Repealing Roe V Wade is a mistake, but not because of anything to do with abortion.
One of the outcomes of Roe V. Wade was the concept of the constitutional right to "privacy" being applied to medical decisions, which in turn the court interpreted as the government not having the right to intervene in personal medical choices. This means the government can't unduly intervene in medical choices.
Call me schizo, but I suspect they are repealing Roe V. Wade, so they can get rid of the right to make your own medical decisions, so they can mandate Covid vaccines.
I have no real proof, and I hope I'm wrong. It's just a hypothesis.
No, that's a valid concern. These people are too fucking dumb to see that.
The MOMENT you say the state can decide what it can do with your bodily autonomy WILL NOT END with abortion. Pro lifers like using it because of the whole 'it's not your body!' thing yet are fine when it comes to everything else.
No. I am against mandated vaccines even when I think genuine anti vaxxers are retarded - condemning your kids to dangerous yet entirely preventable diseases is a sign you're unfit - and I am against those who demand women give birth to babies they are mentally and physically unfit for. That is the meaning of pro choice.
I want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. Though there is a contingent of pro lifers such as Vincent James who want contraceptives themselves to be banned. You can argue contraceptives do have an effect on female happiness and depression - and it is true - or the affect of xenoestrogens on our water supply, but to demand that contraceptives be banned entirely when you're also complaining about mass immigration is retarded. Non human animals use contraceptives. It is Malthusian and a means of keeping a population in check.
These people bitterly complain about how much social services programs cost, before saying it's 'not my kid' and 'not my problem' despite demanding that those kids be born. It seldom makes sense.
I don’t think most men will ever really understand how important family planning — which includes abortion — is to women. They’ll never know the existential terror of being pregnant when you don’t want to be, when no one supports you and you feel like you have nowhere to turn. You will do anything to make it end, including harming yourself.
Family planning, including easy access to birth control and, if desired, permanent sterilization surgery, is essential for female success and well-being. Women, as the sex most deeply burdened with pregnancy and childcare, need to be able to choose when, how often, and with whom we become parents.
And seeing the result of “life over everything” ideology in this thread and here in the Beauty Parlor (looking at you, Jahi’s mom) should be proof positive of the importance of recognizing that life itself isn’t everything.
I remember reading about Comstock Laws and how it was a response to all the sexual liberalism of the mid to late 1800s. It explicitly banned contraception or any talk about sex. Limited as both discussions were at the time, they did exist, and people were not as ignorant on sex as we thought they were. Comstock Laws also led to Margaret Sanger being jailed for handing out sex ed pamphlets - mind you, these were not the Gender Unicorn BS we have in modern sex ed today - and for her birth control advocacy. Sanger found herself freed and vindicated once the eugenics movement swept across America.
Then, Americans began taking birth control, family planning, and the IQ question seriously. Then did tard babies enter public consciousness. When women became more politically active, they all supported birth control and family planning, as well as programs for single mothers abandoned by their male partners. They understood how hard it was to raise a defective child, or even a wanted child. That is why women were the number one supporters of eugenics back in the day.
Pro lifers like Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro like saying Sanger was a black murderer and that abortion is tied to eugenics. Yes, abortion is eugenic. It always has been. Sexual selection is eugenic. And in the 1920s there was no hatred of women who wanted to control the health of their offspring. This was lost after WWII. Because it was Nazi-like.
Then contraception was banned for single couples, and rarely given to married couples. The Griswold ruling IIRC led to birth control being given to women. Even before then, birth control was experimented upon poor Puerto Rican women (Bailey Sarian has a video on this) before being sold on the market. When male birth control was proposed, it was pulled for half of the side effects birth control for women has. I do remember when MRAs thought the male pill would take away female power.
Comstock Laws is where modern pro life Repubs want to go. Banning abortion and contraception. What's interesting to note is that for a time, even WASPs thought the government should stay out of abortion issues and just legalize it for a private medical procedure. I truly wish I saved this tweet thread, but there was an excellent history thread on how the US government and politicians didn't really care about abortions until the new branch of Evangelical fundamentalism took hold. Uniquely American: even in Europe, Catholic and Protestant countries normalized abortion (except Ireland, Ireland was a really fucked up case). Again, wish I saved it. I had it bookmarked on a Twitter account and forget to save my data before my account got suspeded.
Anyways, the argument is that it is murder is really a debate of personhood. When does personhood begin? Conception, or consciousness? I recall that when COVID was going strong Repubs blocked a bill that would have given benefits to expectant mothers. They, oddly enough, didn't see the fetus as a full person then, saying it was 'too expensive'.
When they wanted a ban on ectopic pregnancy abortions, the argument was 'just reimplant it in the uterus'. Another said that IVF was not murder because it was ONLY murder if the embryo was in a woman. If it's harvested in a cell culture, well then it's alive but not a person according to them. I'll offer an
example.
Even in Alabama, Senator Clyde Chambliss, who sponsored the bill that effectively banned abortion in the state, has
no problem with discarding the embryos produced by IVF. In his words: “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”
He might have followed up by saying, “But at least she wants to be, as she should.”
Because, that, there, really is the position that anti-choice people are taking. It’s not that every embryo is a sacred human life. It’s that every woman should choose to be pregnant, and a mother. That, according to conservative rhetoric, is what good women do. IVF is fine, because women doing it are attempting to become mothers, which is what conservatives,
especially far right conservatives, believe they ought to be doing.
This is what I mean. They don't bomb IVF clinics because the embryos that are people are being cultured in a tube, not in a woman's body, so they only really become a person once they're in a woman's body.
Even when it's already a zygote, the sperm met the egg and it's a 'new person with DNA' as the argument goes. It's a person, but it isn't.
It also doesn't apply when a pregnant woman goes to prison: she isn't freed because the zygote/fetus is innocent, she's kept there because she did the crime. So they don't consider the fetus a person then, otherwise it'd get counsel.
They don't consider it a human for tax breaks, the census, or other legal purposes. They will if a pregnant woman gets murdered, but, IIRC, that's at a specific gestational age. I'm not a lawfag so I can't argue why, but that's the only time they'll consider the fetus a separate person.
They will argue an eight week old fetus, that doesn't even have a brain yet, a full human being, and that it has a heartbeat even when it isn't even a fully developed heart. That an eight week old fetus that has no awareness matters more than the woman or teenager carrying it.
For the record, I do not support abortion as birth control. Nor do I support the women who bragged about deliberately ending a pregnancy while making TikTok videos. My sympathies are for those women who did everything they could to manage things, who were in an abusive relationship, or had a defective baby. They are all murderers now.
And so many of these "pro-life" assholes stop giving a shit once the kid's born.
Naturally. I've had plenty of commenters on YouTube tell me, point blank, it isn't their problem, it's not their kid, it's their money and they don't want to pay for the very social programs that would help the babies they want to be saved. They just want to save the babies. They don't care about their lives or what kind of life they will live. They just want to be temporary saviors. They will throw a bitch fit about opening their wallets and complain about 'welfare leeches' and sneer at the very single mothers they demanded have those babies. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I am told those social programs are 'socialist' and don't work, so the expectations and responsibility for those babies have to go to someone else; preferably not them. They like saying they are pro life yet will never hold those babies; likewise, none of those 'brave dads' will claim those kids they want to save from abortion. Especially if they look like a blob of flesh. Too expensive.
It all boils down to, 'It's too expensive, it's not my problem, but it's your problem and you're a murderer and I want to save babies.' When Leftists say pro lifers are hypocrites for not supporting those programs that will help those mothers, they are right. They just want to blame women.
They say it's about responsibility and keeping their legs shut, but men are 100% responsible for pregnancy. A Sick and Twisted Female actually said this in her livestream last night, and I agree: when men find out a woman is pregnant, they all ask: 'What are you going to do with it?' Not, 'Oh I'm so happy, honey!' or 'Congratulations!' Just a deadpan question. On what they, the ejaculator, the one who offered his sperm, should do.
I have said this before and this is also true: men are pro life until they see a defective fetus. No Catholic priest or Pope in the Middle Ages would take a look at a baby with its brain growing out of its head and argue it's a 'thing of God'. No priest in the American Colonial era would see a baby with one gaping eye or a caved in skull as a 'thing of God'. They would ALL advocate for a mercy killing. Woe to the woman who gave birth, blissfully unaware. Thank God we have the technology to save her life - but pro lifers don't want that.
I am fine if you disapprove of abortion but understand why it must happen. Muslims have grown to accept that. Jews have. Certain Catholics and Orthodox priests have. There are certain fetuses that cannot survive or are unworthy of life that Nature has decided must die. So let them die with mercy and dignity. End their suffering. This American brand of pro life involves keeping things alive that are not meant to be alive, calling it all murder, and punishing women for that choice.
I'll accept political ratings. This issue is quite close to me.
