It’s totally fine if you believe that life starts at conception.
The thing that actually baffles me are the states that passed anti-abortion laws, but struggle to provide adequate health care, especially for those who are not financially stable.
I found this article, “States with more abortion restrictions have higher maternal and infant mortality”, but feel free to correct or educate me on the topic.
Edit: removed “this article” appearing twice and tried to fix preview
Those of us who aren’t far-right chuds in the USA have a saying about right-wing policy that may explain the phenomenon: “The cruelty is the point.”
More generously, as someone who knew a large number of religious rural folk growing up, what is important to them is to avoid the prospect of someone ‘committing murder’; whether society offers the born child a slow death is of no consequence, as long as no one person or group pulls the metaphorical trigger.
If I wanted to be even more generous, I would say that they imagine a support network of nongovernment religious organizations and families to indoctrinate the struggling parents and their child… but honestly, I don’t think most of them even think that far ahead.
That’s even absolute bullshit. They give “lip service” to murder is bad at best. They don’t care if the “wrong” people murder each other.
It always pisses me off when people try claiming they want to do that last part.
Not a single thing is stopping them from setting up support networks that, while I disagree with their politics, could legitimately do good by giving new families resources. But that’s not actually what they want, it’s never been what they want. Because if it was, they’d have done it already.
It’s as simple as the cruelty is the point. Someone doesn’t live their life exactly how they think it should be lived, they believe that person should be punished.
Those support organizations do exist to a certain extent. It’s often an even bigger problem. It’s “Women’s Health Centers”, faith-based “insurance” companies, and gay conversion camps. Catholic hospitals have issues, but they’re the least problematic part of this.
Oh I’m aware, I just don’t count them because helping new families isn’t actually the point of those.
Yeah there’s a church near me that has a banner displayed with a picture of an infant saying, “don’t abort me. Help is available. Talk to someone inside.”
No phone number or email to contact, just a “come inside.”
Allegedly (coming from a neighbor) if you go inside they try to sell you sketchy insurance and not much else.
Same people who read the parable of the good Samaritan in church and don’t appreciate the irony.
Yeah it’s this, it’s all about protecting the in crowd and punishing the rest
Exactly. They enjoy killing people, plain and simple. They’re fascists, after all. It’s what they do.
That and controlling women is the point as well.
What pseudoscientific ideology has to day that life doesn’t beging at conception? Is left denying science now?
Life began billions of years ago.
This phrasing is meant to hide a religious argument as a scientific one. The question they’re really asking is “When does God insert a soul into a body?”
I agree with the biological definition, “organism that can survive as an individual”. Even if the fetus has a parasitic relation, it is capable of developing all functions to fit the full definition.
There are other definitions of ‘life’ and anyone is free to believe either way, but the more subjective question is: When does the fetus become a person?Even if it did start at conception, the real argument is about bodily autonomy. No one can be forced to donate any part of their body to keep someone else alive. Nobody can take your blood without your permission, why should women have their bodies taken without theirs?
It’s just a poorly written description of the argument. If I understand the argument correctly there’s a difference between a blastocyst (collection of cells not yet developed) and a fetus.
This is fun. With that logic you’ll be naming a tumour or parasitic infection.
Logically one must conclude that it’s not at all about saving lives.
Can’t believe the Eugenics Party would do this.
Two reasons this falls apart:
- Abortion is healthcare. There are conditions that can’t be helped by anything else.
- They don’t give a shit about mortality rates because it’s someone else doing all the dying (until it’s not).
Don’t forget…
-
Say that only people born in this country count as Americans
-
Refuse to pass legislation supporting maternity / paternity leave, Pre-K childcare, paid school lunches, or aid for first-time home buyers
-
Make the act of getting pregnant incredibly dangerous
-
Freak the fuck out when the youngest generation of adults starts having fewer children
-
The only people who buy that lie are the useful idiots they got marching in the streets. The decision makers themselves know very well what they’re doing. Don’t mistake cruelty for ineptitude.
This is surprisingly dense with info https://youtu.be/yts2F44RqFw
That was a good watch, I can see binary view being at least part of the problem. I did think that religion might be part of the reason for some laws, but somehow didn’t realize how big. And the video had many other good points worth of the watch.
I hate how modern journalism uses phrases to distance us from the harsh reality, like “mortality rates increased” instead of “people killed by government policy”, “officer involved shooting” instead on “murdered by police”, “abortion rights” instead of “human rights”.
It looks bad for the advertisers to use strong words or take a stance.
It makes more sense when you realize it’s not about protecting life. It’s about controlling women and punishing them for having sex.
Still, the owners of those private prisons are going to make a killing when all those unwanted kids grow up into unwanted, traumatised adults.
Hell, it’s okay to be against abortion and advising people against it if that aligns with your belief, but legislating against it to the detriment of women too? Women who want to get an abortion will get an abortion, whether it’s freely available or not. I live in a country where that is the case, and trust me, it being illegal does not “save” or help anyone. We just see more women risking their lives for something that could’ve been safe for at least one of the “living” beings involved in the process.
deleted by creator
Same thing with alcohol prohibition. People are going to break the law, legal or not. The US is said to be the freedom land, but women can’t have autonomy over their bodies.
What I gathered is that 70% of the US congress is men, so it’s not their freedom that they sacrifice.
Christian values are important to some voters, so politicians can gain free points by promising anti-abortion laws.
The politicians who make such decisions think one term at a time and disregard the consequences as long as it doesn’t affect them. If they actually cared, they would also advocate for childcare benefits.
I would be much less against pro-life if the movement would focus on better care for would-be-mothers, easier adoption and better oversight, financial support for girls who give up their children, increasing adoption numbers, better sex ed, etc. instead of banning abortions.
They are exclusively focusing on the worst way to reduce abortions.
They just want to control women.
It’s got nothing to do with morality.
Exactly. What’s mortality got when everyone’s going to heaven? Death, where is thy sting?
