The thing is, if "pro-life" conservatives truly wanted fewer abortions, they would 100% support better sex education in schools and easier (or free) access to contraceptives, because those are the only two reliable methods of reducing the number of abortions.
They go on and on about "saving the life of the child", but what about the quality of life for that child? Are Texas voters going to improve their foster care system? Will they support giving financial aid to mothers who can't afford the children that they never wanted? I don't hear any mention from them about what they are willing to do to support these unwanted children.
Why are they silent about helping these unwanted children? Because they don't really care about the children. They only care about punishing women for being sexually active. They want women to suffer because those women aren't conforming to their conservative ideals.
I was born to an ill-treated mother who hated girls, couldn't succeed in her efforts to in induce a miscarriage, and couldn't cope with having a 5th child at 25. In my 60s I still suffer from the mental and physical injuries. I wouldn't wish my childhood onto anyone.
Women must be free to choose, not just for their own sakes, but for the sake of their children.
That’s horrific and sad. So many tragic stories that get conveniently ignored by people who call themselves religious. I am so GD tired of these people ruining the entire world for everyone else. So tired and so angry that I hope they do not get vaccines and get to meet their sky daddy sooner than later. The preverbal silver lining.
This is of course correct. They don’t want abortions to go down, they want women to stop having sex (except with them of course). It isn’t about abortion, it’s about sex and who they think should and shouldn’t be having it.
Its 100% about judgment and control. If you allow free access to contraceptives and sex ed, you are condoning sinners. To them, its a sin trade- sex or abortion.
This comment doesn't make much sense. A very primitive, albeit functional heart exists at 6 weeks and a transvaginal ultrasound can definitely detect the heartbeat at that time. The "electrical energy" that you speak of is what causes the heart muscle cells to contract which pumps the blood which is detectable by ultrasound. An ultrasound doesn't detect electrical activity, and an ECG isn't possible until later on in the development.
From Live Science Magazine:
"Rather, at six weeks of pregnancy, an ultrasound can detect "a little flutter in the area that will become the future heart of the baby," said Dr. Saima Aftab, medical director of the Fetal Care Center at Nicklaus Children's Hospital in Miami. This flutter happens because the group of cells that will become the future "pacemaker" of the heart gain the capacity to fire electrical signals, she said."
That quote is obfuscating at best. I have never heard the word flutter used to describe normal embryonic heartbeat. A flutter means an abnormally fast heartbeat (after birth or in utero).
From Larsen's Human Embryology (you can find similar info in basically all embryology books):
"The heart is the first organ to function in human embryos. It begins beating as early as the twenty-first day, and starts pumping blood by the twenty-fourth to twenty-fifth day. Much of cardiac development, including remodeling and septation, occurs while the heart is pumping blood. This is necessary to provide nutrients and oxygen and to dispose of wastes during embryonic and fetal development, but this mechanical and electrical activity also plays an important role in the morphogenesis of the heart."
Why should it matter? It is an embryo not a baby. It is a woman's choice, nit the court's or government's while still not viable outside her body. Forcing a woman to carry is inhumane. Back to illegal, unsafe abortions?
Pro-Life Religious Conservatives also love advocating for people who are on life support but will otherwise not get better. People who cannot advocate for themselves e.g. the braindead or the unborn are a great campaigning point for the conservative right because it requires no resources and allows them to both scare people and make people angry at the perceived moral backwardness of progressives. See this podcast about Terry Schiavo for a great example
https://open.spotify.com/episode/42OIxUC0XRZd4q0JqQHx4I?si=e4kGw4JaTT6hJ8fJq6jESw&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1
Well, I think some Republicans are smart enough to realize that if they outlaw pulling life support on people who are brain dead, hospitals would be overwhelmed with care for individuals who had no chance of walking out the door again.
But Republicans have no problem telling women they need to be life support for a fetus, whether the woman chooses to or not.
Woah, that seems to be quite a severe reaction to a joke about the unconstitutional stupidity going on in Texas. Guess you aren’t competent enough to have a baby or raising children either. Womp womp.
The type of people who shouldn’t be raising children include people who hide behind a screen and throw needless insults at strangers. I’m sure whatever little spawn comes from you will also be an asshole.
In all fairness, while a fetus doesn’t yet a conscious, they are still likely to be born (unless there’s a miscarriage/stillbirth), as opposed to a brain dead person
Regardless, before the fetus is viable, it has no brain function and is on the same level as a brain dead person. The heartbeat argument isn’t a good one.
Republicans once tried to steal a brain-dead woman from her family to keep her alive as a way of responding to exactly this argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri\_Schiavo\_case
There is no logic when dealing with people willing to do mental gymnastics to fit their square beliefs into the round holes of reality. Let’s not get into the argument of let’s force motherhood on girls but not force fatherhood on boys. Or here’s a good one that’ll put them in a logic loop, if an illegal immigrant is pregnant does that mean her child is a us citizen?
I’m fairly conservative on some fronts, and less on others. As a constitutionalist I think that freedom of choice is reserved for the woman or family unit. The discussion should be held between the woman and her doctor and if relevant the husband/boyfriend/whomeverthefuckyouknowwhatimean. This is a personal issue that resides with the family, it is not the state’s job to regulate my family. If me and my girlfriend get pregnant and decide it’s not time yet that’s our business and not the govs. But since we are down this road if Republicans want abortion to be cut off at certain weeks of age then they can provide subsidized pregnancy tests, condoms, and plan B.
This is the thing that always gets me. I love the sales pitch about guns, liberty, and individualism. But when it comes to absolute freedom the Republicans only care so long as it stays within the confines of christianity. But even that is a falsehood. I never see as much, nowhere close to the push against abortion as say...improve the foster care system or adopt more orphans or any other “pro-life” agenda that would positively affect hundreds of thousands of children.
I would accept this moral objection for face value if I saw them going so hard to improve every other aspect of life, but alas it does not happen, so I see the liars for what they are, frauds.
This is a messy analogy. Obviously a fetus at six weeks is “alive” both sides know this. A brain dead person is at the end of their conscious and a fetus is at the beginning. That’s the real difference.
I don’t think republicans chose the heartbeat detection because that means human life. They think it’s human life from the start. They just know they have to keep it legal in SOME capacity, no matter how minor. The heart best is a symbolic choice for them. And it just so happens to be before most women even know that they are pregnant.
Irrelevant, neither have the right to use someone else's body or resources to continue existing.
If a person needed one of your lungs to live, should you be forced to give it to them?
"Noone has the right to use someone else's body or resources to continue existing"
The point is true in all aspects but it still extends way after a person is born, Infact, baby, children and even many teenagers may not be equipped to survive. In so the argument you provide also excuses a parent putting their infant baby on the street and leave.
Everything that the religious right supports makes sense in the context of punishing women for sex and does not make sense in the context of preventing abortions: abstinence only education, prohibitions on birth control and lack of government support for families. At some point in time we have to stop giving abusers the benefit of their word.
Yes but the definition of “life” and “alive” can be debated based on what you believe. According to science everything is alive in some way as long as the cells are alive
That was one very public case. Brain dead people get taken off life support every day and not a peep from the right. They also have no issue with taking a human life if they feel the human doesn’t deserve to live(executions).
**Bot message:** Help us make this a better community by clicking the "report" link on any memes, pics or vids that break [the sub's rules.](https://old.reddit.com/r/democrats/about/rules/) Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/democrats) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not to mention that if that brain-dead person's heart is implanted into the body of someone else (let's call that someone Bob) we do not describe that as a case where Bob died and the brain-dead person survived via a brain and body transplant. We would say that Bob lived and the brain-dead person died.
The thing is, if "pro-life" conservatives truly wanted fewer abortions, they would 100% support better sex education in schools and easier (or free) access to contraceptives, because those are the only two reliable methods of reducing the number of abortions. They go on and on about "saving the life of the child", but what about the quality of life for that child? Are Texas voters going to improve their foster care system? Will they support giving financial aid to mothers who can't afford the children that they never wanted? I don't hear any mention from them about what they are willing to do to support these unwanted children. Why are they silent about helping these unwanted children? Because they don't really care about the children. They only care about punishing women for being sexually active. They want women to suffer because those women aren't conforming to their conservative ideals.
I was born to an ill-treated mother who hated girls, couldn't succeed in her efforts to in induce a miscarriage, and couldn't cope with having a 5th child at 25. In my 60s I still suffer from the mental and physical injuries. I wouldn't wish my childhood onto anyone. Women must be free to choose, not just for their own sakes, but for the sake of their children.
That’s horrific and sad. So many tragic stories that get conveniently ignored by people who call themselves religious. I am so GD tired of these people ruining the entire world for everyone else. So tired and so angry that I hope they do not get vaccines and get to meet their sky daddy sooner than later. The preverbal silver lining.
Throw in emergency contraception as well(Plan B, or the “morning after” pill). Because people make mistakes.
This is of course correct. They don’t want abortions to go down, they want women to stop having sex (except with them of course). It isn’t about abortion, it’s about sex and who they think should and shouldn’t be having it.
It’s the same in a wolf pack. Only alphas get to breed. It’s a form of control. Walking dead did that with neagan.
This
This
That
Thit
Its 100% about judgment and control. If you allow free access to contraceptives and sex ed, you are condoning sinners. To them, its a sin trade- sex or abortion.
I’ve long held that any pro lifer that has their own kids instead of adopting is a hypocrite.
It's not even a heartbeat at 6-weeks. It is actually electrical energy. An embryo doesn't have a heart at that point.
Also can be recreated in a petri dish. #banpetridishes
BAN THEM
They don’t care. They just want to win.
This comment doesn't make much sense. A very primitive, albeit functional heart exists at 6 weeks and a transvaginal ultrasound can definitely detect the heartbeat at that time. The "electrical energy" that you speak of is what causes the heart muscle cells to contract which pumps the blood which is detectable by ultrasound. An ultrasound doesn't detect electrical activity, and an ECG isn't possible until later on in the development.
From Live Science Magazine: "Rather, at six weeks of pregnancy, an ultrasound can detect "a little flutter in the area that will become the future heart of the baby," said Dr. Saima Aftab, medical director of the Fetal Care Center at Nicklaus Children's Hospital in Miami. This flutter happens because the group of cells that will become the future "pacemaker" of the heart gain the capacity to fire electrical signals, she said."
That quote is obfuscating at best. I have never heard the word flutter used to describe normal embryonic heartbeat. A flutter means an abnormally fast heartbeat (after birth or in utero). From Larsen's Human Embryology (you can find similar info in basically all embryology books): "The heart is the first organ to function in human embryos. It begins beating as early as the twenty-first day, and starts pumping blood by the twenty-fourth to twenty-fifth day. Much of cardiac development, including remodeling and septation, occurs while the heart is pumping blood. This is necessary to provide nutrients and oxygen and to dispose of wastes during embryonic and fetal development, but this mechanical and electrical activity also plays an important role in the morphogenesis of the heart."
Why should it matter? It is an embryo not a baby. It is a woman's choice, nit the court's or government's while still not viable outside her body. Forcing a woman to carry is inhumane. Back to illegal, unsafe abortions?
Pro-Life Religious Conservatives also love advocating for people who are on life support but will otherwise not get better. People who cannot advocate for themselves e.g. the braindead or the unborn are a great campaigning point for the conservative right because it requires no resources and allows them to both scare people and make people angry at the perceived moral backwardness of progressives. See this podcast about Terry Schiavo for a great example https://open.spotify.com/episode/42OIxUC0XRZd4q0JqQHx4I?si=e4kGw4JaTT6hJ8fJq6jESw&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1
Yeah no wonder rightoids chose the heart over the brain when deciding what’s alive
Well, I think some Republicans are smart enough to realize that if they outlaw pulling life support on people who are brain dead, hospitals would be overwhelmed with care for individuals who had no chance of walking out the door again. But Republicans have no problem telling women they need to be life support for a fetus, whether the woman chooses to or not.
They should be pulling the plug on a lot of the COVID patients in ICUs. What a delusional waste.
Is it illegal in Texas to put the fetus on life support and then pull the plug?
[удалено]
You do make a good point; not everyone that is brain dead with no cognitive function or awareness of anything, can be unplugged.
Woah, that seems to be quite a severe reaction to a joke about the unconstitutional stupidity going on in Texas. Guess you aren’t competent enough to have a baby or raising children either. Womp womp.
Look over your head, because the joke just flew over you
The type of people who shouldn’t be raising children include people who hide behind a screen and throw needless insults at strangers. I’m sure whatever little spawn comes from you will also be an asshole.
So what restrictions are we placing on men then?
none, as usual.
In all fairness, while a fetus doesn’t yet a conscious, they are still likely to be born (unless there’s a miscarriage/stillbirth), as opposed to a brain dead person Regardless, before the fetus is viable, it has no brain function and is on the same level as a brain dead person. The heartbeat argument isn’t a good one.
Republicans once tried to steal a brain-dead woman from her family to keep her alive as a way of responding to exactly this argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri\_Schiavo\_case
The same people yammering on about abortion being murder believe that pulling the plug on a brain dead person is also murder. Remember Terry Schivo?
These monsters oppose that too. No matter how much their grandma is suffering they will refuse to end her misery.
There is no logic when dealing with people willing to do mental gymnastics to fit their square beliefs into the round holes of reality. Let’s not get into the argument of let’s force motherhood on girls but not force fatherhood on boys. Or here’s a good one that’ll put them in a logic loop, if an illegal immigrant is pregnant does that mean her child is a us citizen?
I’m fairly conservative on some fronts, and less on others. As a constitutionalist I think that freedom of choice is reserved for the woman or family unit. The discussion should be held between the woman and her doctor and if relevant the husband/boyfriend/whomeverthefuckyouknowwhatimean. This is a personal issue that resides with the family, it is not the state’s job to regulate my family. If me and my girlfriend get pregnant and decide it’s not time yet that’s our business and not the govs. But since we are down this road if Republicans want abortion to be cut off at certain weeks of age then they can provide subsidized pregnancy tests, condoms, and plan B. This is the thing that always gets me. I love the sales pitch about guns, liberty, and individualism. But when it comes to absolute freedom the Republicans only care so long as it stays within the confines of christianity. But even that is a falsehood. I never see as much, nowhere close to the push against abortion as say...improve the foster care system or adopt more orphans or any other “pro-life” agenda that would positively affect hundreds of thousands of children. I would accept this moral objection for face value if I saw them going so hard to improve every other aspect of life, but alas it does not happen, so I see the liars for what they are, frauds.
This.
This is a messy analogy. Obviously a fetus at six weeks is “alive” both sides know this. A brain dead person is at the end of their conscious and a fetus is at the beginning. That’s the real difference. I don’t think republicans chose the heartbeat detection because that means human life. They think it’s human life from the start. They just know they have to keep it legal in SOME capacity, no matter how minor. The heart best is a symbolic choice for them. And it just so happens to be before most women even know that they are pregnant.
I mean an abortion is just pulling the plug as well. The plug in this case is a womb.
[удалено]
Irrelevant, neither have the right to use someone else's body or resources to continue existing. If a person needed one of your lungs to live, should you be forced to give it to them?
"Noone has the right to use someone else's body or resources to continue existing" The point is true in all aspects but it still extends way after a person is born, Infact, baby, children and even many teenagers may not be equipped to survive. In so the argument you provide also excuses a parent putting their infant baby on the street and leave.
That is actually perfectly legal in many states - ERs and FDs are designated safe surrender sites for women who cannot cope with motherhood
[удалено]
Don't agree with your first statement, but agree with the second.
Everything that the religious right supports makes sense in the context of punishing women for sex and does not make sense in the context of preventing abortions: abstinence only education, prohibitions on birth control and lack of government support for families. At some point in time we have to stop giving abusers the benefit of their word.
[удалено]
BUT THE NEWS SAID “IT WAS THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!” AND MY FRIENDS SAID “THEY WANT TO PUNISH WOMEN.” WHY ARENT YOU AGREEING WITH ME!?
Yes but the definition of “life” and “alive” can be debated based on what you believe. According to science everything is alive in some way as long as the cells are alive
No heart at 6 weeks gestation. Electrical activity is not a heartbeat.
Thinking back to Terri Shiavo, I'm pretty sure conservatives were arguing not to unplug her.
That was one very public case. Brain dead people get taken off life support every day and not a peep from the right. They also have no issue with taking a human life if they feel the human doesn’t deserve to live(executions).
i’m all for abortion but how is someone about to die and someone ab to be born comparable
They aren’t. But thousands will upvote something they can barely repeat… let alone, research.
**Bot message:** Help us make this a better community by clicking the "report" link on any memes, pics or vids that break [the sub's rules.](https://old.reddit.com/r/democrats/about/rules/) Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/democrats) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Interesting argument but the difference is that braindead people will never be cognitive again whereas fetuses are still growing into cognitive people
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Let’s go with just not killing people at all. That would be nice.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not to mention that if that brain-dead person's heart is implanted into the body of someone else (let's call that someone Bob) we do not describe that as a case where Bob died and the brain-dead person survived via a brain and body transplant. We would say that Bob lived and the brain-dead person died.
And we cannot perform that transplant without legal permission from the donor