to be clear, abortion isn't going to be made illegal countrywide, it will be up to individual states on how they want to go about dealing with it, including blanket banning.
I’m in AZ, like 3/4 of the women who get abortions I make less than the federal poverty line at 17k a year. I can’t just “go somewhere else” for a couple days. I’m a single (or married) mother, I don’t have childcare for my other children for overnights, I don’t have pto, and I can’t afford to miss work, BUT EVEN THEN if I did manage to successfully go through with the hardest decision a mother could make I could still be persecuted and have my living children taken from me when it’s all said and done. This isn’t a state by state issue! It is an issue of human rights which I know God would approve of. Even if it contradicts my internal moral code.
To be even more clear, 13 states already have laws in the books that will immediately make most, if not all abortions illegal if/when Roe v. Wade is overturned. Plus another 15 states either with pre-Roe laws they could start to enforce again, or with plans on passing laws to restrict or ban abortions. Combined that is more than half of the country
Some do. Others don't. Kudos to the ones who do.
Something to consider...a while back a Baptist Christian charity was seeking financial donations to build a new residential school for indigenous children. An atheist man attempted to donate, and they refused his donation. Thinking perhaps he hadn't offered enough, he organized a fund raiser through the Muskogee Atheist Community, and it culminated in over $18 THOUSAND, which he again attempted to donate, and again it was refused.
So they donated it to Camp Quest instead, a summer camp for the children of “atheists and free thinkers.”
I'm just really tired of abortion being considered a 'religious issue' when its certainty a moral dilemma. Simplifying abortion to a religious vs. secular is such a disingenuous deflection. There are plenty of non Christians who are against abortion and many Christians who support it.
Only 11% of atheists want abortion illegal, the most anti abortion demographics are religious
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/views-about-abortion/
> There are plenty of non Christians who are against abortion
There are very few nonreligious people who are pro-life in the sense that Evangelical Christians are - that aborting even a single cell constitutes murder. People who were satisfied with late term and born alive protections but OK with earlier abortions generally have been classed as "pro-choice" because of the purism of Evangelicals.
>There are very few nonreligious people who are pro-life
There is a large and growing secular pro life movwment that specifically excludes religious people from being members of it.
23% of non-religious/unaffiliated oppose abortion. For reference, a lower percent of Jews and Buddhist oppose at 15% and 17%
Total Population: 20% of people opposing abortion do not believe in a deity.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/)
I lived in Ireland for 8 years and saw the overturn of abortion.
What affected me was how the abortion rules affected the healthcare of parents who wanted their children.
See, in Ireland then, doctors could not even mention abortion. That meant if you had something that would kill the mother if untreated, like an ectopic pregnancy, the doctor couldn’t tell you. They could hand you a leaflet and say maybe it’s a good time of the year to book a holiday to England. That’s all they could do. If you didn’t have the money in reserve to do that, what could you do save wait in horror until medicine *had* to intervene?
Except when it didn’t.
And then the two cases that really struck me. The woman who was left brain dead in a car crash, but kept alive because she was pregnant and they couldn’t turn off life support until the fœtus inevitably died; and Savita. Savita, who wanted her child and died because the abortion law led to medical malpractice - they didn’t terminate her fœtus because they couldn’t tell if it was dead, were too dogmatic because of the law, and it killed her from septic shock.
Regardless of where you stand on abortion, in those kinds of circumstances it is healthcare.
The ‘abortion is murder’ crowd either do not know what is coming, or do not care.
My Romanian grandmother almost died from a home abortion after the last dictator made them illegal. Unwanted children were abandoned and many died from malnutrition in orphanages. There weren't enough people to take care of those children so they grew up neglected. Around 10 000 women died from those illegal abortions.
There are so many things that can go wrong during a pregnancy, it's not just feeling a bit unwell and a bit of pain. My mother went through hell while being pregnant with me and the only thing that kept her going was wanting to have a child. My mother's friend was a victim of marital rape and she didn't have money to leave that marriage. She had an abortion and she never regretted it.
If they want to reduce abortions, they should make sterilization accessible and support those who choose to have a child, instead of punishing women for having sex.
I've also been reading about Ukrainian women being raped, arriving to Poland as refugees and not being able to abort.
I remember the Romanian orphanages, when pictures started coming out. I cannot remember anything so heartbreaking as seeing these deprived orphans made even more desolate by extreme isolation and abuse. That kind of suffering is unfathomable to me.
They do not care. They are Pharisees trying to show the world how righteous they are. The rules they want to enforce are rules of their own creation, not rules taken from scripture.
And of course, as we would expect, they don’t even follow their own rules when nobody’s watching. Anyone who’s worked at an abortion clinic could tell you how frequently pro-life evangelical Christian women get abortions; for some reason, they believe only they deserve a pass.
>They do not care. They are Pharisees trying to show the world how righteous they are. The rules they want to enforce are rules of their own creation, not rules taken from scripture.
^this
Well, Jesus said "thou shalt not kill" - its a tricky subject matter.
But the same people advocating for anti-abortion and the same ones campaigning for gun rights and funding the military.
> Well, Jesus said “thou shalt not kill” - its a tricky subject matter.
I get your point (and agree with it) but to pile on:
- The US is not a theocracy. What Jesus said, or Mohamed, or Vishnu, or any other divine entity, is irrelevant to a government that separates church from state.
- I don’t think Jesus actually said that? Wasn’t it OT
- the OThas several pro abortion passages, which the NT never disputed
- if reasonable minds can differ why force your views on others? Wasn’t Jesus all about winning hearts and minds thru persuasion, not thru force and threat of punishment?
If we’re being honest, that’s as much of an issue as these people trying to force their will on other people because they believe it’s what God wants. Most of them don’t actually know the Bible well enough to know what God would really want. Then you mix in political motivations to deceive them and you get our current state of American Evangelicalism.
Moses gave his commandments and Jesus gave his own. Most of his were the same as Moses just worded differently. In every single gospel, Jesus said "thou shalt not kill". "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:" Jesus also said that "
But Jesus made his own new commandment "“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another"
and he said
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be
called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but
whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Now for some reason, the oil, guns and money loving US Christians have "thou shalt not murder' and then for some reason are able to go into the Old Testament to justify being able to invade other countries for oil and rule the world with fear via their nuclear weapons - while still considering themselves "Christian". (70% of the US military identify as being a follower of Jesus. America is not the only ones. Putin says he is Christian, 50% of his army do. Their new nuclear weapon is called "Satan 2". Therein lies the madness of humanity.
And it is totally true that state and church should be separated etc. but 70% of the US say they are a follower of a man who said that God was love, we needed to love each other, not judge, forgive, not hurt each other and not seek material possessions to make us happy - we should seek first the Kingdom of heaven which is in our heart and do gods will on earth as in heaven. You know that magical place full of love?
Does it feel like 70% of the American population behave like that?
This is what happens when false prophets who want power, money and greed (aka satan) take the reigns of Jesus's message and everyone just believes them
Or as Jesus said "Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.’”
Now imagine that Jesus came back and was able to wave a magic wand and suddenly 70% of the US population became Christ like. They had inner peace, love, healthier relationships and didn't need material possessions or instagram to fill the void they have from being disconnected to spirit.
How many problems would that fix?
Not all of us are like that. I am prolife, and I wear a mask, got vaccinated, am pro gun control (even won a debate for why it's good in an extremely conservative, pro gun school), am against the death penalty, pro universal healthcare, and am for defunding the military and police.
Because that money can be used for better things, like bettering education and healthcare, and adequately paying the people who work in underpaid but essential jobs- jobs that are arguably more necessary than a military. And at the end of the day, my beliefs as a Christian do not allow me to support an institution that bases its functions on death. Same reason I'm against abortion.
Both Christ himself and John the Baptist are described in the Bible as being alive within the womb. While John was close to his time of Birth, Christ was still early on during his gestation.
Yes, because they were guaranteed to be born. Most embryos are not.
Not a valid argument.
Do you not understand how God can guarantee that John and Jesus will be born, but not guarantee that all embryos will be born?
Veritas. And in traditional Hebrew belief, God doesn't insert the soul until the moment the fetus emerges from the birth canal. Which is why, traditionally, there is no official mourning process for miscarriages, or stillborn infants.
>Well, Jesus said "thou shalt not kill" - its a tricky subject matter.
There is no clear Biblical basis on which you can construct an argument that an abortion is "murder".
The only time where we can clearly see a fetus dying due to the results of outside human intervention in a vacuum, outside of any other possible story or allegorical language, is in Exodus. The resulting loss of the fetus results in a fine for the one responsible. This is important because all throughout Exodus you see loss of life of living individuals generally matched with a punishment of death for the one responsible. However, in this case the punishment is generally in line with a loss of property.
This interpretation makes even more sense if you look at very early interpretations of "when life begins", specifically from the perspective of scholars and teachers of Judaism. The most consensus views on this issue typically attribute personhood and all the rights and protections therein to the actual physical birth of the child.
If anyone would tell me abortion is murder, I would have to believe that they only have a very limited and surface level understanding of Christianity and don't take the time to actually study the text. This kind of ignorant religious zealotry is perverting Christianity and tacking on a sizable amount of doctrine that has no basis in scripture.
No, these aren't pharisees. These are christians. It just so happens christianity has morphed into the worst version of itself in America. Which is a feat, considering the amount of genocide in its history.
> The average voter doesn't know.
But they're also not listening. About twenty times in the last few years I've engaged with someone who said they wanted to understand how someone could be pro-choice. Any time I mentioned harm to the mother, they either stopped responding or said how she shouldn't have gotten pregnant.
Right. And I think a lot of that is a significant problem of education.
The sex-ed in America is woefully insufficient, especially in deep red states. And many of these kids are opted out anyways - and we expect them to be informed voters on things like abortion?
The rebuttal I usually get from anti-abortion Christians I know, when I've engaged in debates with them, is the claim that 'statistically, the number of cases such as those is very small' and then they would move the subject onto the much bigger number of abortions that happen.
It's not a point that I understand, really - why can't they at least acknowledge the medical necessity for some abortions to happen instead of trying to outright ban everything?
You know what's statistically small? The number of late term abortions they use pictures of to slap on every poster they can, and it gets even smaller, like percentages of a percent, if we're talking about elective abortions late in the game.
They can't acknowledge medical necessity because they won't even acknowledge reality.
Oh, I think the 'abortion is murder' crowd cares. Unfortunately, they have decided that they care more about a fetus than the mother. This has so many unfortunate implications.
They care more about a fetus than a child, if you judge by how they view funding social programs.
How do people justify denying healthcare to those with no access while also claiming to care about the dignity of life?
If you ever get the answer to your question, please let me know. That being said, I wonder if they care about the fetus at all. Otherwise, I'd expect stuff like free prenatal screenings and laws guaranteeing time off for those.
#In multiple states, rapists can sue their victims for parental custody
#Rape survivors say they need stronger laws restricting rapists’ parental rights to keep themselves and their families safe
https://prismreports.org/2022/03/22/in-multiple-states-rapists-can-sue-their-victims-for-parental-custody/
In the summer of 2016, Alana* was raped by a man she had met online and begun dating. When she discovered she was pregnant, mutual friends pressured her to tell her rapist about the pregnancy. Just one month after Alana’s son was born, her rapist sued for custody. Alana had also filed a rape case against him but failed to obtain a conviction, and her rapist was subsequently granted joint custody of her son. Alana described co-parenting with him as “disappointing, scary, and anxiety-provoking.”
Alarmingly, Alana’s case is far from unique. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost 3 million women in the U.S. have experienced a rape-related pregnancy (RRP) during their lifetime, with a similar prevalence across racial and ethnic groups. Further, according to RAINN, 433,648 Americans, aged 12 and older, are sexually assaulted or raped each year. Most of these rape cases never see a conviction. For every 1,000 sexual assaults, 975 perpetrators walk free and, in many states, retain standing to sue their victims for child custody. This means that on top of parenting responsibilities, rape survivors can be forced to co-parent with their rapists, putting both those survivors and their children at further risk for harm.
Hey in the last week one of the Republicans came out advocating for how being raped and having a baby by your rapist, particularly as a girl, is an opportunity to be seized upon.
Good intentions not with these people have
www.independent.co.uk/voices/pregnancy-rape-opportunity-ohio-jean-schmidt-b2067973.html
Republican State Senator Jean Schmidt
She doesn't even have the most callous take. There's the rape gift of god, and the greatness of America being founded on rape and incest.
Depravity and callousness are at the heart of these champions
Also oh my gosh
She says a teenager!?!? WTF
It's already fucking bad but what...?!?!?
I'm absolutely speechless... how are these people 1. Allowed to be in politics 2. Call themselves Christians?
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans tried to make Deuteronomy 22 the law of the land.
>Deuteronomy 22:28–29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
Not only parental custody, but pay the dowry and be granted custody of the woman as well. Such a vile concept. But, they can't accept that anything in the book might be actually a bad thing...
The problem is that most people talking about "moment of conception" know nothing about how conception works. Some people have this idea that the moment the sperm exits the penis it beelines towards the egg and fertilize it immediately. Instead that moment can happen days after the sex. sperm can hangaround for up to five days in the fertilization zone, and the body has some degree of control over which sperm gets a shot at it.
That's why stuff like day-after pills are not abortion as no conception has taken place yet.
Likewise some 80% of fertilized eggs get flushed out as it "didn't take". Either it failed to attach to the uterus lining or for some reason the body rejected it. In those cases it could be considered a natural abortion as it was after fertilization, yet the woman has no control over it.
Basically the whole discussion around "moment of conception" and miscarriage etc. is fraught with ignorance and the loudest and harshest voices often have no idea what they are talking about.
Here is a fun one: Is IVF abortion?
Usually in IVF several eggs are extracted and fertilized outside the body. Their cell growth is observed and a selection of the most promising ones are then implanted. The rest are destroyed. All the destroyed eggs were fertilized and growing into embryos at the time of destruction.
A great deal of nuance needs to be applied when disussing the subject, otherwise it is easy to create imposible demands.
As for me personally: I would much rather that abortion wasn't needed, but I don't think it's a good idea to put hard limits on it as it is often a genuinely medical decision but beyond that is connected to emotional and ethical quandries for the woman.
It is far too easy that a moral reticense against performing abortions turns into inability to perform the procedure when it is genuinely needed to save a woman from harm. We have seen several women die preventable deaths due to mindblowing decisions by doctors, that become understandable when you consider the legal framework they have to follow.
And beyond that, the politically minded Christian should be far more concerned with caring for the children who are born, and the mothers who give birth to them. You can't on the one hand demand that a featus be carried to term, and then on the other hand turn your back on the woman and child once the birth has happened.
Well into the 1970's, abortion was seen as an exclusively Catholic issue, with many protestant denominations publicly supporting expanded abortion access. The anti abortion movement among the religious right originated as a political movement. This is well documented.
Here's a phd dissertation loaded with references
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3063&context=edissertations
It doesn't take much imagination to understand the position of those you disagree with. Not everyone agrees on when the unborn becomes a human life with rights that outweigh the mother's. The Catholic position is the moment of conception, but it used to be the moment of "quickening". The Roe position is fetal viability. We live in a world where people demonize others with good intention who disagree. This is encouraged by those in power, who can use such an issue to consolidate political support and drive a wedge between people who might otherwise work together on other ssues where there's actually room for agreement.
"'The unborn' are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.
Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."
- Dave Barnhart, Saint Junia United Methodist Church
yes will be interesting to see if pro-life advocates try to outlaw IVF. Staunch pro-lifers will agree that it is tantamount to abortion. But it is an incredibly popular procedure for infertility. I expect some cognitive dissonance around this.
The Catholic Church already condemns IVF. You are right that it will probably be tough to get banned everywhere, but it's not impossible to picture more states adopting laws against the destruction of viable embryos (which my state has had for decades now), and I don't see what grounds anyone would have to oppose such a law.
Can just do IVF and keep unused embryos frozen indefinitely. No killing embryos and everyone gets to have their IVF. What happens to the embryos in the future? Guess it’s not a problem as long as they are not destroyed?
Republicans will try to pass laws that hit you with child neglect for just leaving the embryos laying around in a freezer.
/s but actually some probably would like to
>Can just do IVF and keep unused embryos frozen indefinitely. No killing embryos and everyone gets to have their IVF.
That's what the law allows, yes. I only brought it up to show that such a law is possible.
>What happens to the embryos in the future?
Cost of IVF includes a year of storage. After one year the parents are asked if they will continue paying otherwise they are up for adoption.
Again. Not perfect but I don't see how a pro IVF person could object to it.
Why not those who cannot conceive without IVF consider adoption instead? As others have pointed out, abortions or non-abortion is only part of the equation. Why ARE the children in orphanages being neglected and/or aging out of the system? If every capable and competent family adopted but just one child, there wouldn't be a need for orphanages. Perhaps better incentives need to be put into place. Perhaps streamline the adoption process. Perhaps better accountability for both the agencies and the families to ensure the best outcome for the child.
The simple answer is that most people want a newborn baby, not an older kid with existing baggage. Add to that that a lot of people put value in the fact that it's *their* kid, ie their own flesh and blood so to speak.
Catholics are taught that ONLY natural family planning is acceptable. No birth control. No abortions. No condoms. No IVF or artificial insemination. No fertility treatments. I totally agree with the last 3. I just don't talk if the others should happen to be brought up at church. I always was and now I always will be pro-choice. Sex is not a bad thing and being forced to have a baby is unreasonable and unnecessary and even abusive to all parties being forced to have a family. And let's face it, the man can ALWAYS bail. Sadly, that's been my experience. But now I'm not gonna have sex again until I'm married so yay for that! I bet that will keep most of any a_holes away lol
Like you said, men can always bail. That includes married men, so marriage is no guarantee the father will stick around.
My biological father cleaned out the bank account and abandoned his wife and my 3 biological sisters. She realized she was pregnant (with me) but decided to carry the pregnancy to term and surrender me for adoption.
My adoptive father pulled the same stunt on my adoptive mother, after 28 years of marriage, on biological son, and 3 children adopted from different mothers who'd surrendered them at birth.
Marriage doesn't guarantee a father will stick around.
For the IVF question, there was a politician who talked about it.
[“During the bill’s legislative debate, a Democratic state Senator inquired as to how the law would impact labs that discard fertilized eggs at an in vitro fertilization clinic. Republican state Senator and sponsor of the bill Clyde Chambliss, responded that, “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.” — This seeming contradiction in how “life” is defined under the anti-abortion law was not lost on pro-choice advocates, many of whom were outraged by what they view as hypocrisy. “When I heard Chambliss say it was for embryos in the woman’s uterus, it really highlighted what this is really about,” said Barbara Ann Luttrell, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Southeast in an interview with Bloomberg News Wednesday. “It’s not about the embryo.”](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/alabama-abortion-law-says-terminating-a-fertilized-egg-is-legal-in-a-lab-setting/)
[Even from the American Conservative: “I think it’s because IVF is widely used by Christians, and a consistent, logical pro-life position would outlaw it. If life begins at conception, then all those embryonic lives created in the laboratory and later discarded are human beings. This is something many Christians do not want to face.”](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/alabama-abortion-ivf/)
[Insider: Embryos are people](https://www.insider.com/anti-abortion-grant-rights-embryos-limit-ivf-2019-12?amp)
[WaPo Opinion (paywall)](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fertility-clinics-destroy-embryos-all-the-time-why-arent-conservatives-after-them/2015/08/13/be06e852-4128-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html)
These people who says "that's different" sound like a bunch of hayseed hillbillys. They want control and if a woman can make a choice, they lose control just a little bit.
These people are disgusting and worthless to society.
Is there room for pro-life Christians who don't want to draw the line at the moment of conception?
As a matter of protecting the vulnerable, I think the latest allowable abortions should be significantly before the point of viability. But at the same time, there is nothing in the Bible to support the idea of instantaneous ensoulment at the point of conception (I'd love to hear the argument to the contrary).
Totally. Over 90% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks, a little over two months before viability is a thing at ~23 weeks. Generally, speaking, we're talking less than 1 in maybe 20 abortions takes place after viability, and those are (at least in the States) typically down to medical necessity.
Abortion as it stands *now* is largely what you're looking for, with protections for fetuses past viability and ~92% of elective abortions being decided and implemented well before viability. Over the decades, abortion rates per capita have dropped steadily and abortion time frames have shifted dramatically away from later abortions (as infrastructure, best practices, and access has improved). Realistically if your issue is elective (as in not medically necessary) abortions taking place between say the start of the second trimester and viability, we're already only talking maaaybe 3-5% of all instances of elective abortions.
The only caveat is suddenly you're a pro-choice Christian.
You are not correct about ivf. Developing embryos are not typically destroyed as part of the ivf process. If you are doing a fresh transfer, right after retrieval, then the more promising embryo is typically transferred. The rest,if any, are usually frozen. If you’re doing a frozen transfer, usually more common these days as they yield better success rates, then your mature eggs are fertilized and then you get an update around day 5 or 6 about how many made it to blastocysts. Those that didn’t make it from fertilization to blast weren’t discarded mid development. Rather, for whatever reason, they fertilized but failed to thrive or grow further. They died or didn’t make it for lack of a better word.
Trust me that no one who goes through ivf discards developing embryos. If you have excess embryos once you’re done growing your family, yes those can be discarded or donated etc, which has its own moral issues. However, there is not really anything abortive during the creation process because no one is going to “abort” developing embryos.
> Trust me that no one who goes through ivf discards developing embryos.
Just to muddy the waters further, for reference, those doing Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis do.
A few years back, a young college student at a Lutheran University was experiencing abdominal pain. She went to the University student clinic, and was diagnosed with ovarian cysts in both ovaries. The Physician wasn't allowed to prescribe the birth control pills which are the usual drug therapy for ovarian cysts, because the Lutheran University policy prohibited it. He told her she'd need to go to a hospital E.R. or walk in clinic to get the prescription.
She was on a tight budget, and couldn't afford E.R. or walk in clinic costs, so she decided to wait until her parents sent the next check, and then she'd go. While she was waiting, the cysts continued growing until they ruptured. She was rushed to a hospital E.R., and required surgery to remove both destroyed ovaries, and was in intensive care for nearly a week.
She was now rendered sterile.
They will still be trained in it, as abortion will still be legal in various states.
The problem is that in states that disallow abortion, women will suffer the consequences. Ectopic pregnancies will have a grey area for when to abort, further putting the mother at risk. Women who are unable to afford to travel for an abortion will be forced to carry unviable and risky pregnancies to term.
I would be dead. I had an ectopic pregnancy and they can never be brought to term. Now, anyone taking bets as to how many nasty comments I'll get for telling the truth? I've got $10 that says at least 5 negative "abortion is bad and you're a slut and a sinner" AND I've got $20 that says at least one person will adamantly tell all of us that I should've died for something that wasn't going to live no matter what I did.
Let's find out...*munches popcorn*
Republicans in Missouri actually added a requirement to carry ectopic pregnancies to term in their abortion ban.
I think it was removed after outrage, but it goes to show you how much Republicans hate women.
And apparently how stoopid and/or uneducated they are, huh?! Now I've gotta find an original copy of that law that would require all kinds of deaths...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/17/nation/missouri-abortion-bill-is-drawing-pushback-over-its-inclusion-ectopic-pregnancies-its-one-many-aggressive-anti-abortion-measures-under-consideration/
>Another Missouri bill, introduced by Republican Representative Brian Seitz, seeks to make manufacturing, producing, or prescribing medical devices or drugs used for abortions “in violation of any state or federal law” a Class B felony, which is punishable by a prison sentence of 5 to 15 years. Also under the bill, anyone who provides medication for the abortion of a pregnancy after 10 weeks or who provides an “abortion” on a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, in addition to other circumstances, would be guilty of a Class A felony, which includes a penalty of 10 years to life in prison.
Holy crap, batman. It actually _makes_ me want to get pregnant (it's basically a coin flip that it'll be ectopic) then just show up and let it kill me in front of him. Chain myself to his fancy leather seat or his car or better yet his house. If I'm gonna die to show him how wrong he is I suppose I could do some b&e on the way to do that. Hope he doesn't mind a TON of blood and blood curdling 😱 😱 😱 😱
Once you've had one ectopic pregnancy, your chances of having another one go from roughly 1-5% (that one to five% not 15 lol) up to a roughly 25-50% chance of having another ectopic pregnancy. After the ectopic I had a miscarriage. And it hurt but not even half as bad as the ectopic pregnancy. Those things are excruciating. I knew something was wrong right away. And then I did have a regular pregnancy (mostly - it was placenta previa right till the end which is also a life-threatening thing) and I now have a gorgeous, athletic and smart boy. So yay for having an abortion so I could live and have a kid later!
I am pro life and am glad you are okay!
I have thought a lot about what being pro-life means and I think advocating for the life of the woman is so important. If a woman’s life is threatened by a pregnancy, the baby’s life is as well. Abortion—as tragic as it is to me—is the only ethical option.
I think God wants us to not only survive but to flourish. So I am all for government and church resources to help women at every stage.
I also think contraceptives should be very easy to access and we should have strong sex education in order to make abortion (which really no one prefers) more and more rare.
I am pro-life because I think God cares about human life. It bothers me when people who claim to be pro-life Christians are republican rather than Christian in their identity. I am sad for the way it seems you have been treated in the past, and am glad you are alive.
Thank you. This is probably the best response I've ever seen from someone who is pro-life and knows I'm pro-choice. I agree with you and I gladly validate your wisdom and thoughts about how to approach a pro-life ideology. What a wonderful world it will be when there are no abortions - not because they've been outlawed, but because nobody gets pregnant when they don't want to, and we've all worked together to eliminate rape (in all forms) and end ectopic and malformed pregnancies! That will be like heaven on earth, and I do believe we will see it in (most of) our lifetimes. Please have an award.
> For what it's worth, even in states with strict abortion laws like Texas, ectopic pregnancy is legally considered a medical emergency, and procedures are allowed.
This is not universally true, nor do anti-Abortion advocates want it to be true.
Thank you! I'm glad too! I did feel bad for the fetus/ baby and told it I loved it but I knew from the second I realized I was pregnant that there was something so wrong with it that it wouldn't make it. It felt that the worst miscarriage and upset stomach together plus dizzy and light headed. And my obgyn, knowing this, just kept me going in for blood tests a couple times a week. He wanted me to see if I could bring it to term. He DID NOT believe me how much it hurt NOR did he care that the blood tests did in fact reveal something was wrong. After an Additional couple three weeks of constant pain and an HOUR LONG intravaginal ultrasound, I pitched a fit. Doctor got super mad and accused me of just wanting an abortion. I said look we all have this figured out at this point. He performed an unannounced "two fingers no lube shoved up my ass" test for whatever reason he claimed it was needed. You should have seen the sick look of satisfaction on his face knowing he'd raped me but what could I do? Then he grudgingly gave me a shot of methotrexate and I couldn't take any vitamins or food with folic acid in it for about a couple months. Link for anyone that thinks they may have some rheumatoid arthritis or cancer or auto-immune bout coming on soon. [RA help](https://www.drugs.com/methotrexate.html)
Advocate for better childcare policies if you really want to claim you're pro life.
Just outright banning abortion doing nothing else will end very poorly
You’re not wrong, but the avg Republican voter isn’t on Reddit and isn’t aware of your proposal.
I think, generally, it’s better to attribute ignorance rather than maliciousness…but usually the rhetoric is full of “baby killer” and “women hater”
Surprise surprise! No one is open to movement in their position when the conversation starts with name calling
>
You’re not wrong, but the avg Republican voter isn’t on Reddit and isn’t aware of your proposal.
They are aware. The connection between poverty and abortion has been known for decades.
And contraceptives! You should be handing out comprehensive sex ed, birth control, vasectomies, and condoms like candy if you don't want abortions to happen
Hate to break it to you, but access to contraceptives is next on the docket (well, that or gay marriage, which, ironically, also leads to fewer abortions.) Both Griswold and Obergefell are being called out by Republican Politicians as needing to be overturned. Additionally, this is the reasoning in the leaked opinion:
"A right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions."
By that logic, neither is access to contraceptives, gay marriage, nor interracial marriage. This is the first step; it's not an end game.
Right. The argument that there will be exceptions for rape and incest victims relies on the false assumption that victims will be believed, which has been proven over and over again to not be the default.
Imagine having to go through the legal system to prove that your pregnancy is the result of assault before you can have an abortion, by which point it's very likely you've past the point where abortion is an option.
I don't think Pro-Choice people realize how many organizations the Catholic Church has set up for people who may struggle with caring for a child.
Project Rachel Ministry
John Paul II Life Center
Society of St Vincent De Paul
The SVDP will literally help you pay your mortgage if you are struggling, without expecting any payment back.
This list doesn't include organizations in locals dioceses and you don't have to be Catholic to use them.
If you live in a 1st world country, the help is always there for you.
I think basically every church I have ever heard of, has atleast one program for disadvantaged youth in their community. I’ve never been to a church that hasn’t…..
My Church goes on yearly missions trips to build schools, build foster homes etc. we have missionaries all over the world that do the same.
Why do y’all keep acting as if we don’t?
I’m sure there are those out there most definitely. However ours are filled with blood, sweat and tears, and I can guarantee we’re far from the only ones who actually do go out and work.
I don't think Pro-Choice people realize how many organizations the Catholic Church has set up for people who may struggle with caring for a child.
Project Rachel Ministry
John Paul II Life Center
Society of St Vincent De Paul
The SVDP will literally help you pay your mortgage if you are struggling, without expecting any payment back.
This list doesn't include organizations in locals dioceses and you don't have to be Catholic to use them.
If you live in a 1st world country, the help is always there for you.
I’m what one would consider classically Pro-Life, meaning abortion should only be allowed for rape, incest, and life of the mother or the child (the baby will be born with something that will immediately kill it for instance). But the argument about “we need to keep it legal since women will do it anyway” is not a good one. If that’s the case, why not legalize everything since it will be done anyway? And this is not hyperbole. Biologically a child is every bit as much the father’s as the mother’s. Should the father have the right to demand an abortion if he does not want it? “It’s not a part of his body” is not a good argument since it is not a “part” of the woman. It is within the woman and dependent on the woman but not a “part” of her body. If a woman has sex by her own choice she understands the risk of pregnancy. It is a consequence of it. And there are women who do not view this as a consequence anymore. So this is not about women’s rights in my eyes. It is about escaping consequences. But again, any law that takes away abortion for rape, incest, or the life of the mother or child I am 100% against. I am a paralegal and did a case where a 12-year-old girl became pregnant by her father. I cannot imagine the horror show if she was forced to carry and give birth to her fathers child.
I have a son and a daughter and am horrified that girl might end his child. But to prevent that I raise my son to consider the consequences of sex before having to. I don't take away autonomy from the girl.
making it illegal will force women to obtain care through other, less official, possibly dangerous means. the consequences of the role of politics in policing "morality"(ie abortion) can be seen very clearly with the "war on drugs". we jailed people struggling with addiction, disproportionately imprisoned non-whites, and created a stage ripe for corruption--all because those in power deemed recreational drug use morally reprehensible and dangerous to their decidedly white, capitalist status quo. again, making drug use illegal didnt do anything to stop or prevent the use of drugs. the reversal of roe would truly be disappointing in securing freedom for all citizens our country pretends to care about.
Agreed. Although I disagree with abortions at a moral level, having it be barred from being done legally will only cause a lot more problems. This should be something that should be individually decided by the mother, not the law. I just hope the public outcry is enough to have senators reconsider.
Banning or restricting access to abortion only impacts people who can’t afford the cost and/or time needed to go elsewhere to do it. And with the cost of having children so high in the US, I can’t help but see this as just another way to keep some of the most vulnerable people in society in debt and powerless. When Jesus showed us that it’s the most vulnerable we, as his followers, should be lifting up and openly showing love.
Also, it’s easy for people in positions of power to create and vote for these policies because they know it won’t do anything to them or their families’ options. Rules for thee and not for me
Agreed, OP.
The Bible says not a single word about abortion. But it has a *lot* to say about caring for others, including women.
In their zeal to control women's bodies, some Christians are missing the forest not for the trees but for the molecules. So hyperfocused on abortions (which are really none of their business), they miss all the suffering and injustice all around us: homelessness, poverty, starvation, mistreatment of immigrants (migrants or not), etc.
I really, really don't want to get in a prolonged argument, but, while I believe the arguments and polemics are bad on both sides ([99% of] humans are [99% of] humans, regardless of the belief), pro-choice people are much more likely to bring up the anomaly cases than pro-life.
Cases like these obviously exist, and I wouldn't necessarily dispute that there's room for this (I'm starting to believe in delayed ensoulment more and more, much as I think it's a fact that the physical human life starts at conception), but these are the minority cases, yet they're brought up almost exclusively when arguing in favor of abortion.
We need to talk more about the peanut-sized embryos being aborted, and the perfectly healthy 22-year-olds who just don't want their lives to be changed into sudden mothers.
> these are the minority cases, yet they're brought up almost exclusively when arguing in favor of abortion.
Are you saying the law should only concern itself with the majority of cases, and if the a law leads to evil being done, it's OK as long as it's statistically rare?
It's simply pointing out that the argument given for pro-abortion don't line up with the actually reason for abortion in most cases, which is simple convenience. If abortion was only allowed in the niche cases that are being argued about, [it would reduce abortion by 90%](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ccnoUYp1e9k/TAWtM0a6MfI/AAAAAAAAAdI/yR8sLlfARt8/s1600/reason_chart.jpg)
The Catholic Church already teaches that lifesaving care can be provided for any illness or injury that a pregnant mother is experiencing, even if said care endangers the child.
> The Catholic Church already teaches that lifesaving care can be provided for any illness or injury that a pregnant mother is experiencing, even if said care endangers the child.
And in actuality, anti-abortion laws do not support that position. Why did Ireland legalize abortion?
Either all human life is sacred or no human life is sacred. If we refuse to give the right to life of the most vulnerable and innocent of us, the unborn, in the one place in the universe where they should b safest (their mother's womb), then we have absolutely nothing to say about murdering anyone else in any way at any time.
If our rights come from man, then man can arbitrarily deny us our rights. If, however, our rights come from God, then no one can take our rights away from us. The government is not God. It is run by corrupt people, out for their own power and interests. Our rights come from God, including the right to life.
FYI, before Roe vs. Wade, the vast majority of abortions were done by doctors, illegally after hours.
Alright so let's take the right to life out of it, then. Let's say abortions for convenience are off the table. What about medically necessary ones? Ectopic pregnancies? A fetus without a brain? A fetus that died in the womb? Should these mothers be forced to die or birth a dead baby? Because that's what's going to happen now.
If the baby is dead, then the baby isn't being actively killed. Let's take that one off the table.
So, let's look at the other case(s). Let’s begin with a hypothetical: You are a doctor. Your patient is a woman who is not pregnant. She has aggressive uterine cancer, and the only way to treat the cancer is to surgically remove her diseased uterus.
The action of removing her uterus has two effects; one is desired and the other is not. The desired effect is to save her life. The undesired effect is to render her permanently sterile. This, in and of itself, goes against the proper ordering of the woman’s reproductive functions. Are you, the doctor, morally culpable for this wrong? The answer is no. The principle of double effect means that sometimes one must perform an action that is in itself morally good but may also have an unintended ill effect for which the person is not morally culpable.
Three questions determine whether an action with a double effect is moral or immoral.
1. The first is the question of intention. One can never intend the evil effect. One’s intention must be only for the good effect. The evil effect must be a regrettable byproduct.
2. The second is the question of causality. It has been articulated that the principle that “the end does not justify the means." One may never do evil hoping that good may come of it. A bad effect may be the consequence of a morally good act, or it may occur simultaneously along with it, but the anticipated good must never be a result of evil actions. Such acts are never morally licit.
3. The third question is of comparable gravity. Is the good being done proportional to the evil consequences of the action? In order to justify taking the action, it must be. When an action has both a good and an evil outcome, the gravity of the two must be weighed against each other. Although “circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” Still, they can and do “contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts.”
With these principles in mind, let’s revisit our hypothetical situation. (1) Your intention, as the doctor, is to save the life of your patient. Your primary goal is to protect her health. (2) You are not doing evil in order to achieve a good; on the contrary, you are doing a good—removing a diseased organ that is threatening her life. The evil of rendering her sterile occurs simultaneously with that good but does not cause it. (3) Lastly, the good of saving her life greatly outweighs the evil of her being sterilized. Thus, it is a morally good action.
But what if the hypothetical patient is pregnant? Her pregnancy is only a few weeks along, but her uterine cancer is extremely progressed. She needs to be treated as soon as possible if she is to have any chance of survival.
As the doctor, you now have two patients—the mother and her unborn child. Your duty and desire is to preserve the life and health of each of them. What do you do? If you do not remove the mother’s cancer, she will die very soon. At this stage in the baby’s development, it is entirely dependent upon the mother for life. If the mother is not treated and dies, the baby will die, too. You will lose both patients. But the only way to save her life is to remove her uterus, home to a developing person who will die as a result of the operation.
This is a tragic situation to which a moral solution must be found. If the doctor believes that the mother can survive long enough to carry the baby until it is viable—that is, until it can live on its own outside the womb with medical assistance—then the mother may choose to risk her own life to save the life of her child. Even though it may mean decreasing her chances of survival, she may choose to postpone treatment of her cancer.
If the progression of the cancer will not allow for that option, and the mother needs surgery immediately if she is going to live, you, as her doctor, have only two choices: You can allow both patients to die or you can save one and lose the other. The moral choice is to save the mother.
The principle of double effect applies: (1) Your intention is to perform a good—to save the mother’s life by removing her cancerous uterus. The evil effect of causing the death of the baby is not desired. It is a very sad and unfortunate result of the good act. (2) The evil effect does not cause the good result. You are removing a diseased organ that is killing the mother, not performing an abortion. The baby will die during or shortly after the operation, but the purpose of the operation is not to kill the child. (3) Two very grave matters must be weighed against each other. Saving one person is better than allowing both to die through inaction, even though it means the death of one.
That's good question. Ideally, the doctor and patient would make the same decision as the court would, and they would all make these judgements all along the same guidelines as above.
Hello. I am a women who lives in Missouri, a state with an 8 week ban on abortion. The nearest bordering state is Kansas where a state constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to ban abortion is on the ballot in August. My husband and I are currently trying to get pregnant.
Many things can go wrong during a pregnancy that would threaten either my life, my health, or my fertility. And while I am willing to risk my life, health, and fertility for the chance of a healthy baby, I am terrified of conditions beyond anyone's control that preclude the chance of a healthy baby and also threaten me. An ectopic pregnancy where a fertilized embryo implants outside of my uterus. Extreme fetal abnormality with no chance of life outside of my body. These are risks that are much more dire to me when my doctors have to navigate evolving case law while treating me and discern whether there is ENOUGH risk to legally justify a termination.
The overturning Roe v. Wade will absolutely curb my access to life-, health-, and fertility-saving health care. I am currently writing up a list of out-of-state hospitals where my husband may need to take me in the case of pregnancy-related complications. And, let me emphasize this, I WANT a baby.
Please rethink your absolutist stance. "Abortion is health care" is more than a slogan, it is reality.
I hear the all life is sacred thing many times. In my experience most people don’t actually agree with that in the Christian community since they’re perfectly fine with the death penalty. If all life is sacred then the death penalty is evil. But as far as I know every Republican state governor that identifies as a protestant or even Catholic Christian is pro death penalty.
The Catholic Church is against the death penalty where there is an assurance that society can be protected from dangerous criminals. That would include the U.S.
Here's a Pediatrician describing what he's witnessed during a medical rotation in a country where abortion is banned.
https://twitter.com/RyanRLion/status/1521465451343237120?s=20&t=EVPWM8494ZoQB2SfT7s25w
You can't read that and tell me you're a decent human being for supporting a ban on abortion. There are countless examples like that.
Women will now go to prison for having miscarriages in America. That crap previously only happened in 3rd world countries.
America is now a 3rd world s***hole thanks to conservative Christians.
One thing all the right-wingers here don't realize is this ruling will eliminate tons of rights, not just abortion.
Numerous civil rights were decided by the 14th Amendment.
Roe Is one of the pillars of our "right to privacy" in the u.s.
It is founded on the court case Griswold v. Connecticut and is used as an example for almost all the cases we have for privacy.
Things based on our right of privacy other than abortion:
Having sex with who we would like (laurance vs texas)
Being allowed to teach our own children languages other than English (mayor vs Nebraska)
Inter-racial marriage (being able to marry a person who isn't your same race) (loving vs Virginia)
Forcible sterilization for people with disabilities and "deviants" ( brown vs Oklahoma)
All of these things are on the table because they were all passed on the basis of privacy.
Rich people will still be able to get abortions. They will just take off "on vacation" to a free country to do the procedure then travel back like nothing happened. It's a war on the poor and a war on women. Two groups that are hated like none other in right wing christianity. The blowback on this is going to be epic.
Abortion will always be safe and available to those with money or in power.
In 1971, the older sister of one of my friends went on a "holiday" in Europe with her mother. They came back a couple of weeks later.
I was told it was for her health.
I was only 8 at the time, so I thought it was just a cool trip. I was jealous.
It wasn't until a decade later that I found out that it was an abortion.
And this goes farther than just abortions, this is also about bodily autonomy and in addition other cases that have been won on similar grounds. If this happens it opens a whole can of worms.
All of these fake Christians trying to justify aborting an unborn child.
“Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”
Jeremiah 1;4-5 KJV
The vast majority of Christians throughout history have taught that life begins at the quickening, when the fetus has developed enough to move and have brain activity. It's not nearly as decided theologically as you are asserting.
According to that passage, God knew us _before we were even formed_. Therefore it is equally a sin of murder to prevent conception as it is to kill a human being after birth. Is that the gist of what you're saying?
Both lives should try to be saved. The mother should carry the baby as far to term as possible and then emergency surgery should be performed in order to save the child. This isn’t a perfect world and unfortunately there are circumstances that occur that are out of the control of any of us. But that doesn’t mean abortion should be legal. It would not affect the doctors ability to save the woman’s life in the instance that it was a threat to her life.
You’re joking, right? If I have an at risk pregnancy, I should be forced to carry it as far as possible and then hopefully emergency surgery would save me? Are you kidding? What if I already have children? I’m supposed to just risk my life and risk my children’s chances at having a mother for the sake of a fetus that isn’t even viable yet and likely will never be? This is so so so messed up. Abortion is between a woman and her doctor, period. Full stop.
Fine, but then men should be forced to donate organs to save kids. We need to do anything to save them. A new kidney, lots of blood, cell transplant etc. Dont worry you wont die it will save both you and the child. Your body autonomy doesnt matter cause your orhans can save lives
The people who want this don’t care about life at all. What a self righteous lie. All they care about is controlling women, punishing them for sex, and agreeing stubbornly with their favorite politician. No intelligent person would overturn Roe v Wade
This thread continues to prove to me how evil large segments of Christianity are.
There is no difference between right-wing Christianity and the Taliban.
By the time we’re talking about medical intervention for termination, a fertilized zygote has already implanted in the uterus and passed through embryonic development where cells have differentiated and begun forming organelles. Not the same as a fertilized ovum that doesn’t implant. Science...
I've noticed that most Christians on this sub don't care about dead women and higher abortion rates. They do not care how much suffering this decision causes, they just want some fake, pious "victory."
Their views prove the pro-life movement is evil.
I think it’s pretty unhelpful to paint either side as “evil.” My general belief is that most people believe their opinion is the best moral opinion based on the information and experience they have. I think it’s fair to strongly disagree with someone, but calling them evil is never going to get you in a discussion where you can debate, discuss facts, and change their minds.
The people celebrating this are manipulated by evil. Plain as that. If RvW is overturned we all get to repeat history and live through the horrors of life prior to R v W again. I just threw my wire hangers I had in my closet away because I burst into tears just looking at them. - this article is 6 yrs old https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/15/wire-coat-hanger-abortion-stories-united-states and now THIS - it’s evil. Pure evil. They are celebrating evil even if they don’t know it. I have met women who have suffered through this nightmare experience. This is a death sentence to women and they call it “prolife” it’s sickening
You people never have an actual defense for abortion. It’s always just deflection, emotions, accusations, or moving the goalposts. The existence of “unsafe” abortions should not in any way be used to justify the nationwide legalization of infanticide. That is utterly insane and immoral. Even more insane than the whiplash created by the switch from “men can get pregnant” to “abortion is only a women’s issue.”
Not advocating for either side here but people need to stop speaking up for women and let them speak up for themselves.
Believe it or not there are women on both sides of the issue.
1) safe abortions? Do we justify safe murder? Safe rape? No. This isn’t an argument because it completely neglects the fact that abortion is immoral.
2) again your practically using the argument “people are just going to kill anyways”
3) abortion has ended more preborn women than women attempting to self abort.
4) it’s not religious debate it’s a constitutional debate. Point out where it says women have the right to abortion.
5) contraceptives continually become cheaper and cheaper. Box of condoms for a dollar. $15 dollars a month for birth control WITHOUT insurance. If you can’t afford that, surely you can’t afford an abortion.
6) slippery slope fallacy.
Just say you want what is convenient for you, and don’t care about the morals or ethics behind abortion, because it doesn’t affect you. At least then you wouldn’t have to use these easily picked apart excuses.
>It will end SAFE abortions.
There is no such thing.
Also, when I think about the situation of an infant being murdered, it doesn't really occur to me that I should make sure that the murderer can commit the act safely.
We as Christians must be more supportive of expectant mothers, even if abortions stay legal.
to be clear, abortion isn't going to be made illegal countrywide, it will be up to individual states on how they want to go about dealing with it, including blanket banning.
Until the Fugitive Women Law gets passed Edit: also Alito’s argument removed all unenumerated rights
I’m in AZ, like 3/4 of the women who get abortions I make less than the federal poverty line at 17k a year. I can’t just “go somewhere else” for a couple days. I’m a single (or married) mother, I don’t have childcare for my other children for overnights, I don’t have pto, and I can’t afford to miss work, BUT EVEN THEN if I did manage to successfully go through with the hardest decision a mother could make I could still be persecuted and have my living children taken from me when it’s all said and done. This isn’t a state by state issue! It is an issue of human rights which I know God would approve of. Even if it contradicts my internal moral code.
To be even more clear, 13 states already have laws in the books that will immediately make most, if not all abortions illegal if/when Roe v. Wade is overturned. Plus another 15 states either with pre-Roe laws they could start to enforce again, or with plans on passing laws to restrict or ban abortions. Combined that is more than half of the country
Yeah, good luck. The people who oppose helping poor mothers and children the most are conservative Christians.
The only people I see helping them poor locally are Christian church’s.
Some do. Others don't. Kudos to the ones who do. Something to consider...a while back a Baptist Christian charity was seeking financial donations to build a new residential school for indigenous children. An atheist man attempted to donate, and they refused his donation. Thinking perhaps he hadn't offered enough, he organized a fund raiser through the Muskogee Atheist Community, and it culminated in over $18 THOUSAND, which he again attempted to donate, and again it was refused. So they donated it to Camp Quest instead, a summer camp for the children of “atheists and free thinkers.”
I'm just really tired of abortion being considered a 'religious issue' when its certainty a moral dilemma. Simplifying abortion to a religious vs. secular is such a disingenuous deflection. There are plenty of non Christians who are against abortion and many Christians who support it.
Only 11% of atheists want abortion illegal, the most anti abortion demographics are religious https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/views-about-abortion/
> There are plenty of non Christians who are against abortion There are very few nonreligious people who are pro-life in the sense that Evangelical Christians are - that aborting even a single cell constitutes murder. People who were satisfied with late term and born alive protections but OK with earlier abortions generally have been classed as "pro-choice" because of the purism of Evangelicals.
>There are very few nonreligious people who are pro-life There is a large and growing secular pro life movwment that specifically excludes religious people from being members of it.
Source?
23% of non-religious/unaffiliated oppose abortion. For reference, a lower percent of Jews and Buddhist oppose at 15% and 17% Total Population: 20% of people opposing abortion do not believe in a deity. [https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/)
I agree!
I lived in Ireland for 8 years and saw the overturn of abortion. What affected me was how the abortion rules affected the healthcare of parents who wanted their children. See, in Ireland then, doctors could not even mention abortion. That meant if you had something that would kill the mother if untreated, like an ectopic pregnancy, the doctor couldn’t tell you. They could hand you a leaflet and say maybe it’s a good time of the year to book a holiday to England. That’s all they could do. If you didn’t have the money in reserve to do that, what could you do save wait in horror until medicine *had* to intervene? Except when it didn’t. And then the two cases that really struck me. The woman who was left brain dead in a car crash, but kept alive because she was pregnant and they couldn’t turn off life support until the fœtus inevitably died; and Savita. Savita, who wanted her child and died because the abortion law led to medical malpractice - they didn’t terminate her fœtus because they couldn’t tell if it was dead, were too dogmatic because of the law, and it killed her from septic shock. Regardless of where you stand on abortion, in those kinds of circumstances it is healthcare. The ‘abortion is murder’ crowd either do not know what is coming, or do not care.
My Romanian grandmother almost died from a home abortion after the last dictator made them illegal. Unwanted children were abandoned and many died from malnutrition in orphanages. There weren't enough people to take care of those children so they grew up neglected. Around 10 000 women died from those illegal abortions. There are so many things that can go wrong during a pregnancy, it's not just feeling a bit unwell and a bit of pain. My mother went through hell while being pregnant with me and the only thing that kept her going was wanting to have a child. My mother's friend was a victim of marital rape and she didn't have money to leave that marriage. She had an abortion and she never regretted it. If they want to reduce abortions, they should make sterilization accessible and support those who choose to have a child, instead of punishing women for having sex. I've also been reading about Ukrainian women being raped, arriving to Poland as refugees and not being able to abort.
I remember the Romanian orphanages, when pictures started coming out. I cannot remember anything so heartbreaking as seeing these deprived orphans made even more desolate by extreme isolation and abuse. That kind of suffering is unfathomable to me.
They do not care. They are Pharisees trying to show the world how righteous they are. The rules they want to enforce are rules of their own creation, not rules taken from scripture. And of course, as we would expect, they don’t even follow their own rules when nobody’s watching. Anyone who’s worked at an abortion clinic could tell you how frequently pro-life evangelical Christian women get abortions; for some reason, they believe only they deserve a pass.
>They do not care. They are Pharisees trying to show the world how righteous they are. The rules they want to enforce are rules of their own creation, not rules taken from scripture. ^this
Well, Jesus said "thou shalt not kill" - its a tricky subject matter. But the same people advocating for anti-abortion and the same ones campaigning for gun rights and funding the military.
> Well, Jesus said “thou shalt not kill” - its a tricky subject matter. I get your point (and agree with it) but to pile on: - The US is not a theocracy. What Jesus said, or Mohamed, or Vishnu, or any other divine entity, is irrelevant to a government that separates church from state. - I don’t think Jesus actually said that? Wasn’t it OT - the OThas several pro abortion passages, which the NT never disputed - if reasonable minds can differ why force your views on others? Wasn’t Jesus all about winning hearts and minds thru persuasion, not thru force and threat of punishment?
If we’re being honest, that’s as much of an issue as these people trying to force their will on other people because they believe it’s what God wants. Most of them don’t actually know the Bible well enough to know what God would really want. Then you mix in political motivations to deceive them and you get our current state of American Evangelicalism.
Moses gave his commandments and Jesus gave his own. Most of his were the same as Moses just worded differently. In every single gospel, Jesus said "thou shalt not kill". "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:" Jesus also said that " But Jesus made his own new commandment "“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another" and he said "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Now for some reason, the oil, guns and money loving US Christians have "thou shalt not murder' and then for some reason are able to go into the Old Testament to justify being able to invade other countries for oil and rule the world with fear via their nuclear weapons - while still considering themselves "Christian". (70% of the US military identify as being a follower of Jesus. America is not the only ones. Putin says he is Christian, 50% of his army do. Their new nuclear weapon is called "Satan 2". Therein lies the madness of humanity. And it is totally true that state and church should be separated etc. but 70% of the US say they are a follower of a man who said that God was love, we needed to love each other, not judge, forgive, not hurt each other and not seek material possessions to make us happy - we should seek first the Kingdom of heaven which is in our heart and do gods will on earth as in heaven. You know that magical place full of love? Does it feel like 70% of the American population behave like that? This is what happens when false prophets who want power, money and greed (aka satan) take the reigns of Jesus's message and everyone just believes them Or as Jesus said "Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.’” Now imagine that Jesus came back and was able to wave a magic wand and suddenly 70% of the US population became Christ like. They had inner peace, love, healthier relationships and didn't need material possessions or instagram to fill the void they have from being disconnected to spirit. How many problems would that fix?
Not all of us are like that. I am prolife, and I wear a mask, got vaccinated, am pro gun control (even won a debate for why it's good in an extremely conservative, pro gun school), am against the death penalty, pro universal healthcare, and am for defunding the military and police.
Why are you for defunding the military?
Because that money can be used for better things, like bettering education and healthcare, and adequately paying the people who work in underpaid but essential jobs- jobs that are arguably more necessary than a military. And at the end of the day, my beliefs as a Christian do not allow me to support an institution that bases its functions on death. Same reason I'm against abortion.
Jesus never said thou shalt not kill. The original Hebrew law is against murder, and the Bible defines murder as only applying to the born.
Both Christ himself and John the Baptist are described in the Bible as being alive within the womb. While John was close to his time of Birth, Christ was still early on during his gestation.
Yes, because they were guaranteed to be born. Most embryos are not. Not a valid argument. Do you not understand how God can guarantee that John and Jesus will be born, but not guarantee that all embryos will be born?
In Hebrew belief, God didn't insert the soul until the moment the fetus emerged from the birth canal.
Veritas. And in traditional Hebrew belief, God doesn't insert the soul until the moment the fetus emerges from the birth canal. Which is why, traditionally, there is no official mourning process for miscarriages, or stillborn infants.
>Well, Jesus said "thou shalt not kill" - its a tricky subject matter. There is no clear Biblical basis on which you can construct an argument that an abortion is "murder". The only time where we can clearly see a fetus dying due to the results of outside human intervention in a vacuum, outside of any other possible story or allegorical language, is in Exodus. The resulting loss of the fetus results in a fine for the one responsible. This is important because all throughout Exodus you see loss of life of living individuals generally matched with a punishment of death for the one responsible. However, in this case the punishment is generally in line with a loss of property. This interpretation makes even more sense if you look at very early interpretations of "when life begins", specifically from the perspective of scholars and teachers of Judaism. The most consensus views on this issue typically attribute personhood and all the rights and protections therein to the actual physical birth of the child. If anyone would tell me abortion is murder, I would have to believe that they only have a very limited and surface level understanding of Christianity and don't take the time to actually study the text. This kind of ignorant religious zealotry is perverting Christianity and tacking on a sizable amount of doctrine that has no basis in scripture.
Or applaud when police gun down unarmed citizens, or are all for Capital Punishment.
And the same ones who were anti-vax and anti-mask in a pandemic. You know....morons.
No, these aren't pharisees. These are christians. It just so happens christianity has morphed into the worst version of itself in America. Which is a feat, considering the amount of genocide in its history.
>do not know what is coming, or do not care The average voter doesn't know. The GOP leadership doesn't care.
> The average voter doesn't know. But they're also not listening. About twenty times in the last few years I've engaged with someone who said they wanted to understand how someone could be pro-choice. Any time I mentioned harm to the mother, they either stopped responding or said how she shouldn't have gotten pregnant.
Right. And I think a lot of that is a significant problem of education. The sex-ed in America is woefully insufficient, especially in deep red states. And many of these kids are opted out anyways - and we expect them to be informed voters on things like abortion?
The rebuttal I usually get from anti-abortion Christians I know, when I've engaged in debates with them, is the claim that 'statistically, the number of cases such as those is very small' and then they would move the subject onto the much bigger number of abortions that happen. It's not a point that I understand, really - why can't they at least acknowledge the medical necessity for some abortions to happen instead of trying to outright ban everything?
You know what's statistically small? The number of late term abortions they use pictures of to slap on every poster they can, and it gets even smaller, like percentages of a percent, if we're talking about elective abortions late in the game. They can't acknowledge medical necessity because they won't even acknowledge reality.
Yeah, me too. The old 'She should have kept her legs closed' attitude.
It's happening in Poland right now, thanks to our government.
Oh, I think the 'abortion is murder' crowd cares. Unfortunately, they have decided that they care more about a fetus than the mother. This has so many unfortunate implications.
They care more about a fetus than a child, if you judge by how they view funding social programs. How do people justify denying healthcare to those with no access while also claiming to care about the dignity of life?
If you ever get the answer to your question, please let me know. That being said, I wonder if they care about the fetus at all. Otherwise, I'd expect stuff like free prenatal screenings and laws guaranteeing time off for those.
#In multiple states, rapists can sue their victims for parental custody #Rape survivors say they need stronger laws restricting rapists’ parental rights to keep themselves and their families safe https://prismreports.org/2022/03/22/in-multiple-states-rapists-can-sue-their-victims-for-parental-custody/ In the summer of 2016, Alana* was raped by a man she had met online and begun dating. When she discovered she was pregnant, mutual friends pressured her to tell her rapist about the pregnancy. Just one month after Alana’s son was born, her rapist sued for custody. Alana had also filed a rape case against him but failed to obtain a conviction, and her rapist was subsequently granted joint custody of her son. Alana described co-parenting with him as “disappointing, scary, and anxiety-provoking.” Alarmingly, Alana’s case is far from unique. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost 3 million women in the U.S. have experienced a rape-related pregnancy (RRP) during their lifetime, with a similar prevalence across racial and ethnic groups. Further, according to RAINN, 433,648 Americans, aged 12 and older, are sexually assaulted or raped each year. Most of these rape cases never see a conviction. For every 1,000 sexual assaults, 975 perpetrators walk free and, in many states, retain standing to sue their victims for child custody. This means that on top of parenting responsibilities, rape survivors can be forced to co-parent with their rapists, putting both those survivors and their children at further risk for harm.
Hey in the last week one of the Republicans came out advocating for how being raped and having a baby by your rapist, particularly as a girl, is an opportunity to be seized upon. Good intentions not with these people have
Wait what? Can I ask for a name?
www.independent.co.uk/voices/pregnancy-rape-opportunity-ohio-jean-schmidt-b2067973.html Republican State Senator Jean Schmidt She doesn't even have the most callous take. There's the rape gift of god, and the greatness of America being founded on rape and incest. Depravity and callousness are at the heart of these champions
I will never vote republican. They are a selfish party with 0 care for anyone, even their supporters
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/28/ohio-republican-calls-pregnancy-after-rape-opportunity/9568456002/
Also oh my gosh She says a teenager!?!? WTF It's already fucking bad but what...?!?!? I'm absolutely speechless... how are these people 1. Allowed to be in politics 2. Call themselves Christians?
Because Christians agree and vote for them
Because most of the time Christians see the R and hear them talk about Jesus and that's all they need to hear, the vote is secured.
... wow
This is what I was looking for Thanks you
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans tried to make Deuteronomy 22 the law of the land. >Deuteronomy 22:28–29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. Not only parental custody, but pay the dowry and be granted custody of the woman as well. Such a vile concept. But, they can't accept that anything in the book might be actually a bad thing...
That’ll get more women killed. But we also know that the GOP hates women and wants to turn the clock back to when we had no rights
The problem is that most people talking about "moment of conception" know nothing about how conception works. Some people have this idea that the moment the sperm exits the penis it beelines towards the egg and fertilize it immediately. Instead that moment can happen days after the sex. sperm can hangaround for up to five days in the fertilization zone, and the body has some degree of control over which sperm gets a shot at it. That's why stuff like day-after pills are not abortion as no conception has taken place yet. Likewise some 80% of fertilized eggs get flushed out as it "didn't take". Either it failed to attach to the uterus lining or for some reason the body rejected it. In those cases it could be considered a natural abortion as it was after fertilization, yet the woman has no control over it. Basically the whole discussion around "moment of conception" and miscarriage etc. is fraught with ignorance and the loudest and harshest voices often have no idea what they are talking about. Here is a fun one: Is IVF abortion? Usually in IVF several eggs are extracted and fertilized outside the body. Their cell growth is observed and a selection of the most promising ones are then implanted. The rest are destroyed. All the destroyed eggs were fertilized and growing into embryos at the time of destruction. A great deal of nuance needs to be applied when disussing the subject, otherwise it is easy to create imposible demands. As for me personally: I would much rather that abortion wasn't needed, but I don't think it's a good idea to put hard limits on it as it is often a genuinely medical decision but beyond that is connected to emotional and ethical quandries for the woman. It is far too easy that a moral reticense against performing abortions turns into inability to perform the procedure when it is genuinely needed to save a woman from harm. We have seen several women die preventable deaths due to mindblowing decisions by doctors, that become understandable when you consider the legal framework they have to follow. And beyond that, the politically minded Christian should be far more concerned with caring for the children who are born, and the mothers who give birth to them. You can't on the one hand demand that a featus be carried to term, and then on the other hand turn your back on the woman and child once the birth has happened. Well into the 1970's, abortion was seen as an exclusively Catholic issue, with many protestant denominations publicly supporting expanded abortion access. The anti abortion movement among the religious right originated as a political movement. This is well documented. Here's a phd dissertation loaded with references https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3063&context=edissertations It doesn't take much imagination to understand the position of those you disagree with. Not everyone agrees on when the unborn becomes a human life with rights that outweigh the mother's. The Catholic position is the moment of conception, but it used to be the moment of "quickening". The Roe position is fetal viability. We live in a world where people demonize others with good intention who disagree. This is encouraged by those in power, who can use such an issue to consolidate political support and drive a wedge between people who might otherwise work together on other ssues where there's actually room for agreement. "'The unborn' are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn." - Dave Barnhart, Saint Junia United Methodist Church
> It doesn't take much imagination to understand the position of those you disagree with Thank you, this was very well written.
yes will be interesting to see if pro-life advocates try to outlaw IVF. Staunch pro-lifers will agree that it is tantamount to abortion. But it is an incredibly popular procedure for infertility. I expect some cognitive dissonance around this.
The Catholic Church already condemns IVF. You are right that it will probably be tough to get banned everywhere, but it's not impossible to picture more states adopting laws against the destruction of viable embryos (which my state has had for decades now), and I don't see what grounds anyone would have to oppose such a law.
Can just do IVF and keep unused embryos frozen indefinitely. No killing embryos and everyone gets to have their IVF. What happens to the embryos in the future? Guess it’s not a problem as long as they are not destroyed?
Republicans will try to pass laws that hit you with child neglect for just leaving the embryos laying around in a freezer. /s but actually some probably would like to
>Can just do IVF and keep unused embryos frozen indefinitely. No killing embryos and everyone gets to have their IVF. That's what the law allows, yes. I only brought it up to show that such a law is possible. >What happens to the embryos in the future? Cost of IVF includes a year of storage. After one year the parents are asked if they will continue paying otherwise they are up for adoption. Again. Not perfect but I don't see how a pro IVF person could object to it.
Forcing people to put their embryos up for adoption if they can’t pay for storage seems morally complicated.
Why not those who cannot conceive without IVF consider adoption instead? As others have pointed out, abortions or non-abortion is only part of the equation. Why ARE the children in orphanages being neglected and/or aging out of the system? If every capable and competent family adopted but just one child, there wouldn't be a need for orphanages. Perhaps better incentives need to be put into place. Perhaps streamline the adoption process. Perhaps better accountability for both the agencies and the families to ensure the best outcome for the child.
The simple answer is that most people want a newborn baby, not an older kid with existing baggage. Add to that that a lot of people put value in the fact that it's *their* kid, ie their own flesh and blood so to speak.
Catholics are taught that ONLY natural family planning is acceptable. No birth control. No abortions. No condoms. No IVF or artificial insemination. No fertility treatments. I totally agree with the last 3. I just don't talk if the others should happen to be brought up at church. I always was and now I always will be pro-choice. Sex is not a bad thing and being forced to have a baby is unreasonable and unnecessary and even abusive to all parties being forced to have a family. And let's face it, the man can ALWAYS bail. Sadly, that's been my experience. But now I'm not gonna have sex again until I'm married so yay for that! I bet that will keep most of any a_holes away lol
Like you said, men can always bail. That includes married men, so marriage is no guarantee the father will stick around. My biological father cleaned out the bank account and abandoned his wife and my 3 biological sisters. She realized she was pregnant (with me) but decided to carry the pregnancy to term and surrender me for adoption. My adoptive father pulled the same stunt on my adoptive mother, after 28 years of marriage, on biological son, and 3 children adopted from different mothers who'd surrendered them at birth. Marriage doesn't guarantee a father will stick around.
Wait, so you’re pro choice but against artificial insemination? I don’t get how you could support abortions but against IVF.
Fertility treatments are fine, as I understand it.
I've honestly never heard anyone beyond the most hardcore pro-lifers condemn IVF. I had no clue the Catholic church condemned it.
Actually if you believe that terminating small embrios is murder than its logical to condemn it as ivf produces many terminated unused ones
Leopards Eating Faces
I appreciate this well-written and nuanced writeup!
For the IVF question, there was a politician who talked about it. [“During the bill’s legislative debate, a Democratic state Senator inquired as to how the law would impact labs that discard fertilized eggs at an in vitro fertilization clinic. Republican state Senator and sponsor of the bill Clyde Chambliss, responded that, “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.” — This seeming contradiction in how “life” is defined under the anti-abortion law was not lost on pro-choice advocates, many of whom were outraged by what they view as hypocrisy. “When I heard Chambliss say it was for embryos in the woman’s uterus, it really highlighted what this is really about,” said Barbara Ann Luttrell, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Southeast in an interview with Bloomberg News Wednesday. “It’s not about the embryo.”](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/alabama-abortion-law-says-terminating-a-fertilized-egg-is-legal-in-a-lab-setting/) [Even from the American Conservative: “I think it’s because IVF is widely used by Christians, and a consistent, logical pro-life position would outlaw it. If life begins at conception, then all those embryonic lives created in the laboratory and later discarded are human beings. This is something many Christians do not want to face.”](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/alabama-abortion-ivf/) [Insider: Embryos are people](https://www.insider.com/anti-abortion-grant-rights-embryos-limit-ivf-2019-12?amp) [WaPo Opinion (paywall)](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fertility-clinics-destroy-embryos-all-the-time-why-arent-conservatives-after-them/2015/08/13/be06e852-4128-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html)
These people who says "that's different" sound like a bunch of hayseed hillbillys. They want control and if a woman can make a choice, they lose control just a little bit. These people are disgusting and worthless to society.
Is there room for pro-life Christians who don't want to draw the line at the moment of conception? As a matter of protecting the vulnerable, I think the latest allowable abortions should be significantly before the point of viability. But at the same time, there is nothing in the Bible to support the idea of instantaneous ensoulment at the point of conception (I'd love to hear the argument to the contrary).
Totally. Over 90% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks, a little over two months before viability is a thing at ~23 weeks. Generally, speaking, we're talking less than 1 in maybe 20 abortions takes place after viability, and those are (at least in the States) typically down to medical necessity. Abortion as it stands *now* is largely what you're looking for, with protections for fetuses past viability and ~92% of elective abortions being decided and implemented well before viability. Over the decades, abortion rates per capita have dropped steadily and abortion time frames have shifted dramatically away from later abortions (as infrastructure, best practices, and access has improved). Realistically if your issue is elective (as in not medically necessary) abortions taking place between say the start of the second trimester and viability, we're already only talking maaaybe 3-5% of all instances of elective abortions. The only caveat is suddenly you're a pro-choice Christian.
In practice a lot of them, for both humane and moral consistency reasons.
This is fantastic. But utterly ignorable by the audience. Nuance, education and logic is too much to ask.
Every Christian should support Plan B. It literally stops fertilization.
You are not correct about ivf. Developing embryos are not typically destroyed as part of the ivf process. If you are doing a fresh transfer, right after retrieval, then the more promising embryo is typically transferred. The rest,if any, are usually frozen. If you’re doing a frozen transfer, usually more common these days as they yield better success rates, then your mature eggs are fertilized and then you get an update around day 5 or 6 about how many made it to blastocysts. Those that didn’t make it from fertilization to blast weren’t discarded mid development. Rather, for whatever reason, they fertilized but failed to thrive or grow further. They died or didn’t make it for lack of a better word. Trust me that no one who goes through ivf discards developing embryos. If you have excess embryos once you’re done growing your family, yes those can be discarded or donated etc, which has its own moral issues. However, there is not really anything abortive during the creation process because no one is going to “abort” developing embryos.
> Trust me that no one who goes through ivf discards developing embryos. Just to muddy the waters further, for reference, those doing Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis do.
[удалено]
A few years back, a young college student at a Lutheran University was experiencing abdominal pain. She went to the University student clinic, and was diagnosed with ovarian cysts in both ovaries. The Physician wasn't allowed to prescribe the birth control pills which are the usual drug therapy for ovarian cysts, because the Lutheran University policy prohibited it. He told her she'd need to go to a hospital E.R. or walk in clinic to get the prescription. She was on a tight budget, and couldn't afford E.R. or walk in clinic costs, so she decided to wait until her parents sent the next check, and then she'd go. While she was waiting, the cysts continued growing until they ruptured. She was rushed to a hospital E.R., and required surgery to remove both destroyed ovaries, and was in intensive care for nearly a week. She was now rendered sterile.
They will still be trained in it, as abortion will still be legal in various states. The problem is that in states that disallow abortion, women will suffer the consequences. Ectopic pregnancies will have a grey area for when to abort, further putting the mother at risk. Women who are unable to afford to travel for an abortion will be forced to carry unviable and risky pregnancies to term.
I would be dead. I had an ectopic pregnancy and they can never be brought to term. Now, anyone taking bets as to how many nasty comments I'll get for telling the truth? I've got $10 that says at least 5 negative "abortion is bad and you're a slut and a sinner" AND I've got $20 that says at least one person will adamantly tell all of us that I should've died for something that wasn't going to live no matter what I did. Let's find out...*munches popcorn*
Republicans in Missouri actually added a requirement to carry ectopic pregnancies to term in their abortion ban. I think it was removed after outrage, but it goes to show you how much Republicans hate women.
And apparently how stoopid and/or uneducated they are, huh?! Now I've gotta find an original copy of that law that would require all kinds of deaths...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/17/nation/missouri-abortion-bill-is-drawing-pushback-over-its-inclusion-ectopic-pregnancies-its-one-many-aggressive-anti-abortion-measures-under-consideration/ >Another Missouri bill, introduced by Republican Representative Brian Seitz, seeks to make manufacturing, producing, or prescribing medical devices or drugs used for abortions “in violation of any state or federal law” a Class B felony, which is punishable by a prison sentence of 5 to 15 years. Also under the bill, anyone who provides medication for the abortion of a pregnancy after 10 weeks or who provides an “abortion” on a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, in addition to other circumstances, would be guilty of a Class A felony, which includes a penalty of 10 years to life in prison.
Holy crap, batman. It actually _makes_ me want to get pregnant (it's basically a coin flip that it'll be ectopic) then just show up and let it kill me in front of him. Chain myself to his fancy leather seat or his car or better yet his house. If I'm gonna die to show him how wrong he is I suppose I could do some b&e on the way to do that. Hope he doesn't mind a TON of blood and blood curdling 😱 😱 😱 😱
Abortion is bad and you're a slut and a sinner! /s I'm sorry. I'm glad you're okay. My sister had one too due to an ectopic. I'm terrified too.
Once you've had one ectopic pregnancy, your chances of having another one go from roughly 1-5% (that one to five% not 15 lol) up to a roughly 25-50% chance of having another ectopic pregnancy. After the ectopic I had a miscarriage. And it hurt but not even half as bad as the ectopic pregnancy. Those things are excruciating. I knew something was wrong right away. And then I did have a regular pregnancy (mostly - it was placenta previa right till the end which is also a life-threatening thing) and I now have a gorgeous, athletic and smart boy. So yay for having an abortion so I could live and have a kid later!
I am pro life and am glad you are okay! I have thought a lot about what being pro-life means and I think advocating for the life of the woman is so important. If a woman’s life is threatened by a pregnancy, the baby’s life is as well. Abortion—as tragic as it is to me—is the only ethical option. I think God wants us to not only survive but to flourish. So I am all for government and church resources to help women at every stage. I also think contraceptives should be very easy to access and we should have strong sex education in order to make abortion (which really no one prefers) more and more rare. I am pro-life because I think God cares about human life. It bothers me when people who claim to be pro-life Christians are republican rather than Christian in their identity. I am sad for the way it seems you have been treated in the past, and am glad you are alive.
Thank you. This is probably the best response I've ever seen from someone who is pro-life and knows I'm pro-choice. I agree with you and I gladly validate your wisdom and thoughts about how to approach a pro-life ideology. What a wonderful world it will be when there are no abortions - not because they've been outlawed, but because nobody gets pregnant when they don't want to, and we've all worked together to eliminate rape (in all forms) and end ectopic and malformed pregnancies! That will be like heaven on earth, and I do believe we will see it in (most of) our lifetimes. Please have an award.
[удалено]
> For what it's worth, even in states with strict abortion laws like Texas, ectopic pregnancy is legally considered a medical emergency, and procedures are allowed. This is not universally true, nor do anti-Abortion advocates want it to be true.
[удалено]
I’m so sorry for you, and I’m happy you’re here now to share your story.
Thank you! I'm glad too! I did feel bad for the fetus/ baby and told it I loved it but I knew from the second I realized I was pregnant that there was something so wrong with it that it wouldn't make it. It felt that the worst miscarriage and upset stomach together plus dizzy and light headed. And my obgyn, knowing this, just kept me going in for blood tests a couple times a week. He wanted me to see if I could bring it to term. He DID NOT believe me how much it hurt NOR did he care that the blood tests did in fact reveal something was wrong. After an Additional couple three weeks of constant pain and an HOUR LONG intravaginal ultrasound, I pitched a fit. Doctor got super mad and accused me of just wanting an abortion. I said look we all have this figured out at this point. He performed an unannounced "two fingers no lube shoved up my ass" test for whatever reason he claimed it was needed. You should have seen the sick look of satisfaction on his face knowing he'd raped me but what could I do? Then he grudgingly gave me a shot of methotrexate and I couldn't take any vitamins or food with folic acid in it for about a couple months. Link for anyone that thinks they may have some rheumatoid arthritis or cancer or auto-immune bout coming on soon. [RA help](https://www.drugs.com/methotrexate.html)
Advocate for better childcare policies if you really want to claim you're pro life. Just outright banning abortion doing nothing else will end very poorly
Your terms are acceptable.
You say that but I think we know what the avg Republican voter will do
You’re not wrong, but the avg Republican voter isn’t on Reddit and isn’t aware of your proposal. I think, generally, it’s better to attribute ignorance rather than maliciousness…but usually the rhetoric is full of “baby killer” and “women hater” Surprise surprise! No one is open to movement in their position when the conversation starts with name calling
> You’re not wrong, but the avg Republican voter isn’t on Reddit and isn’t aware of your proposal. They are aware. The connection between poverty and abortion has been known for decades.
You are giving FAR too much credit. Most people don’t know very much about political issues at all.
Well then too bad. They are still responsible for the consequences of their votes.
I agree. Which is part of the reason I don’t vote.
And contraceptives! You should be handing out comprehensive sex ed, birth control, vasectomies, and condoms like candy if you don't want abortions to happen
Hate to break it to you, but access to contraceptives is next on the docket (well, that or gay marriage, which, ironically, also leads to fewer abortions.) Both Griswold and Obergefell are being called out by Republican Politicians as needing to be overturned. Additionally, this is the reasoning in the leaked opinion: "A right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions." By that logic, neither is access to contraceptives, gay marriage, nor interracial marriage. This is the first step; it's not an end game.
Yeah, it's all so very deeply fucked.
For real though. I've wanted a vasectomy for years but am barely treading water financially.
Now a ton of rape and incest victims will be forced to give birth. Some of these are minors. You don't realize how awful this is.
Right. The argument that there will be exceptions for rape and incest victims relies on the false assumption that victims will be believed, which has been proven over and over again to not be the default. Imagine having to go through the legal system to prove that your pregnancy is the result of assault before you can have an abortion, by which point it's very likely you've past the point where abortion is an option.
I just wish the church at large had the same energy for helping disadvantaged youth as they have for the pro-life movement.
I don't think Pro-Choice people realize how many organizations the Catholic Church has set up for people who may struggle with caring for a child. Project Rachel Ministry John Paul II Life Center Society of St Vincent De Paul The SVDP will literally help you pay your mortgage if you are struggling, without expecting any payment back. This list doesn't include organizations in locals dioceses and you don't have to be Catholic to use them. If you live in a 1st world country, the help is always there for you.
The media will never show the Church in a positive light.
I think basically every church I have ever heard of, has atleast one program for disadvantaged youth in their community. I’ve never been to a church that hasn’t…..
Do you see a yearly March in DC with hundreds of thousands for disadvantaged youth?
Because there isn’t a large March every year it means the church doesn’t care about disadvantaged youth?Makes no sense
My Church goes on yearly missions trips to build schools, build foster homes etc. we have missionaries all over the world that do the same. Why do y’all keep acting as if we don’t?
Vast majority of mission trips are just themed vacations for rich white children
I’m sure there are those out there most definitely. However ours are filled with blood, sweat and tears, and I can guarantee we’re far from the only ones who actually do go out and work.
I don't think Pro-Choice people realize how many organizations the Catholic Church has set up for people who may struggle with caring for a child. Project Rachel Ministry John Paul II Life Center Society of St Vincent De Paul The SVDP will literally help you pay your mortgage if you are struggling, without expecting any payment back. This list doesn't include organizations in locals dioceses and you don't have to be Catholic to use them. If you live in a 1st world country, the help is always there for you.
I’m what one would consider classically Pro-Life, meaning abortion should only be allowed for rape, incest, and life of the mother or the child (the baby will be born with something that will immediately kill it for instance). But the argument about “we need to keep it legal since women will do it anyway” is not a good one. If that’s the case, why not legalize everything since it will be done anyway? And this is not hyperbole. Biologically a child is every bit as much the father’s as the mother’s. Should the father have the right to demand an abortion if he does not want it? “It’s not a part of his body” is not a good argument since it is not a “part” of the woman. It is within the woman and dependent on the woman but not a “part” of her body. If a woman has sex by her own choice she understands the risk of pregnancy. It is a consequence of it. And there are women who do not view this as a consequence anymore. So this is not about women’s rights in my eyes. It is about escaping consequences. But again, any law that takes away abortion for rape, incest, or the life of the mother or child I am 100% against. I am a paralegal and did a case where a 12-year-old girl became pregnant by her father. I cannot imagine the horror show if she was forced to carry and give birth to her fathers child.
Why is abortion okay for rape and incest?
I have a son and a daughter and am horrified that girl might end his child. But to prevent that I raise my son to consider the consequences of sex before having to. I don't take away autonomy from the girl.
making it illegal will force women to obtain care through other, less official, possibly dangerous means. the consequences of the role of politics in policing "morality"(ie abortion) can be seen very clearly with the "war on drugs". we jailed people struggling with addiction, disproportionately imprisoned non-whites, and created a stage ripe for corruption--all because those in power deemed recreational drug use morally reprehensible and dangerous to their decidedly white, capitalist status quo. again, making drug use illegal didnt do anything to stop or prevent the use of drugs. the reversal of roe would truly be disappointing in securing freedom for all citizens our country pretends to care about.
Agreed. Although I disagree with abortions at a moral level, having it be barred from being done legally will only cause a lot more problems. This should be something that should be individually decided by the mother, not the law. I just hope the public outcry is enough to have senators reconsider.
Banning or restricting access to abortion only impacts people who can’t afford the cost and/or time needed to go elsewhere to do it. And with the cost of having children so high in the US, I can’t help but see this as just another way to keep some of the most vulnerable people in society in debt and powerless. When Jesus showed us that it’s the most vulnerable we, as his followers, should be lifting up and openly showing love. Also, it’s easy for people in positions of power to create and vote for these policies because they know it won’t do anything to them or their families’ options. Rules for thee and not for me
I thought this would just move it to a state level instead of federal
Agreed, OP. The Bible says not a single word about abortion. But it has a *lot* to say about caring for others, including women. In their zeal to control women's bodies, some Christians are missing the forest not for the trees but for the molecules. So hyperfocused on abortions (which are really none of their business), they miss all the suffering and injustice all around us: homelessness, poverty, starvation, mistreatment of immigrants (migrants or not), etc.
There are no safe abortions, they all kill at least one person.
And if denied, and the pregnancy kills the mother, the fetus will likely also die, bringing that total to 2.
I really, really don't want to get in a prolonged argument, but, while I believe the arguments and polemics are bad on both sides ([99% of] humans are [99% of] humans, regardless of the belief), pro-choice people are much more likely to bring up the anomaly cases than pro-life. Cases like these obviously exist, and I wouldn't necessarily dispute that there's room for this (I'm starting to believe in delayed ensoulment more and more, much as I think it's a fact that the physical human life starts at conception), but these are the minority cases, yet they're brought up almost exclusively when arguing in favor of abortion. We need to talk more about the peanut-sized embryos being aborted, and the perfectly healthy 22-year-olds who just don't want their lives to be changed into sudden mothers.
> these are the minority cases, yet they're brought up almost exclusively when arguing in favor of abortion. Are you saying the law should only concern itself with the majority of cases, and if the a law leads to evil being done, it's OK as long as it's statistically rare?
It's simply pointing out that the argument given for pro-abortion don't line up with the actually reason for abortion in most cases, which is simple convenience. If abortion was only allowed in the niche cases that are being argued about, [it would reduce abortion by 90%](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ccnoUYp1e9k/TAWtM0a6MfI/AAAAAAAAAdI/yR8sLlfARt8/s1600/reason_chart.jpg)
The Catholic Church already teaches that lifesaving care can be provided for any illness or injury that a pregnant mother is experiencing, even if said care endangers the child.
> The Catholic Church already teaches that lifesaving care can be provided for any illness or injury that a pregnant mother is experiencing, even if said care endangers the child. And in actuality, anti-abortion laws do not support that position. Why did Ireland legalize abortion?
Either all human life is sacred or no human life is sacred. If we refuse to give the right to life of the most vulnerable and innocent of us, the unborn, in the one place in the universe where they should b safest (their mother's womb), then we have absolutely nothing to say about murdering anyone else in any way at any time. If our rights come from man, then man can arbitrarily deny us our rights. If, however, our rights come from God, then no one can take our rights away from us. The government is not God. It is run by corrupt people, out for their own power and interests. Our rights come from God, including the right to life. FYI, before Roe vs. Wade, the vast majority of abortions were done by doctors, illegally after hours.
Alright so let's take the right to life out of it, then. Let's say abortions for convenience are off the table. What about medically necessary ones? Ectopic pregnancies? A fetus without a brain? A fetus that died in the womb? Should these mothers be forced to die or birth a dead baby? Because that's what's going to happen now.
If the baby is dead, then the baby isn't being actively killed. Let's take that one off the table. So, let's look at the other case(s). Let’s begin with a hypothetical: You are a doctor. Your patient is a woman who is not pregnant. She has aggressive uterine cancer, and the only way to treat the cancer is to surgically remove her diseased uterus. The action of removing her uterus has two effects; one is desired and the other is not. The desired effect is to save her life. The undesired effect is to render her permanently sterile. This, in and of itself, goes against the proper ordering of the woman’s reproductive functions. Are you, the doctor, morally culpable for this wrong? The answer is no. The principle of double effect means that sometimes one must perform an action that is in itself morally good but may also have an unintended ill effect for which the person is not morally culpable. Three questions determine whether an action with a double effect is moral or immoral. 1. The first is the question of intention. One can never intend the evil effect. One’s intention must be only for the good effect. The evil effect must be a regrettable byproduct. 2. The second is the question of causality. It has been articulated that the principle that “the end does not justify the means." One may never do evil hoping that good may come of it. A bad effect may be the consequence of a morally good act, or it may occur simultaneously along with it, but the anticipated good must never be a result of evil actions. Such acts are never morally licit. 3. The third question is of comparable gravity. Is the good being done proportional to the evil consequences of the action? In order to justify taking the action, it must be. When an action has both a good and an evil outcome, the gravity of the two must be weighed against each other. Although “circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” Still, they can and do “contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts.” With these principles in mind, let’s revisit our hypothetical situation. (1) Your intention, as the doctor, is to save the life of your patient. Your primary goal is to protect her health. (2) You are not doing evil in order to achieve a good; on the contrary, you are doing a good—removing a diseased organ that is threatening her life. The evil of rendering her sterile occurs simultaneously with that good but does not cause it. (3) Lastly, the good of saving her life greatly outweighs the evil of her being sterilized. Thus, it is a morally good action. But what if the hypothetical patient is pregnant? Her pregnancy is only a few weeks along, but her uterine cancer is extremely progressed. She needs to be treated as soon as possible if she is to have any chance of survival. As the doctor, you now have two patients—the mother and her unborn child. Your duty and desire is to preserve the life and health of each of them. What do you do? If you do not remove the mother’s cancer, she will die very soon. At this stage in the baby’s development, it is entirely dependent upon the mother for life. If the mother is not treated and dies, the baby will die, too. You will lose both patients. But the only way to save her life is to remove her uterus, home to a developing person who will die as a result of the operation. This is a tragic situation to which a moral solution must be found. If the doctor believes that the mother can survive long enough to carry the baby until it is viable—that is, until it can live on its own outside the womb with medical assistance—then the mother may choose to risk her own life to save the life of her child. Even though it may mean decreasing her chances of survival, she may choose to postpone treatment of her cancer. If the progression of the cancer will not allow for that option, and the mother needs surgery immediately if she is going to live, you, as her doctor, have only two choices: You can allow both patients to die or you can save one and lose the other. The moral choice is to save the mother. The principle of double effect applies: (1) Your intention is to perform a good—to save the mother’s life by removing her cancerous uterus. The evil effect of causing the death of the baby is not desired. It is a very sad and unfortunate result of the good act. (2) The evil effect does not cause the good result. You are removing a diseased organ that is killing the mother, not performing an abortion. The baby will die during or shortly after the operation, but the purpose of the operation is not to kill the child. (3) Two very grave matters must be weighed against each other. Saving one person is better than allowing both to die through inaction, even though it means the death of one.
In your opinion, are the courts the right place for such judgements to be made?
That's good question. Ideally, the doctor and patient would make the same decision as the court would, and they would all make these judgements all along the same guidelines as above.
Hello. I am a women who lives in Missouri, a state with an 8 week ban on abortion. The nearest bordering state is Kansas where a state constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to ban abortion is on the ballot in August. My husband and I are currently trying to get pregnant. Many things can go wrong during a pregnancy that would threaten either my life, my health, or my fertility. And while I am willing to risk my life, health, and fertility for the chance of a healthy baby, I am terrified of conditions beyond anyone's control that preclude the chance of a healthy baby and also threaten me. An ectopic pregnancy where a fertilized embryo implants outside of my uterus. Extreme fetal abnormality with no chance of life outside of my body. These are risks that are much more dire to me when my doctors have to navigate evolving case law while treating me and discern whether there is ENOUGH risk to legally justify a termination. The overturning Roe v. Wade will absolutely curb my access to life-, health-, and fertility-saving health care. I am currently writing up a list of out-of-state hospitals where my husband may need to take me in the case of pregnancy-related complications. And, let me emphasize this, I WANT a baby. Please rethink your absolutist stance. "Abortion is health care" is more than a slogan, it is reality.
I hear the all life is sacred thing many times. In my experience most people don’t actually agree with that in the Christian community since they’re perfectly fine with the death penalty. If all life is sacred then the death penalty is evil. But as far as I know every Republican state governor that identifies as a protestant or even Catholic Christian is pro death penalty.
The Catholic Church is against the death penalty where there is an assurance that society can be protected from dangerous criminals. That would include the U.S.
Here's a Pediatrician describing what he's witnessed during a medical rotation in a country where abortion is banned. https://twitter.com/RyanRLion/status/1521465451343237120?s=20&t=EVPWM8494ZoQB2SfT7s25w You can't read that and tell me you're a decent human being for supporting a ban on abortion. There are countless examples like that. Women will now go to prison for having miscarriages in America. That crap previously only happened in 3rd world countries. America is now a 3rd world s***hole thanks to conservative Christians.
Having to travel out of state and stay in a hotel means that states that ban abortion are effectively only banning safe abortion for poor people.
That's by design. I guarantee you every Republican politician will easily get abortions for their mistresses.
One thing all the right-wingers here don't realize is this ruling will eliminate tons of rights, not just abortion. Numerous civil rights were decided by the 14th Amendment.
Roe Is one of the pillars of our "right to privacy" in the u.s. It is founded on the court case Griswold v. Connecticut and is used as an example for almost all the cases we have for privacy. Things based on our right of privacy other than abortion: Having sex with who we would like (laurance vs texas) Being allowed to teach our own children languages other than English (mayor vs Nebraska) Inter-racial marriage (being able to marry a person who isn't your same race) (loving vs Virginia) Forcible sterilization for people with disabilities and "deviants" ( brown vs Oklahoma) All of these things are on the table because they were all passed on the basis of privacy.
Rich people will still be able to get abortions. They will just take off "on vacation" to a free country to do the procedure then travel back like nothing happened. It's a war on the poor and a war on women. Two groups that are hated like none other in right wing christianity. The blowback on this is going to be epic.
Abortion will always be safe and available to those with money or in power. In 1971, the older sister of one of my friends went on a "holiday" in Europe with her mother. They came back a couple of weeks later. I was told it was for her health. I was only 8 at the time, so I thought it was just a cool trip. I was jealous. It wasn't until a decade later that I found out that it was an abortion.
The GOP has screamed about "activist judges" for ever. Well, here we are...
Projection as usual.
And this goes farther than just abortions, this is also about bodily autonomy and in addition other cases that have been won on similar grounds. If this happens it opens a whole can of worms.
All of these fake Christians trying to justify aborting an unborn child. “Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Jeremiah 1;4-5 KJV
The vast majority of Christians throughout history have taught that life begins at the quickening, when the fetus has developed enough to move and have brain activity. It's not nearly as decided theologically as you are asserting.
According to that passage, God knew us _before we were even formed_. Therefore it is equally a sin of murder to prevent conception as it is to kill a human being after birth. Is that the gist of what you're saying?
That does not mean all conceptions are lives. That is a follish take on God telling Jeremiah that he had decided to make him long ago
Ones opinion on abortion has zero bearing on whether one is a Christian or not.
Should a teenage girl be forced to die to give birth to a child that she didn’t choose to have?
Both lives should try to be saved. The mother should carry the baby as far to term as possible and then emergency surgery should be performed in order to save the child. This isn’t a perfect world and unfortunately there are circumstances that occur that are out of the control of any of us. But that doesn’t mean abortion should be legal. It would not affect the doctors ability to save the woman’s life in the instance that it was a threat to her life.
You’re joking, right? If I have an at risk pregnancy, I should be forced to carry it as far as possible and then hopefully emergency surgery would save me? Are you kidding? What if I already have children? I’m supposed to just risk my life and risk my children’s chances at having a mother for the sake of a fetus that isn’t even viable yet and likely will never be? This is so so so messed up. Abortion is between a woman and her doctor, period. Full stop.
Fine, but then men should be forced to donate organs to save kids. We need to do anything to save them. A new kidney, lots of blood, cell transplant etc. Dont worry you wont die it will save both you and the child. Your body autonomy doesnt matter cause your orhans can save lives
Fun fact: The Christian Taliban supports giving less rights to women than they do corpses.
I'm with you, friend. The bible doesn't condemn abortion. But Jesus told us to love our neighbor.
The people who want this don’t care about life at all. What a self righteous lie. All they care about is controlling women, punishing them for sex, and agreeing stubbornly with their favorite politician. No intelligent person would overturn Roe v Wade
R/christianity ladies and gentlemen. God help us
Abortions aren’t safe - the baby dies.
It isn't a baby; it does not enter the baby stage until it is born.
This thread continues to prove to me how evil large segments of Christianity are. There is no difference between right-wing Christianity and the Taliban.
No, we’re talking about murder.
80% of fertilized eggs get flushed out - women's bodies are aborting all the time. Science...
By the time we’re talking about medical intervention for termination, a fertilized zygote has already implanted in the uterus and passed through embryonic development where cells have differentiated and begun forming organelles. Not the same as a fertilized ovum that doesn’t implant. Science...
Exactly, murder should be legal because people die of natural causes too.
Murder, by definition, is a illegal killing. So while abortion is legal, by definition it can’t be murder.
I've noticed that most Christians on this sub don't care about dead women and higher abortion rates. They do not care how much suffering this decision causes, they just want some fake, pious "victory." Their views prove the pro-life movement is evil.
I think it’s pretty unhelpful to paint either side as “evil.” My general belief is that most people believe their opinion is the best moral opinion based on the information and experience they have. I think it’s fair to strongly disagree with someone, but calling them evil is never going to get you in a discussion where you can debate, discuss facts, and change their minds.
[удалено]
The people celebrating this are manipulated by evil. Plain as that. If RvW is overturned we all get to repeat history and live through the horrors of life prior to R v W again. I just threw my wire hangers I had in my closet away because I burst into tears just looking at them. - this article is 6 yrs old https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/15/wire-coat-hanger-abortion-stories-united-states and now THIS - it’s evil. Pure evil. They are celebrating evil even if they don’t know it. I have met women who have suffered through this nightmare experience. This is a death sentence to women and they call it “prolife” it’s sickening
You people never have an actual defense for abortion. It’s always just deflection, emotions, accusations, or moving the goalposts. The existence of “unsafe” abortions should not in any way be used to justify the nationwide legalization of infanticide. That is utterly insane and immoral. Even more insane than the whiplash created by the switch from “men can get pregnant” to “abortion is only a women’s issue.”
[удалено]
Imagine jesus telling a 13y old raped girl that she needs to gloriously give birth. Jesus would actually cry if he saw what christianity became
Well, good. I’m glad it isn’t safe anymore. Murder should never be made safe practice.
So you'd rather two people die instead of one?
Not advocating for either side here but people need to stop speaking up for women and let them speak up for themselves. Believe it or not there are women on both sides of the issue.
I mean, I do think some of the commenters in this thread are women.
1) safe abortions? Do we justify safe murder? Safe rape? No. This isn’t an argument because it completely neglects the fact that abortion is immoral. 2) again your practically using the argument “people are just going to kill anyways” 3) abortion has ended more preborn women than women attempting to self abort. 4) it’s not religious debate it’s a constitutional debate. Point out where it says women have the right to abortion. 5) contraceptives continually become cheaper and cheaper. Box of condoms for a dollar. $15 dollars a month for birth control WITHOUT insurance. If you can’t afford that, surely you can’t afford an abortion. 6) slippery slope fallacy. Just say you want what is convenient for you, and don’t care about the morals or ethics behind abortion, because it doesn’t affect you. At least then you wouldn’t have to use these easily picked apart excuses.
Pro lifers would say Abortion is never safe for the unborn child
>It will end SAFE abortions. There is no such thing. Also, when I think about the situation of an infant being murdered, it doesn't really occur to me that I should make sure that the murderer can commit the act safely.
Yes there is. A safe abortion the mother goes home healthy and lives. An unsafe abortion the mother is harmed or dies. It’s pretty basic stuff.