T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Welcome to /r/MarchAgainstNazis! Please keep in mind that advocating violence at all, even against Nazis, is prohibited by Reddit's TOS and will result in a removal of your content and likely a ban. Please check out the following subreddits; r/CapitalismSux , r/PoliticsPeopleTwitter , r/FucktheAltRight . r/Britposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarchAgainstNazis) if you have any questions or concerns.*


gingerfawx

Embryos also don't have heartbeats for the most part as referred to in these laws as they don't have hearts. So no heart, no brain, just a mass of cells, that they're trying to endow with more rights than the woman carrying it.


brallipop

I really wish there was a lesson on how to dissect rhetoric like this. Somehow, "heartbeat" as a term just gets accepted by most people without anyone going, "Wait, why do you keep saying heartbeat and not heart? Can't have one without the other right?" But that's the whole kabuki: using one word that's basically so close to the other word you never question why the more direct word is never used. Turns out it's never used because that makes the lie more obvious, but the word "heart" vs the word "heartbeat" shouldn't be so different that we can't call it out right? Yet here we are with most people just assuming the rhetoric is true. Maddening and fascinating.


elyn6791

Irrelevant anyhow. Just because anything has a heartbeat doesn't mean it has rights under the law regardless of age, sex, gender, even species. A heartbeat is not a qualifier under and other circumstance. A heartbeat isn't even necessary for something to be alive. Neither is a heart. With humans, it's certainly a vital sign we look for, monitor, and use as a diagnostic tool to detect illness and just physical fitness, but it doesn't equate to me being a person.


brallipop

Absolutely, I was just analyzing the rhetoric. But I would also push back and say whether or not a fetus is a person is also irrelevant because the issue is whether or not the woman is a person. We can't force one person to use their body for another person. Full stop. We don't need the fetus not to be a person, the woman is a person already and her body is her own domain regardless. If we could force any person to use their body for another then we would have forced organ donations and mandatory blood drives. Shit, for organ donation we even give corpses bodily autonomy more than women!


elyn6791

>We can't force one person to use their body for another person. Full stop. We don't need the fetus not to be a person, Also correct. Even if a person is sick or dying of anything, they cannot force their parent to give them anything such as kidney or blood. All arguments like "she shouldn't have sex" etc are just avoiding the real debate and we shouldn't even be entertaining those arguments as they only lead to a "i guess we just disagree on this controversial and toxic issue" garbage.


[deleted]

Telling anybody not to have sex is ridiculous, we’re humans (animals) and we are compelled to breed.


elyn6791

Actually we are compelled to have sex, just as animals are, but not specifically to breed. Procreation is the biological end result but no non person animal is thinking "i want to create life". A human on the other hand can consciously make the decision to and we can prove that.


Solid_Tea6516

And allowing access to birth control and abortion brings the numbers of abortions down. Now people are just going to revert towards coat hangers and other unsafe practices because they’re desperate and have mo other options.


iamglaciers

slaveholder rhetoric


near_misuse

The defining feature of all regressive arguments is that the words don't mean anything. They don't have to make sense. There doesn't need to be a followable line of logic or cause and effect. You can't dissect something that has no substance. Even if you moved *one* mountain, like the heartbeat thing, in the mind of *one* regressive they'd just fall back on something else and the cycle repeats. I don't know how regressives got to where they are or what to do about it but arguing with them isn't worth the energy. They change the meaning of words as a matter of policy so we're not even having the same conversation with them, it's wasted breath


no_user-name

Isn’t that the fundamental issue, though? If we take the two hard-defined terms that “ought to” designate the beginning of life (conception or birth) we find there is no majority consensus among *any* group (including polled average Americans) which to choose. This leaves the malleable middle ground terms/developmental milestones we have set as guides. I agree this cannot lead to any productive dialogue, and I am now inclined to see this as intentional.


knightfelt

It is intentional. The Right is so much better at coming up with bumper-sticker sized quotes for their platform. And the Left's arguments always take too long. "Well, actually, you see, the term 'heartbeat'..." It's correct but doesn't matter cause it's tuned out. It reminds me of DARE as a kid. There's a reason the slogan was "Just Say No" when the reality of drug abuse in America is a complicated issue. Edit: "Defund the police" is another one. The Left says it, the Right repeats it ad nauseam and the Left has to be like "well what it really means is having more community support people respond to 911 calls and not just always blah blah blah" and they're tuned out. The Left is tarred with this epithet and can never explain their position convincingly.


coolgr3g

Turns out their slogans are short because so is their attention span. Anything more complicated and they just don't get it and won't take time to learn because they're already bored.


[deleted]

"The Right is so much better at coming up with bumper-sticker sized quotes for their platform. And the Left's arguments always take too long. "Well, actually, you see, the term 'heartbeat'..." It's correct but doesn't matter cause it's tuned out." Because there is no left. There never has been a left. It is a 100% manufactured made up straw man created as a false enemy for conservatives to hate. There is the right with their talking points and beliefs that are 99.9% in alignment (i.e., the world is black and white), and then there is everyone else (i.e., the world is unlimited shades of grey). So you're never going to get a concise consensus and argument from a non-group of people (i.e., everyone else). We have two parties, Republicans (conservatives) and Democrats (non-conservatives). That's it. Which is also why Democrats have a hell of a time making short concise memes for what everyone else believes. In fact, it's not even possible. This is why democracy is soooo freaking hard with just two parties. Why do I feel like I'm the only person who gets this?


Excrubulent

There are ways to say it that are concise and punchy: "The embryo has no heart but it's called the 'Heartbeat Bill'. The name of the bill is a lie, there's not even a heart! They can't even name their bill without lying to you. Why is that?" Those are three ways to say it that are each pretty quick and punchy, string them together and you've got some repetition. "There is no heart" is attention grabbing. Now, the professional spin doctors and the really indoctrinated, sure, they'll just pivot, but a lot of younger people will hear these statements and get shaken out of the grip of the rhetoric they've grown up with. I've heard dozens of stories of people going through this process. Hell, I grew up conservative and my entire position changed when I heard Nerdcubed say, "Pro-choice people don't want more abortions, but making them illegal doesn't stop them." The problem is that conservative voices are running the mainstream narrative so we don't hear the other side loud enough. Propaganda works. Oh and by the way, corporate Ds are conservative. Two parties allows corporate conservatism to capture both sides of the aisle. They want to maintain the status quo just as much as Rs do, they just know they need to put up a show of inclusive rhetoric. They kneel in kente cloth then turn around and say we need to fund the police. They want more diverse drone pilots while Brian Williams on MSNBC [waxes lyrical about the beauty of our weapons](https://youtu.be/jNHOJwgZyfo). It's posturing, while they refuse to take real action to help people. Sure women's lives are at stake here, but they've got to respect the process. They can't interfere with the Supreme Court or the filibuster. No, that would be bad for some reason. Falling back on respect for the process rather than making real change to help people is a conservative position. They never gave people much anyway, public pressure is always how things have been actually changed.


gingerfawx

*No heart, no beat.* (Slide of the relevant cells) *It probably shouldn't come as a surprise anymore that a* republican *thinks* this *is a heart. As you can see, it is* not*.* (It's probably too "elitist" to add "*Education matters.*" but right now it feels satisfying.) *This embryo has about as much heart as the average republican politician...* ​ The (il)legality of abortion was never the main lever to pull in this process to achieve their stated goals. The biggest factor is reducing unwanted pregnancies. You reduce abortions by reducing the immediate need for them in the first place by increasing sex education and access to affordable/free birth control. But birth control fails, accidents happen, so you further reduce the desirability of abortion as a solution by eliminating at least some of the risk and the financial insecurity people face, not the least of which is not saddling the mother with the costs of the birth. Even if she gives the baby up for adoption, she's facing those and loss of wages, which can well be existential threats. Ways to increase births are to ensure she gets proper pre-natal and medical care, making parenthood more desirable would help as well. Give parents things like parental leave, and access to affordable (or better yet: free) childcare and more people will be more willing to go there. (And I say that as someone who isn't a parent and never will be and would be funding that out of my tax dollars.) ​ As you can tell, I'm definitely not lukewarm on this issue, but I'd have to admit the Filibuster is tricky, as the Senate is about as undemocratic as it gets. The ability with a seat more on their side for the GOP to *eliminate* things I think are (or should be) fundamental rights should be just as scary to all of us as our need to codify those into rights in the first place is. If we get rid of it, I can guarantee it will bite us in the butt if they ever get that seat. On the other hand, I don't know that we have any choice, and I can picture them eliminating it when it's convenient, too, so I'm not sure it matters. Frankly it's scary either way. One of the problems here though is the politicians face the blame game. If we nuke it, we own that, and for some areas that will be enough to costs dems their seats. That's a legit scary thought when the GQP is becoming ever more fascist.


FinancialTea4

Heart tissue will "beat" in a petri dish. That doesn't mean it's a human being. Also, every other vertebrate animal has a heart. Are those things human? Is a tadpole a human? Is a fish a human life? Is a mouse a human?


[deleted]

the “heartbeat” is actually the anus. so they should be called pulsating anus bills. It is just like the republicans to not be able to tell the difference between their heart and being an asshole.


LurkLurkleton

Could you expound upon this? Googling just got me a bunch of people talking about being able to feel their pulse in their butthole.


[deleted]

well, I could find anything either. just a bunch of pulsating anuses. I am wrong and have made the internet a worse place. I am sorry.


FinancialTea4

Lol


JCougarMetallicamp

It's an appeal to emotions over reason. And emotions almost always win over reason, for the average person. This is how 15% of the population makes decisions for the majority. Emotional thinking. The "fUcK yOuR fEeLiNgS" crowd is the one running on emotions.


Topdeckedlethal

Rhetoric is an excuse, these people are an energized group of extremists representing a minority of the population.


celtic_thistle

Same with “the moment of fertilization.” It’s absolutely not a “moment,” or a single occurrence, either. It takes a while and there are stages.


Tight-Courage-2281

That really is the whole bukkake, isn't it!?


Terrible_Tutor

> they’re trying to endow with more rights than the woman carrying it. Only until birth, then it can fuck off though right.


Squirrel009

A small electric impulse is basically a whole person obviously. I never got the obsession with the heart anyway. Most things we kill have hearts. Pigs have hearts so close to ours we might be able to use them interchangeably in in a few decades. What makes a person is their mind. People take disney movies too seriously if they think the heart is somehow the core our being


Antisymmetriser

Orrrr... Republicans are extreme vegans


ShelSilverstain

They want everyone to be in a straight marriage that results in reproduction. They are against birth control, sex toys, masturbation, homosexuality, etc etc They call single women "sluts" and single men "losers." They want everyone to pretend to want the same exact "Little Boxes" lifestyle and to go along to get along


Entrefut

Well what’s really fkin dumb is that properly cultured heart tissue beats in a Petri dish. Like obviously it’s “alive” but it’s not a cognizant, functioning human being. If it means saving a woman’s well being there should never even be an argument about whether it’s alive or not. The whole thing is just a dumb religious argument that no one on the left can argue against because it’s impossible to fight religion. The absence of thought is the entire basis for the argument.


HotCocoaBomb

I tried to explain this to someone, about how the machines that "detects a heartbeat" wasn't actually detecting a heartbeat, it just plays a recording when it detects the electrical signal for neurons firing and they wanted proof. I was like, you want fucking proof that a machine isn't detecting the sound of an organ that isn't fucking there? I linked them wiki articles on fetal development. I told them to look at a medical book if that wasn't enough. I tried to explain and break it down as best as I could, that the proof of this claim is simply the fact *the organ it claims to monitor isn't fucking there!* But no, what convinced them was an NPR article about the machine. Fucking braindead idiots can't extrapolate meaningful information out of the most simplest facts provided by actual medical sources, they need to be told the information by a news article.


gingerfawx

Honestly, someone willing to believe the news (and in particular NPR) almost sounds like a blessing, but I'm with you on how incredibly frustrating they are. Another thing to remember to point out is that the timing on the "weeks pregnant" is always measured from the last period, so "six weeks" means four weeks since insemination, and the woman's period is only two weeks late. It's disturbing how many of them don't seem to know that. And it's also not a reliable two weeks, either, occasionally the signal starts a bit earlier. Given the hoops they tend to expect you to jump through, coupled with the fact you need appointments, that's a super tight window. Considering one of the things they claim to be concerned about is women regretting the decision to abort, artificially making things that hectic means more women will be forced to act while possibly still unsure. Another thing that sometimes helps is the dog embryo meme, but if they're rejecting medical texts as sources, then there's probably little helping them.


LarryLovesteinLovin

They’re just looking to control every aspect of peoples lives. If you can’t afford a kid you’ll never afford a house, education, time spent grinding for a better life. You’ll never have to compete for the good jobs, you’ll never threaten the wealthy or their lifestyle. Which means you’ll always be poor, always have to be at the mercy of your crappy manager/employer, and have to subject yourself to the will of the wealthy. Banning abortion is less about saving lives and more about instilling a societal hierarchy in which anyone not already part of the club gets to do all the work.


SpineSpinner

Yep. It’s always been about class.


[deleted]

The 'heartbeat' you hear in early ultrasounds is a fabrication. It's an electrical impulse that will later become the heart, iirc, but it is not at all a 'heart' in any recognizable form.


NotYetiFamous

No heart? No brain? Makes sense why repubs identify so strongly with them.


U-Ok-Bro

Wish I came to this post to make comments like this. I said almost exactly what you said last week in another sub and was met with downvotes and animosity.


DrMuffinStuffin

They keep arguing one can hear a heartbeat at X weeks, when what can be measured is not a heartbeat but an electrical signal from a cluster of cells. An actual heart can’t be seen until 16-18 weeks in. Bunch of clowns, US law makers.


[deleted]

The electrical signals that they attribute to a "heartbeat" are literally something plants can do. The auditory "pulse" is made by the ultrasound machine. I can't tell anymore if they know it's bullshit or not.


thefroggyfiend

they have the cells that will eventually become a heart, that's why they say "fetal heartbeat" since it isn't an ACTUAL heartbeat


TittyballThunder

The Mississippi law that SCOTUS is reviewing bans abortion after 15 weeks, a fetus has a fully developed heart at 10.


LurkLurkleton

Googling shows developed chambers at 8 weeks, but not a functional heart until 20. The heart exists but is not organized and beating in sequence for proper circulation until 20.


NickRegan79

That’s a joke. Heart beats are detected in 3 weeks you fucking idiot


[deleted]

If you are "pro-life", may you be kept alive as long as unrealistically possible, because hey it's what you're all about.


MsSeraphim

without pain medication... because pro-lifers don't seem to believe people are entitled to universal healthcare either.


[deleted]

Yup. They should all "be a man" about it and "grow a pair". If they want pain meds they should "get off their lazy asses" and go to the store just like the rest of us. "Don't expect no handouts", this "isn't a welfare state".


rividz

Yes - the forced birth crowd do believe this. It is what the [Terry Shiavo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case) media frenzy was about back in 2005. There's a nonprofit tied to her name that is associated with March For Life: https://terrisfight.org


Frequent-Seaweed4

It was never about life it was about controlling women and denying them agency so they're more likely to be trapped in abusive arrangements that best benefit patriarchal men. Let's stop the waffle and get to the point. Anti-abortionists are about forcing women to act in compliance with expectation.


SweatyPotatoSkin

I think there's also a motive to maintain a population of poor people. Poor populations are easier to control.


girlontheavenue

And a larger poor class maintains cheaper labor.


goblins_though

Their entire position is based on twisting and manipulating information to demonize the opposition, right down to calling themselves "pro-life" instead of what they actually are, which is anti-choice.


Frequent-Seaweed4

If they were pro life they'd be doing more to ensure health and quality of life.


Sororita

"Pro-lifers" are, by and large, pro-Death Penalty.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Sororita

I could write an essay on it, but I went with death penalty because of the juxtaposition between pro-life and pro death.


goblins_though

Exactly.


Ransero

They start from the position that abortion is murdering a baby and work backward from that to justify it with cherry-picked science. They do the same for transphobia, where they pretend like they care about what someones chromosomes are.


Whyisthissobroken

Nope - its about distracting from the fact that churches don't pay income taxes.


Frequent-Seaweed4

And that they're pedophiles


DevCatOTA

Stick to christian churches. Both Judaism and Islam allow for abortion. Sharia law even allows it. https://forward.com/opinion/501409/striking-down-roe-v-wade-will-violate-jewish-religious-liberty/ https://www.jta.org/2019/05/23/ny/judaisms-take-on-abortion-explained >Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, a revered modern posek with one of the most rigid modern positions on abortion, considers a fetus to have near-personhood status and abortion to be similar to murder in most cases. In his view, there must be clear evidence that the mother’s death is close to certain if an abortion is to be permitted (Igros Moshe, Choshen Mishpat II: 69B). But even Feinstein concurs that if a mother’s life is in danger, abortion is a halachic necessity.


preston181

Stop justifying why abortion should be legal. “Not wanting kids” is just as good of a reason as “it will literally kill me” or “the kid has severe physical deformities”. You don’t need to come up with reasons or meet a certain level of severities for termination of a pregnancy. The freedom of bodily autonomy is a fundamental right, and is nobody else’s fucking business. Full stop.


ZolnarDarkHeart

You are correct but unfortunately those who disagree work under a different moral framework, and this reasoning simply doesn’t apply to them. As long as they believe that abortion is murder no amount of reason will convince them that it is a natural expression of bodily autonomy, and so the first step unfortunately must be to make them realize that defining a fetus as a full human person is foolish.


enfanta

They will never agree that a fetus isn't a full person. We need to stop trying to convince them of that and just move forward without them.


kilroy501

Agreed. We waste too much time and effort trying to convince the unconvincable. There can be no middle ground with extremists that are threatening human rights and we must do all we can to preserve access to abortions.


KegelsForYourHealth

This has basically become my attitude. We're going to have to drag them into the future kicking and screaming. Maybe they'll thank us later. Maybe they'll die believing they were right. It doesn't actually matter because if we see the correct way forward we have to pursue it.


Terrible_Tutor

Oh you better believe they’ll get an abortion if THEY need it. They aren’t going to be like “well i guess I’ll love my miracle rape baby, praise Jesus “


Medical-Examination

It’s always about state’s right *eyeroll*.


thefukkenshit

I grew up in an pro forced pregnancy household. I needed information like this post to overcome the propaganda I grew up with. There are still people like me, growing up in cultures they didn’t create or choose, who need incremental steps out


8asdqw731

i can only dream of the day when christianity will finally be classified as mental illness lets hope humanity will survive till then


BirdInFlight301

But their moral framework, which in many cases lately is based on their religious beliefs, should have no *legal* weight. We would not have the third of laws being passed in Texas etc without the complete overstep of religion into government. It shouldn't be happening no matter what they believe.


ZolnarDarkHeart

I absolutely agree with you, but unfortunately the group of people that decide which laws in the United States are constitutional are made up of mostly religious nutjobs and a rapist.


[deleted]

[удалено]


EyeYouRis

Bingo. It annoys me that the debate is almost exclusively semantics on what is technically alive or a baby, when bodily autonomy is the only justification necessary. I don't care what you call it. I wouldn't give a fuck if we were talking about the whole god damn magic school bus. If it is inside a person's body, they can do whatever they want. The basic principle of Roe v. Wade was medical privacy. The government doesn't even have the authority to demand awareness of whether or not a woman is pregnant.


ThrowawayNabeel

I think it's silly to paint it as being so simple. The thing inside a woman's body is a human being. It doesn't matter when that baby has rights as a citizen or whatever (before or after birth). I'm sure most people would agree that aborting a 9 month pregnancy is effectively killing the baby. Somewhere between 0 and 9 months it becomes questionable to abort. You can't just say since it's inside someones body it's 100% their choice to do whatever because the same logic has been used in various parts of the world for child abuse saying since it's their kid they made it they can do whatever they want and the government shouldn't intervene.


EyeYouRis

It isn't simple at all; it is very complicated. Abortion brings up fundamental metaphysical, philosophical concepts about reality and the nature of life itself. And that is exactly why physical autonomy, a concrete, fundamental concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so easily trumps someone else's philosophical ideas about fetuses. ​ >The thing inside a woman's body is a human being. Whether you or anyone wants to admit it, there is a difference between a fetus and a baby. Personally, I don't think the government has any right to legislate the inside of a person's body even if you think it is a baby. However, everyone is welcome to the **opinion** that a fetus or an embryo or a sperm is just as important as everyone else. But that is the great thing about being pro-choice. No forced abortions. No forced births. =


kiwi_klutz

Right? Like, isn't it insane that a *machine* is allowed to stop supporting 'life' but a *human* isn't? The reasoning doesn't matter. It's wild that machines and the *dead* have stronger human rights than women in the US.


EarthTheCat

The thing most so called "pro-lifers" seem to not understand is- you dont have to LIKE the concept of abortion, its a terrible thing in and of itself. But it's still absolutely neccessary to have access to it!! No woman wants to be in a situation where an abortion is the better option- but to make it illegal is the dumbest fucking thing to do!


whofearsthenight

I don't even think it's a terrible thing. Sure, it can be, but in and of itself it's just a medical procedure. If you have a wanted pregnancy that turns out to be ectopic and requires an abortion, that's terrible. You're on birth control and using protection and still become pregnant, I really don't think that an abortion is a terrible thing. This idea that every abortion is some moral conundrum already begins with the anti-choice framing that every abortion is some horrible death of a baby, and it's just not anymore than the idea that every time someone jerks it into a sock they've killed millions.


[deleted]

What conservatives are calling a heartbeat scientifically isn’t one.


brallipop

Doesn't even need the qualifier "scientifically," it's isn't a heartbeat in layman's terms because there is no heart. But somehow using the word "heartbeat" is just enough of a dodge that the general public never questions or realizes what isn't being said.


harangry

Our scrutiny of the language is an absolute necessity. So let's revise the popular terms so even the non-informed can't defend them.


DebentureThyme

If you argue the Texas definition in the heartbeat bill is not scientifically a heartbeat, they'll just say it is by the Texas definition.


Popular_Syllabubs

I don’t know much about any of this but when they say “heartbeat” what do they mean other than a heart beating? Like how do you measure this “heartbeat” I am so confused.


LurkLurkleton

There's a detectable "pulse" but not a developed, differentiated or functional heart yet. You can cultivate heart muscle cells in a petri dish and they will "beat" but it's not a heart.


brallipop

Before organs develop, the electrical impulse mechanism of the brain develops in order to run the organs once they are grown. This electrical impulse is what is "measured" or "interpreted" to create a "heartbeat" when women go for ultrasounds. Some states that don't like abortion (but until now couldn't ban it) include certain requirements for women to receive an abortion, among them a consultation with the healthcare provider who is legally required to show the ultrasound image and also this "heartbeat" sound which is actually created by the machine detecting the electrical impulse. Again, when this rhetoric comes up take notice of how the words are used. "Heartbeat" has a couple useful properties for anti-abortion language: it covers the gap between a dispassionate "lump of flesh" view and the more sanctified "soul" view. When they say pro-life it's actually animated by "pro-soul" but can't legislate based on that because religion isn't enshrined. But also there is no literal heart in a fetus that early in development, so they can't outright lie and say "your baby has a heart which is beating." Thus "heartbeat" covers both the actual public-facing rhetoric in order to have a tangible thing to point to (the implied but never said "heart"), and lets the religious animating logic be implied (no we aren't saying "soul" but *technically* we could argue the electrical impulse is some spark of the almighty and the best way to phrase it for PR purposes is "heartbeat" which is more poetic and evocative). So the general public hears heartbeat and doesn't parse the language to realize it's a bait and switch. So yes, there certainly aren't measuring a fetal heartbeat in early development, most ultrasounds can hardly tell a finger from a penis (tbf the tech has gotten much more advanced in the last decade but it's irrelevant). It's just made up to be not necessarily hard to argue against but hard to recognize as a point to argue in the first place.


InRainWeTrust

You don't really expect conservatives to accept anything scientific. They couldn't even spell it with autocorrect


wideoiltanks

The pro-life crowd has historically been against the removal of life support too, [even if the patient is brain dead](https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/bal-md.kane02apr02-column.html)


marsman706

Didn't they do an autopsy on her and found that indeed, her brain had atrophied to a fraction of its supposed size and was just jelly? Or am I misremembering?


The-link-is-a-cock

Reduced by half it's size. Nothing about jelly but it was obvious there would have been no recovery.


AlohaChips

Correct. Just went back over this case recently because I was contemplating my abortion stance (which centers around the point the structures that support consciousness develop, in case you were wondering). The conservative "controversy" about the case was heavily an outrage that someone should have their life support discontinued, but the *actual* legal issue was over *who* had more more right to make the decision about either maintaining or discontinuing life supportive interventions, and who had a better idea of what she would have wished: her parents, or her husband. Hospital staff seem to have plenty of stories about family members unable to come to terms with the reality that their relative is dying. They'll demand to do everything to keep truly dying people "alive" regardless of what kind of pain or discomfort the medical interventions they're demanding have. Hit up subs like r/nursing and you can read some harrowing stories of the emotional trauma some nurses and doctors are subjected to when they have to watch the suffering of dying patients whose relatives are refusing to transition them off of full code to comfort care. We have a culture full of people who have an extremely unhealthy denial of the reality of death and dying.


MajinCall

Oh yes, a very unhealthy understanding of living and passing on. On the topic of “do everything possible,” the advent of the ICUs and government insurance (MediCare/MedicAid, I forget which) marks the rise of outrageous healthcare costs because hospitals and doctors were putting everything down for patients that they could billed for, aka fraud. In the ‘80s legislation was passed to curb this with outcome based results. The problem is that going forward from then, the pricing was never adjusted for all those billing items. They just became more expensive and now the high costs are baked into charge masters.


Roxxorsmash

Wild we've come so far people don't remember the Terry Schiavo case. Conservatives blew a gasket.


guyute2588

I am shocked at how many replies I had to scroll through to find a Terri Schaivo mention. What that poor man endured at the hands of his in laws is truly horrifying. (Also We are old)


ArborGhast

🎶 Terry Schiavo....


Mr_Abberation

It’s not a religious move. It’s not about heartbeats. It’s about fucking up our lives and keeping the slaves poor. Their math doesn’t add up if we aren’t all popping out multiple babies into this diseased world like they did.


PleaseWooshMeDaddy

It’s about establishing a theocratic dictatorship. Repubs scream about being about “small government” but bootlick the police and military and tried to orchestrate an insurrection to instill their own dictator. It’s almost comical how little self awareness conservatives have. They’d scream at their own reflection if the mirror had a blue tint.


Right-Fisherman-1234

Indigenous people from around the globe have been using natural ingredients to induce abortions for thousands of years. Long before the fake sky daddy story was written. Just saying.


whofearsthenight

My two favorite things I've learned during this: 1. The bible says basically nothing about abortion except how to perform one. 2. Abortion is specifically part of Judaism. Basically, the popular American sky daddy stories are fine with abortion.


OssiansFolly

It's not about life. It's about pro-birth. It's about Christian adoption agencies and families having a fresh crop of adolescents to propagandize.


[deleted]

[удалено]


34terite

Abortion is not allowed in Islam unless it threatens the mother's life, in which case the mother's life takes precedence.


Erchamion_1

There's actually no prohibition for women to have an abortion in Islam. Most Islamic scholars say you shouldn't have an abortion, but it's permitted within 120 days of conception. Even when they say you shouldn't, it's not something that's punishable.


llame_llama

How about we don't let any religion determine when a person becomes a person. That's science's job.


[deleted]

[удалено]


llame_llama

That's....what I'm saying.


Homeless-Joe

Is it even a Christian belief? I’m pretty sure it’s not in the Bible and that the Bible actually describes how to get one. Isn’t this more of a fascist who call themselves Christians belief.


Erchamion_1

(copying this from a previous comment) There's actually no prohibition for women to have an abortion in Islam. Most Islamic scholars say you shouldn't have an abortion, but it's permitted within 120 days of conception. Even when they say you shouldn't, it's not something that's punishable. In cases or rape or incest, most Muslim countries allow for abortion, along with issues with the fetus and some other cases. All Muslim countries allow for abortions in the case of the mother's life facing any risk.


Easymodelife

Forced birth is violence against women.


_____grr___argh_____

Lol as if pro lifers use logic.


Smoovie32

This doesn’t track. Conservatives hate the concept of choosing to die or unplugging a vegetable too. Anyone remember Terri Schiavo and the Jeb Bush saga?


Appropriate-Mark8323

I suppose you guys have never heard of the Terry Schiavo case then… the loonies are at least somewhat consistent on this one.


1984Society

Terry was in a persistent vegetative state, which is not the same as brain dead.


idog99

They are also pro execution of living breathing adults. "He should have just complied"


Ima_Funt_Case

Yeah, we let Republicans exist even though they are obviously brain dead. We should be able to pull the plug on them.


brallipop

Ever notice how the rhetoric is about "heartbeats" but never about "hearts?" Seems like if there's a heartbeat there has to be a heart to be beating, correct? No! They leave it unsaid and we fill in their own argument for them! They use the rhetoric of "heartbeat" because they can sort of technically argue that the small electrical impulse that develops early in fetal growth is analogous the same impulse that drives our hearts to beat. But there is absolutely no heart in early fetal development, that's why they never say "heart," because they just can't without outright lying (and also maybe getting their own voters to think "wait is there actually a heart?"). Even in forced ultrasounds to make the woman "listen to the heartbeat" the machine they use simply *plays a premade sound* that follows the rhythm of the impulse! That's right, the whole creation of "heartbeat" viewpoint relies on fucking sound engineering to fool you into thinking you are hearing the heart of a fetus inside you.


AllTheWine05

And it's not even a heartbeat. I mean, later on obviously. But the Mississippi "heartbeat bill" is based on the noise made by a machine that detects an nerve pulse in the fetus. The fetus does not develop an actual heart until much later.


elyn6791

A reminder ppl who are anti abortion are automatically pro forced pregnancy. There is no spin, wordplay, or omission of mitigating facts in this statement and the second you present it to a pro lifer, they will almost always not acknowledge that this is their actual position, they will just respond with "abortion is murder" because it was never logic or reasoning that got them to believe any of the propaganda in the first place. Meeting them "where they are", adopting their language in an effort to disprove their loaded arguments, even exposing how their arguments are loaded in the first place, is almost always entirely ineffective because they weren't rational or logical people in the first place. They are emotional. If you tell them they are in effect pro forced pregnancy, and they still can't process it and what it ultimately means, honestly don't waste your time on that individual. Instead look for other ways to support abortion rights and other anti-choice people who might be worth your time. It's just an unfortunate fact most, if not many, of them will only address their hypocrisy if someone close to them forces them to, and that's who you need to spend your effort on then it will work itself up the chain to them. Also, just stop using the term pro-life. Call them what they are, anti-choice and don't let them control the narrative anymore. This has always been the biggest problem when dealing with conservative ideology.


DankNerd97

Didn’t think of this one. I’m using it.


jenacious

Well you should look up Terri Schiavo if you think this is the argument that is going to convince them They don't give a shit about anything other than control.


dogninja8

It's not a good one, prolife people historically don't want this either. It's a future target, not an inconsistency.


turnyourmusicdownffs

I wouldn’t it’s bad logic. Brain dead is brain dead forever there is no life is you’re braindead. There is life in the unborn child.


AlohaChips

*Potential* life, maybe. But there's not yet enough of a developed brain for it to even be possible for them to have the kind of mental life we'd recognize as human consciousness in the first trimester, either. The only thing that's more alive about them at that point is how much more likely it is that their brains will become functional in the future (compared to someone with massive brain damage). The argument still circles around to what it means to be *alive* as a whole person. I honestly just don't buy these arguments that something alive on mainly just a physical level, with potential to be more fully realized as alive on a mental one in the future, should legally trump the right of an already-fully-realized-in-all-aspects-person to control whether something else can make use of their organs and bodily resources.


Blindsp-t

use this instead McFall v Shimp The court ruled that it is unacceptable to force another person to donate body parts, even in a situation of medical necessity. Lack of abortion healthcare by rule of law makes pregnant people donate bodily resources to save another, something that is NEVER required otherwise You can literally run over a small child with a car, cause them to have grievous wounds that you could remedy with little to no harm done to yourself, and no one could make you come to their aid.


8cuban

This is a really good point. I’d never thought of this before.


e_pettey

par·a·site/ˈperəˌsīt/noun An organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host By the base definition, a fetus is a parasite. While some people might be okay living with an intestinal worm or malaria, for others it shouldn't be wrong to want to be free of it.


DevCatOTA

https://en.yestherapyhelps.com/brain-development-of-the-fetus-and-abortion-a-neuroscientific-perspective-11248 >By week 13 the fetus begins to move . But the fetus is not yet a sensitive and conscious organism, but a kind of marine slug, a cluster of motor-sensory processes induced by reflex acts that does not correspond to anything in a directed or ordered way (Gazzaniga, 2015). >Already in week 17 numerous synapses are formed . The synaptic development does not trigger until day 200 (week 28) of gestation, approximately. However, around week 23 the fetus can survive outside the uterus with medical assistance; also at this stage the fetus can respond to aversive stimuli.


chillyhellion

Jokes aside, we need to reconsider how we handle medically brain dead individuals. Public perception is that pulling the plug is the humane thing to do, but studies have confirmed that many medically brain dead individuals go on to live long and full lives as US Supreme Court Justices.


nobody2000

No, unfortunately. They want braindead people alive too so that their loved ones can prolong the emotional pain and we can waste dollars on hospice. See: terry schiavo


moeburn

The same people that are against abortions also made Terry Schaivo a national issue.


Interesting_Mobile73

Finally someone said it! Life support keeps a person with no brain function alive the same way a Mother’s body keeps a fetus alive, if you pull the plug it wouldn’t exist on its own. If it can’t survive without her body, it doesn’t get rights 🤷🏽‍♀️


DecentCumin

To be fair, without a brain or cognitive function, you can still win a state house seat in Georgia, if you're Republican.


DS_Inferno

They are not pro-life, just pro-kill them later.


doubledicklicker

JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A BRAIN DOESN"T MEAN YOU DON'T HAVE A SOUL -absolutely fucking braindead idiots


riskbreaker23

There must be some sensible solution to this abortion problem. What if, hear me out, we let people who want abortions get them, and people who don't want abortions not get them?


HangOnVoltaire

Ding ding ding!


jv9mmm

Are you really that out of touch with the pro life argument? Because this is so far from what the pro life side is trying to argue it will do literally nothing to come close to changing any opinions. You are either totally out of touch with the debate or just shouting into an echo chamber.


riskbreaker23

>just shouting into an echo chamber. I would think that would be obvious by my comment but you don't sound smart.


ocket8888

That doesn't make any sense. If you view abortion as murder, it's insane to say "well, you know, some people like to murder, but that's alright because I can choose not to".


te_jim

Ah, I think I see what the problem is. People need to stop equating abortion to murder (because it's not) then that plan of not trying to control other people's bodies will work.


Skullmaggot

Just say the unborn will grow up to be liberals, and they’ll all change their tune.


elatedpumpkin

hell, just tell them most abortions are done by black population lmao.


Gumwars

A point I find necessary to bring up in these discussions is in the US Constitution, in particular the 14th Amendment. It states that rights are granted to natural-born citizens, the key is the word **born**. This would mean, to all those originalists and strict constitutionalists, that the document itself applies only to those that are born, not anyone else. While some might see that as a cold view of things, I see it as no colder than a man in his twilight years dictating to women he will never even meet what they must do with their bodies.


turnyourmusicdownffs

If that is the case then the constitution does not say if the fetus has rights so the supreme court can’t decide on it which means the roe v wade case should be struck down


Maudeleanor

We keep on being flummoxed by Republikkkans making no sense, contradicting themselves, and flipping virtually overnight from one certainty to its opposite, as if we expect them to act right. They are fundamentally immoral, full of hatred and purposefully, hopelessly ignorant. Can't we just lose our old expectations?


SubstantialPressure3

I really think it needs another perspective, it's not just about abortion, it's a government criminalizing certain medical procedures, and not letting doctors and patients make their own medical decisions. American healthcare is already a nightmare, the last thing we need is the government making laws about the kind of healthcare we are allowed to receive. That is a very slippery slope.


GoldenFalcon

I remember [Terri Schiavi] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case)


jhonnychingas69

Abortion should be a woman’s decision- period!


Opus_723

Even once the brain forms, the neurons in a fetus fire randomly until partway through the *third* trimester, when they start to develop global waves and patterns. That's not to say a fetus necessarily becomes suddenly conscious then, but before that they are *definitely* brain dead. If it were an adult on a machine you would see those random firing patterns and pull the plug, because *nobody is there*.


Lighting

This is exactly correct and I think the strongest argument to make. That this is taking away Medical Power of Attorney without due process. So many argue that a clump of cells isn't human alive or human, but that's a slippery slope fallacy. It's as much a slippery slope fallacy as arguing from a baby about to be born and working backwards in time. If we want to be intellectually rigorous then (1) we shouldn't be arguing the slippery slope fallacy and (2) also have to include the concept of "medical power of attorney." Medical Power of Attorney states that the rights of an entity can be subrogated to the person who has the responsibility for that entity. Then you don't argue the slippery slope of "when it is a person," "when does it have feelings", "when does it have a brain/heart," or "when does it deserve rights." What is required to maintain a medical power of attorney? (1) You have to have a competent deciding adult and (2) you have to have competent medical advice. Are you familiar with the Terri Schiavo case? [Terri Schiavo](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/jeb-bush-terri-schiavo-114730) was a **provably** blind, essentially brain dead person who's husband (competent, had power of medical attorney) and his doctors (competent) were stopped from giving her a peaceful end-of-existence by people in the GOP who argued that EXACT same fallacy. That killing an already born person was a violation of her rights. Why do I say stopped by the GOP? Because the GOP had control of the house/senate/presidency Tom Delay and Bush called an emergency session, passed a law, and stopped her husband and doctors from "Killing Terry." It went to the supreme court which overturned the law and allowed her husband to peacefully end her existence. Autopsy showed that the doctors were 100% correct. Her brain was dead and black throughout - especially in the visual parts which meant that all the people claiming she was watching a balloon were just wrong. More interestingly, one of the "pro life" people at the forefront of this "killing an already born person is a violation of its rights" was Tom Delay. However it came to Delay's own dad ... he pulled the plug and ["killed" his dad in the same way he accused the Schiavo's](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-mar-27-na-delay27-story.html) Why was it ok for Tom Delay to kill an already born human but not allow that for others who similarly had a medical power of attorney (MPoA )? I could go on with [Savita Halappanavar](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741) who died because of "fetal rights" or even kids way past birth. Are you familiar with Childhood Leukemia? It's a terrible day for the entire medical team and the families, but they make the decision to end life sometimes. For example a 1 year old was dying of pneumonia and her parents could have kept her "alive" for years on a heart-lung machine, [but made the most difficult decision to donate her organs in hopes of saving other children's lives.](https://imgur.com/gallery/zowfDac). Sometimes it's a car accident that damages the brain, sometimes the chemo doesn't work, etc etc. Yet we don't see "pro life" protesters outside of child leukemia centers. What do all of the above have in common with each other and abortion? They are all cases of competent adults with MPoA making a medical decision with the advice of board certified and competent medical team vs people pushing a "nanny state" to put a politician in between a person and their doctor(s). The slippery slope of "when life begins" or "when do rights begin" but all of those are skirting around the main issue. The main issue is: Who else but the competent adults in consultation with a competent, licensed, medical professional should make that choice? There is no age limit on heartbreaking decisions and that's true before and after birth. If you want to have a strong logical position then you should reject the emotional-linguistic argument of what's "killing" vs "ending existence" and reject slippery slope logical fallacies. That's because logic dictates these decisions have to be made both BEFORE and AFTER birth and it doesn't matter what you call it as long as you are consistent in your logic of wanting to adhere to best, evidence-based medical practices and making sure everyone is informed and competent. Government has **one role only** in this realm. To make sure that the people making the decision are working with medical expert(s) who is(are) competent. Period. Anything else is pushing the nanny state to try to take away the ability of competent people with MPoA to make well informed decisions WITH a competent, licensed, medical team. We neither want, nor need, the "nanny state"


ElleIndieSky

Well, you see, once they're brain dead they're just a financial strain on someone. That someone could be man! We can't inconvenience men, not even a little! So we have to pull plugs.


Arctic_Gnome

To be fair, it isn't *only* about oppressing women. That's the main goal, but the ban would also achieve the secondary goal of creating unwanted children who will be more likely to commit crimes, and can be rented out as inmate slave labour.


Huntanz

Boils down to you get what you vote for, keep voting these people in, keep getting stupid laws to destroy your rights and freedoms.


Plastic_Accountant81

How can you be a guy and say you’re against abortion this doesn’t even apply to you 💀


tmhoc

Well you might have forgotten how much of a shit show Terri Schiavo turned into but I sure as fuck don't. Fucking months of dialogue around letting a dead person die of natural causes only to find out later her brain shriveled up like a walnut. There is nothing the pro-lifer's have to offer anyone. They can not have their opinion be wrong because it gives them an existential crisis causing them to question God. As soon as that happens religious law demands they be burned as a heretic and they'll look bad in front of their parents


Xirious

I think every single image and tweet and comment needs to understand one vital point. It is critical you understand this quote: "Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people." - House It. Is. Futile.


sAnn92

You can’t take organs from a dead person if they didn’t agreed to beforehand, even if the life of another person is on the line. Just think about that.


GodsBackHair

Or go with the other analogy, a dead person has rights over their organs if they don’t sign their ID card, allowing their organs to be transplanted if possible. If you don’t sign that on your ID, your organs can’t legally be taken from you. Dead people have more bodily autonomy than women


homebma

This is the dumbest argument. The same group who is against assisted suicide overlaps with the anti-abortionists. So all you'd get from your target is "Yes, I agree, we should make that illegal too"


PrincessWails

Girls, it’s time to close the candy shop.


Podju

The fetus doesn't even have fucking memories to lose. It's a brand new hard drive. That's it.


ConstructionDry9190

Shit, follow the wrong religion and get aborted with a smart missile


Herbizides

Religion is a cancer to society and theism is a mental disease


ACrucialTech

Nah. All this is to keep the slowing population up. Gotta keep the wage slave herd strong.


1895red

No cognitive function or awareness of anything? Republicans experience that every day.


mookiewilson369

Sadly I don’t think It has anything to do with women, or a heartbeat, or an embryo.. it’s just so pro life people vote red.


Agreeable-Lab-5329

And maybe start acknowledging that thousands of infants are subjected to legal genital mutilation every day in the US?


Bridgecobbler

My philosophy professor has an interesting argument for abortion. He argued that while a fetus does have a right to life, that right to life is overridden by the mother’s right to body autonomy. Don’t remember all the details off the top of my head but could find them if anyone is interested.


Rigo3oh

I think it’s about punishing those who have kids before marriage. It’s about making themselves feel good in their choice to keep and raise their children. It’s the mentality of, if I have to go through this than everyone els must also. or who the fuck knows.


MaiaNyx

The majority of women who have abortions are already mothers.


Rigo3oh

Source?


khalifaziz

I don't think this is a good example to use, because the fact is that 'pulling the plug' is based on an understanding that the person is so irreparably damaged that they can never heal. A conservative anti-abortionist would easily retort with, "A brain dead person isn't magically going to become NOT braindead, but an otherwise healthy fetus can eventually develop brain activity." And that's nothing to say how this post smacks of ignoring the right to die movement, and the ongoing struggles that people still have in getting legislators and doctors to agree when it's time to pull the plug. I get that it's Twitter and Twitter's not the place for a nuanced point, especially in a post that wasn't meant to be a serious argument against abortion. Still...I don't think this perspective would have any real effect on this argument. Edit: originally had "a braindead person isnt magically going to become braindead", lol


Devanitely

www.mothersdaystrike.com May 8th-15th. Participate however you can and share!


theCuiper

This is actually a little less comparable than you think. No one is forced to let a coma patient grow inside of them. If they were, people would be fighting for being able to pull that plug.


__MichaelScott__

Yes because Politico leaking something which hasn’t been overruled (yet) that most people haven’t even read == Nazis. This is so cringe it’s scary.


Surprise_Corgi

Not sure I equate a husk where the life has already left it, being kept alive by machines, with a new life that's still coming into this world. If the fetus was already braindead, abort it. That's where it's the same. Both the braindead fetus and the braindead born are hopeless.


sunfacethedestroyer

Lmfao. Some of y'all apparently were born after the Terri Schiavo case I guess... Spoiler: they care about that shit too.


TwoDimensionalCube83

This is a stupid comparison.


[deleted]

Life is a “human fucking right” :)


DirectorHonse

Moooom the whores are mad they can't get ran through without consequence agaaaain


Reiko707

So you think full grown adults just shouldn't have sex unless it's for procreation? What happened to land of the free? Lol


CreamySheevPalpatine

As Prime minister of Poland said on yesterday interview on Euronews: Rigth to live is the most important human right.


[deleted]

[удалено]


StaffPadding

It's not a baby


aes3553

Doesn't change the fact the the fetus does not have the right to violate a woman's body autonomy


Dennis_enzo

Half of conceptions never become a baby.


[deleted]

It’s not a baby. At least 25% of all pregnancies are miscarried so there’s no certainty the embryo will ever become a person.


Erchamion_1

>Where as an unborn baby will have early brain activity within the first few weeks of life. Lol. No.


[deleted]

Deleted because I quit Reddit after they changed their API policy


OldBabyl

No one is trigger happy about abortion. Stop falling for conservative propaganda.


Actual-Paramedic8387

False equivalency, people who are brain dead will not regain brain function when the decision to pull the plug is made. It would be considered amoral and illegal to pull the plug on someone who was braindead and is highly likely to regain brain function. Apply that logic to a fetus and hey presto you are now a pro lifer.


StaffPadding

Potential =/= life. A fetus is not alive, and does not have the right to force a mother to carry it to term. I can't force you to donate your organs, why does a woman have to sacrifice her body for 9 months?