Roe Versus Wade Overturned

[Alicorn]

The US Supreme Court is gearing up to decide the fate of Roe versus Wade during the next term.

I'm worried that the rights of women will be limited given the make up of the Supreme Court and the waves of Anti Abortion laws being pushed through State legislators.

Gov. Greg Abbott signs into law one of nation’s strictest abortion measures, banning procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy

The signing of the bill opens a new frontier in the battle over abortion restrictions as first-of-its-kind legal provisions intended to make the law harder to challenge are poised to be tested in the courts.

www.texastribune.org

Report details wave of state legislative attempts to restrict abortion in 2021

"This legislative season is shaping up to be one of the most hostile in recent history for reproductive health and rights," said Planned Parenthood's president and CEO.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[StoicPhantom]

That has about as much chance of happening as the Second Amendment being repealed tbh. These are known as "wedge issues" not just because they are perpetually split down ideological and cultural lines, but because they will never be "solved" as far as a real decision of consequence goes. This gets fearmongered just as much as the guns do, but here we are decades later and neither has come to pass.

These other laws are more about the details surrounding the procedures and not the legality of abortion itself.

 

[Alicorn]

The Conservative Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights act in 2013. They will most likely gut Roe V. Wade, given that much of the court is deeply conservative and many of them have made it known about their views on Abortion.

Will Abortion be banned? No, but will pretty much be if the SCOTUS decides to just let the States do whatever they like with their arbitrary guidelines. Like how anyone could sue an Abortion clinic or sue the person who helped the woman get an abortion, Putting unnecessary restrictions on clinics as a means to shut them down or deter women from getting it.

Conservatives didn't have the power until now to weaken Roe V Wade. That is the difference the courts have never been more blatantly partisan until now. That's what makes those past attempts different from today.

 

[kiteinthesky]

I'm more worried about the civil war that will erupt if Roe vs. Wade is overturned than the consequences of the overturning itself.

If the Supreme Court is dumb enough to light up the 50-story pile of nuclear powder kegs we've all been sitting on for the past few years in such a manner, the consequences will be as nightmarishly monstrous as they will be indelible.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm not sure what will be the outcome of this situation but in the long term it's going to be very difficult for me to forgive all these government intrusions on people's heart wrenching decisions.

 

[Goomboi]

Honestly it is what it is and I personally can't justify abortion in almost all cases when there's other options available tho I think some stuff needs changed on giving birth in hospitals (making it free as it should be), hate me as you will but that's my opinion.

 

[Sucumbio]

Honestly it is what it is and I personally can't justify abortion in almost all cases when there's other options available tho I think some stuff needs changed on giving birth in hospitals (making it free as it should be), hate me as you will but that's my opinion.

I wouldn't hate you for your opinion..

I see abortion as being a medical procedure and that doctors should decide if they will participate.

Regulation is a reason for general practitioners to have to make moral decisions in medicine such as the statement

Will not prescribe Oxycotin.

.

It's looking at abortion without the medical context that led to the need for clinics to begin with because coat hooks hurt.

If you want to shame a pregnant women who is not ready to be a mom and doesn't want to go through childbirth you should be sure you've no spiders in your closet... But to deny a woman her freedom to choose is an invasion of the sanctity of our bodies and it must not stand or we set a precedent for invasive medical decisions based on morals instead of science.

 

[Nah]

Banning abortion wouldn't cause the effect that anti-abortion people want, and really, it'd just make things worse. I'm not going to get into stuff like "abortion is murder!" or "my body my choice!" because those are often just mindlessly repeated soundbites that never generate anything remotely meaningful.

Banning something doesn't completely stop people from doing it. Theft has been illegal in just about every culture ever for thousands of years, and yet it still occurs all the time. For another example, the prohibition amendment is still the only amendment in the US Constitution that has ever been repealed, banning alcohol ended up working out so poorly. So with banning abortion, people would end up turning to DIY abortions and/or shady "doctors" to abort, and that's dangerous. Legal abortion means safe abortion.

You'll never really get rid of abortion, but you can reduce the number of abortions by giving people incentive to not get one in the first place. By incentive I don't mean prison time though. Things like improving the adoption and foster systems, universal paid family leave, better/expanded childcare services, easy and cheap access to contraception, having proper sex education, not shaming people for how much or little sex they have, not romanticizing getting married and having children as One Of The Greatest Things Ever, etc. And yet, rarely if ever do anti-abortion people voice support for these things. Some politicians even actively oppose this sort of stuff. Even if all these things happen, you still want abortion to be available, as it's better to have an option and not need it than to need it and not have it. And there is valid medical reasons for it.

Nevermind that bringing a child into this ****ty world when the parents aren't ready or aren't suited to be parents is a fate far worse than death ever could be

To get to the Texas law....I imagine a lot of people know what makes that particular one so insidious, but for those who don't:

6 weeks is really not as much time as it sounds. Usually what's a go-to sign of pregnancy is a missed period, and since those are a roughly monthly thing, that means you can be eating up to 4 of those 6 weeks just from that. And they aren't clockwork either, they can be late, and for reasons other than becoming pregnant. So you might be thinking "oh it's just late this time"....and then more time passes and it seems like it's a bit too late, and then maybe the idea finally occurs that it might be pregnancy. And then you have to find the time to go to an abortion clinic (which affects poor and middle class people far more than rich people), and by then it may be too late, 6 weeks has already passed. On top of that is the whole bit on how people can legally play vigilante and report people to the police if they get, perform, or "aid" in an abortion.

6 weeks isn't a number they picked out of a hat, they picked it specifically because it practically bans abortion without explicitly saying "abortion is completely banned".

And even if the Supreme Court strikes down both the Texas and Mississippi ones, that doesn't mean it's over and things are safe. As long as it's a conservative majority, there is always the threat of abortion becoming illegal. There's a reason why all these anti-abortion laws started popping up as soon as the SCOTUS changed to a conservative majority few years ago. All they have to do is keep throwing stuff at the wall until one finally is allowed to stick, and then that's it, game over.

 

[Goomboi]

I've always thought it would be nice if there was a charity where they pay the mom to have the kid, and then put the kid up for adoption, as there are many MANY couples wanting to adopt.

 

[Yamat08]

Honestly, I've got mixed thoughts on this. Let me start by saying that I have no interests in pursuing a relationship nor a family, so I take no personal stake in this topic. And while my general views have been greatly shifting right-wing in the past several years, I still don't see too much of a moral dilemma when it comes to abortion. I mean, I don't see many people seriously suggest going Monty Python and valuing the life of literally every sperm cell, and a tiny cluster of multiple cells without a consciousness might as well be no different from that, at least for a time (post-term abortions, though..... as in murdering an already-born baby..... yeah, F off with that). In fact, most miscarriages are pretty much naturally-occurring abortions anyway. I also don't see any reason to bring a child into the world that was not needed by its birth parents, and likely ending up abused and/or neglected as a result.

On the other hand, I do feel that quite a few people (both women and their partners) have gotten to be a bit too reckless in regards to their sexuality. I mean, sexual liberation shouldn't mean one can just clean out the pipes every single time they have a little oopsie and not suffer any kind of consequences for it. Alcoholics and chain-smokers aren't held in any high regard, so why should some woman who terminated three pregnancies in the past few months be viewed any differently? Should people's freedoms be taken away in an attempt to incentivize more responsibility? Probably not, but I can't say I was particularly appalled when Texas did what it did. Also, I really can't get behind the idea of taxpayers being forced to fund this crap. I'd be far more pro-choice if people were forced to deal with their own messes (of course, better education on the subject would be nice to have as well).

 

[Alicorn]

I've always thought it would be nice if there was a charity where they pay the mom to have the kid, and then put the kid up for adoption, as there are many MANY couples wanting to adopt.

Amy Comey Barret basically said the same thing and it showed how little she understood the struggles of women.

A woman carries a baby for nine months, her opinions and emotions will change during those nine months, making it all the more harder for her to give the baby up for adoption because she had invested so much time and energy into carrying the baby to term. What Amy also forgets is its expensive to give birth all the economic woes that come with having a child you are hit with and yet along with having to take weeks off from work to recover from giving birth. And I'm not even mentioning the fact that you can die from child birth. So you are going through all the pain and misery to deliver a baby into the world and then you have to give up the child. When the whole point of getting an abortion is keep yourself from suffering mental, physical and most importantly economic pain until you are in a better position to have children.

On the other hand, I do feel that quite a few people (both women and their partners) have gotten to be a bit too reckless in regards to their sexuality. I mean, sexual liberation shouldn't mean one can just clean out the pipes every single time they have a little oopsie and not suffer any kind of consequences for it. Alcoholics and chain-smokers aren't held in any high regard, so why should some woman who terminated three pregnancies in the past few months be viewed any differently? Should people's freedoms be taken away in an attempt to incentivize more responsibility? Probably not, but I can't say I was particularly appalled when Texas did what it did. Also, I really can't get behind the idea of taxpayers being forced to fund this crap. I'd be far more pro-choice if people were forced to deal with their own messes (of course, better education on the subject would be nice to have as well).

Pregnancy should never be viewed as a punishment. A lot of women don't know they are pregnant until after the fact. She doesn't have to be loose ether, a lot of women have gotten pregnant from just doing it once.
As for being loose that's shouldn't really matter, women can enjoy it if they want to that's their choice. A single man can knock up several women yet no talking much about telling men to cut the pipes its often the woman who gets blamed more for her role in the act than the man which reflects the misogyny in our society. Because at the heart of the anti abortion movement is misogyny. Telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

I also have a question how does someone deal with their own mess in regards to an unplanned pregnancy? I don't really get what you mean with that.



Nah
Yeah it does suck, especially when the woman or anyone who aided her in getting an abortion has to show up to court to defend themselves or they risk losing the case. Which means someone in El Paso can sue someone in Dallas and the defendant has to go to El Paso, Wasting the defendant and the court's time just so some rando can make at most 10,000 dollars

 

[Yamat08]

Pregnancy should never be viewed as a punishment. A lot of women don't know they are pregnant until after the fact. She doesn't have to be loose ether, a lot of women have gotten pregnant from just doing it once.
As for being loose that's shouldn't really matter, women can enjoy it if they want to that's their choice. A single man can knock up several women yet no talking much about telling men to cut the pipes its often the woman who gets blamed more for her role in the act than the man which reflects the misogyny in our society. Because at the heart of the anti abortion movement is misogyny. Telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

I also have a question how does someone deal with their own mess in regards to an unplanned pregnancy? I don't really get what you mean with that.

Well I'm sorry, but it's biological FACT that sexual intercourse is more of a risk on the woman's side. Call it "misogyny" all you want, but it's not going to change how reproductive roles work, and there should be some responsibility on the woman's part to be more aware of what they themselves are getting into (not that men should be encouraged to just pump and dump, either). Though if you ask me, one thing that I do think desperately needs to change within society is the way masturbation is frequently frowned upon, even though it's a highly valid alternative which aids in practicing abstinence.

And when I say they should deal with their own mess, I mean they should pay for their own abortions. Taxpayers deal with enough crap without having to bail out women and couples who couldn't keep their damn legs closed (let alone those who've allowed it to happen multiple times).

 

[Nah]

Well I'm sorry, but it's biological FACT that sexual intercourse is more of a risk on the woman's side. Call it "misogyny" all you want, but it's not going to change how reproductive roles work, and there should be some responsibility on the woman's part to be more aware of what they themselves are getting into (not that men should be encouraged to just pump and dump, either). Though if you ask me, one thing that I do think desperately needs to change within society is the way masturbation is frequently frowned upon, even though it's a highly valid alternative which aids in practicing abstinence.

And when I say they should deal with their own mess, I mean they should pay for their own abortions. Taxpayers deal with enough crap without having to bail out women and couples who couldn't keep their damn legs closed (let alone those who've allowed it to happen multiple times).

This is kind of what they were talking about. This is hardly the first time I've seen someone paint everyone who gets an abortion as a dumb, irresponsible **** (when it should be obvious that's really not what all abortion cases are), yet how often do you ever hear anti-abortion people talk about, and with the same level of conviction, men having to be responsible and learn self-control in regards to sex?

Taxes are a weird thing to be hung up about too. The government's been misusing our taxes for 200 years, and stopping using taxes to (partially) fund abortions isn't going to mean that you or I are suddenly going to be seeing more money in our paychecks, it's going to go elsewhere. And really I'd rather that some of my taxes are going to abortion funding than into making the next drone that blows up some kids in the Middle East or be handed out to big banks and corporations the next time they cry for money (that their executives are just gonna pocket). A little tax money is trivial compared to everything unwanted pregnancy means.

 

[Yamat08]

This is kind of what they were talking about. This is hardly the first time I've seen someone paint everyone who gets an abortion as a dumb, irresponsible **** (when it should be obvious that's really not what all abortion cases are), yet how often do you ever hear anti-abortion people talk about, and with the same level of conviction, men having to be responsible and learn self-control in regards to sex?

I dunno. How often do you see men left completely hung out to dry in a family court? Would-be fathers certainly aren't devoid of consequences. Not so much on a natural level (lest you factor in STDs), but on a societal level? Yeah. And while I could acknowledge that some abortions are done by generally responsible, stable couples who just happened to have an accident (a broken condom, the pill not coming through on its less than 100% success rate, or what have you), I don't think it's a stretch to say that some significant number are done by poorly-educated people or people who are just being reckless. But that's just how I view it. If you've got actual statistics that say otherwise, I wouldn't mind giving them a look, though I'm not gonna bother seeking them out myself.

Also, just for the record, I do think this law needs to make exception towards sexual assault cases (which it doesn't, last I recall).

Taxes are a weird thing to be hung up about too. The government's been misusing our taxes for 200 years, and stopping using taxes to (partially) fund abortions isn't going to mean that you or I are suddenly going to be seeing more money in our paychecks, it's going to go elsewhere. And really I'd rather that some of my taxes are going to abortion funding than into making the next drone that blows up some kids in the Middle East or be handed out to big banks and corporations the next time they cry for money (that their executives are just gonna pocket). A little tax money is trivial compared to everything unwanted pregnancy means.

You are right that the government does a lot of screwed up things with our money, and it is very unfortunate. Even so, I'm in favor of encouraging and incentivizing personal responsibility. I'd view a pair of dumb teens to be about as deserving of getting bailed out by the general populace as the big banks are. Granted, the scale of such a comparison is vastly different, but I think the point still stands: we shouldn't enable blatant irresponsibility.

 

[Alicorn]

Well I'm sorry, but it's biological FACT that sexual intercourse is more of a risk on the woman's side. Call it "misogyny" all you want, but it's not going to change how reproductive roles work, and there should be some responsibility on the woman's part to be more aware of what they themselves are getting into (not that men should be encouraged to just pump and dump, either). Though if you ask me, one thing that I do think desperately needs to change within society is the way masturbation is frequently frowned upon, even though it's a highly valid alternative which aids in practicing abstinence.

And when I say they should deal with their own mess, I mean they should pay for their own abortions. Taxpayers deal with enough crap without having to bail out women and couples who couldn't keep their damn legs closed (let alone those who've allowed it to happen multiple times).

Women don't keep track of their cycles, when it happens most just want to get it over with. For girls its even worst because they don't understand how their body works at that time. Ovulation isn't something a woman would just know.

It is misogyny down to the definition, believing that women don't have a right to their own bodies. Believing that a fetus has more rights than a woman does. That is the mindset of a misogynist.

These laws are not meant to save babies but to punish women for stepping out of the roles that society has assigned to them and for voting. Its well known that the voting block that pushed Biden over the finish line were women and people of color predominantly African American women. African American women are the group most likely to die during childbirth and lack the resources to travel out of state to get an abortion. This lets the GOP kill two birds with one stone. If the African American woman gets the abortion she doesn't get an abortion before the 6 week mark she can go to jail, people who are felons cannot. If she has the baby she might die meaning she can't vote and if she survives the ordeal she will not have the economic means to care for her child and thus will be in poverty were the voting laws will pretty much bar her from voting.

I also forgot to answer your miscarriage response. The GOP have passed laws that make it so you will get jail time if you have a miscarriage.


A lot of women who a poor cannot afford an abortion, it already costs gas and time indirectly costing money to find an abortion Clinic since in a lot of GOP controlled states they put in so many regulations that Clinics are forced to shut down. This is a problem in Texas where everything is so spread out that she might as well do it herself. To force a woman to pay for her own abortion is just making her less likely to get one because the GOP would jack up the price with pointless regulations.

In response to woman being more aware of what they are getting into, I think men have more responsibility to know what they are getting into because a woman can't get impregnated from a sex toy, they also don't know if they are ovulating or not. While men know when the urge is coming, they have more control over it than a woman does so they should be wearing protection. A woman wouldn't have to worry if her partner was being more cautious. Or usedbettertechniques.

As for taxes America as some of the lowest tax rates in the world. A lot of America's problems wealth inequality, aging infrastructure, poor quality public schools, environmental problems, low wages, crime, social and racial discrimination and rising collage tuition. Come from a lack of government revenue. Lack of government revenue means that the state can't invest in places that need it or handle social and economic problems, fueling the problems I listed above.

The American system of funding things like schools and cities through property taxes does not work. Because you end up with poor people having to drive miles to get good food because all the fresh food sellers sell in the more affluent part of town, causing people to burn gas which cost money and you need a car to put that gas in which also cost money, so often times a portion of your pay check goes to the car which is strain on those in low income households.

This kind of thinking of "But my taxes" is something that the South thought up during Reconstruction, become the newly formed reconstruction government that formed after the civil war which consisted of the formerly enslaved had to find a way to pay for damages so they tried collecting taxes via property. The former slave owning class did not like that people the use to own were taking their money so they convinced the population that the "Tax payer" shouldn't have to pay for Reconstruction. So whenever you hear "But my taxes" remember that it is just a ploy the wealthy use to avoid paying their fair share. By personalizing taxes they made it seem like you and only you were carrying the burden when in reality the weight of taxation is spread around so you won't pay as much and get way more in return like better infrastructure, clean water, better schools, wealth equality and healthcare.

I do advocate for de-stigmatizing masturbation and decriminalizing sex work. It makes no sense that society hates women for showing some skin or having sexual liberation. But at the same time wants women to have more sex with men, and that if the don't they are regarded as stuck up. those are contraction values.

 

[Yamat08]

These laws are not meant to save babies but to punish women for stepping out of the roles that society has assigned to them and for voting. Its well known that the voting block that pushed Biden over the finish line were women and people of color predominantly African American women. African American women are the group most likely to die during childbirth and lack the resources to travel out of state to get an abortion. This lets the GOP kill two birds with one stone. If the African American woman gets the abortion she doesn't get an abortion before the 6 week mark she can go to jail, people who are felons cannot. If she has the baby she might die meaning she can't vote and if she survives the ordeal she will not have the economic means to care for her child and thus will be in poverty were the voting laws will pretty much bar her from voting.

Maybe African American women are dying because, as you yourself point out later, they make up a large amount of poor communities? I mean, it doesn't seem like a racial issue so much as an issue of class. Though as to why Africans make up a disproportionate amount of poverty, there are a number of factors behind it that are worth looking into (though I can be almost certain that it isn't because "the white man" is keeping them down..... BTW, this is a delicate enough topic without needlessly bringing in some racist identity politics BS into the mix).

Also, REALLY funny that you bring up Biden, yet talk about the cost of gas later in the same post without a hint of irony.

I also forgot to answer your miscarriage response. The GOP have passed laws that make it so you will get jail time if you have a miscarriage.

I looked into it. I think you're talking about cases of women who were prosecuted after their babies died as a result of substance abuse. Say whatever you want about the GOP, I don't think they're so malicious that they'd arrest grieving mothers over something they had no control over.

In response to woman being more aware of what they are getting into, I think men have more responsibility to know what they are getting into because a woman can't get impregnated from a sex toy, they also don't know if they are ovulating or not. While men know when the urge is coming, they have more control over it than a woman does so they should be wearing protection. A woman wouldn't have to worry if her partner was being more cautious. Or usedbettertechniques.

I don't even know what you're getting at here. You're saying that men should be more aware of what they're getting into because they should be held accountable for the child that they conceive? Then yes, I'd agree. But I was talking more about who's more physically at risk if a conception were to happen. Obviously, men can't carry children (at least not beyond the state of being a seed), so it is on the woman to be more aware of the greater risks that are on them. Also, female condoms do exist, just saying.

BTW, I actually advocated for masturbation, but "a woman can't get impregnated from a sex toy"?........ er, yeah, about that.

This Designer Has Created A Home Insemination Kit That Doubles As A Sex Toy

Polish design student Kamila Rudnicka hopes it will bring the fun, pleasure, and intimacy back into what is often a rather clinical process.

www.forbes.com

As for taxes America as some of the lowest tax rates in the world. A lot of America's problems wealth inequality, aging infrastructure, poor quality public schools, environmental problems, low wages, crime, social and racial discrimination and rising collage tuition. Come from a lack of government revenue. Lack of government revenue means that the state can't invest in places that need it or handle social and economic problems, fueling the problems I listed above.

Or, as the poster above you so graciously pointed out, they squander that government revenue on things that do anything but help with handling those social and economic problems.

 

[Alicorn]

It is a racial issue African Americans were barred from owning property for most of American history. This meant being unable to build generational wealth that they could pass on. Jim Crow laws made nearly impossible to build a successful business and to those who did they would have to worry about having everything they earned burned down. If their property was burned down most of the time the bank would not reimburse them so they were left penniless. Housing discrimination was and still is very rampant. There is a reason the projects look like a warzone and suburbs do not despite being built around the same time. It was to ensure that African Americans lived in poor districts which would make it almost impossible for them to leave. because who is going to buy a run down house in a bad part of town? No one but the poor. Being locked in a bad neighborhood with little to no help is going to lead to bad outcomes.

Then you have the War on Drugs which Nixon started for the sole purpose to lock up African Americans destroying the community because he and the GOP knew that African Americans are the back bone of the Democratic party. Suppress African American turn out and it becomes easier to win elections. The ends benefit the means.

Ronald Reagan doubled down on Nixon's bigoty and created the "Welfare Queen" myth so he could gut social programs which would impact the poor and by poor African Americans most of all the backbone of the Democratic party. Reagan also empowered the police to go into poor neighborhoods which more often then not had a majority African American population and started to lock up people predominately to break the community because there goes a large portion of the household income. You can't afford to hire a baby sitter so you have to make a choice stay home and take care of the children which means working less and therefor making less money or working and thus depriving the child of much needed family support. Meaning that African American women are poorer as a result. Can't vote if the polling place is on the other side of town. Can't vote if your working during polling hours, can't vote if your in jail for child neglect or have a felony because of that.

What does all of what I said above have to do with abortion? Because all of this are the hurdles keeps African American women from voting. Its a pattern of voter suppression. A blue print of how the wealthy keep control of the states by getting rid of or making it nearly impossible for the poor to vote. African American women are the backbone of the Democratic party. Republicans win when the turn out is low The abortion ban is just another attempt in a long line of voter suppression tactics to keep turnout low. Just like how voter ID is just a poll tax by any other name. So is anti abortion laws. They are a means to keep women primarily African American women from voting because as I said before African American women are the backbone of the Democratic party. It is all related. Why do you think the moment Trump lost the election all of these anti abortion laws just started popping up in masses? Because the GOP knew which part of the voting electorate was responsibly for Biden's victory and they were going to punish them for it in one way or another. This is the same tactic Republicans used after Obama won in 2008.


Now back to the topic.

Arresting a women for having a miscarriage due to substance abuse and other means is cruel and unusual punishment. She had already lost the baby locking her up screwing over her life even more than it already has been is what I'm talking about these laws were meant to rob women of their rights. It is cruelty, cruelty is the point. Cruelty promotes fear, this sends a message to other women to not seek an abortion.


Women cannot get impregnated with a man's seed, this means that a man has to be more careful because he has more control over it than she does. Women do not know if its a bad time for them to have sex because a lot of women do not keep track of their cycles. This fear can be abated if the man uses protection or satisfy her with other means.

The government does squander money that does not take away from the fact that the good it would do outweighs the bad. If we keep going this route we are still going to be here 40 years from now making the same excuses then that we are now. People have to renew their trust in government and start consider the group benefits over the individual one.

 

[StrangeKitten]

Abortion should be legal so that it is safe and accessible. It is, quite frankly, an absurd notion to think otherwise. Humans are very sexually-driven beings, generally (a small portion of the population are on the ace spectrum, but they're, well, a small portion). To act like people with uteruses should be punished for an unwanted pregnancy is to turn a blind eye to human nature.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

I had no intention of posting because to be quite frank I feel this shouldn't be up for debate but this bit irked me

I looked into it. I think you're talking about cases of women who were prosecuted after their babies died as a result of substance abuse. Say whatever you want about the GOP, I don't think they're so malicious that they'd arrest grieving mothers over something they had no control over.

I googled 'miscarriage jail' and the first result mentions Brittany Poolah who's fetus' autopsy tested positive for substances, however, the defence in the trial claims that it hadn't been proven that was what killed the fetus. This also ignores cases like Marshae Jones who was charged with manslaughter because she got shot and the bullet killed the fetus or Jennifer Jorgenson who had a miscarriage after a car accident was charged with manslaughter because of said miscarriage. There's also the fact that miscarriages can also just be natural.

Risk factors
Various factors increase the risk of miscarriage, including:

• Age. Women older than age 35 have a higher risk of miscarriage than do younger women. At age 35, you have about a 20 percent risk. At age 40, the risk is about 40 percent. And at age 45, it's about 80 percent.
• Previous miscarriages. Women who have had two or more consecutive miscarriages are at higher risk of miscarriage.
• Chronic conditions. Women who have a chronic condition, such as uncontrolled diabetes, have a higher risk of miscarriage.
• Uterine or cervical problems. Certain uterine conditions or weak cervical tissues (incompetent cervix) might increase the risk of miscarriage.
• Smoking, alcohol and illicit drugs. Women who smoke during pregnancy have a greater risk of miscarriage than do nonsmokers. Heavy alcohol use and illicit drug use also increase the risk of miscarriage.
• Weight. Being underweight or being overweight has been linked with an increased risk of miscarriage.
• Invasive prenatal tests. Some invasive prenatal genetic tests, such as chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis, carry a slight risk of miscarriage.

Often, there's nothing you can do to prevent a miscarriage. Yet this can, will and has been deemed grounds for manslaughter charges. You clearly do not know enough about the subject if you're shaming women for having sex as seen here

On the other hand, I do feel that quite a few people (both women and their partners) have gotten to be a bit too reckless in regards to their sexuality. I mean, sexual liberation shouldn't mean one can just clean out the pipes every single time they have a little oopsie and not suffer any kind of consequences for it.

After all, if you were actually knowledgable about the subject, you'd have known that birth control includes what we call morning after pills, a much more preferable method than abortion due to sheer convinience, even in countries like the Netherlands where abortion costs are fully covered by basic health insurance unlike birth control which requires a higher insurance tier or is counted as 'own risk' costs, meaning it wouldn't be covered. I recommend you either do proper research with an open mind or acknowledge that you have no input on this issue that will never apply to you

 

[Nah]

Even so, I'm in favor of encouraging and incentivizing personal responsibility. I'd view a pair of dumb teens to be about as deserving of getting bailed out by the general populace as the big banks are. Granted, the scale of such a comparison is vastly different, but I think the point still stands: we shouldn't enable blatant irresponsibility.

Don't you think that there's a better way to do that than to force people to go through pregnancy and childbirth though?

 

[StoicPhantom]

I got sidetracked and forgot about this topic, so I never did respond.

They will most likely gut Roe V. Wade, given that much of the court is deeply conservative

Conservatives didn't have the power until now to weaken Roe V Wade.

If You Were Born After 1969, You Have No Idea What A Liberal Supreme Court Is

This election could change that.

www.huffpost.com

What has that power meant? Well, if you were born after Nixon was first elected president, you simply have no clue what a liberal Supreme Court looks like.
Here’s another way of phrasing that: If you are anywhere between the ages of 0 and 47 years old ― that includes both of this article’s authors ― you have never lived a day of your life with a left-of-center majority in the most powerful institution in the judicial branch of government. That has had a tangible impact on what world you live in.

Conservatives had the power to decide Roe V. Wade in the first place.

That is the difference the courts have never been more blatantly partisan until now.

https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2020-07-10/unexpected-decisions-unlikely-alliances-mark-supreme-court-term

Trump and Republicans have long touted their conservative majority after the president installed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the bench. But the 2019-2020 term handed down some unexpected decisions with unlikely alliances that at limes left many conservatives frustrated with Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump's appointees. And it seemed to bolster the arguments of legal experts who said expectations of a politicized court defy how the justices typically operate and interpret law – especially at a time when partisan tensions are inflamed.

It's always amusing when liberals fearmonger about a biased court while conservatives get angry about the court not being biased enough.


As far as the rest of the topic goes, I think my original post implying "wedge issues" are dumb and arguing them is a waste of time still stands. Especially given all the dumb tangents that have happened so far. There is, however, one argument that always irks me.

In response to woman being more aware of what they are getting into, I think men have more responsibility to know what they are getting into because a woman can't get impregnated from a sex toy, they also don't know if they are ovulating or not. While men know when the urge is coming, they have more control over it than a woman does so they should be wearing protection. A woman wouldn't have to worry if her partner was being more cautious. Or usedbettertechniques.

Irresponsible Misogynist Male: I suddenly have the urge to go on a cross-country impregnation spree.

Irresponsible Gullible Female(s): I'm going to put all my trust and agency in this random dude I met in a bar who's name I don't know.

Irresponsible Misogynist Male: Haha don't worry babe, even if you're not on the pill, I'll definitely pull out.

Irresponsible Gullible Female(s): Well as long as you're sure.

Irresponsible Misogynist Male doesn't pull out

Irresponsible Misogynist Male: Haha sorry about that. Well, time to be hitting the old dusty trail. I'll never see you again but it was fun.

Irresponsible Gullible Female(s) find out she/they are pregnant weeks later

Irresponsible Gullible Female(s): I didn't even get his name to prosecute for child support. I hope he gets an STD and rots in prison.

Irresponsible Misogynist Male: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6riDJMI-Y8U&t=55s


There's a male equivalent about ****ing crazy women that lie about being on the pill or poke holes in your condom and/or make false **** accusations, but I don't feel like typing that out, so you'll have to deal with my sexist laziness.

You can, however, figure that there are three constants in life as far as anyone can tell:

1. You are not the center of the world

2. You will be subject to the consequences of your actions

3. Consequences aren't always proportional to the riskiness of the action

As was stated somewhere in the topic, men really don't have anything to do with pregnancy. So whether you think sticking a rusty coat hanger up your vagina is a sensible idea or short-term pleasure is more important than long-term consequences has no bearing on the average male. Most men would in fact try to distance themselves from the situation if they were involved. Call them mean old misogynists all you want, but you are ultimately the one that wants to hand your agency to them in the first place.

You can either have your agency and become stronk independent womyn or be a naive little damsel that has no agency or responsibility over her actions. You don't get to pick and choose based on which is more convenient to you at the time. As straight white male Ben Parker alluded to, responsibility comes with power. If you're responsible enough to have sex, you are responsible enough to deal with its responsibilities.


This isn't an argument against abortion btw, but more against the more ridiculous tangents that frequently come up with the topic. It always irks me when people carry on about the freedom to do what they want and then immediately pivot to not wanting to be responsible for the consequences of their actions and demanding others be held responsible. It's not exclusive to women, but they and their "male allies" are the ones currently carrying on about how men should have no say in their decisions even in this very topic...


The law is the law. Everyone (theoretically) gets a say in a democracy. Both men and women have advocated against abortion, the procedure. A woman's "autonomy" over her body does not and will never matter in this context. We already have legal precedent of overriding people's autonomy, e.g. defining a specific age range that prohibits independence from parental or state authority, so the idea that a woman's autonomy is sacred is just ignorance at this point. If certain state legislators agree on laws prohibiting abortion that jive with legal precedent, then as per the terms you agree with to live in this country, you will abide by majority will.

Whether or not there is "voter suppression" on specific demographics has no relevance to what is already on the books. How laws get drafted or passed by whom has no relevance to the judicial system or the legal process within it. Judges rule based on current laws and legal precedent. Whether or not that lines up with your specific ideology doesn't matter to those processes.


On that note, it might be beneficial to get with the Current Year trends and adopt a strong independent womyn who needs no man grind mindset. I don't think a reliance on a "misogyny-fueled" and "patriarchal" state is probably what you want if this is your concern. My sympathies to those who were ***** or had the misfortune of having health complications arise from legitimately desired pregnancies, but for everyone else it might be prudent to consider prioritizing what is truly most important to you.

 

[Goomboi]

Shake on we all keep our pants on until we're ready to have a kid regardless of what you are

 

[StrangeKitten]

Shake on we all keep our pants on until we're ready to have a kid regardless of what you are

We've tried that. It's called abstinence-only education. Results have shown it to be counter-intuitive, as teens only ended up getting pregnant more often, not less.

 

[Alicorn]

Shake on we all keep our pants on until we're ready to have a kid regardless of what you are

Just give women the right to decide if they want an abortion or not. Women should have the freedom to control what goes inside their wombs. It is why this law in Texas is so dumb and only serves as a vehicle to suppress the rights of women to keep the GOP in power. It was never about protecting the baby it was about protecting power by making it easier to disenfranchise voters.

 

[Sucumbio]

If enough people in a state think abortion is wrong then it's going to be outlawed there. Out of state abortion seeking will trend up. Abortion will still happen. I thinking having access to the morning after pill is important as is condom usage. Safe sex isn't new and unwanted pregnancy is what it is.

 

[Alicorn]

If enough people in a state think abortion is wrong then it's going to be outlawed there. Out of state abortion seeking will trend up. Abortion will still happen. I thinking having access to the morning after pill is important as is condom usage. Safe sex isn't new and unwanted pregnancy is what it is.

Polls have been done a majority of Americans think woman should be allowed to get an abortion. The problem is the GOP in those states only listen to their voters, therefore insulating themselves from criticism and minimizing the backlash.

 

[Yamat08]

Polls have been done a majority of Americans think woman should be allowed to get an abortion. The problem is the GOP in those states only listen to their voters, therefore insulating themselves from criticism and minimizing the backlash.

And yet people in those states are still going to vote for the GOP. Just like how the people in burning down cities are still somehow compelled to keep voting Democrat.

 

[Alicorn]

Please don't go off topic

 

[Sucumbio]

Polls have been done a majority of Americans think woman should be allowed to get an abortion. The problem is the GOP in those states only listen to their voters, therefore insulating themselves from criticism and minimizing the backlash.

Yeah... that's part of why absolutism and forcing dichotomies especially during ballots is terrible. But I frankly haven't heard a genuine solution beyond do what you gotta do. Legal or not inconvenient or not it will happen if the determination is there. It's the same with lots of human values. People gravitate to where their community is an echo chamber especially in communities where the sentiment is to always disagree! Imagine a board of education meeting over a book involving abortion and the outrageous things that are said, silenced, abrupted...

Having had 2 ...... Of my offspring aborted.... I actually pity people finding themselves in similar circumstances because so much has changed and not for the better. But let's be real if you're an American in the right community as in your family chose wisely... Well then that's something we keep in the family. Make a call to Dr. So n so and a bottle of wine later it's just a bad nightmare (that you never escape but that's another story.)

 

[Swamp Sensei]

I think it's worth stating that one can think abortion is morally wrong, while still supporting a person's legal right to abortion.

Like I personally think smoking and drinking alcohol is wrong and stupid, but people have legal rights to do it and I support their legal rights.

 

[StoicPhantom]

Shake on we all keep our pants on until we're ready to have a kid regardless of what you are

That's certainly a path you can take in life.

We've tried that. It's called abstinence-only education. Results have shown it to be counter-intuitive, as teens only ended up getting pregnant more often, not less.

I think he's talking about abstinence the practice, not education. Abstinence education is an issue because it only gives you a small slice of the topic and that leaves people ill-prepared to deal with situations that fall outside that narrow range of education. It ends up being less about educating and more about trying to propagandize teens into thinking and behaving in certain ways.

Abstinence itself is 100% effective provided you actually do it. The problem is that people don't abide by it in the same way people don't abide by diets. You can't blame either abstinence or diets when people aren't actually practicing them.

Polls have been done a majority of Americans think woman should be allowed to get an abortion. The problem is the GOP in those states only listen to their voters, therefore insulating themselves from criticism and minimizing the backlash.

Er, yeah. Politicians whose voters elect them to legislate in a certain way are in fact supposed to listen to their voters. That's like the whole point of representative democracy. This isn't a nation-wide ban on abortion, but a deliberation on whether states are allowed to individually implement these specific laws.

 

[Nah]

Seriously expecting the entire human population, or even just the entire population of a single country, to completely abstain from sex except for the purpose of making babies is very naive and not something that should be considered an option on the table at all

 

[Alicorn]

Er, yeah. Politicians whose voters elect them to legislate in a certain way are in fact supposed to listen to their voters. That's like the whole point of representative democracy. This isn't a nation-wide ban on abortion, but a deliberation on whether states are allowed to individually implement these specific laws.

Except when you have states Gerrymandered in such a way that over represents a minority electorate over the majority, resulting in politicians focusing on certain districts and ignoring others. That is not the voters picking the politicians that's politicians picking their voters which makes the system less democratic as a result.

The states can't this goes against Federal law, this abortion ban basically legalizes vigilantism and will overwhelm the courts with all these feverless lawsuits. It is nothing more than a means to suppress the rights of women, to scare women into not seeking an abortion therefore causing them to not seek it before the six week deadline. Once that happens a woman can't get an abortion unless she faces a felony which would make her ineligible to vote in Texas. That way the GOP can suppress turnout and hold power, while also pushing the narrative criminals and by criminals they mean murders, voting. Its nothing more than a political tool.

Seriously expecting the entire human population, or even just the entire population of a single country, to completely abstain from sex except for the purpose of making babies is very naive and not something that should be considered an option on the table at all

Yeah, the whole abstinence thing feels like a cheap way of using "personal responsibility" to avoid talking about the issue. Because that throws out things like sexual assault, something that the victim has no control over.

It also telling women what they can and can't do with her body because when people talk about virginity its often about the female's not the male's. The purity of the virgin thing exist is because a man didn't know if his kids belong to him so to see if the woman has been faithful they had to make sure she was still a virgin before marriage. But for men the issue of virginity isn't taken as seriously and even mocked.

 

[Sucumbio]

Well someone here said something that sounded like people don't own their bodies if they enter into the social contract of being governed. Or words to that understanding. I think that's unfortunately true and ghastly depending on which government you've placed your trust in but here in America it's more of a.,.hope that living on a radon mountain won't give you leukemia.

 

[Yamat08]

Except when you have states Gerrymandered in such a way that over represents a minority electorate over the majority, resulting in politicians focusing on certain districts and ignoring others. That is not the voters picking the politicians that's politicians picking their voters which makes the system less democratic as a result.

If anything, there's over-representation of large, over-crowded cities. Hell, it's not a stretch to say that several states would be straight up red if not for their one or two major cities. As a rural Californian, I know this all too well.

 

[Alicorn]

If anything, there's over-representation of large, over-crowded cities. Hell, it's not a stretch to say that several states would be straight up red if not for their one or two major cities. As a rural Californian, I know this all too well.

Most people live in cities, that is where the economic and cultural heart of a state is. When you take power away from the big cities you end up with tyranny by the minority because there are less people who live outside cities.

Those people who live outside cities will be less impacted by what goes on inside cities which makes them more likely to vote against what the majority wants.

Politicians especially those with ambitious drives will cater to rural areas to get easier votes because there are less people to win over, less cultural and social differences to have to tread through resulting in politicians being less prepared to hold office because they don't understand or do not want to understand the real cultural, social and economic issues that often plague a communities in urban areas. Something that a lot of states, and cities reflect. Small towns and gated communities often don't making it harder to govern and more prone to becoming corrupt. Because big businesses and special interest groups can lobby easier knowing that the the party in power doesn't really care who is being impacted because the people in the cities weren't going to vote for said politicians and the party's base knows that they won't vote for the other party so they are less likely to lose votes.

 

[StoicPhantom]

Except when you have states Gerrymandered in such a way that over represents a minority electorate over the majority, resulting in politicians focusing on certain districts and ignoring others. That is not the voters picking the politicians that's politicians picking their voters which makes the system less democratic as a result.

An Overview of Abortion Attitudes in Texas: Four Things to Know

texaspolitics.utexas.edu

Ignoring the article's obvious spin and bias, it does seem that attitudes towards the ban have abruptly shifted in Texas, but not quick enough for the voting cycle and the margins are still very close. While more contested than the media would have you think, Texas has historically trended towards pro-life and there's clear support for restrictions on abortion in general, even if most don't want complete abolition of abortion.

Polls: Most Americans support the right to abortion, but many are also OK with 15-week limit

Supreme Court will hear Mississippi's request to uphold its 15-week limit and also overturn Roe vs. Wade.

www.latimes.com

Either I'm bad at this or it's weirdly hard to find recent Mississippi polling on this specific law, but here's polling that shows more support for upholding the law from Americans on the whole.

Both of these are corroborated by other polling I've seen that suggest there is little support for a total abortion ban, but most are in favor of restrictions of some form. So I fail to see the issue when the current proceedings are lining up with how the nation actually views this topic. Again, this isn't a total ban on abortion, but restrictions on the time frame of the procedure.

Which, yeah, you know people have different opinions on what constitutes life and thus when abortions are ok or not. If you are the type of person to believe abortion is ok up to the day of birth, then this will probably not please you. If you have a line where you draw when it is acceptable, then you should understand why some people might have different opinions on where that line is.

This is completely inline with other more clearly defined constitutional rights like free speech and the right to bear arms. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or legally bear every arm available. And I know some of you are in that other topic advocating for gun control. So I'm not sure why people are pretending it is somehow a uniquely grave offense to suggest there might be a potential need for restrictions on abortion as well, other than partisan hackery.

Seriously expecting the entire human population, or even just the entire population of a single country, to completely abstain from sex except for the purpose of making babies is very naive and not something that should be considered an option on the table at all

Yeah, the whole abstinence thing feels like a cheap way of using "personal responsibility" to avoid talking about the issue.

It really is only 0 or 100 with you people, isn't it?

Abstinence is a choice you can make. You also don't have to make it either. You can also choose to do it anytime and stop at anytime. You are perfectly free to do what you want in this regard and there is nothing in my posts that ever said otherwise. You just can't pretend abstinence isn't effective when actually practiced.

personal responsibility

If the courts can giveth and taketh away abortion so easily, is it really a good idea to rely so heavily on state power?

If men are so mean and misogynistic, is it a good idea to rely on them to manage your birth control?

If you are so financially strapped for cash that you can't even afford drugstore condoms, is it a good idea to worry about sex in the first place?

If having sex ultimately is your decision and you desire it to be your decision, why do you think society needs to be involved in the potential consequences resulting from it?

To put things bluntly, I don't have strong opinions on abortion. Abortion is my least favorite topic next to religion and the dumbest arguments always spring forth from both sides. But I would like to hear how sex and abortion are personal choices, but the consequences from them are societal responsibility. I will be the first to call out people who twist and misuse "personal responsibility" to justify the unjustifiable, but I would like pro-choice advocates to stop dancing around this and throwing words that end with "ist" as a distraction.

Poverty isn't a choice as it is largely controlled by factors outside your control. When the federal government completely guts your economy by outsourcing manufacturing, thanks to the "economic and cultural heart of the state" and their brainless decisions driven by greed and indifference, you have no control over that as the "minority". Trying to insinuate that being poor is "personal responsibility" is actual fascist thinking.

Sex is a choice; time, place, and person. Outside of ****, which not many would oppose making an exception for, you have complete control with what happens in this regard. That puts you on the same level as smokers, alcoholics, and fat people. You partake in an activity that has risks to it for the purpose of pleasure (in most instances). Why is the rest of society responsible for the outcome when they didn't make this decision and don't even share the benefits? In other words, why are we privatizing the benefits and socializing the costs?


This seems to be one of the major sticklers for anti-abortionists and I've yet to see a coherent answer to what is IMO a good question. I'm sure you can get a good chunk to support your right to abortion, but then you start throwing in public subsidization of abortion and birth control. And if you're going to make the public foot the bill of your personal decision, should they not have some say in what their money goes toward?

Healthcare is in the general interest of society because everyone gets sick. Not everyone can even get pregnant and even unprotected sex doesn't result in pregnancy all of the time. It gets even harder to sell when there are relatively affordable contraceptives that further reduce the chance of pregnancy.

Abortion in the case of medical complications or **** seems to be widely supported. Abortion on demand for any reason, especially publicly subsidized, is significantly less so. It doesn't seem to be that out there to think that maybe people should take more responsibility for their decisions.


Ultimately you made your choice so I'm not "expecting" anything and certainly not the entirety of society having sex only for the purposes of procreation. I'm more pointing out that reality has other ideas and that you probably should act accordingly if you want a decent life. And you probably shouldn't lead others astray with completely unrealistic expectations of reality.

Freedom is great and I fully support it, but as said many times before, freedom comes with responsibility. Education to make informed decisions should go in hand with freedom in order to protect the free individual. You cannot have informed decisions when you spend most of your time lying and gaslighting people in order to win a debate, which is the bulk of the abortion discourse. Trying to convince people that all that is being done is "snipping" a "clump of cells" is terrible just as telling an 11-year-old that she has to bear her uncle's **** baby is also horrible. There's a hell of a lot more that goes with that than abortion proponents would have you believe.

And that's ultimately why I entered a topic I don't like. There's an insane amount of misinformation that's always thrown around and this thread is no exception. Watching people flop from women should be able to make their own decisions to women are completely incapable of managing their own sex lives without state intervention will always be cringe. At least construct a coherent argument without resorting to name-calling and pretending people are part of some secret patriarchy that only care about controlling women.

 

[Yamat08]

Most people live in cities, that is where the economic and cultural heart of a state is. When you take power away from the big cities you end up with tyranny by the minority because there are less people who live outside cities.

Those people who live outside cities will be less impacted by what goes on inside cities which makes them more likely to vote against what the majority wants.

Politicians especially those with ambitious drives will cater to rural areas to get easier votes because there are less people to win over, less cultural and social differences to have to tread through resulting in politicians being less prepared to hold office because they don't understand or do not want to understand the real cultural, social and economic issues that often plague a communities in urban areas. Something that a lot of states, and cities reflect. Small towns and gated communities often don't making it harder to govern and more prone to becoming corrupt. Because big businesses and special interest groups can lobby easier knowing that the the party in power doesn't really care who is being impacted because the people in the cities weren't going to vote for said politicians and the party's base knows that they won't vote for the other party so they are less likely to lose votes.

Actually, it seems like there're bigger cultural and social differences in the rural communities than in the big cities. Sure, cities have larger populations, but most of them generally live within the same culture, which is likely the reason a good majority of them tend to vote on the same policies. In contrast, the culture will vary wildly across different locations and smaller, but more isolated, communities (and thus the reason why the Electoral College is even a thing). The problem with Democrats is that they just try to curry favor to those sheer numbers in major population centers, while being completely tone-deaf to the needs of people in more rural areas.

 

[Nah]

I don't want to get too much into the politicians bit since that may or may not be a bit off-topic, but I will just say this for now:

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans give a **** about the people of this country, they haven't for decades, if they ever did at all. There are no political parties worth voting for in the U.S.

You just can't pretend abstinence isn't effective when actually practiced.

this is really not the point I was making and I don't know why this is how you interpreted it

 

[StoicPhantom]

this is really not the point I was making and I don't know why this is how you interpreted it

I guess I misinterpreted who your post was for given that it came directly after mine. Apologies.