28 ms·
The voters who support the policy believe it is about the lives of unborn children.
by jklinger410 4y ago
The voters who support the policy believe it is about the lives of unborn children.
- Miner49er 4y agoThis isn't logical though. People will still get abortions, all this will change is who can get abortions. So it's clearly about control.
- josephcsible 4y agoIf abortions are bad, then it's good if fewer people get them, whether or not the reduction is spread evenly across different demographics.
- rootusrootus 4y agoIf abortions are bad, why are the same people who want to ban abortions the ones who want to ban contraceptives? That would do a lot more to reduce abortions in reality than any law can.
- Clubber 4y ago>If abortions are bad, why are the same people who want to ban abortions the ones who want to ban contraceptives? That would do a lot more to reduce abortions in reality than any law can. I would imagine they believe the point of sex is to conceive. Both those things prevent conception.
- rootusrootus 4y agoI agree. They are not actually trying to reduce the number of abortions, they are taking a religious/moral position.
- rufus_foreman 4y agoThat's a straw man. Only 6% of Americans think birth control should be illegal, https://today.yougov.com/topics/health/articles-reports/2022/06/09/birth-control-yougov-poll-may-9-12-2022 https://today.yougov.com/topics/health/articles-reports/2022....
- Jcowell 4y agoI would think programmers of all people can understand complex problems do not have simple solutions. There are variables to weigh, numbers to be analyzed. And that’s not even getting what is “good” and “bad” and if a laws purpose is to outright outlaw them without thinking of other measures and consequences.
- pstuart 4y agoIf abortions are bad then providing birth control and sexual education to prevent unwanted pregnancies would be good, right? But those are going to be gutted next. Hmmmm....
- wahnfrieden 4y agoa lot packed into that if - eg you are including categories such as rape victims who are expected to die in childbirth, feel like you should be explicit in the true extent of what you're advocating
- josephcsible 4y agoWhen would someone who's expected to die in childbirth be saved by an abortion but not by an emergency C-section?
- Jcowell 4y agoIf the emergency C-section is to get the non viable fetus out , how is that still not an abortion? The only alternative I can think of is that a women should carry the non viable fetus into term for 9 whole months instead of getting it out of her as soon as she can.
- josephcsible 4y agoModern hospitals can save babies born as early as 22 weeks. If a full-term birth would kill the mother, then a date between 22 weeks and full term should be chosen that maximizes the chance that both mother and child survive.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoNot just women, you're also talking about forced pregnancy/birth of for instance 11 year old girls
- MandieD 4y agoBecause they didn’t have their body subjected to those last, most difficult months of pregnancy. My own surprise (but very wanted!) pregnancy was easy the first few months - I even skied up through week 16, but around week 30 I started developing back pain and intermittent numbness in some of my toes that is still around, after nearly two years and lots of physical therapy. And I was always considered to be having a “healthy” pregnancy, and was pretty healthy beforehand. Only unusual thing is that I was 40. For a more extreme but still realistic hypothetical, I have a severely physically disabled friend who weighs about 60 lbs and requires regular mechanical breathing assistance. She is, as far as she knows, just as capable of getting pregnant as I am. She also knows that she would not survive more than a few weeks of pregnancy. There are many people capable of becoming pregnant who live somewhere between these two extremes.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoIf drugs are bad, then it's good if fewer people get them, whether or not the reduction is spread evenly across different demographics. Therefore it's okay to use racially-targeted methods of enforcement and arrest poor, ethnic minorities, etc. as long as we get at least a little drug reduction out of it.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoAh, but this is where it gets fun. Different power centers see abortions from different perspectives. The state wants ( and benefits from ) more taxpayers, while corporates benefit from ensuring workflow is not interrupted by biological needs.
- RHSeeger 4y agoThere are people for whom this is about control. There are people for whom this is about preventing murder. The two groups, while they may overlap, are not the same; they just vote the same on this topic.
- overrun11 4y agoWe don't use this standard of reasoning for anything else. If abortion is murder then it ought to be banned regardless of how effective the ban may be. Your job is to argue that abortion is not murder. Any argument that sidesteps the morality of abortion is not going to convince anyone.
- rswail 4y ago> Your job is to argue that abortion is not murder. Sure, and your job is to argue that abortion causes the death of a viable human life. Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Abortion isn't that.
- overrun11 4y agoYeah I reject that definition and am not particularly considered with dictionary definitions when determining what is moral. By this definition we couldn't consider any killing sanctioned by the state to be murder.
- overrun11 4y agoYou'll need to carve out a definition of "viable" that excludes late term fetuses that could survive outside the womb but includes born babies that cannot survive without the care of adults.
- colinmhayes 4y agoIf you drink and drive and cause a car crash that requires you give a blood transfusion is it murder to refuse? I think hardly anyone would say that, because society has decided the right of bodily autonomy is paramount. I don't see abortion as any different from refusing to save someone you hurt in a car crash you caused.
- aftbit 4y agoIn this _particular_ case, I think it would indeed be considered vehicular homicide if you drove drunk and killed someone. If you could and did save them by giving a blood transfusion, then you would likely still be guilty of some crime for hitting them in the first place, but not homicide.
- Chris2048 4y agoThe wealthy/connected are probably better at getting away with murder/theft/rape/etc too, it doesn't mean we should legalise it in the name of equality. Also, nothing prevents further restrictions on abortion in the future, for those that still can get them.
- jonhohle 4y agoI would imagine the states that outlaw abortions will have significantly fewer. Is there any evidence that comes close to suggesting the rate of abortions is the same now as prior to RvW? America has an abortion rate in line with former Soviet countries and exceptionally higher than most of the western world. It has disproportionally harmed the population that it supposedly “helps”. The eugenicist roots of the founders of the largest supporter should be evidence enough for the goals of that movement.
- LocalH 4y agoIllegal abortions don't get recorded in the same way as legal ones do, so the "statistics" are meaningless.
- Jcowell 4y agoI see no merit in a society that allows unwanted unloved children to be born and lives to now be chained down for 18 years minimum. I would rather a productive person today then a who knows what 20 years in the future.
- jonhohle 4y agoUnwanted or unloved by whom? Visit a foster/adoption group and you’ll meet plenty of people wanting to give kids a safe, loving environment. (I’m not saying any particular foster program is adequate, rather the idea that a child is “unwanted” or “unloved” is a fallacy.)
- rswail 4y agoMaybe that rate of abortion, as it was in Soviet countries, is due to the lack of contraception and family planning in the US. That is tied to the structure of the health system. Why is it that people that want to outlaw abortion, and are willing to pay for the policing and prosecution resources necessary to enforce that law aren't willing to invest the same amount into contraception that would have a similar effect. Is it better to clean up after an oil spill, or ensure that the spill doesn't happen in the first place?
- voisin 4y agoBut suddenly upon birth these same children need no societal protection? I think it is convenient to point to the importance of the lives of unborn children but until the same protection is applied to children post-birth it seems like a convenient cover for controlling women.
- leereeves 4y ago> But suddenly upon birth these same children need no societal protection? > ... until the same protection is applied to children post-birth ... The same protection is applied to children post-birth. It's still illegal to kill those children after they're born. --- Edit to respond to comments, because I'm "posting too fast": Yes, the conservative position on social programs seems inconsistent with being pro-life to someone who believes that government benefit programs are not only helpful, but are the primary mechanism to help the needy. But not to people who believe, like Reagan, that "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'" They don't look to the government for help for themselves and they don't see it as a mechanism for helping others. For that, they prefer family, church, charity, and community. They also generally believe, contrary to some extreme positions that have been exaggerated by their opponents, that: "we would not consider it immoral for a woman to accept treatment that is necessary to save her life, but which may end the life of her preborn child." https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/abortion-and-health-of-the-mother/ https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/abortion-and-heal...
- colejohnson66 4y agoSure, but the (conservative) states pushing the new anti-abortion laws are also cutting back social programs, especially ones aimed at single mothers. "Just get a job, freeloader!" One can't claim to be pro-life and then refuse to provide support for those new lives.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 4y ago
- avs733 4y agoThis is correct and illustrative of why the power centric version of Christianity in this country needs to be actively removed from all positions of influence. All data shows that outlawing abortion does nothing to reduce abortion. It only makes it occur later in pregnancy and makes it more dangerous. It’s time we just call religious fascism what it is because this month has shown the scorched earth approach it takes in this country to its demand of power.
- koheripbal 4y ago
- Fargoan 4y agoReligious tolerance is ok up to the point where they start pushing their beliefs on everyone else.
- Fargoan 4y agoAlso, you are deliberately cutting off the end of the sentence in your quote.
- rootusrootus 4y agoWhat does the Constitution say about religious tolerance? The founders seemed to have a stronger opinion on keeping religion out of politics.
- _-david-_ 4y agoNot really. Most of the states literally had state religions. Almost all of the founders were religious and wrote about it. John Adams even said the Constitution was only fit for a religious people.
- rootusrootus 4y agoAnd yet, they made it the very first amendment, so any state with their own religion should have had it struck down quickly. Also, the term "separation of church and state" did in fact start with the founders. Who were mostly deists, not at all like today's Evangelical Christians.
- philosopher1234 4y agoThey’re lying
- jklinger410 4y agoThere are many conservatives in power who are lying, but there more people who live next door to you who genuinely believe it.
- philosopher1234 4y agoNo they don’t. Because they don’t act on it. They believe it just deeply enough not to ask why their actions are wildly inconsistent.
- Chris2048 4y agoBy that logic - If I'm not willing to help someone else raise their children, I must (for consistency) allow them to murder their children if they wish to do so.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
- Chris2048 4y ago
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
- Chris2048 4y ago
- pmdulaney 4y agoI just felt a eudisturbance in the Force, as if all the angels in heaven erupted in joy...
- arbitrary_name 4y agoAngels aren't real, and neither is heaven, my friend.
- pmdulaney 4y agoYou cannot think otherwise until the Holy Spirit -- who also doesn't exist? -- draws you. Peace, my friend.
- jimkleiber 4y agoI really want to talk with someone who believes this because I want to know what's the core of it. Is it that unborn children are considered the purest form of humanity? Is it that they're afraid of population decline/collapse and want more children in the world? What fears or other emotions drive the desire on the deepest levels?
- krapp 4y agoThe core of it, as with most terrible, regressive things in American culture and politics, is Conservative Christianity. It's also why Republicans oppose contraception and why many Christians believe masturbation is a sin.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
- babyshake 4y agoI believe it largely has to do with a widespread inability to cope with the fact that heaven doesn't exist. Death is in fact the end.
- jimkleiber 4y agoYeah, I've often wondered that. Is it the worry that if the baby dies in the womb, it will no longer go to heaven? Because if the unborn baby is considered to be one of the "most innocent" humans, then wouldn't the baby automatically go to heaven? And isn't the assumption that heaven is better than life on earth? Or is it about wanting the mother to also go to heaven, and believing that if she did this, she would not go? I appreciate you pointing out there may be a deep existential fear and doubt of the existence of heaven that drives people to this and oh how I wish we people talked more about our doubts, especially as they relate to religion. One of my favorite TED talks was about how doubt is essential to faith: https://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazleton_the_doubt_essential_to_faith https://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazleton_the_doubt_essentia...
- sandworm101 4y ago> The voters who support the policy believe it is about the lives of unborn children. No. It is old people wanting to stop young people having sex. It is about increased the biological risks associated with sex. It is about people who believe that sex should only ever be for procreation. It is about the oldest issue in history: old people not wanting young people to enjoy life.
- babyshake 4y agoIf this was really about unborn children, their solution would be to make contraception as widely available as possible and same for Plan B and methods to detect and eliminate pregnancy as early as possible. The life begins at conception crap is just plain nonsense.
- pstuart 4y agoAnd Sex Ed too ;-)
- hotelEcho28 4y agoWhy shouldn't pregnant women deduct these "children" from their tax obligation like any other child? Especially after Roe is overturned. Surely a pregnant woman counts as a caregiver to these "unborn children" and entitled to a tax credit? That would help the children these voters are so concerned about!
- negroni 4y agoThe notion of having some kind of moral high ground based upon religious principle is absurd. The Bible is rife with Godly demands for the murder of all sorts of folk including children (1 Samuel 15:3). Specifically, Numbers 5:20-27 prescribes ritualistic abortion if a woman has cheated on her husband. A thorough reading of the Bible gives one the understanding doesn't care about fetuses or children. He cares about the subjugation of women and everyone in their "proper" place in His hierarchy.
- schmichael 4y agoRegardless of what the Bible actually says there is undeniably a massive religious component to the anti-abortion movement.
- ed_balls 4y agoSome voters may, but the main goal is to manage society. It's a perfect replacement subject for income inequality, debate about guns, foreign policy like isolationist movement. Because of the electoral system, Republicans in Texas had a big issue with immigrations from "blue states" - they could loose it forever. This is an existential threat for them - first fight was Heartbeat bill. Now they have a perfect tool to slow down the process or even reverse it.
- MisterBastahrd 4y agoIf people from blue states really wanted to make a difference, they'd move to low-population states like Wyoming and Montana. It's the Senate that's the ultimate roadblock, not the House.
- ed_balls 4y ago> really wanted to make a difference most people don't care, they won't move for that. But Covid/Remote work/housing is pushing them, hence Rep. went all-in.
- nick__m 4y agoUnborn, unwanted, unsupported and unloved children, you left the important part out !
- clint 4y agoThey might believe that they "believe" this, but their actions say otherwise. Actually believing something and thinking you believe something are two wildly different things.