Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

mace1229

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The entire forced birth movement destroyed by a 23 year old in Tennessee:

https://www.instagram.com/p/DGOxbJ8NBDo/?igsh=MWV4d2tqeHRzNHQwNA==

for those that don’t want to click the link, here’s the premise: 

a woman has a son. Son is now 23. Goes into kidney failure. His mom is the only viable match. There is no law in any state in the US that compels her to give him that kidney to save his life. Even if she were to die, she STILL has autonomy over her own kidneys. Even if it means her son dies. 

REPUBLICANS WANT MORE BODILY AUTONOMY FOR A CORPSE THAN TO PREGNANT WOMEN. 

TELL ME AGAIN HOW IT’S ACTUALLY ABOUT THE LIFE OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND NOT CONTROL OVER WOMEN. 

I can't click on the link while at work.
But I'm trying to understand this. You want there to be laws that require people to be donors? And giving a woman that freedom not to donate, even to her own son after she dies, is controlling the woman?
I'm an organ donor, and I think everyone should be. But I don't think it should be law. And I don't see how allowing the woman to chose to not be a donor is an attempt to control women?
I know you're connecting it to abortion. But I just don't see the link. Forcing her to donate her kidneys would fit your argument. 
I know you're saying if it was about life, then people would be forced to be donors. I just don't see that as a comparison. 

The opposite. The mother is allowed to choose (even after death) in one situation but not the other, even when her life is in danger. 

That’s why it’s not about life of s child, it’s about control of women. If it was about life, R’s would have made organ donorship mandatory under the law. 

I do believe there are exceptions in the states with abortions bans that include when the life of the mother is in danger. Almost no one wants a zero exception abortion ban, especially when the mother's life is in danger. So she would not be forced to give up her life in order to give birth. Just like she wouldn't be forced to give up her kidneys after death.

edit -I just google'd what state has the most strict abortion laws, and it cam back Idaho, but they have exceptions for rape, incest and medical emergencies 

Mandatory organ donorship seems very extreme.

The majority of pro-lifers are for exceptions. While there are no-exceptions groups out there, that is not what most people want.  At the very least the life of the mother, but also cases of incest, rape and sometimes disabilities. I've also mentioned this before, the breakdown of men to women who are pro-life is pretty close to 50/50, so I don't see it as a control. When I mentioned that before, the response was these women are just brainwashed by their husbands. But I don't buy that, it's not going to be 50/50 if it's about gender.

HughFreakingDillon

K, don’t focus on that one “even when life is in danger” part. The rest applies. 

Tell me honestly: do you REALLY believe that if men gave birth, this would be legislated, or even discussed? 

I’d wager 99% of the people writing the legislation are male. And as we’ve witnessed this election, many people voted because they were for his policies until they realized it affected them. I’d also wager most of that 50% of pro birthers are affluent white women who, when daughter Gretchen is suddenly in a “bind”, she quietly goes on a solo vacation, probably “backpacking somewhere in the Andes (AKA shipped off to a blue state for a discreet “procedure”). And the rest who don’t fit that category are imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else. 

mace1229

HughFreakingDillon said:

K, don’t focus on that one “even when life is in danger” part. The rest applies. 

Tell me honestly: do you REALLY believe that if men gave birth, this would be legislated, or even discussed? 

I’d wager 99% of the people writing the legislation are male. And as we’ve witnessed this election, many people voted because they were for his policies until they realized it affected them. I’d also wager most of that 50% of pro birthers are affluent white women who, when daughter Gretchen is suddenly in a “bind”, she quietly goes on a solo vacation, probably “backpacking somewhere in the Andes (AKA shipped off to a blue state for a discreet “procedure”). And the rest who don’t fit that category are imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else. 

Yes, I actually believe that first part. A large portion of them anyway. Because, again, how do you get 50/50 men to women supporting it if it was about men controlling women?
There isn't much of a point in arguing a hypothetical, as neither of us can prove our point. But the 50/50 breakdown is a big reason I believe that, I can't explain it otherwise. 

I'm sure your Gretchen scenario isn't uncommon. Hypocrites are everywhere. Some of the biggest pro-earthers fly private jets too and have multiple mansions. It's nature to want to be the exceptionn when it applies to you. 
But I've always seen abortion different than a men controlling women issue. 
It's about what right outweighs the other? The right to life or the right to choose? 90% of the time (yes, before anyone asks, I arbitrarily made up that stat) that's what its about. Pro life doesn't mean you want to restrict women's right, but that you believe the right to life outweighs that. 
Some people believe that right is cemented at conception, some at 10 or 12 weeks, some when there's a heart beat, some at viability, and some never at all until it's born. 
For me, I believe that right should exist at viability, about 22 weeks. With exceptions for health. What's the difference if it's inside or outside the womb, if it is able to survive?
Some states have created strict requirements for abortion, and I get why there is issue with that. But some states have almost zero restrictions, and I get why that upsets others as well. I have no problem banning abortions at 34 weeks without medical reasons. I doubt that is happening very often either. But just because it is rare doesn't mean there can't be laws about it. 

HughFreakingDillon

If pro-birthers gave a single fuck about life, they’d be the first ones supporting the underprivileged kids all over the country. You know, what their savior teaches them to do. Instead, they cut lunch programs and purposely increase the wealth gap. 

Believe it or not, many conservative women believe their place is in the kitchen and vessels for their man. 

mace1229

HughFreakingDillon said:

If pro-birthers gave a single fuck about life, they’d be the first ones supporting the underprivileged kids all over the country. You know, what their savior teaches them to do. Instead, they cut lunch programs and purposely increase the wealth gap. 

Believe it or not, many conservative women believe their place is in the kitchen and vessels for their man. 

I'm sure plenty of women believe that, but not nearly as many who consider themselves pro-choice.
What school lunch programs are you referring to?
The one I've been hearing about recently is reducing the schools that give free lunch to the entire school. Currently, if 25% of the school or more qualifies for free lunch, then the whole school gets free lunch. That was lowered from 40% a few years ago. We've enjoyed that the last few years as my kids' school, as well as about half in their district, qualify for free lunch. SO instead of making them lunch every day, they eat at school for free. But I also think it's a little excessive. They want to raise the requirement to 60% of the school. Kids can still get their free lunch if they qualify, it just won't be the entire school unless 60% or more qualify. Nothing about that seems unreasonable to me. But the headlines I keep seeing are "Trump wants to take away free lunch from 2 million school aged children." While that is true, those 2 million don't qualify for a free lunch program, and are like my kids, and attend a school where only 1 in 4 kids qualify. No one wants to take away from this kids who qualify, just make the parents who can, like myself, feed their own kids.
It's a huge cost and unnecessary. And very few countries in the world have a broader free lunch program, but yet we're getting slammed for already doing more than what should be expected in my opinion. 

Merkin Baller

HughFreakingDillon said:

If pro-birthers gave a single fuck about life, they’d be the first ones supporting the underprivileged kids all over the country. You know, what their savior teaches them to do. Instead, they cut lunch programs and purposely increase the wealth gap. 

Forced birth will also increase the wealth gap, but pay no attention to that... wealthy conservatives are definitely concerned about the sanctity of life here. 

mickeyrat

Merkin Baller said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

If pro-birthers gave a single fuck about life, they’d be the first ones supporting the underprivileged kids all over the country. You know, what their savior teaches them to do. Instead, they cut lunch programs and purposely increase the wealth gap. 

Forced birth will also increase the wealth gap, but pay no attention to that... wealthy conservatives are definitely concerned about the sanctity of life here. 

need workers, the younger the better..

Merkin Baller

If a lower class family in a red state struggling to make ends meet has an accidental pregnancy that they can't afford? Tough shit, you're having that baby. 

If a middle class family in a red state just starting to get ahead in life has an accidental pregnancy? Tough shit, you're having that baby. 

Upper class family in a red state has an accidental pregnancy? NP, it's off to a blue state to get it taken care of.


Win / win for the upper class. They maintain their status quo & continue to get ahead while everyone else suffers... it's the American way. 

mickeyrat

https://www.threads.net/@democracydocket/post/DHGaVmhsvRN?xmt=AQGzz3UJTiAcByvwiqyfIaHmt6qHbpGNtQWGv-2uNBIw_g

Last week, the Trump administration quietly made three moves to restrict reproductive healthcare — all of which were ripped from the pages of Project 2025. Democracy Docket contributor @susanrinkunas explains. https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/trump-quietly-made-3-chilling-moves-against-reproductive-freedom/

Merkin Baller

mickeyrat said:

https://www.threads.net/@democracydocket/post/DHGaVmhsvRN?xmt=AQGzz3UJTiAcByvwiqyfIaHmt6qHbpGNtQWGv-2uNBIw_g

Last week, the Trump administration quietly made three moves to restrict reproductive healthcare — all of which were ripped from the pages of Project 2025. Democracy Docket contributor @susanrinkunas explains. https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/trump-quietly-made-3-chilling-moves-against-reproductive-freedom/

Good stuff. 

" the administration asked on Tuesday to participate in Supreme Court arguments alongside South Carolina in a case about whether states can exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs, even for non-abortion services. South Carolina seeks to disqualify any abortion provider from Medicaid because it claims that “payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion.” Arguments are on April 2. If the Supreme Court sides with the state, it would mean people with Medicaid can’t use their insurance at Planned Parenthood or other abortion providers, which would decimate people’s access to affordable birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and more. "

Meanwhile people genuinely think the government is targeting transgenders in the interest of safety for our girls and women. 

mickeyrat

https://www.threads.net/@propublica/post/DHG214eoAaV?xmt=AQGzDIa4lwGrRbY0KAVo4mtJ2lJINVRjvRSCs3g5ZhtLhw

NEW: A Health System Is Fighting Idaho’s Abortion Ban. It’s Not Its First Controversial Stance.

St. Luke’s, Idaho’s largest health system, was outspoken in defending its staff during a backlash against masks and vaccines. It also sued right-wing figure Ammon Bundy — and won. Now it’s backing its doctors on the abortion front.
https://propub.li/3R41wRy

mickeyrat

If you missed this Business Insider article about the company tracking abortion pill prescriptions, fix that immediately. This is exactly the kind of reporting we need right now. https://www.businessinsider.com/abortion-meds-prescription-tracking-misoprostol-mifepristone-bamboo-health-2025-2

mickeyrat

now enshrined in our state constitution....

https://www.threads.net/@d.c.dewitt/post/DHV3HBUv7-V?xmt=AQGzL0beqk-aVjc0t4zQprzXE_S_qmL6pgz2Jrj6ZQwTkw

An Ohio anti-abortion rights lobby reported a reproductive care website to the state’s Department of Health, in an attempt to address what the lobbying group called “harmful circumvention of Ohio’s laws," laws which have been unenforceable by court order since last year. https://buff.ly/1P0TxAx

mickeyrat

https://www.threads.com/@apnews/post/DJsOUYXujdb?xmt=AQF062H554VStp1kbwpCOmSzhzt7CMIgrVAk7FTwVJXLsA

A pregnant woman in Georgia was declared brain-dead after a medical emergency and doctors have kept her on life support for three months so far to allow enough time for the baby to be born and comply with Georgia’s strict anti-abortion law, family members say.

gimmesometruth27

mickeyrat said:

https://www.threads.com/@apnews/post/DJsOUYXujdb?xmt=AQF062H554VStp1kbwpCOmSzhzt7CMIgrVAk7FTwVJXLsA

A pregnant woman in Georgia was declared brain-dead after a medical emergency and doctors have kept her on life support for three months so far to allow enough time for the baby to be born and comply with Georgia’s strict anti-abortion law, family members say.

yet they want to cut medicaid for living children....

go figure, it's georgia.

gimmesometruth27

in missouri we voted to keep abortion legal and the fucking gop in the house and senate are trying to overturn the will of the voters.

mickeyrat

gimmesometruth27 said:

in missouri we voted to keep abortion legal and the fucking gop in the house and senate are trying to overturn the will of the voters.

same in ohio

mickeyrat

HughFreakingDillon

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1BmSJ155oq/?mibextid=wwXIfr

hunterh75

(comment removed. See Posting Guidelines to preserve posting privileges.)