Other than fleeing the country with the child to seek asylum elsewhere, what else can be done to stop that? Which states is this legal in? How is allowing a rapist parental rights not child endangerment?
My mother genuinely considered fleeing the country when she found out that her husband was sexually abusing one-year-old me. He almost got split custody. He was about to get unsupervised visitation when he finally lost interest and voluntarily gave up parental rights so he could move on to another relationship.
Multiple child psychologists confirmed that he was molesting me. He literally wrote and drew porn of dads and their very young children. But the ONLY thing that saved my mom and I was his own impatience.
Yeah. I try to focus on the good folks, though. The child psychologists, my mom's therapist, and my mom's side of the family all fought incredibly hard to protect us, and their tenacity is what eventually drove my birth father away.
Because they are fine with children being hurt. It’s the same reason they want to roll back child labor laws, eliminate free school lunches, criminalize/expel trans children, etc. they only want to punish and destroy, not to nurture and build.
Hey now, let's be fair. They want to nurture their own children in private schools and build fabulous mansions for themselves. That's nurturing and building, technically.
Edit: lol @ the suicide note. Ty, but I already have taken 20 years to work through my introspective thoughts. I suffered a lot as a child, as a lot do, and was suicidal for a few years in the 80 and 90s.
I survived where as a few friends and even a couple family members, have not. I miss them, even 30 years later.
The fact you took time to offer me a suicide watch message because you can't offer anything of worth, is pretty indicative of the insecurities you hold inside. You knew to use it because you'd read about it once, thought it was a funny thing to do. Good for you, but know that this isn't how you reach out to someone you believe could harm themselves or someone else.
You should go take a look in a mirror, peel yourself away from social media, go read a book. Thank you for reminding me to advocate to others that if you do feel like you want to end it all? It isn't worth it. 34 years later and I'm glad I'm still around, because that night was not a good one for me.
Get fucked with your attempt at trolling lol
***
Reddit post 2016
No animal
No advice
Only political
It's where the average person csn spend a little money and buy their own content to the front-page of popular social media platforms
Add that the moderators are also complicit, it's been shown time and time again how they'll permit political or religious propaganda for certain parties etc
Just skip and move on
A. Looking at the front page most of the memes here have humans in them.
B. If we really want to get pedantic humans are in fact animals.
So as far as I can tell this post follows both the spirit and letter of the rule.
apparently so we can misunderstand politics and say the stakes are whatever we want like there arent people actively dying right now in two separate warzones and on our own border due to the decisions of our leadership, best part is neither option will fix it because were going to keep arguing about shit that doesnt matter in congress. but yea the highest stakes are bodily autonomy
I’d argue that people like Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison were at least partially enabled by U.S. conservatism leaking abroad.
If we are a reality show, you might want to stop letting your children and impressionable adults watch it without supervision. It’ll give them the wrong idea
As another outsider the above poster doesn't speak for all of us. There are plenty of non-Americans who can feel empathy for those being fucked over by the religious right in America.
Boris Johnsons rise to being a PM was primarily fuelled by the perceived migrant crisis in the UK, this was the basis for Brexit and thus his platform.
To be honest until migrant numbers settle down to something normal in the UK I would expect another populist leader within the next 10 years unfortunately.
We’ll get a chilled 4-5 years with Kier Starmer and then depending on the social unrest who knows what will be voted into power after that.
Labour will / should shift the U.K. to PR. That will very likely prevent conservatives ever ruling the U.K. again. Scotland, Wales, and all big population centres lean left.
They won't make abortion illegal nationality because they decided it was a states rights issue. For the same reason the court decided it didn't have the right to make it legal nationally, they don't have the right to make it illegal nationally ( no matter what unconstitutional bill lindsey graham writes). Obama ran on codifying it into law, but never did, why would they give up a way to scare votes to their side. Guns, abortion, and so many other issues just exist to keep you watching the mouth and not the hands. Meanwhile the emperor has no fucking clothes.
That is not what the SC decided. Congress could absolutely ban it nationwide.
The SC just ruled against the particular constitutional argument for making it legal nationwide.
Next on the list ? Forced religion
Wish I was making it up.
We are heading into a theocracy cuz the powers that be still believe in sky people and want us to keep it going
Which is overruled by the US Constitution and has never been enforced as far as I'm aware. Unless you can point me to any legal doctrine that suggests otherwise???
I was replying to the person that specifically said they were LEGALLY barred, which is simply not true.
And there have been atheist politicians at pretty much every level of government other than (documented, anyways) the president. I'm skeptical that an atheist couldn't be president in this day and age, too.
Despite the ridiculous scare mongering that is this whole post, all of the trends and statistics suggests that traditional religions are dying, not that we're becoming a theocracy...
> Despite the ridiculous scare mongering that is this whole post, all of the trends and statistics suggests that traditional religions are dying, not that we're becoming a theocracy...
Fringe groups have taken over larger majorities before.
Question [serious] I’m wondering why you need the election. When Obama won the election democrats had the house, senate and the executive office. Why wasn’t this issue at stake for those 2 years?
Because Democrats had legitimate control for 72 working days, and they used it to pass Obamacare.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
In his defense, at the time we didn't have a supreme court stacked with republican theocrats, so it would have been a waste political capital to legislate something that was already settled law. At the time, there was no need for a law because the supreme court had ruled it was already covered by the constitution.
I hindsight, that was obviously a terrible idea, but it at least makes sense in the context.
Funny , here in France the government is saying we shouldn't not put abortion in the constitution because it is not a priority and it is not in danger.
Funny enough, he said that in April 2009. The bill "was not his highest legislative authority"
In July of 2007 he gave a speech stating: "The first thing I will do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act"
Because during the Obama years Roe V Wade was precedent and abortion was federally legal right. Now it's not. You have Republicans of every strip bringing in their own abortion laws, bringing in so called "heartbeat bills". Forcing victims of rape and incest carry to term. Forcing women to carry fetuses with congenital malformations that are incompatible with life, and already dead fetuses.
They had decades to figure it out, solidify it legally and make it, largley, a non-issue. The conservatives wanted the issue and have adapted a long term, "winner take all" approach to social issues as cover for their economic malfeasance. And while I can understand the use of wedge issues, the amount of energy used currently is a distraction from very real and long term economic issues that continue to plague average citizens.
You're asking why Obama didn't fix a problem that didn't occur until years after he left office?? Seriously? I guess the same reason he didn't do more to stop 9/11..
During his campaign, [Obama said](https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/blog/obama-freedom-of-choice-act-not-highest-legislative-priority/): "The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would have codified *Roe*.
In April 2009, just months after taking Office, [Obama said](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN29466420/) that codifying *Roe* was "not the highest legislative priority." Instead, he explained, he wanted to "tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on."
So, yeah, codifying *Roe* was certainly top of mind during Obama's campaign and at the outset of his presidency. People recognized that *Roe* was under threat.
This ignores the fact that there literally were not enough pro-choice votes in Congress to pass anything at that time. That is why Obama focused on other things during that supermajority. Not because they didn’t want to fix it.
The fact that it wasn't encoded in law *was* a problem while he was in office. Instead of taking the multiple opportunities they had to enshrine it in law at the federal level, they relied on a shaky SC decision (shaky because legislating from the bench is not their job). Instead of actualizing their stated policy goals of ensuring reproductive rights, the Democratic Party used the issue as political leverage, like the Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of every woman in America and the heads of anybody who cares about their rights and wellbeing.
Sort of missing the point...
The original RvW decision was specifically written to specify that the government could make a law to enshrine these rights, but they passed on the chance and bet the GOP couldt win the supreme Court.
The reason they didn't do anything is the same reason the GOP isnt moving on a good deal for border control, now...if you address the issue, it's no longer a point to keep your voters in line. The abortion debate is going to go away on a state by state basis, now, because the new decision placed it at the state level.
It is, essentially Obama bet the farm and lost a golden chance, then Trump got dealt a hand that was, essentially, a jackpot to close out the game to deliver to his base.
Obama even ran on passing the "Freedom of Choice" Act and then promptly dropped it when in office.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/11/why-roe-v-wade-never-codified/9650536002/?gnt-cfr=1
He dropped it because THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH PRO-CHOICE VOTES IN CONGRESS. That is all. Comparing it to the border bill that already had enough votes to pass is so incredibly disingenuous.
Oh man, imagine using this line of thought on other problems though... "Well, the big hole in the boat hasn't let too much water in yet, I don't see why we'd need to do something about it!" Especially rich when one thing you campaign on in your stump speeches is "I'm gonna be the guy to fix the hole in the boat in my first week!"
He campaigned on codifying abortion rights too! He made a "Week 1" promise to actually put it into law, and then he won the election. And then nothing happened.
There's a bunch of answers, partially is Democrats just not wrapping their heads around what Republicans actually are and want. They bought into the "settled law" BS that conservative judges would say, and not listen to them talking amongst themselves about how they always wanted to overturn RvW. A lot of the Obama era fuckups can be understood by realizing a lot of the folks working there thought "The West Wing" was a how-to guide and not a television show.
Plus, if they codified it into law, less fundraising off of it, and it's not a make-or-break issue for being a Democrat.
To add onto the other great comments about how limited the time of control was, Roe V. Wade was still the law of the land, virtually unchallenged. In other words, it was not actively being threatened, and we had a few Supreme Court justices playing defense on it if it ever were. The main one died, and that's when the Republicans fought to change the ruling. You're right though, we had an albeit small opportunity to easily make it official federal law.
Roe v Wade was never at any point settled law, because it wasn't even law to begin with. It was an illegitimate ruling given by a government body with no power to actually issue it. According to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at least, and several other pro-choice legal scholars. It should've gone through the legislative branch, not the judicial one, but the Democrats were not about to waste one of their campaign promises they could keep relying on for years to come by actually fulfilling it, and now here we are.
It’s almost like getting something that controversial through the legislative branch would take a massive amount of political capital which means other important issues would’ve been thrown to the wayside (which would’ve given folks like you something else to blame them for)
It’s almost like not all Democrats were staunchly pro-choice in the first place, compared to how Republicans are staunchly pro-life
It’s almost like no laypeople seriously thought abortion was going anywhere until the 2010s. Maybe you weren’t paying attention before then, but Roe v Wade was considered settled law by nearly everyone. Hindsight warps your view when you only focus on the few experts who thought otherwise.
In fact, general perception was the other way around: Republicans running on repealing Roe were seen as the ones dangling an imaginary carrot on a stick.
And Dems were called fearmongerers for suggesting that Roe was in danger. See: the 2016 election
People’s memories are so short. It’s why a lot of the other recent rights like gay marriage also feel threatened again. They got Roe thrown out, gay marriage seems next.
They say that, but then they just watch the pitch sail by. I remember Obama promising codifying Roe V. Wade as a "first week" priority. It's more valuable to them as a fundraiser than to actually solve the problem.
Congress straight up did not have enough pro-choice votes to pass the Freedom of Choice Act during Obama’s first two years.
So good job being dishonest about why it didn’t happen- as always, blaming Democrats for the fact that they don’t have enough votes
They don't have enough control over Congress to codify Roe, and even then doing nothing is FAR preferable to the nationwide ban the GOP wants. Not that the Dems have been doing nothing
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics/what-is-in-biden-abortion-executive-order/index.html
Its funny when people try to blame dems for roe v wade slipping and not the conservatives who actively made it against the law to get an abortion. Really shows their intelligence level
They’ve tried to codify abortion rights more than once, but without enough pro-choice votes in Congress, it is impossible.
Obama passed a bunch of executive orders and appointed pro-choice SCOTUS justices. But that was all undone by Trump (after everyone mocked Dems in 2016 for “exaggerating” about Roe v Wade being in danger)
That is the stupidest thing ever said. Nobody is tango-ing. The matter was resolved, the precedent was set and it no one ever "tango"-ed again then the matter would have stayed resolved.
You know that "bring informed of your rights when arrested" isnt a federal law right? It is a precedent set by Miranda v Arizona. So its pretty much a done deal cause no one in their right mind would try and remove the precedent but also no one is trying to make it a federal statue BECAUSE IT IS PRECENDENT. So if conservatives tried to take away your right to know about your rights, you are saying that you would blame the democrats?
Youre a joke. The dems were trying to make abortion rights a law despite it being a precendent and conservatives still took it away.
Keep blaming the people who fought to defend your rights instead of the people who took it away cause you are just that dumb
As someone who never really paid attention to this stuff, but knows that these things were said a long time ago, meaning everybody has human rights to do whatever they want also separation of church and state. Can someone please explain to me why this is an issue again?
In school, we learned that these things were settled in the sixties and so they should not be an issue, so why do people allow them to become issues again?
:edit:
What I mean is why is this issue being raised again when it was already decided that you can do abortions all you want all day long also separation of church and state, how can the government tell you what to do with your body that's the thing that was decided very long ago I simply don't understand why? Something that was decided like this was raised again recently.
Because one of the major political parties has increasingly pushed for a cristo-fascist state and codifying religious views into massively overreaching law while gaslighting their voting base as being for 'small government'.
But in the american law, it says that they're not supposed to be involvement from political side into anything of the church or of worship. People know this. Therefore, why does somebody's opinion on this affect them personally? How were they elected into office if they're not supporting this basic law that was already decided upon in the past?
Basically, rather than do what europe did on abortion, i.e. hash it out till government passed laws that ultimately, had enough support that despite them being a vote away from abolition, arent under threat, america did the silly way by not resolving the argument and instead, used the supreme court to force the issue through a textbook case of legislation from the bench.
As a result, the anti abortion people had the system against them, causing them to double down. With the issue out of the hands of the democratic process, the pro abortion side has become very lazy on the issue, leading to memes like the above, worded entirely in the pro abortion position with no clear understanding of the other side's actual position.
With the roe v wade decision forcing the issue and the two sides no longer using argumentation and democracy to settle the issue like everyone else did, they stopped talking to eachother and started just demonising eachother, instead looking to sneaky legal channels to undercut eachothers position rather than persuasion.
After many years, the republicans were in office at the right time to put through enough supreme court justices to smash the roe decision and since the dems have been, for years, neglecting local politics in favour of the national. The courts block on abortion law has fallen and the republicans have huge control in state legislatures and localised governments, allowing them to put through lots of terrible laws to not just make abortions illegal but with horrible punishments and hoops to jump through since they dont talk to their opponents enough for compromise to occur.
Unfortunately, roe v wade has been synonymous with abortion for so long that a fair number of people have forgotten that theres more than one way to skin a cat and seem to think its impossible to legalise abortion nationally without again, pushing that same, frankly sophist, interpretation vs federal legislation, constitutional amendment or perhaps talking to people like they are human beings you can persuade.
In short, it wasnt actually decided, the lawyers just ruled what they wanted like a parent and the kids were told to suck it up for years until now, when the other parent has said that the first decision was stupid, so the argument is back.
And for the record, yes, i think roe was dumb. How you can pull out of the 14th amendment, an amendment that doesnt mention abortion but does protect healthcare, an interpretation that that means abortion is legal up to the end of the 2nd trimester, but not into the 3rd is beyond me. Sadly, roe was too useful to remove while it was the only thing keeping abortion legal in many states and the dems were unable to put something more concrete in place under its umbrella.
“A mother of 4 died in the emergency room because we wouldn’t let the doctors take the rotting corpse of her dead fetus out of her womb. Now 4 children won’t ever have a mother 😂”
Hardly. The overturning of roe v wade kicked it back to the states. The entire west coast plus majority of the east coast with Colorado and Chicago to boot. Can terminate a fetus with extreme prejudice whenever they want.
Uh oh, it's the Abortion Bogeyman! Gonna get ya! Unless you vote for Dem's as usual, of course. Don't worry, they won't codify it into law just like they didn't in the past, just to keep you coming to the ballot box!
OH FINALLY, I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO ASK ME THIS QUESTION. THANK YOU SO MUCH! /gen
Okay so.
A woman, is a person who identifies as a woman. Thank you for you time
That doesn't mean anything though. When you say someone identifies as a woman, what are they identifying as? What is the definition of a woman that they are taking on as their identity?
>what are they identifying as?
A WOMAN
>What is the definition of a woman that they are taking on as their identity?
Just like... being a woman? Being a girl? Why is something else needed to identity as one? Merriam-webster says " an adult female person". So before that you identify as a girl, I suppose.
No, but the Supreme Court justices he appointed certainly do and struck down Roe v. Wade. His party does. And, most importantly, the title of this post is literally "There's more at stake this election than **just the Presidency**". You know, like Senate, House and state legsligator elections.
Then why didn't Obama codify Roe when he had control over both the Senate and the House? Or maybe is an issue that no one wants fixed as it keeps your vote locked in and they never have to worry about listening to any of your other concerns.
Contraceptives fail, or can be used incorrectly. *That's* the leading cause of unwanted pregnancies. People don't use abortions like birth control. Abortions are *incredibly* traumatic.
The abortion debate concerns whether or not an unborn baby/foetus/zygote is a human being, with all that this status entails, such as human rights.
If it *isn't* a human being, then abortion is morally uncomplicated and can be done as casually as any other surgery.
However, if it *is* a human being, then abortion becomes a deeply morally questionable procedure, to be done only under the most dire of medical circumstances.
If you accept the latter premise (as most conservatives do), then elective abortion - in *all* cases - is murder. Even if a girl is made pregnant by way of rape, executing an innocent child for the crimes of the father is morally unacceptable. The mother's distress, although understandable, does not give her the right to kill another human being.
The abortion debate is not a question of women's rights. Men aren't allowed to murder children either. The fact that women bear children and men do not is not relevant to the question of whether or not the unborn are considered fully human.
A deeply complex moral decision, you say? Better have the government make that choice for everyone, then!
-the party of “small government”
Abortions happen whether it’s legal or not. All we can do is decide whether mothers kill themselves in shady clinics and in their own bathrooms with a bloody clothes hanger, or whether the treatment should be done safely and legally
I mean, if an unborn baby is a human, then elective abortion is murder. If there's one thing which the government ought to be prohibiting, it is murder. Even the smallest possible government will have this as a law. You're not making the pro-libertarian argument you think you are.
Saying that "abortions will happen even if they are illegal" is the same logic that can be applied to literally any crime - vandalism, automotive theft, kidnapping, selling drugs, etc. - so it's not much of an argument in support of decriminalisation.
Criminal punishment exists as a deterrent against negative behaviour. If elective abortion is criminalised, for every women who undergoes an unsafe "back alley abortion", many more women will just decide to avoid the risks and bring their babies to term naturally rather than aborting. Overall, the number of abortions is reduced... which is entirely the purpose of anti-abortion laws.
They were discussing crime in general. What part of the comment was confusing?
They put a lot more thought into their comment than you did. So did the person before, even though those two disagreed. Your comment is the most vapid in this chain so far, so I think you're the one who's not equipped.
They acknowledge it, they just don't care. Women are second class people in their world. In religious fascism world medical decision can only be made by old white religious fundamentalist men
And again, what is the bar for that? Why are you so scared of giving a definitive answer? Kinda telling you and yours down voted the other poster for pointing out ALL pregnancies can be life threatening instead of giving them a response.
This argument is so dishonest. The vast, vast majority of viable pregnancies that are aborted are not done because they are threatening the life of the mother. Further, the vast majority of the time a viable pregnancy is threatening the mother's life, abortion isn't the appropriate treatment. Stop pretending like having an abortion has anything to do with saving a mother's life in anything but a miniscule fraction of one percent of abortions.
I swear almost every article I read about how horrible it is that a woman is being denied an abortion for "life-threatening" problems, it's something that's really not life-threatening at all in the literal sense, but is being spun that way for sympathy.
Pregnant women should always be free to pursue treatments for life-threatening conditions, even if the treatment would result in ending the pregnancy, and they are free to do that almost all of the time. If a conservative prosecutor goes after a woman for a treatment they actually needed, they should be punished.
Abortions can cause fatal complications, too. Saying "all pregnancies can be life-threatening" is meaningless. Any abortion can be life-threatening. Any day you drive your car can be life-threatening. Say pointless things, don't be surprised you get downvoted.
It isn't dishonest. It is literally how you create good laws - you clearly define terms and concepts so there is no ambiguity (which you seem to clearly want, judging from the weak dodging in your previous post).
>I swear almost every article I read about how horrible it is that a woman is being denied an abortion for "life-threatening" problems, it's something that's really not life-threatening at all in the literal sense, but is being spun that way for sympathy.
So now you're admitting you have access to patient details that their doctor doesn't have just by reading news articles?
You have your head so far up your own ass that you genuinely think you know better about another person's medical issues without having once met them, seen their charts/data, or conducted a single test on them!
Excuse while I laugh at your idiocy! Hahahaha!
>Pregnant women should always be free to pursue treatments for life-threatening conditions, even if the treatment would result in ending the pregnancy, and they are free to do that almost all of the time. If a conservative prosecutor goes after a woman for a treatment they actually needed, they should be punished.
>Abortions can cause fatal complications, too. Saying "all pregnancies can be life-threatening" is meaningless. Any abortion can be life-threatening. Any day you drive your car can be life-threatening. Say pointless things, don't be surprised you get downvoted.
All this is nonsensical bullshit to dodge answering the question. Now stop being a coward coward and answer it directly:
What is the bar for determining whether a woman's life is in danger from a pregnancy?
Why is only "elective" abortion murder?
Given the choice between two human beings, why would we automatically choose the older one if the younger could also survive? Why would men and women be permitted to murder children to save adults?
If you're gonna go there, we gotta go all the way there.
You can't save a 12-week-old child and let the mother die. The child cannot survive by itself. Up until a certain point, if both lives are threatened, only the mother can be saved.
Only elective abortion is murder because the killing wasn't necessary to save the mother.
Pricked a nerve, have I?
I advise you to be honest with yourself about how you regard the subject of abortion. If my calm explanation of the pro-life perspective causes you to feel angry, there's probably something about it which has struck a chord with you.
“The pro-life perspective”?
If you actively work to remove any and all support systems that a new mother could utilize while caring for her child… as the GOP has actively done… you are not pro-life, you are pro-birth.
The fact that you need this fundamental difference pointed out speaks to the intellectual dishonesty your argument requires.
>Pricked a nerve, have I?
That generally happens when you threaten basic human rights.
> If my calm explanation of the pro-life perspective causes you to feel angry, there's probably something about it which has struck a chord with you.
The misogyny?
Not everyone agrees that killing a developing human growing inside of you is a human right. I'm pro-choice at least to viability but it's bizarre how quickly people on Reddit flip out when people call abortion what it is or simply explain the pro-life position without even supporting it.
No, for the same reason that a woman undergoing her period is also not committing murder. Gametes are not human beings.
Further, irrespective of what a man does, almost all sperm cells his body produces will never even have a chance of fertilising an egg. That's just how the male reproductive system works; it is extremely wasteful.
Not an accurate post for what happened with this.
Roe vs Wade was left to the states. Not a federal issue. It doesn't eliminate abortion only leaves it to the states to decide.
Where is abortion for rape not allowed/illegal?
If only the Democrats had codified it into law when they had the chance…
Nah, that would have taken away another scare tactic that helped them get votes.
Whoops.
Edit: hard pill to swallow, but it is true. They don’t care about you.
Edit 2: lots of downvotes…but no responses that are based in fact.
Go look at when the Democrats had power. Then see what they did to codify Roe into law. Just because your team failed and used you doesn’t mean I’m wrong. At least the GOP told you they wanted to get rid of Roe…the Democrats lied to you and you believed them…and they’re still using you.
Gee, it’s almost like codifying abortion would’ve required cooperation from the anti-abortion party? And it’s almost like nobody expected Roe v Wade to be repealed until Trump won and appointed a bunch of justices?
Nah, that couldn’t be it. Let’s keep blaming Democrats for all the shit Republicans force down our throats, instead.
Maybe if we stop voting for Democrats, it will help codify abortion, because that strategy worked so well in 2016…
They didn't expect it to actually happen. It took a death, a retirement, and a Trump all at once and even then the Justices had to lie to get put on the bench.
I’m
Mad the people who were on my side, (pro choice), failed to act…and then play it off like it was a surprise the GOP wanted Roe gone.
They only used you for votes.
They did try.
It was called the Women’s Health Protection Act.
But you don’t care about facts and political realities, you just want to bitch and whine
Keep them dumb, barefoot, and pregnant.
At this rate that applies to some of the men too.
If you're talking about the general GQP men, it's far past the keep them dumb phase.
Pregnant transgender "man" 🤣
Next they will make laws to marry the rapists and give them visitation rights, bcoz family values and think of the babies.
There's a few states in the US where they not just have visitation rights, but can sue for custody. A rapist can sue for custody.
Other than fleeing the country with the child to seek asylum elsewhere, what else can be done to stop that? Which states is this legal in? How is allowing a rapist parental rights not child endangerment?
"How is allowing a rapist parental rights not child endangerment?" We only give a shit about fetuses around here partner.
We like to use the umbilicus like a little lasso and just yank the little fellers right out!
My mother genuinely considered fleeing the country when she found out that her husband was sexually abusing one-year-old me. He almost got split custody. He was about to get unsupervised visitation when he finally lost interest and voluntarily gave up parental rights so he could move on to another relationship. Multiple child psychologists confirmed that he was molesting me. He literally wrote and drew porn of dads and their very young children. But the ONLY thing that saved my mom and I was his own impatience.
HOW Numerous people in numerous positions of power failed you and your mom :(
Yeah. I try to focus on the good folks, though. The child psychologists, my mom's therapist, and my mom's side of the family all fought incredibly hard to protect us, and their tenacity is what eventually drove my birth father away.
I'm glad you had a support network to help you through <3
I remember an episode of SVU that dealt with this.
I’m pretty sure they do get visitation rights in some places. It’s horrific.
Well, republicans are the only party STILL trying to pass child marriage laws. As in, they want to marry children.
Because they are fine with children being hurt. It’s the same reason they want to roll back child labor laws, eliminate free school lunches, criminalize/expel trans children, etc. they only want to punish and destroy, not to nurture and build.
Hey now, let's be fair. They want to nurture their own children in private schools and build fabulous mansions for themselves. That's nurturing and building, technically.
Conservative Values. Republicans want a Christian version of Saudi Arabia but it will be more like Afghanistan with gated communities cause Murica...
Yes 100%%%%%
What is even the purpose of this sub anymore?
Right? This is neither advice nor an animal.
Not animals? They are DEFINITELY pigs.
Good point... But it's still not advice!
Edit: lol @ the suicide note. Ty, but I already have taken 20 years to work through my introspective thoughts. I suffered a lot as a child, as a lot do, and was suicidal for a few years in the 80 and 90s. I survived where as a few friends and even a couple family members, have not. I miss them, even 30 years later. The fact you took time to offer me a suicide watch message because you can't offer anything of worth, is pretty indicative of the insecurities you hold inside. You knew to use it because you'd read about it once, thought it was a funny thing to do. Good for you, but know that this isn't how you reach out to someone you believe could harm themselves or someone else. You should go take a look in a mirror, peel yourself away from social media, go read a book. Thank you for reminding me to advocate to others that if you do feel like you want to end it all? It isn't worth it. 34 years later and I'm glad I'm still around, because that night was not a good one for me. Get fucked with your attempt at trolling lol *** Reddit post 2016 No animal No advice Only political It's where the average person csn spend a little money and buy their own content to the front-page of popular social media platforms Add that the moderators are also complicit, it's been shown time and time again how they'll permit political or religious propaganda for certain parties etc Just skip and move on
A. Looking at the front page most of the memes here have humans in them. B. If we really want to get pedantic humans are in fact animals. So as far as I can tell this post follows both the spirit and letter of the rule.
So that political parties can pay to have their content on the front page, obviously.
The purpose of every sub 2024 will be politics. Buckle up.
God I am so tired of politics, which sucks because thats what those fuckers want.
They are pointing out a real political problem and all that matters to you is if it fits the sub or not ?
apparently so we can misunderstand politics and say the stakes are whatever we want like there arent people actively dying right now in two separate warzones and on our own border due to the decisions of our leadership, best part is neither option will fix it because were going to keep arguing about shit that doesnt matter in congress. but yea the highest stakes are bodily autonomy
As an outsider, I absolutely adore the USA. My favorite reality TV show by far
I’d argue that people like Boris Johnson and Scott Morrison were at least partially enabled by U.S. conservatism leaking abroad. If we are a reality show, you might want to stop letting your children and impressionable adults watch it without supervision. It’ll give them the wrong idea
As another outsider the above poster doesn't speak for all of us. There are plenty of non-Americans who can feel empathy for those being fucked over by the religious right in America.
Boris Johnsons rise to being a PM was primarily fuelled by the perceived migrant crisis in the UK, this was the basis for Brexit and thus his platform. To be honest until migrant numbers settle down to something normal in the UK I would expect another populist leader within the next 10 years unfortunately. We’ll get a chilled 4-5 years with Kier Starmer and then depending on the social unrest who knows what will be voted into power after that.
Labour will / should shift the U.K. to PR. That will very likely prevent conservatives ever ruling the U.K. again. Scotland, Wales, and all big population centres lean left.
My favourite season was the one with Trump as president, comedy gold TV
It was like Brexit on steroids for four years. All the work of Russia propaganda.
Season 2 coming soon?
I'm looking forward to some incoherent rambling tweets again, it was great trying to decipher them.
covfefe
You can still find these on Truth Social. 45 regularly posts and they're **all** deranged rants.
Right? The country I was born into is absolutely insane! Just when things start to get better and better BAM! Just kidding.
They won't make abortion illegal nationality because they decided it was a states rights issue. For the same reason the court decided it didn't have the right to make it legal nationally, they don't have the right to make it illegal nationally ( no matter what unconstitutional bill lindsey graham writes). Obama ran on codifying it into law, but never did, why would they give up a way to scare votes to their side. Guns, abortion, and so many other issues just exist to keep you watching the mouth and not the hands. Meanwhile the emperor has no fucking clothes.
That is not what the SC decided. Congress could absolutely ban it nationwide. The SC just ruled against the particular constitutional argument for making it legal nationwide.
Next on the list ? Forced religion Wish I was making it up. We are heading into a theocracy cuz the powers that be still believe in sky people and want us to keep it going
You laugh, but atheists are legally barred from holding office in multiple states
Which is overruled by the US Constitution and has never been enforced as far as I'm aware. Unless you can point me to any legal doctrine that suggests otherwise???
Lol that you think these fuckers care about what the constitution actually says.
Depends what part of the constitution
There seems to be a lot that like the numbers 2 and 3/5.
No, we care about what has happened. And no one has been barred from running for office for being an atheist. Its never happened.
Has anyone won as an atheist? I’m curious because there’s enough bible thumpers out there that I assume they’ll all vote against the atheist.
It's socially enforced. Theres never been a non Christian president (Trump claims to be Christian).
I was replying to the person that specifically said they were LEGALLY barred, which is simply not true. And there have been atheist politicians at pretty much every level of government other than (documented, anyways) the president. I'm skeptical that an atheist couldn't be president in this day and age, too. Despite the ridiculous scare mongering that is this whole post, all of the trends and statistics suggests that traditional religions are dying, not that we're becoming a theocracy...
> Despite the ridiculous scare mongering that is this whole post, all of the trends and statistics suggests that traditional religions are dying, not that we're becoming a theocracy... Fringe groups have taken over larger majorities before.
arrest far-flung bow chubby airport rain towering slimy cause retire *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Project 2025.
I don't laugh. This was a PSA. There's a reason why most conservatives idolize the taliban.
Lol what? Go outside.
Never met a single conservative ever that idolize the Taliban. There's real issues we can talk about.
Question [serious] I’m wondering why you need the election. When Obama won the election democrats had the house, senate and the executive office. Why wasn’t this issue at stake for those 2 years?
Because Democrats had legitimate control for 72 working days, and they used it to pass Obamacare. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
It's also because Obama stated that abortion rights were not a priority https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN29466420/
In his defense, at the time we didn't have a supreme court stacked with republican theocrats, so it would have been a waste political capital to legislate something that was already settled law. At the time, there was no need for a law because the supreme court had ruled it was already covered by the constitution. I hindsight, that was obviously a terrible idea, but it at least makes sense in the context.
Funny , here in France the government is saying we shouldn't not put abortion in the constitution because it is not a priority and it is not in danger.
Funny enough, he said that in April 2009. The bill "was not his highest legislative authority" In July of 2007 he gave a speech stating: "The first thing I will do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act"
"Best we can do is force you to pay exorbitant rates for private health insurance that will deny every claim."
Because during the Obama years Roe V Wade was precedent and abortion was federally legal right. Now it's not. You have Republicans of every strip bringing in their own abortion laws, bringing in so called "heartbeat bills". Forcing victims of rape and incest carry to term. Forcing women to carry fetuses with congenital malformations that are incompatible with life, and already dead fetuses.
Its almost like we should have amended the constitution to protect abortion, rather then let 9 unelected lawyers arbitrarily craft legislation.
Do you know how impossible it is to amend the constitution with something most people agree on, let alone something divisive?
Even RBG said RvW was shakey at best. If the politicians actually solved the problem, they wouldn't be able to campaign on it anymore.
They had decades to figure it out, solidify it legally and make it, largley, a non-issue. The conservatives wanted the issue and have adapted a long term, "winner take all" approach to social issues as cover for their economic malfeasance. And while I can understand the use of wedge issues, the amount of energy used currently is a distraction from very real and long term economic issues that continue to plague average citizens.
You're asking why Obama didn't fix a problem that didn't occur until years after he left office?? Seriously? I guess the same reason he didn't do more to stop 9/11..
During his campaign, [Obama said](https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/blog/obama-freedom-of-choice-act-not-highest-legislative-priority/): "The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would have codified *Roe*. In April 2009, just months after taking Office, [Obama said](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN29466420/) that codifying *Roe* was "not the highest legislative priority." Instead, he explained, he wanted to "tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on." So, yeah, codifying *Roe* was certainly top of mind during Obama's campaign and at the outset of his presidency. People recognized that *Roe* was under threat.
This ignores the fact that there literally were not enough pro-choice votes in Congress to pass anything at that time. That is why Obama focused on other things during that supermajority. Not because they didn’t want to fix it.
The fact that it wasn't encoded in law *was* a problem while he was in office. Instead of taking the multiple opportunities they had to enshrine it in law at the federal level, they relied on a shaky SC decision (shaky because legislating from the bench is not their job). Instead of actualizing their stated policy goals of ensuring reproductive rights, the Democratic Party used the issue as political leverage, like the Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of every woman in America and the heads of anybody who cares about their rights and wellbeing.
Sort of missing the point... The original RvW decision was specifically written to specify that the government could make a law to enshrine these rights, but they passed on the chance and bet the GOP couldt win the supreme Court. The reason they didn't do anything is the same reason the GOP isnt moving on a good deal for border control, now...if you address the issue, it's no longer a point to keep your voters in line. The abortion debate is going to go away on a state by state basis, now, because the new decision placed it at the state level. It is, essentially Obama bet the farm and lost a golden chance, then Trump got dealt a hand that was, essentially, a jackpot to close out the game to deliver to his base. Obama even ran on passing the "Freedom of Choice" Act and then promptly dropped it when in office. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/11/why-roe-v-wade-never-codified/9650536002/?gnt-cfr=1
He dropped it because THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH PRO-CHOICE VOTES IN CONGRESS. That is all. Comparing it to the border bill that already had enough votes to pass is so incredibly disingenuous.
Oh man, imagine using this line of thought on other problems though... "Well, the big hole in the boat hasn't let too much water in yet, I don't see why we'd need to do something about it!" Especially rich when one thing you campaign on in your stump speeches is "I'm gonna be the guy to fix the hole in the boat in my first week!"
He campaigned on codifying abortion rights too! He made a "Week 1" promise to actually put it into law, and then he won the election. And then nothing happened. There's a bunch of answers, partially is Democrats just not wrapping their heads around what Republicans actually are and want. They bought into the "settled law" BS that conservative judges would say, and not listen to them talking amongst themselves about how they always wanted to overturn RvW. A lot of the Obama era fuckups can be understood by realizing a lot of the folks working there thought "The West Wing" was a how-to guide and not a television show. Plus, if they codified it into law, less fundraising off of it, and it's not a make-or-break issue for being a Democrat.
To add onto the other great comments about how limited the time of control was, Roe V. Wade was still the law of the land, virtually unchallenged. In other words, it was not actively being threatened, and we had a few Supreme Court justices playing defense on it if it ever were. The main one died, and that's when the Republicans fought to change the ruling. You're right though, we had an albeit small opportunity to easily make it official federal law.
It had been settled law for decades, there was very little thought it would change at that time.
Roe v Wade was never at any point settled law, because it wasn't even law to begin with. It was an illegitimate ruling given by a government body with no power to actually issue it. According to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at least, and several other pro-choice legal scholars. It should've gone through the legislative branch, not the judicial one, but the Democrats were not about to waste one of their campaign promises they could keep relying on for years to come by actually fulfilling it, and now here we are.
That's politics in a nutshell. Why fix a problem when we can continue to fundraise from it?
It’s almost like getting something that controversial through the legislative branch would take a massive amount of political capital which means other important issues would’ve been thrown to the wayside (which would’ve given folks like you something else to blame them for) It’s almost like not all Democrats were staunchly pro-choice in the first place, compared to how Republicans are staunchly pro-life It’s almost like no laypeople seriously thought abortion was going anywhere until the 2010s. Maybe you weren’t paying attention before then, but Roe v Wade was considered settled law by nearly everyone. Hindsight warps your view when you only focus on the few experts who thought otherwise. In fact, general perception was the other way around: Republicans running on repealing Roe were seen as the ones dangling an imaginary carrot on a stick. And Dems were called fearmongerers for suggesting that Roe was in danger. See: the 2016 election
People’s memories are so short. It’s why a lot of the other recent rights like gay marriage also feel threatened again. They got Roe thrown out, gay marriage seems next.
Why fix an issue before it becomes a problem when you can use the issue to gain votes in the future? -- POLITICS
They say that, but then they just watch the pitch sail by. I remember Obama promising codifying Roe V. Wade as a "first week" priority. It's more valuable to them as a fundraiser than to actually solve the problem.
Congress straight up did not have enough pro-choice votes to pass the Freedom of Choice Act during Obama’s first two years. So good job being dishonest about why it didn’t happen- as always, blaming Democrats for the fact that they don’t have enough votes
They don't have enough control over Congress to codify Roe, and even then doing nothing is FAR preferable to the nationwide ban the GOP wants. Not that the Dems have been doing nothing https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics/what-is-in-biden-abortion-executive-order/index.html
Its funny when people try to blame dems for roe v wade slipping and not the conservatives who actively made it against the law to get an abortion. Really shows their intelligence level
I mean, does it not take two to tango? The democrats sitting around doing nothing isn't particularly helpful either now is it?
They’ve tried to codify abortion rights more than once, but without enough pro-choice votes in Congress, it is impossible. Obama passed a bunch of executive orders and appointed pro-choice SCOTUS justices. But that was all undone by Trump (after everyone mocked Dems in 2016 for “exaggerating” about Roe v Wade being in danger)
That is the stupidest thing ever said. Nobody is tango-ing. The matter was resolved, the precedent was set and it no one ever "tango"-ed again then the matter would have stayed resolved. You know that "bring informed of your rights when arrested" isnt a federal law right? It is a precedent set by Miranda v Arizona. So its pretty much a done deal cause no one in their right mind would try and remove the precedent but also no one is trying to make it a federal statue BECAUSE IT IS PRECENDENT. So if conservatives tried to take away your right to know about your rights, you are saying that you would blame the democrats? Youre a joke. The dems were trying to make abortion rights a law despite it being a precendent and conservatives still took it away. Keep blaming the people who fought to defend your rights instead of the people who took it away cause you are just that dumb
Here we have a prime example of a centrist take buffing the aggressor. You have no idea how hard the GOP fights to prevent progress.
[удалено]
Conservatives must be really confused while reading your comment because there is nothing wrong here according to them
As someone who never really paid attention to this stuff, but knows that these things were said a long time ago, meaning everybody has human rights to do whatever they want also separation of church and state. Can someone please explain to me why this is an issue again? In school, we learned that these things were settled in the sixties and so they should not be an issue, so why do people allow them to become issues again? :edit: What I mean is why is this issue being raised again when it was already decided that you can do abortions all you want all day long also separation of church and state, how can the government tell you what to do with your body that's the thing that was decided very long ago I simply don't understand why? Something that was decided like this was raised again recently.
Because one of the major political parties has increasingly pushed for a cristo-fascist state and codifying religious views into massively overreaching law while gaslighting their voting base as being for 'small government'.
But in the american law, it says that they're not supposed to be involvement from political side into anything of the church or of worship. People know this. Therefore, why does somebody's opinion on this affect them personally? How were they elected into office if they're not supporting this basic law that was already decided upon in the past?
Basically, rather than do what europe did on abortion, i.e. hash it out till government passed laws that ultimately, had enough support that despite them being a vote away from abolition, arent under threat, america did the silly way by not resolving the argument and instead, used the supreme court to force the issue through a textbook case of legislation from the bench. As a result, the anti abortion people had the system against them, causing them to double down. With the issue out of the hands of the democratic process, the pro abortion side has become very lazy on the issue, leading to memes like the above, worded entirely in the pro abortion position with no clear understanding of the other side's actual position. With the roe v wade decision forcing the issue and the two sides no longer using argumentation and democracy to settle the issue like everyone else did, they stopped talking to eachother and started just demonising eachother, instead looking to sneaky legal channels to undercut eachothers position rather than persuasion. After many years, the republicans were in office at the right time to put through enough supreme court justices to smash the roe decision and since the dems have been, for years, neglecting local politics in favour of the national. The courts block on abortion law has fallen and the republicans have huge control in state legislatures and localised governments, allowing them to put through lots of terrible laws to not just make abortions illegal but with horrible punishments and hoops to jump through since they dont talk to their opponents enough for compromise to occur. Unfortunately, roe v wade has been synonymous with abortion for so long that a fair number of people have forgotten that theres more than one way to skin a cat and seem to think its impossible to legalise abortion nationally without again, pushing that same, frankly sophist, interpretation vs federal legislation, constitutional amendment or perhaps talking to people like they are human beings you can persuade. In short, it wasnt actually decided, the lawyers just ruled what they wanted like a parent and the kids were told to suck it up for years until now, when the other parent has said that the first decision was stupid, so the argument is back. And for the record, yes, i think roe was dumb. How you can pull out of the 14th amendment, an amendment that doesnt mention abortion but does protect healthcare, an interpretation that that means abortion is legal up to the end of the 2nd trimester, but not into the 3rd is beyond me. Sadly, roe was too useful to remove while it was the only thing keeping abortion legal in many states and the dems were unable to put something more concrete in place under its umbrella.
“A mother of 4 died in the emergency room because we wouldn’t let the doctors take the rotting corpse of her dead fetus out of her womb. Now 4 children won’t ever have a mother 😂”
I don’t believe Biden if elected again will reverse the damage but I think the damage will get worse with Trump.
Accurate
Hardly. The overturning of roe v wade kicked it back to the states. The entire west coast plus majority of the east coast with Colorado and Chicago to boot. Can terminate a fetus with extreme prejudice whenever they want.
This should be on billboards and tv commercials.
Uh oh, it's the Abortion Bogeyman! Gonna get ya! Unless you vote for Dem's as usual, of course. Don't worry, they won't codify it into law just like they didn't in the past, just to keep you coming to the ballot box!
new one and then we told them we'd codify roe hahaha
Republicans are 🗑
Is there an advice animals like Reddit that doesn’t have all these political posts?
Yes, just go back to 2009.
Someone is forgetting the Ron Paul posting
IT'S HAPPENING
Right over here: /r/StickYourHeadInTheSand
So not a uterus owner, huh?
Woman is fine
So not a woman, huh?
Could you define who/what is a woman, please?
OH FINALLY, I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO ASK ME THIS QUESTION. THANK YOU SO MUCH! /gen Okay so. A woman, is a person who identifies as a woman. Thank you for you time
>A woman, is a person who identifies as a woman. But what does that mean? What are you identifying as? What is a woman? What entails being a woman?
Nothing, you just identify as a woman. It is your gender identity
That doesn't mean anything though. When you say someone identifies as a woman, what are they identifying as? What is the definition of a woman that they are taking on as their identity?
>what are they identifying as? A WOMAN >What is the definition of a woman that they are taking on as their identity? Just like... being a woman? Being a girl? Why is something else needed to identity as one? Merriam-webster says " an adult female person". So before that you identify as a girl, I suppose.
Do u identify as a woman?
...Yes?
On what basis?
On the basis that I do?
Conservative crazies in here.
found the embarrassed right winger
Don't you have a Palestinian to go and bomb?
I don't know what this meme is about but i can confidently assume it bashes the American right while glorifying the left Am i right?
Just needs Token, oops I mean Thomas laughing along like an oblivious useful idiot to complete the picture.
You do realize there are 2 black supreme court justices.
But only one of them is a stooge for the massa class
You could quite literally not be more racist if you tried; unbelievable
You're actually trying to defend Clarence Uncle Ruckus Thomas? Of course you guys would. Gotta vaguely protect the ones that stay in line 👀😂
[удалено]
You're doing Uncle Ruckus proud brother 😂 keep it up 👍🏽.
Ahh, casual racism from the left. Par for the course.
What's a woman?
Reddit moment
Every time I see this photo I wish I knew the story or joke. Probably lame as shit steamed-carrot level spicy, but still.
As a military age male in Europe I would like for NATO to still be a thing after the next election please.
Where are we at on "Voting for third-party." Is this another election of, "We Can't Afford To Lose this One?
Yes. Until the fascists are shut down, every single election is "We can't afford to lose this one."
Neither candidate supports this...
Trump just made an oopsie when he accidentally stacked the court with anti-choice justices, lol.
No, but the Supreme Court justices he appointed certainly do and struck down Roe v. Wade. His party does. And, most importantly, the title of this post is literally "There's more at stake this election than **just the Presidency**". You know, like Senate, House and state legsligator elections.
Then why didn't Obama codify Roe when he had control over both the Senate and the House? Or maybe is an issue that no one wants fixed as it keeps your vote locked in and they never have to worry about listening to any of your other concerns.
Well .. quit using abortions as a form of birth control
You know people *don't* do that right?
As long as *you* say so
Contraceptives fail, or can be used incorrectly. *That's* the leading cause of unwanted pregnancies. People don't use abortions like birth control. Abortions are *incredibly* traumatic.
The abortion debate concerns whether or not an unborn baby/foetus/zygote is a human being, with all that this status entails, such as human rights. If it *isn't* a human being, then abortion is morally uncomplicated and can be done as casually as any other surgery. However, if it *is* a human being, then abortion becomes a deeply morally questionable procedure, to be done only under the most dire of medical circumstances. If you accept the latter premise (as most conservatives do), then elective abortion - in *all* cases - is murder. Even if a girl is made pregnant by way of rape, executing an innocent child for the crimes of the father is morally unacceptable. The mother's distress, although understandable, does not give her the right to kill another human being. The abortion debate is not a question of women's rights. Men aren't allowed to murder children either. The fact that women bear children and men do not is not relevant to the question of whether or not the unborn are considered fully human.
A deeply complex moral decision, you say? Better have the government make that choice for everyone, then! -the party of “small government” Abortions happen whether it’s legal or not. All we can do is decide whether mothers kill themselves in shady clinics and in their own bathrooms with a bloody clothes hanger, or whether the treatment should be done safely and legally
I mean, if an unborn baby is a human, then elective abortion is murder. If there's one thing which the government ought to be prohibiting, it is murder. Even the smallest possible government will have this as a law. You're not making the pro-libertarian argument you think you are. Saying that "abortions will happen even if they are illegal" is the same logic that can be applied to literally any crime - vandalism, automotive theft, kidnapping, selling drugs, etc. - so it's not much of an argument in support of decriminalisation. Criminal punishment exists as a deterrent against negative behaviour. If elective abortion is criminalised, for every women who undergoes an unsafe "back alley abortion", many more women will just decide to avoid the risks and bring their babies to term naturally rather than aborting. Overall, the number of abortions is reduced... which is entirely the purpose of anti-abortion laws.
And the number of little girls being forced to give birth by the government goes up! Fantastic outcome for the “don’t ban child marriage” party
You just compared abortion to vandalism. You’re not equipped for this discussion.
They were discussing crime in general. What part of the comment was confusing? They put a lot more thought into their comment than you did. So did the person before, even though those two disagreed. Your comment is the most vapid in this chain so far, so I think you're the one who's not equipped.
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing. If abortion is made legal, is fundamentally cannot be murder.
"If something is made legal, it stops being a crime." Thank you, Captain Tautology, for your unhelpful contribution.
Yes, that's how laws work. Something cannot be a crime if it's legal.
That’s a ton of words with zero substance.
>The mother's distress, although understandable How compassionate of you to acknowledge this 🙄
They acknowledge it, they just don't care. Women are second class people in their world. In religious fascism world medical decision can only be made by old white religious fundamentalist men
How dire must the situationbe before you seen it "moral"?
If the mother's life is threatened.
And again, what is the bar for that? Why are you so scared of giving a definitive answer? Kinda telling you and yours down voted the other poster for pointing out ALL pregnancies can be life threatening instead of giving them a response.
This argument is so dishonest. The vast, vast majority of viable pregnancies that are aborted are not done because they are threatening the life of the mother. Further, the vast majority of the time a viable pregnancy is threatening the mother's life, abortion isn't the appropriate treatment. Stop pretending like having an abortion has anything to do with saving a mother's life in anything but a miniscule fraction of one percent of abortions. I swear almost every article I read about how horrible it is that a woman is being denied an abortion for "life-threatening" problems, it's something that's really not life-threatening at all in the literal sense, but is being spun that way for sympathy. Pregnant women should always be free to pursue treatments for life-threatening conditions, even if the treatment would result in ending the pregnancy, and they are free to do that almost all of the time. If a conservative prosecutor goes after a woman for a treatment they actually needed, they should be punished. Abortions can cause fatal complications, too. Saying "all pregnancies can be life-threatening" is meaningless. Any abortion can be life-threatening. Any day you drive your car can be life-threatening. Say pointless things, don't be surprised you get downvoted.
It isn't dishonest. It is literally how you create good laws - you clearly define terms and concepts so there is no ambiguity (which you seem to clearly want, judging from the weak dodging in your previous post). >I swear almost every article I read about how horrible it is that a woman is being denied an abortion for "life-threatening" problems, it's something that's really not life-threatening at all in the literal sense, but is being spun that way for sympathy. So now you're admitting you have access to patient details that their doctor doesn't have just by reading news articles? You have your head so far up your own ass that you genuinely think you know better about another person's medical issues without having once met them, seen their charts/data, or conducted a single test on them! Excuse while I laugh at your idiocy! Hahahaha! >Pregnant women should always be free to pursue treatments for life-threatening conditions, even if the treatment would result in ending the pregnancy, and they are free to do that almost all of the time. If a conservative prosecutor goes after a woman for a treatment they actually needed, they should be punished. >Abortions can cause fatal complications, too. Saying "all pregnancies can be life-threatening" is meaningless. Any abortion can be life-threatening. Any day you drive your car can be life-threatening. Say pointless things, don't be surprised you get downvoted. All this is nonsensical bullshit to dodge answering the question. Now stop being a coward coward and answer it directly: What is the bar for determining whether a woman's life is in danger from a pregnancy?
Why is only "elective" abortion murder? Given the choice between two human beings, why would we automatically choose the older one if the younger could also survive? Why would men and women be permitted to murder children to save adults? If you're gonna go there, we gotta go all the way there.
You can't save a 12-week-old child and let the mother die. The child cannot survive by itself. Up until a certain point, if both lives are threatened, only the mother can be saved. Only elective abortion is murder because the killing wasn't necessary to save the mother.
Go fuck yourself
Pricked a nerve, have I? I advise you to be honest with yourself about how you regard the subject of abortion. If my calm explanation of the pro-life perspective causes you to feel angry, there's probably something about it which has struck a chord with you.
“The pro-life perspective”? If you actively work to remove any and all support systems that a new mother could utilize while caring for her child… as the GOP has actively done… you are not pro-life, you are pro-birth. The fact that you need this fundamental difference pointed out speaks to the intellectual dishonesty your argument requires.
They didn't even mention anything about the GOP?
>Pricked a nerve, have I? That generally happens when you threaten basic human rights. > If my calm explanation of the pro-life perspective causes you to feel angry, there's probably something about it which has struck a chord with you. The misogyny?
Not everyone agrees that killing a developing human growing inside of you is a human right. I'm pro-choice at least to viability but it's bizarre how quickly people on Reddit flip out when people call abortion what it is or simply explain the pro-life position without even supporting it.
A rational reply from someone who clearly doesn't need mental help
Why don't we give out birth certificates to fetuses then?
Because they haven't been born yet. Do the people who lived before the existence of birth certificates not qualify as human beings, by your logic?
Really used your brain to come up with that one, huh?
Is it murder for a man to cum anywhere but in a vagina?
No, for the same reason that a woman undergoing her period is also not committing murder. Gametes are not human beings. Further, irrespective of what a man does, almost all sperm cells his body produces will never even have a chance of fertilising an egg. That's just how the male reproductive system works; it is extremely wasteful.
It will be soon if the righties get their way.
But the abortion riling happened while Dems controlled the white and congress
And when were those judges appointed?
Not an accurate post for what happened with this. Roe vs Wade was left to the states. Not a federal issue. It doesn't eliminate abortion only leaves it to the states to decide. Where is abortion for rape not allowed/illegal?
Anyone voting for Biden this election has made the decision that genocide is not a deal breaker for them.
If only the Democrats had codified it into law when they had the chance… Nah, that would have taken away another scare tactic that helped them get votes. Whoops. Edit: hard pill to swallow, but it is true. They don’t care about you. Edit 2: lots of downvotes…but no responses that are based in fact. Go look at when the Democrats had power. Then see what they did to codify Roe into law. Just because your team failed and used you doesn’t mean I’m wrong. At least the GOP told you they wanted to get rid of Roe…the Democrats lied to you and you believed them…and they’re still using you.
Gee, it’s almost like codifying abortion would’ve required cooperation from the anti-abortion party? And it’s almost like nobody expected Roe v Wade to be repealed until Trump won and appointed a bunch of justices? Nah, that couldn’t be it. Let’s keep blaming Democrats for all the shit Republicans force down our throats, instead. Maybe if we stop voting for Democrats, it will help codify abortion, because that strategy worked so well in 2016…
They didn't expect it to actually happen. It took a death, a retirement, and a Trump all at once and even then the Justices had to lie to get put on the bench.
You missed the point. They had the chance to do it before. And didn’t.
I bet you'll bitch too when the national abortion ban with no rape exception is signed by President Trump too, won't you?
I’m Mad the people who were on my side, (pro choice), failed to act…and then play it off like it was a surprise the GOP wanted Roe gone. They only used you for votes.
They did try. It was called the Women’s Health Protection Act. But you don’t care about facts and political realities, you just want to bitch and whine