SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Mihalik]

Until that little sucka is out of the womb. Then they need to pull themselves up by their little bitty bootstraps, even if their mother is a poor 14 year old who was raped by a relative and has no means of providing. No government handouts for her! She should have thought about the consequences of her actions!

Oh, and prenatal care to protect the health of the mother while pregnant? And that of the growing fetus? Get the fuck outta here, we won't pay for that, either. Life is sacred, you can't put a cost on life! Mostly because they don't actually give a shit and aren't willing to put up, but they sure as fuck won't shut up either. As long as the only people facing the consequences are the pregnant women and not the "pro-life" extremists.

If they were "pro-life" they'd support a range of services that actually protect and promote the health of the woman during pregnancy and both the mother and baby after birth. But weirdly, some of the most staunchly "pro-life" states in the US also have the highest infant mortality rates - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s..._mortality.htm

And similarly, maternal mortality rates (less data by far) seems to mirror these results - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/maternal-mo...e-Data-508.pdf

Almost as if it has nothing at all to do with "the sanctity of life" and everything to do with controlling women.

Hahaha.

Shut up you over-educated millennial libtard! Suck it! MAGA! Jesus!



Gays and Blacks are next!

/s

On a serious note. No statistics, no data, no appeal to reason can ever, ever, ever get to these people. They've heard it all. They know. They do not give a fuck.

[Endus]

Until that little sucka is out of the womb. Then they need to pull themselves up by their little bitty bootstraps, even if their mother is a poor 14 year old who was raped by a relative and has no means of providing. No government handouts for her! She should have thought about the consequences of her actions!

Oh, and prenatal care to protect the health of the mother while pregnant? And that of the growing fetus? Get the fuck outta here, we won't pay for that, either. Life is sacred, you can't put a cost on life! Mostly because they don't actually give a shit and aren't willing to put up, but they sure as fuck won't shut up either. As long as the only people facing the consequences are the pregnant women and not the "pro-life" extremists.

If they were "pro-life" they'd support a range of services that actually protect and promote the health of the woman during pregnancy and both the mother and baby after birth. But weirdly, some of the most staunchly "pro-life" states in the US also have the highest infant mortality rates - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s..._mortality.htm

And similarly, maternal mortality rates (less data by far) seems to mirror these results - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/maternal-mo...e-Data-508.pdf

Almost as if it has nothing at all to do with "the sanctity of life" and everything to do with controlling women.

Now let's compare to godless Canada where there are literally no special laws about abortion at all. No week restrictions, nothing.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...91126c-eng.htm

Hmm, 8.3 maternal deaths per 100,000 is lower than any individual State. Go, universal health care!

So how many abortions are godless Canadians having, where we don't have even a single restriction and they're covered by the government's health care provision?

Well, first, American numbers; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti..._United_States

Going with the CDC data to be as generous as I can, it's 11.2ish abortions per 1000 women of child-bearing age. Now, godless Canada!

https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/wp-content/...-in-canada.pdf
(it's under the table; we don't officially track it but they calculate it for that report)

Hmmm, 10.1 per 1,000 women of childbearing age. Even less than the USA!

Sure seems like godless Canada might be doing things a hell of a lot better than the USA, by having no restrictions and covering healthcare for all.

[Mihalik]

Sure seems like godless Canada might be doing things a hell of a lot better than the USA, by having no restrictions and covering healthcare for all.

Yes. But in that system nobody is suffering.

What's the point of it all if you can't make people suffer? Jesus suffered. So should all those sluts* for getting pregnant.

[Edge-]

Yes. But in that system nobody is suffering.

And really, conservative orthodoxy of the modern era seems less focused on, "What can my elected officials do to help me and my community?" and more focused on, "How much can my elected officials hurt the 'right' people?"

[Skjaldborg]

I know I'm walking on eggshells here but I'd like to submit that I am a member of a church that, while pro-life (which is a loaded term in today's vernacular), actively partners with and donates to organizations that are explicitly providing medical assistance and knowledge to pregnant women and couples who, for whatever reason, are choosing to stick with pregnancy. My money actually goes to these places - I've got the tax documents. We (as a congregation, I can't speak for individuals) are trying to actually walk the walk. We have a saying in our community, "from womb to tomb," which we think is ACTUALLY pro-life. You know, supporting babies and parents after the fresh human is actually breathing air and they still need help.

What many legislators, conservatives, backwoods relatives, etc are advocating through this decision is abominable, and shows a lack of regard for sanctity of all human life. These are conservative values and NOT "loving your neighbor as yourself." Don't want to get bogged down in interpreting religious text since that's a no-no zone here.

"Not all Christians" is basically my point. Roe v Wade didn't achieve vast-majority-levels of popularity by offending everybody of particular faith(s). I currently only speak for myself when I lambast the draft from the Supreme Court and the Republicans defending it, but please don't project the incredible moral failings of a faction of old white men (and their cultists) onto a faith that explicitly teaches its practitioners to go out of your way to feed, clothe, and sacrifice for strangers. There's nothing about conventional "pro-life" (read: anti-woman) beliefs that reflects actual compassion. It would be more palatable if Republicans actually crusaded for massive funding and resources to ensure healthy lives for all people, but they obviously don't do that.

[Glorious Leader]

Now let's compare to godless Canada where there are literally no special laws about abortion at all. No week restrictions, nothing.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...91126c-eng.htm

Hmm, 8.3 maternal deaths per 100,000 is lower than any individual State. Go, universal health care!

So how many abortions are godless Canadians having, where we don't have even a single restriction and they're covered by the government's health care provision?

Well, first, American numbers; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti..._United_States

Going with the CDC data to be as generous as I can, it's 11.2ish abortions per 1000 women of child-bearing age. Now, godless Canada!

https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/wp-content/...-in-canada.pdf
(it's under the table; we don't officially track it but they calculate it for that report)

Hmmm, 10.1 per 1,000 women of childbearing age. Even less than the USA!

Sure seems like godless Canada might be doing things a hell of a lot better than the USA, by having no restrictions and covering healthcare for all.

Yea offering health care and education tends to help not only woman but people in general which results in alot less abortions. I imagine that the figures are also matching for European countries with socialized medicine and access to education.

[Mekh]

"Not all Christians" is basically my point.

The bible includes an abortion how-to. This has never actually been a question of religion, that's just a post-hoc rationalization by some people.

[Endus]

I know I'm walking on eggshells here but I'd like to submit that I am a member of a church that, while pro-life (which is a loaded term in today's vernacular), actively partners with and donates to organizations that are explicitly providing medical assistance and knowledge to pregnant women and couples who, for whatever reason, are choosing to stick with pregnancy. My money actually goes to these places - I've got the tax documents. We (as a congregation, I can't speak for individuals) are trying to actually walk the walk. We have a saying in our community, "from womb to tomb," which we think is ACTUALLY pro-life. You know, supporting babies and parents after the fresh human is actually breathing air and they still need help.

What many legislators, conservatives, backwoods relatives, etc are advocating through this decision is abominable, and shows a lack of regard for sanctity of all human life. These are conservative values and NOT "loving your neighbor as yourself." Don't want to get bogged down in interpreting religious text since that's a no-no zone here.

"Not all Christians" is basically my point. Roe v Wade didn't achieve vast-majority-levels of popularity by offending everybody of particular faith(s). I currently only speak for myself when I lambast the draft from the Supreme Court and the Republicans defending it, but please don't project the incredible moral failings of a faction of old white men (and their cultists) onto a faith that explicitly teaches its practitioners to go out of your way to feed, clothe, and sacrifice for strangers. There's nothing about conventional "pro-life" (read: anti-woman) beliefs that reflects actual compassion. It would be more palatable if Republicans actually crusaded for massive funding and resources to ensure healthy lives for all people, but they obviously don't do that.

Simple question; does your church want to force everyone else in society to abide by their views when it comes to abortion, forcing even non-believers to follow the rules of your faith, against their will?

Because if not, your church isn't actually pro-life. Pro-life isn't about personal choices to avoid abortion. It's about denying that choice to women who want to take that option.

I have absolutely no problem with a faith group who follows whatever standards they set for themselves, for members to voluntarily opt into. That's individual choice, and you should absolutely be free to make those decisions (assuming they aren't harmful to others; beating your kids, for instance, isn't something I'd support). I'm responding here because I've come out pretty strong against pro-life and the religio-fascist stance it represents, and I wanted to be absolutely clear I was never making an "all Christians" argument (we've got a lot of Christians up here in godless Canada, and freely available abortions, after all), or even an "all religious types" argument; religion isn't the problem. It's when certain religious sects move beyond "my religion says I can't do X" into "my religion says you can't do X".

I may be an agnostic atheist today, but I seriously waffled on whether to go to seminary to become a priest rather than the path I opted for, out of high school. I minored in religion regardless. I don't talk about this a lot here because of the rules against religious discussion, but while I was never in a fringe sect (I was raised Anglican), I was raised going to church every Sunday and attending Sunday School and all that stuff, up till I was 10 or so. So the venom I'm aiming isn't aimed against people for having faith or making personal choices to respect that faith. It's aimed against the monsters who try and subject everyone to their religious maxims.

So when I condemn the shit out of "pro-life", that's what I'm talking about. The people who want to deny the right to abortions, for everyone. Not faith groups whose members just choose not to seek out abortions themselves, by choice. Wildly different things. Since I'm probably one of the ones being most critical, just wanted to emphasize that it sure seems like you're not actually in the group I'm condemning the fuck out of, and that nothing I've said should be considered an attack on "Christians" as a whole, let alone religious people in general.

[Darththeo]

Aren’t they also one of the 13 states that made it legal for a full grown adult to fuck children?

"Conservatives" are moving the clock backwards.

Most states have underage marriage, but most states have restrictions like parental approval for the minor(s) involved. Some require court approval too.

However, it used to be if an adult man forced himself on a teenage girl, she would be forced to marry him.

[Mihalik]

I know I'm walking on eggshells here but I'd like to submit that I am a member of a church that, while pro-life (which is a loaded term in today's vernacular), actively partners with and donates to organizations that are explicitly providing medical assistance and knowledge to pregnant women and couples who, for whatever reason, are choosing to stick with pregnancy. My money actually goes to these places - I've got the tax documents. We (as a congregation, I can't speak for individuals) are trying to actually walk the walk. We have a saying in our community, "from womb to tomb," which we think is ACTUALLY pro-life. You know, supporting babies and parents after the fresh human is actually breathing air and they still need help.

What many legislators, conservatives, backwoods relatives, etc are advocating through this decision is abominable, and shows a lack of regard for sanctity of all human life. These are conservative values and NOT "loving your neighbor as yourself." Don't want to get bogged down in interpreting religious text since that's a no-no zone here.

"Not all Christians" is basically my point. Roe v Wade didn't achieve vast-majority-levels of popularity by offending everybody of particular faith(s). I currently only speak for myself when I lambast the draft from the Supreme Court and the Republicans defending it, but please don't project the incredible moral failings of a faction of old white men (and their cultists) onto a faith that explicitly teaches its practitioners to go out of your way to feed, clothe, and sacrifice for strangers. There's nothing about conventional "pro-life" (read: anti-woman) beliefs that reflects actual compassion. It would be more palatable if Republicans actually crusaded for massive funding and resources to ensure healthy lives for all people, but they obviously don't do that.

Here's the thing. That's a Christian problem. If you don't want to be judged as a group by the same standard then it's up to you as a group to police the lunatics or to at least be very vocal about you guys "Not being with stupid".

I think everyone who's pro-choice absolutely and fundamentally agrees that abortion isn't a "good thing" so to say, but they would argue that it is a moral and social good in the context of our social realities and in the context of bodily autonomy. And nobody and I mean absolutely nobody will ever take offence at a religious group offering alternatives or pre-natal and post-natal or child rearing help. All those things are good things. But these need to be honest alternatives, not impositions.

In an absolutely ideal world abortion would be neigh nonexistent. Because between sex-ed, family planning (pre and post), contraception, sexual abuse prevention etc the incidence of people needing access to it would plummet. And pro-choice groups would happily and gleefully work right along side pro-life Christians in achieving this.

[Darththeo]

The bible includes an abortion how-to. This has never actually been a question of religion, that's just a post-hoc rationalization by some people.

Oh, I have seen people discount the verses because it is Old Testament. And it isn't just a how-to, it is a forced abortion procedure.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Ok, but I'm not sure a state solution makes any sense either, because states are largely still pretty big and diverse places with lots of values so maybe it's better left up to counties or cities. Maybe we can futher narrow it down to zip codes, since now we're getting really targeted in ensuring that people can live their values on the issue of abortion. Heck, let's go all the way to individuals.

This way, since it's a questions of values and we are a society of individuals, I think we should respect everyone's individual values on the topic of abortion. This is maximum freedom to express ones values on the topic, which seems supremely American to me.

You're missing the point that many anti-abortion positions are based on the duty of the state to protect individuals. And since nobody can really define when an "individual" is formed, is why this is such a difficult issue. This is the cleanest way to put it, leaving religion and other biases out of it. To say it's solely a healthcare decision or solely a women's rights issue is not portraying the issue fairly. Not saying that's my personal view, only that other views exist and can't just be so easily discarded.

[Skjaldborg]

Simple question; does your church want to force everyone else in society to abide by their views when it comes to abortion, forcing even non-believers to follow the rules of your faith, against their will?

Appreciate the discussion of terms and definitions. Simple answer, no. Again, I can't speak for individuals, but as a group I could sum up our official stance on this as "we'd rather you didn't get an abortion but you're still a valuable person if you do." We frown on abortions WITHIN our congregation, there's no denying it...and some may use stronger language. My wife and I have had one occasion to oppose an abortion by a personal friend, and only because she asked for our opinion. She went through with it and while it does sting a bit to remember, we still love her and love on her (attended her wedding recently as members of the bridal party, it was nice). It's amazing what some perspective can provide to a person.

Here's the thing. That's a Christian problem. If you don't want to be judged as a group by the same standard then it's up to you as a group to police the lunatics or to at least be very vocal about you guys "Not being with stupid".

I like your whole post but quoting this in particular because it's true. You wouldn't believe the headaches we get from the "Christian Nationalism" movement. There have been a few good articles written on it, and it's been on the rise for several years but really picked up when we had the audacity to elect a black man as president and then ESPECIALLY after the great pumpkin started saying all the quiet things out loud.

[Templar 331]

Oh, I have seen people discount the verses because it is Old Testament. And it isn't just a how-to, it is a forced abortion procedure.

I'd love to see that passage used as "freedom of religion" for abortions, but it would likely be shot down every step of the way to SCOTUS. Where these same conservative judges would make any and every excuse against it.

[Mihalik]

You're missing the point that many anti-abortion positions are based on the duty of the state to protect individuals.

Horseshit. That enlightened centrist Ben Shabibo horseshit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2PA...PhilosophyTube

Do us all a favor, make an effort. Watch it.

[Elegiac]

You're missing the point that many anti-abortion positions are based on the duty of the state to protect individuals. And since nobody can really define when an "individual" is formed, is why this is such a difficult issue. This is the cleanest way to put it, leaving religion and other biases out of it. To say it's solely a healthcare decision or solely a women's rights issue is not portraying the issue fairly. Not saying that's my personal view, only that other views exist and can't just be so easily discarded.

Again; no, it really isn't difficult. No one is entitled to abrogate someone's bodily autonomy even if doing so would save their life. You're not entitled to take blood or organs from a corpse without consent, much less a living person.

So "protecting individuals" continues to be a horseshit copout to disguise the actual goal, that being stripping women of their autonomy.

[Fugus]

"Conservatives" are moving the clock backwards.

Most states have underage marriage, but most states have restrictions like parental approval for the minor(s) involved. Some require court approval too.

However, it used to be if an adult man forced himself on a teenage girl, she would be forced to marry him.

And 13 states have no minimum age requirements with Alabama going as extreme as granting a marriage to a 65 year old man and 12 year old girl in 2014, so not exactly ancient history.

Edit: and he can legally bend her over any time and way he wants so long as he doesn’t record it, but Alito might be trying to limit some of this by outlawing sexual activities that gays also engage in. I gods name of course…

[Edge-]

You're missing the point that many anti-abortion positions are based on the duty of the state to protect individuals.

Which individuals? Because if this was true, there'd be support for full prenatal care and post-birth care to drive down maternal and infant mortality rates - not banning medically necessary abortions like many states are doing.

Purely as a matter of health care, this is achieving the exact opposite goals.

And since nobody can really define when an "individual" is formed

Scientifically, we can and do. The problem is people reject the science and facts in favor of their beliefs and feels.

To say it's solely a healthcare decision or solely a women's rights issue is not portraying the issue fairly.

It absolutely is. Because the counter-arguments are all based on religious interpretations of morality. It ignores the actual health care aspect.

only that other views exist and can't just be so easily discarded.

No, you're highlighting why these are such bad-faith (ironic) arguments.

[Mehrunes]

You're missing the point that many anti-abortion positions are based on the duty of the state to protect individuals. And since nobody can really define when an "individual" is formed, is why this is such a difficult issue. This is the cleanest way to put it, leaving religion and other biases out of it. To say it's solely a healthcare decision or solely a women's rights issue is not portraying the issue fairly. Not saying that's my personal view, only that other views exist and can't just be so easily discarded.

Given how even in countries with most draconian anti-abortion laws the politicians passing them (who, by pure coincidence, are religious nutjobs) don't extend personhood to fetuses for the plethora of legal issues it would cause it actually can be easily discarded. Because it shows how they are full of shit and this whole blabbering about treating fetuses as individuals is just empty demagoguery to hide their actual reasons. Which is religious nutjobs enforcing their religious dogma on people that couldn't give a rat's ass about it, because they can't handle the idea that someone may decide for themself not to make their life revolve around a book written by iron age people that had no clue about anything whatsoever.

[Darththeo]

Again; no, it really isn't difficult. No one is entitled to abrogate someone's bodily autonomy even if doing so would save their life. You're not entitled to take blood or organs from a corpse without consent, much less a living person.

So "protecting individuals" continues to be a horseshit copout to disguise the actual goal, that being stripping women of their autonomy.

Hell, some states don't even force organ donars to give up organs after death if the family puts up too much a stink.

Legally, the family can't block it but most hospitals will not force the donation even if the dead consented.

It is arguable a dead woman has more bodily autonomy than a living one.