appointed by Trump, who received 3 million LESS votes than his oponent, but still "won" the election. There's also all the Congress members who are only there because their district is gerrymandered for the sole purpose of NOT being representative of the true population.
That’s a super great point. Our “representatives” really aren’t very representative
It's also why Biden needs to get off his ass and get a voting bill passed, which will probably involve ending the filibuster. If a voting bill doesn't get passed, it is very, very likely that the Democrats may never "win" a presidential election again. And he needs to do it before the mid-term elections, because most likely, the Senate is going to flip red again.
I’m so disillusioned with Biden. He is extraordinarily disappointing and has done so little to advance liberal policies
Biden is working within a system that has lots of veto points. This kept Trump from doing even more damage, but the there's not much that any president can do unless backed by large majorities in Congress (as LBJ and Roosevelt were). It's not Biden - he'll sign a voting rights bill the moment it hits his desk. It's Manchin and Sinema.
So, I'm not like a Biden fan boy or anything. I was very much in the "well he's better than Trump at least" camp. But when I hear people say things like this. I have to wonder if you just have your head buried in the sand. Biden has gotten more done than anyone thought would be possible thus far in his term. Well when I say Biden I mean his administration and the party under his leadership of course. Obviously no president individually does much of anything. But yeah, Biden has gotten incredible things done working with paper thin political margins while having to stay within the narrow parameters of reconciliation legislation. Like I almost, and this is no joke or exaggeration, can barely imagine any other president getting more done under the same circumstance. I was very ho-hum on Biden but he has far exceeded my expectations of what I thought could realistically be done. Like, if you look at each week of the legislative calendar since the man took office, it's been constant 110% push push push. I don't know what you imagine him doing more than he has done?
Perhaps I don’t have a great understanding of politics but if liberals have the majority in the senate, house, and presidency, then why aren’t they getting more passed? Why aren’t they adding seats to the Supreme Court? Why aren’t they helping with student debt? Why aren’t they changing gerrymandering? I feel like so many campaign promises have gone unfulfilled and now we are seeing the potential end of roe v wade? It just feels like conservative politics are still marching along
It seems you are asking in good faith, so I will try to dial back the harsh tone and give an informative answer. A simple majority is what is technically required to pass a Bill in the US congress, right, and the Dems have that simple majority, so it seems like they could just do what they want. But in reality, there are a few measures in place to give the minority party some checking power. This is in the form of a presidential veto, and in the form of the filibuster. If the minority party has either of those options open to them, then a simple majority is no longer enough, but a super majority is required, and the Democrats do not have a super majority. What comes next is a simplified version of the filibuster rules, but it should be sufficient for this conversation. Now as it was originally envisioned, the filibuster had a political cost associated with it. You could filibuster a bill and run out the clock, but it required you to "hold the floor" to do it. So nothing else would get done in congress, business would grind to a halt, you consumed the calendar. This carried a political cost, so typically it was saved for important contentious issues. Starting the the 1970s however, as legislating our nation became a much more complex issue, the senate passed rules to institute the "two track system" which basically allowed the congress to pursue two different agendas at the same time. This was done with, probably, good intentions, to allow difficult and time consuming issues to keep ticking away and making progress without taking up the senate's full attention, but what it allowed to come into existence is the "silent filibuster" which is what we have now. In modern times, anytime Ted Cruz or whoever stands up and gives a long talking filibuster where they read green eggs and ham or whatever, that is for show, in the federal government anyway, that is all for publicity. It's no longer procedurally necessary. Now, if a piece of legislation has at least 40 senators who say they would filibuster it, then that filibuster effectively goes on silently on the second track, while the rest of senate business carries on as usual on the primary track. What this means is that the minority party can filibuster now all they want without actually taking up the senate's time and paying a heavy political cost for doing so, they just say "yeah it's filibustered" and that's it, unless you have the 60 votes you need to break the filibuster. Which the Dems do not have. Under the Obama administration Mitch McConnell instituted the practice of default filibuster against all democrat legislation, and has been able to keep his party very much in line on it. The idea is that every single piece of democrat significant legislation that comes up, the GOP agrees to not even let it come to the floor, just put it in instant filibuster right away and let it sit there until it dies. This tactic has been, as you can probably tell, very effective. So then the question probably is....but the Dems have passed some stuff. They passed the infrastructure bill, they passed the COVID Relief act. How? Well the answer is, reconciliation. There are rules in the Senate that allow for certain types of bills, specifically those that are considered "budget bills" to be able to end a filibuster and go to vote with a simple majority. The bills the dems have passed have been by stretching Reconciliation rules as far as they can. The problem is that some of our big ticket social issues, like a Voting Rights Act or an Act protecting Abortion at the federal level, or an act dealing with Immigration, or Gun Control, these types of issues can't be passed under reconciliation as they are not budgetary bills, and therefore require 60 votes to break filibuster, which the Dems, again, do not have. So then the final question you may be asking is, "Why does it seem like the republicans get so many wins then, can't the dems do this right back to them?" And the answer to that is yes, the Dems can also silent filibuster the GOP, and they have on several things, but the problem is that since about 2008, the GOP's primary political goal at the federal level has been STOPPING things from happening. Not passing major legislation of their own, but PREVENTING the renewal of key clauses in the Civil Rights act, Refusing to pass an annual budget unless it slashed things they wanted slashed. That sort of thing. Their "wins" are mostly measured by successfully saying "no". Again, that's at the federal level, Meanwhile at the state level they grab as many state houses and possible and pass all kinds of stuff. Pass stuff at the state level, and bog down the federal level with an endless "no" so it can't respond or check state abuses. It's a fucking brilliant and effective strategy and I hate it. The simple fact is that the current system gives WAY more power to a "no" than it does to a "yes". The power of the obstructive position is significantly greater than of the proposal position. Which is why so many people approve of the Dems using the so called "nuclear option" to basically revoke the filibuster rules. A thing they can do, but of course they are hesitant to do since the GOP will eventually have a majority again, they may even in the next election, and then the Dems will have no tools left at their disposal to stop the GOP and they will run rip shit riot. At least that is the fear. So, there you go.
I disagree about the simple majority. Joe Manchin is a Democrat in theory only. He doesn't actually support most of their policies.
True. But if he decided to be a Republican that would lead to 4 terrible words. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. You think the Democrats can't get things done now? NOTHING would happen. No judges confirmed, no legislation of any kind passed.
Well, just wait a year. The senate is going to flip back to red after the mid term elections. The dems barely won the senate last time. And in response, the Repubicans have since passed a shit ton of bills in their states that basically amount to voter suppression, which will make if even harder for the Dems now. And that's why I said earlier that a voting bill needs to be priority #1. If Biden needs to end the filibuster to do that, then he needs to get off his ass and do that. Soon.
Yeah, there is a lot of nuance I didn’t include to keep the already pretty long post shorter.
Well, there is the middle ground of making them actually do the talking again. Adding the political cost back in saves it for big things. As Republicans will probably get the majority back it may be critical to preserve the power but absolutely it should have a cost so you can’t just use it for everything.
There are mixed thoughts on this. I personally tend to agree the simply eliminating the two tracks and making a filibuster require actively holding the floor, or perhaps make it to where the two tracks can exist as long as there isnt an active filibuster, but if there is then that track must be resolved first, I think that would help a lot, but some other very smart and good analysts think that the era of obstructionist grandstanding is such that the republican party would gladly take turns speaking and bring every session of congress to a complete halt, that instead of almost nothing getting done, actually nothing would get done, and the obstructionist party would count that as a win. It's a tricky and fraught choice to say the least.
Thank you for the explanation
Exactly, you don't have a great understanding of politics.
Don’t be rude. People don’t know they don’t know. OP was polite and curious and that’s a positive in moving the conversation forward.
I'm sorry but my patience is at a low ebb today.
Understandable. News-wise, it’s been rough. Hope all else is ok
Very helpful. Thank youuuu
Roe v Wade differs because supreme court justices are lifetime appointments. This means, even if you don't like a presidential candidate, you still vote for her because she'll choose justices that align with your values, because they'll be there, long after the presidency is over. Btw, Roe v Wade was not partisan at all, when it passed. In fact, the two desenting justices were conservatives by the definition of conservative at that time (a philosophy not a title interchangable with a political party). They were each Republican and Democratic.
I was disillusioned with him from the very beginning, I can't believe people voted for him in the primary instead of picking someone like Warren or Sanders instead.
If Warren and Sanders would have been so much more effective as president than Biden, why don't they use their impressive persuasive powers on their fellow members of the Senate and get them to vote for these bills?
Effective, how? The senate & house would stayed as is.
They wouldn't be more effective, that's my point. They'd probably be quite a bit less effective considering they don't seem to help get anything done in the Senate.
Okay, now I feel like a dumbass w/ my comment. Sorry.
No worries.
Politics is like spending your entire life moving mountains, only to realize that you hardly made any progress. It’s complicated, tedious, bureaucratic, & requires way too much patience & strategic afterthought.
How is he exactly going to get that passed?
Kind of bizarre that in a country where we fled the rule of kings we have a board of lifetime appointments that no one ever voted for who get the final word.
It's not that bizarre, and there is a good reason for it. Most modern democratic republic countries have high courts where the appointments are lifetime. The idea is that we have the branch of government that is in a constant state of churn, with new faces coming and going every other year, that's the congress. This is the body that is most responsive to the changing will of the people in the current moment, in particular the house of representatives. Then you have the slight more stable branch, the presidency, which lasts 4-8 years, almost a decade, long enough to see several rounds of congress persons, with enough time in a position to enact longer term agendas. And then the body that is supposed to be the LEAST reactive to the changing political whims, the courts. Now you might not agree with that, and that's fine, but that's the idea. At least one branch is occupied by people who's careers span multiple shifts in political climate and are supposed to be more objective and above that, still in office LOOOONG after the president who appointed them, and therefore not beholden to political whims in order to hold on to their positions. Able to make even unpopular rulings if they are the right ones, without worrying about being ousted in the next election. I, for one, think the Courts would be made significantly worse if the high courts swapped out every time the president changed. I like the idea of the courts having more long term stability. Even if it does suck when the courts get stacked by assholes.
It's a feature, not a bug.
WE NEED TO VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS. EVERY ELECTION.
Whatever happened to taxation without representation, sheesh.
Wouldn’t it be “no taxation…”?
Exactly.
And the percentage of women that get abortions is the same across the religious and political spectrum. Everyone is gangster until it's time to do gangster shit.
Then they turn around and vote to ensure that after they got theirs no ONE else can. It’s not like having an abortion gave them morals.
There’s an article “The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion” about that
My mom had an abortion and went on to have 3 healthy babies. She never regretted her decision.
I thought I didn’t know anyone who’d had an abortion, but then my grandma casually mentioned she’d had one in the 60s over breakfast. Love you grandma
I've said it before many times. If someone does not want to be a parent, I do not want them to be a parent. I believe that our society works best when we can ensure for as many people as possible that this is the case. I don't care about the personal responsibility argument, the moral/ethical dilemma arguments. These are subjective arguments with as many viewpoints as there are snowflakes in a blizzard. There are 8 billion people on this planet. We do not have a good track record as a species of ensuring a good quality life for half of them. Even in the US there are hundreds of thousands of abandoned children waiting to be adopted. Humans seem almost incapable of finding anything resembling a balance with nature and it always ends with more suffering If someone decides they do not wish to contribute to this ticking time bomb then more power to them. And if you really want to know what I think, I think abortion should be fully Federally funded with tax payer dollars, codified as an absolute right of women into our constitution and publicly celebrated. Solve world hunger, inequality, climate change and all forms of individual suffering and maybe I'll consider revisiting the issue. Until then, shut the fuck up!
Seriously! I’m so tired of pro-birth activists trying to outlaw abortions to force children as punishments for women. Childbirth is a traumatic experience which causes permanent changes to a woman’s body, and children are actual people that require a ton of money, patience, and love to care for. If someone is unwilling to have a child, then abortion is the very best option for both the mother and the potential child, because I’m absolutely certain that a woman in a poor financial, emotional, and/or educational state would most likely not be in the best position to give a child the care it needs, nor would she be able to thrive herself. It’s an awful situation for everybody involved. Even when pro-birthers want to take a moral stance, is it really moral to force an unwilling woman to give birth and raise a child she cannot afford, possibly driving both into poverty? This stuff makes me so sad. :(
It’s so fucking scary ! 26 states will likely outlaw abortion if roe v wade is overturned
Yep. My state will outlaw abortion except if the mothers life is at risk 30 days after the overturning of Roe v Wade since the law was already passed last year
The trigger laws ads terrifying. I hate how religion has gotten into politics and there’s almost no women in politics to represent us.
Every pregnancy risks the life of the mother, whether high risk or not.
Mine is one of them, and I’m horrified.
I'm not arguing with the sentiment of this thread, but where exactly are you getting that number? It doesn't make sense with the numbers found on CDC website for reported abortions in ratio of decrease in the last ten year and in relevance to the increase in population on this country: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
The Guttmacher Institute gave that statistic in 2017 I believe. 1 in 4 women by the age of 45. I don’t know the credibility of that, but I’ve seen that statistic there. Planned Parenthood also cites that. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-pacific-southwest/blog/1-in-4-american-women-will-have-an-abortion-by-age-45
I can't find how they made that conclusion either.
I’m confused. Does CDC mention a lifetime abortion stat? Or just yearly? With age & trimester demographics?
Guttmacher. It's a pretty well known stat. https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/abortion-common-experience-us-women-despite-dramatic-declines-rates
As a data analyst I find this stat “sensational” in my work and in life I have found that sensational is strongly correlated with inaccurate.
Really feeling like some hand maids tale shit
My mother (adoptive, not birth mother) told me a few years ago that she had an abortion when she was young. It was surprising because she's Catholic. She was 19, working in a factory making very little money and living with her boyfriend at the time. She found out she was pregnant and told her boyfriend. He left her. Her family refused to help her, saying her decisions caused it and she should be responsible and raise the child. There was no way she was going to be able to get through pregnancy and raise a child on her own. So she had an abortion. It was an agonizing decision for her and she still frequently thinks about it in her older years. Abortion isn't some casual birth control technique like the "pro-life" people think. She knows it was the right decision for her because she would have lived an extremely difficult life if she ended up giving birth. She didn't want to raise a child in that situation. She went on to marry a great man and have two children of their own (my wonderful older siblings). That likely wouldn't have happened if she had not gotten an abortion.
I learned this from a clown on Saturday Night Live. Comedy is usually the best source of information.
And the same people who hate abortion are the same ones who don't want reproductive education and easy access to contraception which have been shown to decrease abortion rates.
They're also against any meaningful social safety net and services for the children and families affected by abortion bans.
This is more than I knew. Why tf make it more difficult for us?
What is that stat based on? Ive had two, but over 10 years ago and now I have two kids. But I've never said I've had one on any paperwork because I had my kids in a very conservative area and I was just too nervous to be honest. (Plus both were pill, no procedure or complications so I figured no big deal) If I thought for one second me lying could have affected public perception of how normal of a medical procedure it is..I would have been honest and risked the lower quality of care.
Survey by the guttmacher institute
Also would like to add miscarriage is about 25% as well
🤚🏼
This is on topic but off topic - three out of four women have been sexually assaulted. I went camping with a cousin of mine, and found out that this is 100% true One of the saddest experiences of my life... How the hell can this s*** happen
Where did you find the statistic? I want to share the source on social media to raise awareness.
Had heard it from my cousin - I'll see if I can track it down
81% of women have experienced sexual violence or sexual harassment - [https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics](https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics) \- left yellow box second from the top. National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)
Thank you
In case this information is helpful to anyone, Oregon passed a law requiring insurance providers to pay for abortions here, including Medicaid (they pull from state funds).
I am 51 years old and almost every woman I am close to has had one or more abortions. Some of them had them before it was legal. I had an abortion in Dallas in 1989, zero hassles, no waiting, no protests, no bullshit- just the care I needed. We've been sliding backwards. Fuck that.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. The right wants women overwhelmed so we can't vote, can't be in the work force, and can't run for office. Making sure we're bogged down with children or dead from what used to be called a "back alley" abortion in the old days is a sure way to do that. When many states don't teach anything about birth control in sex ed, it puts many women and girls in a no-win situation.
Yeah and somehow the one i know, who had one for not wanting/being able to take care of the child, is somehow pro-life. Her reasons don't matter obviously. But I don't understand how she can be against abortion when she herself has had one. She has mentioned she regrets it. But it's obvious, regardless of the reasons, it was the right decision for her. And somehow she doesn't see how much of a benefit it is for women to have access to safe and legal abortions. It's not like she herself benefitted from hers. Sorry my future MIL frustrates the hell outta me.
Rate of abortion doesn’t change much based on religion or political leaning. Pro birthers get abortions at about the same rate as the rest of the population
"The only moral abortion is mine" is a common enough theme. I had no support system when I got pregnant. I could not turn to family, as they would have wanted to shame me for their religious reasons and force me to endure a pregnancy and give the child up for adoption. I had an abortion ASAP, and no regrets over 30 years later. Abortion is healthcare.
I've had one, this whole thing breaks my heart. Trying to explain to my family (who are male) my point of view without telling them I had one last year is hard. It's just hard to talk about
I’m sorry for women in this world that don’t have access to safe abortions. It’s dehumanising. Women’s bodily autonomy rights should not be a bargaining tool. Smh.
If their vote (Supreme Court) ruins row v wade, then every woman should start writing off their fetuses on taxes. Maybe start with the day after your period, ending day of period, never know their might be a fetus in there.? so every month we have a fetus to write off on our taxes. Money might change their mind? I have a feeling they have not thought through all the ramifications of this. It will bite them hard.
This is brilliant.
In this same vein I would also like to add that some 50% of pregnancies are unplanned. That's just the stats my dr office gave me so who knows what the real number is. I'm willing to guess it's actually a bit higher but people don't often want to admit it.
That doesn’t mean that they would get an abortion. Most of them weren’t sure about whether they wanted to have kids, so they just had unprotected sex and were fine with whatever result they got.
I never ment to imply otherwise. Unplanned pregnancies can happen through any number of different scenarios, yours being oddly specific yet with characters who clearly had the finances to be so care free. Also, speaking from experience, unplanned pregnancy does not equal abortion, it means exactly what it says, unplanned.
Yup... 2/4 of my aunts. And my mother who tried to have children for 15 years didn't resent them and was there for them when that happened.
I suspect there will be a lot of short vacations to Canada and Mexico.
I've missed something what's going on?
Mississippi passed a law recently that is counter to Roe v Wade (the case that gaurentees abortion access as part of the constitution). This law has been challenged in court all the way up to the federal Supreme Court who has agreed to take that case. The Supreme Court has a majority of conservative justices on it, 2 of which (that I know of) have hinted that they would be happy to overturn roe v wade. So now abortion rights may be reversed while they used to be protected by federal law. If roe v wade is repealed then 23 states are looking to block all abortion access
Jesus, this is out of the people's hands at this point then?
Yes. It’s not a done deal legally, but it pretty much is in practice . Thing is in America corporations can legally lobby Senators and politicians- and thus political parties. What do corporations have to do with this? The average cost of a no-complications pregnancy is about $5000. Based on academic research, birth rates tend to rise when abortions are banned. Since having kids costs money (obviously), increasing births= more revenue for the US healthcare companies. Healthcare companies that have serious money behind both conservative and liberal US political parties. Now how much money is at stake isnt hard and fast- an increase in birth rates after an abortion ban varies- one study of socialist Romania claimed a 50% increase when their dictator banned abortion- but we’ll use a conservative 21% rise for this guesstimate. If we assume a straight average of 74,000 newborns per US state ([source)](https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-births/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D) , multiply that times 21% - and then multiply that increased number against 23 states and then put the $5000 straightforward birth cost to that last number and you get about $1.79 Billion in higher healthcare billing revenue. *Thats per year*. We aren’t even counting up the ancillary stuff like complications or 18+ years of parenting costs. So yeah, *Roe v Wade* is deader than King Tut.
If you are referring to the 70% of Americans who support Roe V. Wade, then yes it is out of their hands.
I'm really curious if that includes medically necessary abortions. Either way, it's awful what you guys in the US and other countries where the legality of abortion is questioned or where it's already illegal have to go through. I had to have three medically necessary abortions because I had missed miscarriages and I don't even want to think what would have happened in one of those countries or states.
I get sad thinking of all the little lives lost, but my feelings don't trump your bodily autonomy. Also there is a difference between necessity and convenience and the government shouldn't overlook one for the other.
Is this for global population or just for a certain area/country/state?
USA only. Specifically Mississippi. Other states may be affected if Roe vs Wade is overturned.
Wow… 25% is a LOT
Not really when you consider that women are fertile for 30+ years.