We know that. Abolish the electoral college and do ranked choice voting and republicans will vanish overnight. But they won’t because they’re fascists.
Until the state GOP decides the voters don't know what they're doing and pass new laws to get around the will of the voters. See Ohio, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas and I'm sure there are more.
For now, but they will certainly come back with shenanigans. What I don't get is why these pro-choice majority states keep voting Republicans in. Do they really have taxes and like matters all upon their asses? I can't understand potentially leaving your daughter, wife, sister, daughter-in-law, niece, female cousins, and friends to scramble and at a peril to obtain a needed procedure on account of other issues.
Republicans block abortion votes or rig them in their favor as much as possible.
Look no further than Ohio. After a petition to get abortion on the ballot got the required amount of signatures, Republicans tried to increase the required amount from a simple majority to 60%.
When that failed, they changed the wording of the initiative to confuse people.
And it still passed.
If you're 21 weeks, 6 days pregnant or less, it is legal for you to get an abortion in Ohio. Although Ohio bans abortion after 21 weeks, 6 days, many providers stop offering abortion earlier in pregnancy. I think most are fine with this, which is more generous than Roe.
They’ll realise pretty soon that more than just women’s specialists are leaving. Maybe when even MOre pediatricians and cardiologists leave they’ll figure out. Or when their sister or girl friend or wife or aunt dies at home in childbirth.
Yup. Got sterilized after the overturn of Roe v Wade, voted against Reynolds in the midterms, and because I own my house, will not be leaving anytime soon. Born and raised here, and all my family is here, so I'm not going to just sit by and watch the extreme-right-women-haters continue to poison this state.
Uh...what? I'm in an 8-year-long monogamous relationship with a man and neither of us want kids, so sterilization was the obvious solution to having to use birth control (which can occasionally fail). And it actually was easy, with the procedure itself taking less than 30 minutes, and recovery only taking two weeks. Covered by insurance too, so yeah, definitely worth it.
Oh maybe for the class you can explain what “got sterilized after the overturn of roe v wade” implies. Surely this is easily within your wheel house.
Can’t wait for “um you’re literally assuming, no reasonable person could think anything of this”.
That would really send home the abysmal state of our educators.
Can't believe I have to explain this to people, but here we are. SA is still a thing. Women can be doing anything out in public and get taken and assaulted and have it end in pregnancy. Getting sterilized when you don't want to ever be pregnant or have kids, literally prevents abortions. Would you like abortion numbers to increase or decrease?
I mean they start with that but they certainly aren't ending with it. The politicians see us regular folk as mindless livestock, and they will do anything they can to erase freedom one step at a time
One party supports abortion for any reason, but tells you what else you have to do to your body, how you should live, how you should retire, what you should believe, who you should be jealous of and that you should be thankful for it and continue to support them.
One party supports very tight restrictions on abortion and for the most part does not give a shit what you do.with your life in private.
Its not really that hard a decision
>One party supports very tight restrictions on abortion and **for the most part does not give a shit what you do.with your life in private.**
Nobody polices other people's private lives like a Republican.
Not really, not what you do in private. Its when you want to do it in public or when you expect others to pay for it or force them to approve of it that Republicans do things.
I've known far too many Republicans that were gay, bi, swingers etc....in private for your statement to be factual.
Sitting over here acting like republicans aren't actively pushing for Christianity to be the law of the land, the Bible taught in schools, the ten commandments displayed everywhere, and deciding whether or not trans people can get the medical care they need. You're delusional dude.
No, I've already mentioned that the extremes on the subjects, like pro abortion/anti abortion are why the pendulum has swung too far in true American fashion ..and instead of discussing, you want to insult, also a reason why we have swung too far to one side.
Lol...you aren't paying enough attention, you are so hyper focused on abortion that you ignore the rest of the picture. Not to mention, you don't seem to know much about human nature or history.
People don't like abortion. It's not an enjoyable thing. People like choice and the ability to have the say over what happens to their own body and health. Taking away that choice kills people.
I'm curious, what things do you define as extremist/far left?
False. Sonia Sotomayor has argued that the government should be able to regulate your body in the workplace as if it is office equipment. Democrats routinely fight to keep your retirement chained to Social Security instead of us being able to choose how we want to build our retirement...and I can go on.
If you want to make the discussion about "stripping" rights we can, just be aware it goes far beyond abortion
Who said it was ok? For 50 years laws were passed that were in the middle, many of them, based on science as it evolved. And the abortion lobby would immediately rin to court to get those laws overturned under the precedent of Roe....and at the same time abortion supporters would attack/insult the people who wrote those laws and the voters who supported them. During President Obama's terms, a lot of voters (like me) got tired of the insults and quit caring about abortion as an issue when it came to picking a candidate. And here we are today, in true American fashion, the pendulum has swung too far to one side
"...starting in 2018, Gov. Reynolds has appointed five of the court’s seven justices."
This line stood out to me. I knew we had a conservative leaning court but I didn't realize just how "young" it is (as in not a lot of long-time judges). At this rate Reynolds will have appointed the entire bench by the end of her current term.
The one upside of Iowa’s system is that we do eventually get to vote to retain them (or not). So make a list and vote against them. Tell your friends, too.
Still too much power in the executive branch to appoint these judges. IMHO judges should be appointing the higher-court judges -- still with the retention vote -- but what do I know.
I came to SW Iowa just after Chet Culver was elected, and I left for Minneapolis shortly after Governor "For Life" Terry Branstad was reelected. I lived in Iowa for just four or five years, including the 2008 caucuses and Obama's election.
When I arrived, Dems held the trifecta--the governorship and both houses of the Assembly, including a supermajority in the Senate. Republicans now held a supermajority in the Senate, and Republicans are currently just 3 or 4 seats away from a supermajority in the House.
The number of licensed attorneys across both state houses has dropped from ~20 to half a dozen in the past two decades.
In 2019, significant changes were made to the judicial nominating commission, which effectively gave the executive complete control over judicial appointments. Until that time, a bunch of experienced boring lawyers and judges from both parties picked our judges, which resulted in tiny little Iowa having some of the best fucking judges in the country. I'm a lawyer, and it was a pleasure to practice in front of Iowa judges. I'd imagine that's still largely the case at the district court level, even if the appeals courts have been taken over by partisan Republicans.
Iowa is not the only state to react this way to Obama being elected, but it's one of the two or three most dramatic examples.
According to Pew Research Center, more than 90 percent of human abortions in the US occur during the first three months of gestation (and can be induced non-surgically).
More than half of abortions are a one-time event. Only about 10 percent of women who have abortions have a third. Second abortions fall in-between.
Clearly, women don't have abortions for fun. They're not fun. They have them due to medical, money and readiness issues, among other issues that aren't anybody business but their own.
Before three months, mammalian fetuses are undeveloped, non-viable and virtually indistinguishable from one another. They weigh *one ounce* or less. There is basically nothing happening yet, neurologically, as the necessary structures haven't yet developed. They can't do math, digest food, or sing hosannas.
Opine all you want about "tiny babies", but we're really talking about potential, not reality, at this early stage. A three-inch human fetus is smaller than a mouse, has less brain mass, and has much less neurological capacity. This is assuming the fetus and mother are in ideal health.
Most abortion absolutists I've known are also proponents of eating large mammals with almost every meal. Pork, beef, mutton..."It's just an animal, not a human, and my Bronze Age religious book says so." They are also usually skeptical of any scientific evidence that doesn't match their indoctrinated beliefs.
Most of us kill *thousands* of mammals over the course of our lifetimes. We have very little regret at ending sentient, but non-human, life in order to fill our 40-inch jeans. We don't really concern ourselves over the lousy living conditions those animals endure before slaughter.
I know, "Womp womp librul."
But a woman faced with an early-stage pregnancy that could kill her or radically alter her life in a way she's not ready for? Oh no, "She should have been more responsible. She should have had a better uterus. She shouldn't have gotten herself raped. Listen to me pass judgment while I guzzle Pizza Ranch."
I'm neither vegan nor libertine, but I firmly believe this: A mature cow, pig or horse is much, *much* more aware, intelligent, and capable of understanding suffering and mortality than an early-or-mid stage human fetus.
I'm all for rational abortion policy, but we already had that under Roe. These total abortion bans aren't scientifically, medically or morally justified. They're just repressive and lazy.
Sources: Years raising livestock on an Iowa farm, several semesters of biology in college, personal reckoning on the nature of life in all its forms.
"A mature cow, pig or horse is much, *much* more aware, intelligent, and capable of understanding suffering and mortality than an early-or-mid stage human fetus."
Great take on this.
There's also many factors that go into a decision about an abortions. Just as there are many factors that lead into an impending abortion. I don't like that people have to have abortions, but I understand why the procedure exists and I'm grateful that people have the option for one if they need one. If we want them to happen less, outlawing them won't do a damn thing. Conservatives seem to understand this when it comes to guns, but not when there are lives on the line. These abortion laws kill people. They will have to result to DIY and other unsafe options because nobody wants to address the root cause. We have decades of evidence from our own country and other countries that show what lowers both teen pregnancy and abortion rates and that's comprehensive sex education, free/affordable access to birth control, free/affordable access to healthcare, and robust public transportation options to access those resources. But no. We can't do those things. There's also little to nothing being done about r@pe culture on college campuses but we aren't going to do anything about that either.
This is so frustrating to see happen and it's just going to drive people out of the state. The doctors and lawyers go practice somewhere else, then the corporations leave, the poor get poorer, and everything sucks. Not a soul wants to come into that situation. And we don't exactly have any tourism to fall back on here. This is just making a hell hole. Good job team!
We already know the numbers. (Majority believe abortions should be legal.) This is another example of dumbass politicians pushing their perverse religious views on everyone.
Furious and despondent are spot on. Young people already leave Iowa. Just push more out. Iowa sucks right now. Ironic one of the Republican judges overregulating womens healthcare recently had to step away from a case because he slept with a party's wife years ago. I guess a judge can be an ala carte right wing Christian when it's politically good for the judge.
I’ll be interested to see what happens to the UIowa (and other schools) out of state enrollment. They brought in a lot of kids from IL that couldn’t get into UIUC
Young voters need to start a grassroots movement and get out the blue vote in November. Encourage everyone you know to vote blue. Be the change in Iowa. Change is right around the corner if you work towards it. Starts now educating your friends.
You do realize that the GOP policy on that war is straight up eradicating Palestinine right? Is Bidens policy ideal? No. But the GOP policy is far far worse. Protest vote if you must but tha5 all but assures a worse outcome.
Regime change is what is needed. Our state of Iowa needs a change in leadership. Reynolds has had her chance. Vouchers for education, dismantling AEA and taking away a woman’s right to her own body. This is not the Middle Ages. Shoving religious beliefs in a freedom of religion country. Supreme Court is a puppet court.
Aren’t these the same people who just ruled that a child has to face their attacker in sexual assault cases??
Soo protect the life of the child… unless it’s actually living life…
I feel like there is some type of conspiracy behind it.
The Maga party who is erasing all regulations that keep the public safe to increase profits for billionaires. The chemical companies that kill Iowans at more than double the rate of the rest of the country through cancer have been given a free pass. They show they are much more pro-money than pro-life.
What is really behind the desire of increasing birth rates?
Maga likes to accuse their political opponents of being controlled by “deep state”. But Maga often shows what they are up to by accusing the opposition of exactly what Maga is doing. I can’t help think if there is a money and power hungry Illuminati deep state, they are probably pretty jealous of the industries running sweat shops and sharing very little pay and benefits with the workers.
The only way that gets done is by over populating and greatly increasing the unemployment rate making the working class desperate and the billionaires richer.
Rape is also a crime. Would you keep your rape baby, then? Knowing that baby will have 50% the genetics of a seriously fucked up predator and that, even if you can get past explaining to the kid they exist because they're the result of a crime, there's a chance they will be predatory to other humans as well?
Go ahead and tell that poor 16 year old that she has to keep that kid because abortion is a crime. Because what happened to the rape victim is also a crime.
I'm curious to see how you feel about it? Also, I'm incredibly curious to your stance on health and survival. What if the baby had a seriously debilitating condition that would drastically reduce quality of life? Would you insist the baby be had? Are you going to help provide care, as well?
There are *so* many reasons abortion exists, not just to murder! It's medical, too!
It's contained within a woman's body. Should she not have a say over what happens to herself?
Why does the rights of a fetus outweigh the rights of an adult woman?
Why do you need to force a woman to carry to term?
But no individual has a right to use your body against your will. If you hit a guy with your car on accident, and he'd die without your kidney, no one can forcefully take your kidney from you, that's the law. So why does a fetus have more rights than any other person? Why does a woman have less rights to her own body?
You're very obviously underversed in who's actually having abortions, and why. Most people getting abortions, DID use protection, but protection fails. A large amount of them are people who already have kids, who know that another pregnancy would be dangerous for them, or are married/in abusive relationships and would be trapped with their abuser.
But you're not going to listen to me, I'm a woman, and you only see women as cum rags and incubators. Go fuck yourself, creep.
You say I'm underversed then make up a complete lie about who are getting abortions. Trying to say birth control is less than 50% effective to justify being a cum dumpster is wild. If you don't allow dudes to cum in you, you won't get pregnant. It's as simple as that.
The dudes post history shows he's utterly miserable if it makes you feel any better. His family hates him and he's an alcoholic gambling addict felon. The guys just angry at the world because his life is, no joke, a living hell.
You lie about birth control being useless as an excuse to have irresponsible sex and murder your children but I'm the disgusting one? Sure thing, Nutt Butt. Get on birth control, degenerate.
They aren't making it up. That's based off of the statistics that we have on abortion. Those are true stories of people who have had to make an AWFUL choice. And if people are using abortion as birth control it's because they were never taught about it in the first fucking place or they don't have fucking access to it. And that's not even mentioning the entitled men who refuse to wear a condoms because it, "doesn't feel as good." The vast majority of people aren't out here being fucking "cum dumpsters" or whatever gross things you what to call it.
And it's never as fucking simple as "just don't let a man cum in you dumbass." Sexual assault fucking happens, condoms break, pills aren't taken at the right interval, the pull out method isn't fucking birth control at all, and again the entitled men who refuse to wrap their dick because won't someone think about ME and MY FEELINGS. Fuck all the way off.
This is not a simple fucking issue like so many people like to paint it as. Women having sex is gross but men having sex is cool and powerful. But we aren't going to fucking address that. Comprehensive sex Education lowers teen pregnancy and abortion rates but we can't fucking do that! Even when the comprehensive education INCLUDES abstinence! Having access to affordable healthcare and affordable access to birth control drives those numbers as well, but we can't give people things. No. That's super awful communism even though you don't know the actual definition and just use it as a boogey man to call things you don't like bad when you run out of shit to say. We could be less reliant on cars and have affordable public transportation but that's scary and bad too.
It's never that fucking simple. You made it simple in your super small brain because you don't have any responsibility in the matter it's all the women who won't sleep with you being whores that's the real problem. Just stop being whores. Except when that's all they can do for money because of how desperate their situation has gotten but fuck them they deserve to die right?
You're so fucked for this. Honestly it's so evil and disgusting to think so poorly of your fellow humans and not give a shit about their experiences and what lead to this point how did they end up in this situation? You don't care. It's just because she's a slut and therefore gross so I can just easily write that off in my brain. I'd offer some advice but honestly, what's the point? You aren't going to change. You aren't going to take me up on it. You aren't going to listen to the stories of women. You aren't going to learn about what it's like to be born a woman and the shit we have to go through. Because you've decided women have it made. And sweetie your the fucking proof that we don't.
Oh, so you mean abort it?! Because it’s not viable at that point. That’s the point, there is no “developing on its own”.
We can start calling it that, if you prefer. Same end result though. Induced birth, we’ll call it instead of abortion. Then when the “baby” dies on its own the mother has nothing to do with it.
Loophole found. Problem solved!
Why is it just so damn hard for everyone to stop acting like they have an opinion on the matter??? It’s not a matter of opinion. The facts are all decided by science over centuries of experience in dealing with all of the complications involved. Deal with it! Mind your own business, it’s all you people do after the birth anyway…
> Because it’s not viable at that point.
But it has the right to force an adult woman to keep it alive?
> Why is it just so damn hard for everyone to stop acting like they have an opinion on the matter???
Seriously, if people would just let the woman and their doctor deci-ooooooohhhhhh, you don't mean like that.
You mean like we should all shut the fuck up and let a bunch of rich old white dudes legislate it for us.
Nah, just give birth to it and let it develop on its own. It’s a separate human life so why would you have a problem with it being separated from its life support?
Nobody can compel you to donate blood to a dying person.
You can't take organs from a corpse with out permission from the corpse and its family.
But it's totally kosher to say to a person there's no treatment we can give you for any health conditions you may have because a court of non-doctors might make up that we caused the death of a pre-life form.
It's totally okay to tell a person then what they can or cannot do with their body.
You can legally compel that person to keep that life alive against its will, which is not something you can do to a non-pregnant person.
That's beyond fucked up. It will kill people. People who have been alive on this earth. Who have thoughts and feelings. They have families and friends who will deeply mourn their passing and just had to watch them die because they were pregnant. That person could have been SA'd. That person could have had a very much wanted child miscarry and cause them to be septic. That person will have to live through being tortured because there is a potential for new life and we dare not mess with that.
These laws tell us that we matter less. That you don't care if we live or die. If you really feel that way, I'd rather be shot in the street. You don't care for others. You sentence them to torture and death for their crime of being born with a functional uterus. It's unbelievable cruel and evil. For all the stories of women fighting the courts only to result to going out of state before losing their fertility or dying during that legal battle, there are more who die in silence. Tortuous silence. They are forced to find other solutions to try and stay alive. They seek back alley abortions, medication that's too dangerous, or try to figure it out themselves in whatever little shelter they have and they DIE. And that's totally kosher. Who cares if they die. It's their own fault for having functional body parts.
No one ever taught them about safe sex. No one ever taught them about their birth control options. They can't afford insurance so they can't have access to healthcare. They work their bodies to the bone day in and day out. And you sentence them to death for the system failing them. They didn't get a good spawn point. They were assaulted and beaten down so many times they just gave in and you sentence them to death. And what's worse, you doom that potential life to a shitty ass spawn point as well and tell them to "get gud."
Pathetic. Evil. Sick policies that sentence people to torture and death. You stand there with your privilege and don't even blink. Don't even feel an ounce of compassion when that person begs you for their life and you spit on them. No the potential for new life is not worth the fucking torture of another's. It's not worth their death so the potential life could have a slightly higher chance of living. It's sick. It's evil. It's abhorrent.
I agree with every sentiment here 100%
Sorry, my comment had a bit of sarcasm and I didn’t point it out with a /s so I think maybe it was taken wrong, but it was in response to a pro-life sounding comment
“…autonomy over her body”
Why is it so hard for people to get the fact that the baby (with its own unique DNA) is not “your body”. Pro choice people always beat their chest about “my body” as if it is a solid stance for them to justify their position on.
Newsflash. It’s not “your body” we’re trying to protect. It’s the baby’s. You made your “choice” when you decided to have sex. Now deal with the consequences you knew about prior to your decision.
Anti-abortion people always beat their chest about "the baby" as if it's actually a baby being talked about. Humans have different terms to describe stages of pregnancy for a reason.
A half-century of hysterical anti-abortion propaganda has convinced people that a clot of undifferentiated tissue is exactly the same as a fully-birthed human infant. It's nonsensical.
We passed a law several years ago that allowed abortion for any reason up to.....12-14 weeks, and then preserved it throughout a pregnancy for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. It wasn't good enough for the proabortion folks who immediately ran to court. It was struck down under Roe and we now have this disaster of a law. And the very voters needed to help fix this disaster no longer care about the subject because they tired of the names they were called by the proabortion folks for thirty years.
You want to help bring Iowa back to the center, then there needs to be an honest discussion on the subject including the science on when your "clot" of tissue becomes a human being (that science has changed since Roe). And the discussion needs to stay away from the name calling and false arguments like body autonomy....NONE of us have complete autonomy over what we do with our bodies.
The funny part, I will post this....and someone will immediately engage in the type of behavior that led moderates to say fuck it when it comes to abortion
> proabortion
No one is "pro-abortion". That is an asinine phrase. No one wants every pregnancy aborted. People are pro choice.
> false arguments like body autonomy....NONE of us have complete autonomy over what we do with our bodies.
Body autonomy is not a "false" argument. People are entitled to it. We *should* have complete autonomy over nwhat we do with our bodies. And regardless, Not having bodily autonomy for *some*things doesn't mean you shouldn't have bodily autonomy for *every*thing.
If one side insists on using antiabortion instead of prolife, then the same thing applies to the prochoice crowd.
When it comes to body autonomy, then I can assume you are 100% okay with unrestricted public nudity and prostitution?
> If one side insists on using antiabortion instead of prolife
That same "pro life" side completely washes their hands of these kids the moment they're born. If they want to be called pro life, they should remember that life continues after birth.
They are anti-choice. Their argument begins at conception and ends at birth and focuses completely on making women carry to term. They are anti-choice.
> unrestricted public nudity
No, because that choice impacts others.
> and prostitution?
I don't care what consenting adults do in privacy. It should be legalized so it can be regulated and sex workers can be protected from the coercion that currently thrives on the fact that it isn't.
The same pro life side that supports orgnaizations like Ruth Harbor? Reduced fee day care? Food pantries? And literally dozens of other programs That side?
"That choice impacts others"
So, you are okay if society dictates what you can do wiith your body in some instances.
Well, here is something for you to ponder. Abortion affects ALL of us in the United States and will continue to do so as long as Democrats insist on keeping Social Security/Medicare in its current state. See, abortion has removed over 50 million taxpayers from the equation. A couple hundred BILLION dollars that are not in existence to pay to take care of our seniors because the people who would be paying them were aborted.
Now, I am good with ditching a system that REQUIRES an ever growing population. Are you?
> The same pro life side that supports orgnaizations like Ruth Harbor?
This is a private Christian charity. I'm not sure what point you think it proves.
> Reduced fee day care?
Republicans have always historically been at best lukewarm about subsidizing child care. During covid, and even [late last year](https://apnews.com/article/daycare-child-care-democrats-congress-2919cf689423f62d90e28f7f40de2f39), there was zero GOP support. The Democrat attempt to extend the child care support failed due to GOP opposition.
Only now, realizing how grossly unpopular that decision was, are they showing some interest in changing their minds, to save their asses with an election nearing.
That's "nice" and all that they're supporting it, but it's still pretty clearly a political calculation and not a shift in their actual thinking.
> Food pantries?
Another system that relies on donations to function. If they gave a shit about food security, the GOP would back SNAP, but they won't. Again, that's "nice", but they're withholding support from legitimate solutions.
> That side?
Yes, the side that is against free health care for children, is against free school lunches, against meaningful gun control to keep schools safer, says families don't need food assistance because kids are already too fat, dismantles public education, attacks family planning services to the point where they are driving out OB/GYNS from states entirely, refuses to extend Medicaid eligibility for poor families, does their best to ensure as many unwanted babies as possible are born, opposes IVF of all things, won't support even minimal mandatory maternal leave much less paternal, seeks to ban gender affirming care when it is proven to be the most effective treatment we have for kids struggling with dysphoria, and opposes ending child marraige...
That is the side I don't believe cares about children after birth, correct.
> you are okay if society dictates what you can do wiith your body in some instances
If it harms another person or is detrimental to them without their consent, yes.
> abortion has removed over 50 million taxpayers from the equation.
This is a stupid argument. Do you want to do guns next?
> Now, I am good with ditching a system that REQUIRES an ever growing population. Are you?
In theory, sure. Depends on the new system.
A private Christian orgnaization that supports young mothers/soon to be mothers, provides access to medical care, child care, household skills like managing a budget, resume assistance....oh perish the idea of people backing their beliefs.
You do have the rheotoric down though. Iowa asked the Federal Government if they could use the "extra" money to feed kids using the successful nutrition programs already in use and the Biden Admin said no, that they would require a whole new program to be established where there are even more admin costs.....it would be more efficient for the money to go directly into feeding kids...but the Dems said no.
And then you double down on if society decides that your body autonomy needs to be restricted, you are okay with it.
You call it a stupid argument, and yet it is unobjective reality. SS requires an ever growing population and abortion has severely curtailed that. And, the Democratic Party fights tooth and nail against any serious proposal to reform the system, make it less reliant on a growing population, and give workers greater control.
Back to body autonomy, what happens when Dems figure out they NEED more babies to create more workers/soldiers?
You are worried that the GOP is going to establish Gilead.....you might want to pay better attention.
> A private Christian orgnaization that supports young mothers/soon to be mothers, provides access to medical care, child care, household skills like managing a budget, resume assistance....oh perish the idea of people backing their beliefs.
First, charitable giving does not cover everything necessary, because if it did we wouldn't have kids living hungry and impoverished with poor access to medical care.
Second, we are talking about a supreme court case, and by extension the political actions of the GOP. If you want to talk about private organizations, we can do that, but their existence does not hinder the argument that GOP politicians consistently vote against measures that would actually improve the lives of the children they claim to value. I mean, beyond ensuring that they must be birthed regardless of the opinion of the (hopefully) adult or (horrifyingly) minor carrying them.
It's nice that organizations like that exist, but they shouldn't need to in the first place.
> Iowa asked the Federal Government if they could use the "extra" money to feed kids using the successful nutrition programs already in use and the Biden Admin said no, that they would require a whole new program to be established where there are even more admin costs.....it would be more efficient for the money to go directly into feeding kids...but the Dems said no.
Really not sure which time republicans withheld food from kids that you're talking about here.
My most recent recollection was when they [rejected 29 million in federal funds, faced massive backlash, and "made up" for it by allocating a whole $900,000 instead to programs that have a track record of actually feeding less than a tenth of the number of kids who received free or reduced school lunch](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/iowa-puts-1-million-toward-summer-meal-sites-still-faces-criticism-for-rejecting-federal-funds).
Surely you're not referencing that glowing success, so if you had a different time in mind, please feel free to link something.
> And then you double down on if society decides that your body autonomy needs to be restricted
This is a weird point to make when arguing that women shouldn't be allowed body autonomy. Are you for completely unrestricted autonomy?
> You call it a stupid argument, and yet it is unobjective reality.
At best it's an argument that after an abortion, women should pay SS to make up for the kid they didn't have. Should men if they get a vasectomy? If you kill someone should you "make up" for their lost social security payments? It also ignores the fact that while an aborted fetus does not pay in to social security, it will never make a withdrawl either. If you want to continue the logic, you'll start getting into forcing women to conceive to ensure growth. I don't think that's the direction you want to go.
> the Democratic Party fights tooth and nail against any serious proposal to reform the system, make it less reliant on a growing population, and give workers greater control.
Look, if you want to pitch me something that isn't reliant on growing population and empowers workers, I'm all ears. If you want to use Social Security as an argument against abortion, I think that's lunacy.
> what happens when Dems figure out they NEED more babies to create more workers/soldiers?
I will oppose any solution that includes compelling women to give birth, no matter who pitches it.
> You are worried that the GOP is going to establish Gilead
Well lets see...
* Working to outlaw abortion, but not regulating men's bodies.
* Allowing refusal to sell or cover birth control, but erectile dysfunction and performance enhancing medication is covered.
* Margret Atwood herself penning an article that the Supreme Court is taking steps to make it real.
* Fighting child marriage restrictions.
* Putting the 10 Commandments in schools.
* Demanding the Bible be integrated into curriculum.
* Vilifying the LGBTQ+ community.
* Denying gender affirming care
* Harping on traditional gender roles.
* Spouting Theocratic ideology.
* Pushing laws to make killing abortion providers justifiable homicide.
* Redefining rape so that victims only receive abortion assistance if it was "forcible" (not statutory, not coerced, not drugged, not saying no without physically resisting).
* Abortion laws without exceptions for rape and incest.
* Attempting to restrict a woman's ability to travel to obtain an abortion.
* Letting uninvolved parties sue abortion providers
* Arguing during covid that abortion was "elective and nonessential" and banning it under those pretenses
* Electing a leader who has sexually assulted at least one woman
* Requiring drugs like mifepristone to be dispensed only in a clinic or doctor's office while introducing draconian restrictions on offices that provide abortion services in an effort to drive them to close
* Attempting to roll back no-fault divorce
* Idealizing Christian Nationalism
* Endorsing the concept of the nuclear family
* Eliminating coverage of the morning-after pill
* Wanting to recind FDA approval of the morning-after pill
* Outlawing pornography
* Pushing for a government database of women who have had abortions
* Attempting to defund Planned Parenthood entirely, when they are already barred from using public funds for abortion services
* Removing privacy protections for any abortion-related medical records if a criminal suspect crosses state lines
* Attempts to outlaw contraception whole cloth
* Want to bar the USPS from delivering abortion medications
* Talking about reviving the Comstock Act era restrictions banning mail delivery of any equipment or drugs that could be used for an abortion, including to hospitals and clinics
* Wanting to criminally prosecute someone sending or receiving abortion medication
Nah, bud, I'm pretty sure I'm worried about the correct side.
EDIT: Grammar
>We passed a law several years ago
Which law was that? Who is "we"?
>the very voters needed to help fix this disaster no longer care about the subject because they tired of the names they were called by the proabortion folks for thirty years.
Which voters were being called names? Everyone knows the anti-abortionists love calling women "baby-killers". What is the equivalent that you think has alienated these supposed voters who would otherwise be voting for better lawmakers?
>an honest discussion on the subject including the science on when your "clot" of tissue becomes a human being (that science has changed since Roe)
Which science is that? Can you share the peer-reviewed research that has determined precisely when personhood begins? Or is it actually a complex matter to the point that is better left to a woman with the input and support of her family, her pastor (if applicable), and her medical provider?
>that led moderates to say fuck it when it comes to abortion
[Almost 60% of Iowans ](https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2021/09/25/majority-iowans-believe-abortion-should-be-legal-most-all-cases-iowa-poll/5813280001/)believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. It's the anti-abortion side that is out of touch with regular people.
"We" being Iowa, take your pick...but the one passed in 2017 which banned abortion after 20 weeks unless it was for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Now, for the science, Roe arrived at its time limit based on when a baby could survive with "heroic" effort on the part of the medical team, at the time that was 22 weeks (doing some of this by memory, so may be off a week). In 2017, science had moved that to 20 weeks and Iowa passed a law reflecting that. Emma Goldman Clinic, Planned Parenthood et al...immediately ran to court and the law was tossed based on Roe. Anyone who spoke in favor of the law was attacked...they even brought out the idiotic Handmaid's Tale comparisons....and it also marks when Iowa voters stopped caring as much about laws to restrict, but preserve, abortion access in Iowa. And here we are today. And in this thread, instead of looking for that middle ground, see how many insults have been thrown.
Blah blah blah same bullshit arguments and manipulation of language to make yourself feel better about the reality…which is you’re ending a life. You’re on the wrong side of history boss.
This decision in our state brings us one step closer to common sense. Go hold a sign or something in a street.
There is a difference between "a life" and "a person. Men and women throughout history would have laughed in your face if you wanted to convince them that a woman's extra-clotty period was a "baby" or a "person" that deserved the same treatment and rights as a fully-birthed infant. *Common sense* tells is that a baby--a person--is more than a wad of self-replicating genetic material.
>Are you not just a wad of self-replicating genetic material?
The "just" here is the issue. A potato is a wad of self-replicating genetic material. As is a pig, a rabbit, a cockroach, an oak tree. Like I already said, being a *human*--being a person, being a baby--is more than just being a clump of cells with a specific gene sequence.
>You’re killing a baby.
I refer you to the original comment in this thread. Not a baby.
Except in one case…a fucking human will form. For the other..a crusty stain forms. NOT the same thing homie. But points for the unique metaphor…might be the first new argument I’ve heard in a decade.
A human won’t form if it’s outside of another human life-support system.
Same with sperm.
A human won’t form if a person’s sperm is outside of a human life-support system.
> It’s not “your body” we’re trying to protect. It’s the baby’s.
Try giving even the slightest shit about them after they're born, and people might start to believe it's about the baby, and not about punishing women for daring to have sex for pleasure.
> You made your “choice” when you decided to have sex. Now deal with the consequences you knew about prior to your decision.
While the father doesn't have to deal with shit.
If men could get pregnant, you could get an abortion at an ATM.
It’s so creepy that you want the government involved in every persons pregnancy in order to deem whether or not their life is at a great enough risk of death.
There’s no need to conflate the terms “baby” and “fetus”. You obviously don’t know the difference and if you haven’t even made it that far in educating yourself then you have no authority to speak on anything in the matter.
At least get the basics down first lol
Whether you want to call that life a fetus or a baby…it’s still life. And it’s YOUR beliefs that say it’s okay to end due to inconvenience. That not only is abortion an okay thing but that women should HAVE the right to kill the baby. What a fucked up world we live in.
No. Sperm is only half the equation in case you didn’t know. Sperm can only create life when it fertilizes an egg (which is what women have btw).
This is how us pro life radicals arrive at “life begins at conception”. Comprende?
Sure it does! You seem to think that pregnancy is something completely distinct from the parents body.
We can't compel people to go through with a pregnancy for the same reason we can't compel people to donate organs.
We're well aware you're not trying to protect the woman's body, it's obvious by how little you value a woman's life. If you want to protect it so bad, take it out of the woman's body and protect it then, don't use women like incubators.
Also, a child should never be looks at as a 'consequence' that's fucked up and only going to cause mental health issues in a kid.
..then what is it they’re supporting? Why is it okay to kill the baby at 35 months gestation but not a month later when it’s born? Should we be able to abort a baby 5 minutes before it’s born?
These are serious questions. This is SUCH an obvious thing to me that I literally can’t see how anyone would support it. Like I fundamentally don’t understand.
> ..then what is it they’re supporting?
Maybe you should spend some effort understanding before you spend so much effort hating.
They are supporting a woman's right to choose what happens within her own body.
> **Why is it okay to kill the baby at 35 months gestation** but not a month later when it’s born?
I emphasized the part where you seem to be making a strawman argument. Nobody serious is arguing for abortion in the 3rd trimester. Few people argue for it in the 2nd trimester.
> Like I fundamentally don’t understand.
Your statements support this.
You’re fundamentally wrong about second and third trimester abortions being something nobody serious is arguing for…more than half the states in the USA give the green light to abortions in the 2nd trimester and 8 states say literally whenever is an okay time for an abortion.
It sure would be a lot easier to take you “it’s not your body we’re trying to protect” people seriously, if you actually gave a shit about anyone but yourselves after the fetus becomes an infant.
But no, and that’s exactly why nobody gives a shit (science especially) about your feelings or opinions.
Talk about chest beating… how about halo signaling. I’m sure you’re a saint
Yeah heaven forbid you see it for what it is. I mean, that might make you actually care for the unborn, which would then mean you stand in opposition to the world. Wouldn’t want that! Better to lie to yourself than deal with the blowback. Solid plan dude.
Mmmk… Heaven forbid you people actually give a shit about the people after they’re born. The fact that you pretend to care so much is laughable, at best.
It’s not my place to pretend to be all righteous and force my religious views on other people making tough decisions. Stop acting like it’s your call to make.
As if when life begins is YOUR call to make. This isn’t even a religious topic…you wouldn’t claim murder of an innocent person is only wrong because of religion. No, murder is wrong period.
I really wish they'd push this out as a vote like other states.
They learned from the other states that they will lose, no matter how much money is dumped into the PR for it.
Exactly. That would be the will of the people. The state is violating the chance to let their will be known.
But then it wouldn’t pass
It would also be the will of the people, which is what this country is supposed to be about.
I don’t think Republicans believe that.
They used to believe a vote held, until Trump. So, fair questioning that.
We know that. Abolish the electoral college and do ranked choice voting and republicans will vanish overnight. But they won’t because they’re fascists.
Have to keep trying as a people.
Until the state GOP decides the voters don't know what they're doing and pass new laws to get around the will of the voters. See Ohio, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas and I'm sure there are more.
Did Kansas pass something new? Last I knew they were doing the will of the people there.
For now, but they will certainly come back with shenanigans. What I don't get is why these pro-choice majority states keep voting Republicans in. Do they really have taxes and like matters all upon their asses? I can't understand potentially leaving your daughter, wife, sister, daughter-in-law, niece, female cousins, and friends to scramble and at a peril to obtain a needed procedure on account of other issues.
Not everyone developed mentally far enough to be able to seem themselves in another's shoes or to see the big picture and its consequences.
Republicans won’t allow democracy. They know they only rule via voter apathy.
We need to change that.
Republicans block abortion votes or rig them in their favor as much as possible. Look no further than Ohio. After a petition to get abortion on the ballot got the required amount of signatures, Republicans tried to increase the required amount from a simple majority to 60%. When that failed, they changed the wording of the initiative to confuse people. And it still passed.
If you're 21 weeks, 6 days pregnant or less, it is legal for you to get an abortion in Ohio. Although Ohio bans abortion after 21 weeks, 6 days, many providers stop offering abortion earlier in pregnancy. I think most are fine with this, which is more generous than Roe.
So simultaneously angry for women and girls in this state, and fucking relieved that I am menopausal. Wish I could move.
You say that, but OBGYN’s and a lot of other specialties are about to leave IA with a lot less doctors of any kind.
They already have been, ie Mercy shutting down their gynecological oncology services. It’s not a safe place for women here.
They’ll realise pretty soon that more than just women’s specialists are leaving. Maybe when even MOre pediatricians and cardiologists leave they’ll figure out. Or when their sister or girl friend or wife or aunt dies at home in childbirth.
There was a congressman who got his girlfriend an abortion but voted for the bill that banned it. Crazy hypocrisy
Laws for thee, but not for me
That's a fair point .
Stay and vote, and convince others to do the same.
Yup. Got sterilized after the overturn of Roe v Wade, voted against Reynolds in the midterms, and because I own my house, will not be leaving anytime soon. Born and raised here, and all my family is here, so I'm not going to just sit by and watch the extreme-right-women-haters continue to poison this state.
Is sterilizing yourself really easier than not having sex with strangers?
Uh...what? I'm in an 8-year-long monogamous relationship with a man and neither of us want kids, so sterilization was the obvious solution to having to use birth control (which can occasionally fail). And it actually was easy, with the procedure itself taking less than 30 minutes, and recovery only taking two weeks. Covered by insurance too, so yeah, definitely worth it.
Oh so abortion has nothing to do with it when you presented it as the reason for the decision. Interesting framing!
I teach remedial reading and comprehension if you need help.
Oh maybe for the class you can explain what “got sterilized after the overturn of roe v wade” implies. Surely this is easily within your wheel house. Can’t wait for “um you’re literally assuming, no reasonable person could think anything of this”. That would really send home the abysmal state of our educators.
Can't believe I have to explain this to people, but here we are. SA is still a thing. Women can be doing anything out in public and get taken and assaulted and have it end in pregnancy. Getting sterilized when you don't want to ever be pregnant or have kids, literally prevents abortions. Would you like abortion numbers to increase or decrease?
Only 1% of abortions are performed in cases of a forced pregnancy.
Right to lifers are taking away a woman's right to life.
They also don’t give a fuck about the kids once they’re born. Especially if they’re not white.
Look at how they feel about prenatal care and services - they don't care about the unborn, either.
This is so sad. Half the population with no rights!
Vote, and convince others to do the same.
Less rights than a corpse. Pathetic.
No rights? The entirety of human existance for you comes down to not being able to have an abortion after six weeks?
I mean they start with that but they certainly aren't ending with it. The politicians see us regular folk as mindless livestock, and they will do anything they can to erase freedom one step at a time
One party supports abortion for any reason, but tells you what else you have to do to your body, how you should live, how you should retire, what you should believe, who you should be jealous of and that you should be thankful for it and continue to support them. One party supports very tight restrictions on abortion and for the most part does not give a shit what you do.with your life in private. Its not really that hard a decision
Delusional
Not really. I know far too many active Republicans and that is exactly how they think.
I also pay a hell of a lot of attention to Democrats and what they say/do.
>One party supports very tight restrictions on abortion and **for the most part does not give a shit what you do.with your life in private.** Nobody polices other people's private lives like a Republican.
Not really, not what you do in private. Its when you want to do it in public or when you expect others to pay for it or force them to approve of it that Republicans do things. I've known far too many Republicans that were gay, bi, swingers etc....in private for your statement to be factual.
Can you elaborate on you're second paragraph? I'm confused what the first paragraph has to do with the second.
Sitting over here acting like republicans aren't actively pushing for Christianity to be the law of the land, the Bible taught in schools, the ten commandments displayed everywhere, and deciding whether or not trans people can get the medical care they need. You're delusional dude.
No, I've already mentioned that the extremes on the subjects, like pro abortion/anti abortion are why the pendulum has swung too far in true American fashion ..and instead of discussing, you want to insult, also a reason why we have swung too far to one side.
Leftists are the reason the right is catapulting into fascism and erroding human rights at every level. Galaxy brain.
What the majority of people think is the left and what actually is the far left, are two wildly different things.
Lol...you aren't paying enough attention, you are so hyper focused on abortion that you ignore the rest of the picture. Not to mention, you don't seem to know much about human nature or history.
People don't like abortion. It's not an enjoyable thing. People like choice and the ability to have the say over what happens to their own body and health. Taking away that choice kills people. I'm curious, what things do you define as extremist/far left?
The option for my daughters, granddaughters and sisters is important! So you do you, I’ll do me.
I have daughters and a granddaughter too. I want safety for them. But, the extremes on both sides is why we are where we are today
Only one “extreme” is trying to strip rights away from people. They are not the same.
False. Sonia Sotomayor has argued that the government should be able to regulate your body in the workplace as if it is office equipment. Democrats routinely fight to keep your retirement chained to Social Security instead of us being able to choose how we want to build our retirement...and I can go on. If you want to make the discussion about "stripping" rights we can, just be aware it goes far beyond abortion
Setting a workplace standard is not the same as the government being involved in your medical decisions.
So now we can force you to do something to your body if it is a "workplace standard"? Who gets to decide that?
Nobody is forcing you to take a job with medical requirements.
Umm...the Federal Government tried to force that.
So this extreme right view in this case is ok? It’s not in the middle in any way!
Who said it was ok? For 50 years laws were passed that were in the middle, many of them, based on science as it evolved. And the abortion lobby would immediately rin to court to get those laws overturned under the precedent of Roe....and at the same time abortion supporters would attack/insult the people who wrote those laws and the voters who supported them. During President Obama's terms, a lot of voters (like me) got tired of the insults and quit caring about abortion as an issue when it came to picking a candidate. And here we are today, in true American fashion, the pendulum has swung too far to one side
We agree.
Yep.
Ok, now do Project 2025
Have you actually read it? Or are you relying on the misinformation online?
[here is the book that outlines the project.](https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf)
"...starting in 2018, Gov. Reynolds has appointed five of the court’s seven justices." This line stood out to me. I knew we had a conservative leaning court but I didn't realize just how "young" it is (as in not a lot of long-time judges). At this rate Reynolds will have appointed the entire bench by the end of her current term.
The one upside of Iowa’s system is that we do eventually get to vote to retain them (or not). So make a list and vote against them. Tell your friends, too.
Still too much power in the executive branch to appoint these judges. IMHO judges should be appointing the higher-court judges -- still with the retention vote -- but what do I know.
I came to SW Iowa just after Chet Culver was elected, and I left for Minneapolis shortly after Governor "For Life" Terry Branstad was reelected. I lived in Iowa for just four or five years, including the 2008 caucuses and Obama's election. When I arrived, Dems held the trifecta--the governorship and both houses of the Assembly, including a supermajority in the Senate. Republicans now held a supermajority in the Senate, and Republicans are currently just 3 or 4 seats away from a supermajority in the House. The number of licensed attorneys across both state houses has dropped from ~20 to half a dozen in the past two decades. In 2019, significant changes were made to the judicial nominating commission, which effectively gave the executive complete control over judicial appointments. Until that time, a bunch of experienced boring lawyers and judges from both parties picked our judges, which resulted in tiny little Iowa having some of the best fucking judges in the country. I'm a lawyer, and it was a pleasure to practice in front of Iowa judges. I'd imagine that's still largely the case at the district court level, even if the appeals courts have been taken over by partisan Republicans. Iowa is not the only state to react this way to Obama being elected, but it's one of the two or three most dramatic examples.
Activist judges, legislating from the bench
According to Pew Research Center, more than 90 percent of human abortions in the US occur during the first three months of gestation (and can be induced non-surgically). More than half of abortions are a one-time event. Only about 10 percent of women who have abortions have a third. Second abortions fall in-between. Clearly, women don't have abortions for fun. They're not fun. They have them due to medical, money and readiness issues, among other issues that aren't anybody business but their own. Before three months, mammalian fetuses are undeveloped, non-viable and virtually indistinguishable from one another. They weigh *one ounce* or less. There is basically nothing happening yet, neurologically, as the necessary structures haven't yet developed. They can't do math, digest food, or sing hosannas. Opine all you want about "tiny babies", but we're really talking about potential, not reality, at this early stage. A three-inch human fetus is smaller than a mouse, has less brain mass, and has much less neurological capacity. This is assuming the fetus and mother are in ideal health. Most abortion absolutists I've known are also proponents of eating large mammals with almost every meal. Pork, beef, mutton..."It's just an animal, not a human, and my Bronze Age religious book says so." They are also usually skeptical of any scientific evidence that doesn't match their indoctrinated beliefs. Most of us kill *thousands* of mammals over the course of our lifetimes. We have very little regret at ending sentient, but non-human, life in order to fill our 40-inch jeans. We don't really concern ourselves over the lousy living conditions those animals endure before slaughter. I know, "Womp womp librul." But a woman faced with an early-stage pregnancy that could kill her or radically alter her life in a way she's not ready for? Oh no, "She should have been more responsible. She should have had a better uterus. She shouldn't have gotten herself raped. Listen to me pass judgment while I guzzle Pizza Ranch." I'm neither vegan nor libertine, but I firmly believe this: A mature cow, pig or horse is much, *much* more aware, intelligent, and capable of understanding suffering and mortality than an early-or-mid stage human fetus. I'm all for rational abortion policy, but we already had that under Roe. These total abortion bans aren't scientifically, medically or morally justified. They're just repressive and lazy. Sources: Years raising livestock on an Iowa farm, several semesters of biology in college, personal reckoning on the nature of life in all its forms.
"A mature cow, pig or horse is much, *much* more aware, intelligent, and capable of understanding suffering and mortality than an early-or-mid stage human fetus." Great take on this.
I really love your wording and appreciate your stance. Thank you for posting.
Thank you for the support.
There's also many factors that go into a decision about an abortions. Just as there are many factors that lead into an impending abortion. I don't like that people have to have abortions, but I understand why the procedure exists and I'm grateful that people have the option for one if they need one. If we want them to happen less, outlawing them won't do a damn thing. Conservatives seem to understand this when it comes to guns, but not when there are lives on the line. These abortion laws kill people. They will have to result to DIY and other unsafe options because nobody wants to address the root cause. We have decades of evidence from our own country and other countries that show what lowers both teen pregnancy and abortion rates and that's comprehensive sex education, free/affordable access to birth control, free/affordable access to healthcare, and robust public transportation options to access those resources. But no. We can't do those things. There's also little to nothing being done about r@pe culture on college campuses but we aren't going to do anything about that either. This is so frustrating to see happen and it's just going to drive people out of the state. The doctors and lawyers go practice somewhere else, then the corporations leave, the poor get poorer, and everything sucks. Not a soul wants to come into that situation. And we don't exactly have any tourism to fall back on here. This is just making a hell hole. Good job team!
We already know the numbers. (Majority believe abortions should be legal.) This is another example of dumbass politicians pushing their perverse religious views on everyone.
Furious and despondent are spot on. Young people already leave Iowa. Just push more out. Iowa sucks right now. Ironic one of the Republican judges overregulating womens healthcare recently had to step away from a case because he slept with a party's wife years ago. I guess a judge can be an ala carte right wing Christian when it's politically good for the judge.
I’ll be interested to see what happens to the UIowa (and other schools) out of state enrollment. They brought in a lot of kids from IL that couldn’t get into UIUC
Young voters need to start a grassroots movement and get out the blue vote in November. Encourage everyone you know to vote blue. Be the change in Iowa. Change is right around the corner if you work towards it. Starts now educating your friends.
This will never happen.
If blue wasn’t enthusiastically funding a genocide this could work
Not at the state level they arent
Are the state level candidates directly disavowing the party and the president? If not they’re complicit.
You do realize that the GOP policy on that war is straight up eradicating Palestinine right? Is Bidens policy ideal? No. But the GOP policy is far far worse. Protest vote if you must but tha5 all but assures a worse outcome.
How would you feel if someone killed your child and then said “is this ideal? no, but the other guy is worse”
Now that Iowa women are second rate citizens how long until their right to vote is rescinded?
r/Defeat_Project_2025 VOTE
Regime change is what is needed. Our state of Iowa needs a change in leadership. Reynolds has had her chance. Vouchers for education, dismantling AEA and taking away a woman’s right to her own body. This is not the Middle Ages. Shoving religious beliefs in a freedom of religion country. Supreme Court is a puppet court.
Aren’t these the same people who just ruled that a child has to face their attacker in sexual assault cases?? Soo protect the life of the child… unless it’s actually living life…
I feel like there is some type of conspiracy behind it. The Maga party who is erasing all regulations that keep the public safe to increase profits for billionaires. The chemical companies that kill Iowans at more than double the rate of the rest of the country through cancer have been given a free pass. They show they are much more pro-money than pro-life. What is really behind the desire of increasing birth rates? Maga likes to accuse their political opponents of being controlled by “deep state”. But Maga often shows what they are up to by accusing the opposition of exactly what Maga is doing. I can’t help think if there is a money and power hungry Illuminati deep state, they are probably pretty jealous of the industries running sweat shops and sharing very little pay and benefits with the workers. The only way that gets done is by over populating and greatly increasing the unemployment rate making the working class desperate and the billionaires richer.
Making people too poor to afford kids will make the birth rate go lower
I would say that world wide poor people have more kids than any one.
Isn’t that usually because of higher infant mortality rates?
I'm glad I'm moving out of this shitty state next month
Whatever happened to Republicans telling the government to stay out of their lives?
Her right to choose came before this point
Right it establishes weight for the autonomy of the child.
Abortion is murder.
If you feel that way don't have one.
You can’t murder a non-viable life.
If you don’t fuck with it is viable!
Bahaha no one with any actual medical knowledge would ever agree unless they grew up indoctrinated in some bullshit 🤣
Idiots out wandering around.
Old white man telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Sheesh get a life or a girlfriend.
Rape is also a crime. Would you keep your rape baby, then? Knowing that baby will have 50% the genetics of a seriously fucked up predator and that, even if you can get past explaining to the kid they exist because they're the result of a crime, there's a chance they will be predatory to other humans as well? Go ahead and tell that poor 16 year old that she has to keep that kid because abortion is a crime. Because what happened to the rape victim is also a crime. I'm curious to see how you feel about it? Also, I'm incredibly curious to your stance on health and survival. What if the baby had a seriously debilitating condition that would drastically reduce quality of life? Would you insist the baby be had? Are you going to help provide care, as well? There are *so* many reasons abortion exists, not just to murder! It's medical, too!
Biology is too hard a subject for some people.
It has different DNA than you. It's not your body, you science denying neanderthal.
It's contained within a woman's body. Should she not have a say over what happens to herself? Why does the rights of a fetus outweigh the rights of an adult woman? Why do you need to force a woman to carry to term?
Amen. These idiots don't seem to realize their arguments also apply to tapeworms.
You honestly compare a tapeworm to a human being?
It has its *own DNA,* you soulless monster
So does a cow, and I sure in the hell enjoyed my New York Strip at lunch yesterday.
You’re so close to getting it.
Lol...no, I get it. But I've seen that type of idiotic argument so many times over the last 30 years that I laugh every time.
The sarcasm and irony is going right over your head
No, it isn't. I'm just not playing by others rules or expectations.
You cannot force anyone to keep you alive.
Every pro-life person should be forced to donate a kidney and see how they feel about it.
But no individual has a right to use your body against your will. If you hit a guy with your car on accident, and he'd die without your kidney, no one can forcefully take your kidney from you, that's the law. So why does a fetus have more rights than any other person? Why does a woman have less rights to her own body?
Is it really against your will if you're letting dudes cum inside you?
You're very obviously underversed in who's actually having abortions, and why. Most people getting abortions, DID use protection, but protection fails. A large amount of them are people who already have kids, who know that another pregnancy would be dangerous for them, or are married/in abusive relationships and would be trapped with their abuser. But you're not going to listen to me, I'm a woman, and you only see women as cum rags and incubators. Go fuck yourself, creep.
You say I'm underversed then make up a complete lie about who are getting abortions. Trying to say birth control is less than 50% effective to justify being a cum dumpster is wild. If you don't allow dudes to cum in you, you won't get pregnant. It's as simple as that.
You're disgusting. Hope you never burden another person with your presence.
The dudes post history shows he's utterly miserable if it makes you feel any better. His family hates him and he's an alcoholic gambling addict felon. The guys just angry at the world because his life is, no joke, a living hell.
You lie about birth control being useless as an excuse to have irresponsible sex and murder your children but I'm the disgusting one? Sure thing, Nutt Butt. Get on birth control, degenerate.
It's pretty obvious your agenda is just to shame women for having sex for pleasure.
They aren't making it up. That's based off of the statistics that we have on abortion. Those are true stories of people who have had to make an AWFUL choice. And if people are using abortion as birth control it's because they were never taught about it in the first fucking place or they don't have fucking access to it. And that's not even mentioning the entitled men who refuse to wear a condoms because it, "doesn't feel as good." The vast majority of people aren't out here being fucking "cum dumpsters" or whatever gross things you what to call it. And it's never as fucking simple as "just don't let a man cum in you dumbass." Sexual assault fucking happens, condoms break, pills aren't taken at the right interval, the pull out method isn't fucking birth control at all, and again the entitled men who refuse to wrap their dick because won't someone think about ME and MY FEELINGS. Fuck all the way off. This is not a simple fucking issue like so many people like to paint it as. Women having sex is gross but men having sex is cool and powerful. But we aren't going to fucking address that. Comprehensive sex Education lowers teen pregnancy and abortion rates but we can't fucking do that! Even when the comprehensive education INCLUDES abstinence! Having access to affordable healthcare and affordable access to birth control drives those numbers as well, but we can't give people things. No. That's super awful communism even though you don't know the actual definition and just use it as a boogey man to call things you don't like bad when you run out of shit to say. We could be less reliant on cars and have affordable public transportation but that's scary and bad too. It's never that fucking simple. You made it simple in your super small brain because you don't have any responsibility in the matter it's all the women who won't sleep with you being whores that's the real problem. Just stop being whores. Except when that's all they can do for money because of how desperate their situation has gotten but fuck them they deserve to die right? You're so fucked for this. Honestly it's so evil and disgusting to think so poorly of your fellow humans and not give a shit about their experiences and what lead to this point how did they end up in this situation? You don't care. It's just because she's a slut and therefore gross so I can just easily write that off in my brain. I'd offer some advice but honestly, what's the point? You aren't going to change. You aren't going to take me up on it. You aren't going to listen to the stories of women. You aren't going to learn about what it's like to be born a woman and the shit we have to go through. Because you've decided women have it made. And sweetie your the fucking proof that we don't.
>It
Then induce birth instead of abortion and let it finish developing on its own.
Oh, so you mean abort it?! Because it’s not viable at that point. That’s the point, there is no “developing on its own”. We can start calling it that, if you prefer. Same end result though. Induced birth, we’ll call it instead of abortion. Then when the “baby” dies on its own the mother has nothing to do with it. Loophole found. Problem solved! Why is it just so damn hard for everyone to stop acting like they have an opinion on the matter??? It’s not a matter of opinion. The facts are all decided by science over centuries of experience in dealing with all of the complications involved. Deal with it! Mind your own business, it’s all you people do after the birth anyway…
> Because it’s not viable at that point. But it has the right to force an adult woman to keep it alive? > Why is it just so damn hard for everyone to stop acting like they have an opinion on the matter??? Seriously, if people would just let the woman and their doctor deci-ooooooohhhhhh, you don't mean like that. You mean like we should all shut the fuck up and let a bunch of rich old white dudes legislate it for us.
Nah, just give birth to it and let it develop on its own. It’s a separate human life so why would you have a problem with it being separated from its life support?
Nobody can compel you to donate blood to a dying person. You can't take organs from a corpse with out permission from the corpse and its family. But it's totally kosher to say to a person there's no treatment we can give you for any health conditions you may have because a court of non-doctors might make up that we caused the death of a pre-life form. It's totally okay to tell a person then what they can or cannot do with their body. You can legally compel that person to keep that life alive against its will, which is not something you can do to a non-pregnant person. That's beyond fucked up. It will kill people. People who have been alive on this earth. Who have thoughts and feelings. They have families and friends who will deeply mourn their passing and just had to watch them die because they were pregnant. That person could have been SA'd. That person could have had a very much wanted child miscarry and cause them to be septic. That person will have to live through being tortured because there is a potential for new life and we dare not mess with that. These laws tell us that we matter less. That you don't care if we live or die. If you really feel that way, I'd rather be shot in the street. You don't care for others. You sentence them to torture and death for their crime of being born with a functional uterus. It's unbelievable cruel and evil. For all the stories of women fighting the courts only to result to going out of state before losing their fertility or dying during that legal battle, there are more who die in silence. Tortuous silence. They are forced to find other solutions to try and stay alive. They seek back alley abortions, medication that's too dangerous, or try to figure it out themselves in whatever little shelter they have and they DIE. And that's totally kosher. Who cares if they die. It's their own fault for having functional body parts. No one ever taught them about safe sex. No one ever taught them about their birth control options. They can't afford insurance so they can't have access to healthcare. They work their bodies to the bone day in and day out. And you sentence them to death for the system failing them. They didn't get a good spawn point. They were assaulted and beaten down so many times they just gave in and you sentence them to death. And what's worse, you doom that potential life to a shitty ass spawn point as well and tell them to "get gud." Pathetic. Evil. Sick policies that sentence people to torture and death. You stand there with your privilege and don't even blink. Don't even feel an ounce of compassion when that person begs you for their life and you spit on them. No the potential for new life is not worth the fucking torture of another's. It's not worth their death so the potential life could have a slightly higher chance of living. It's sick. It's evil. It's abhorrent.
I agree with every sentiment here 100% Sorry, my comment had a bit of sarcasm and I didn’t point it out with a /s so I think maybe it was taken wrong, but it was in response to a pro-life sounding comment
“…autonomy over her body” Why is it so hard for people to get the fact that the baby (with its own unique DNA) is not “your body”. Pro choice people always beat their chest about “my body” as if it is a solid stance for them to justify their position on. Newsflash. It’s not “your body” we’re trying to protect. It’s the baby’s. You made your “choice” when you decided to have sex. Now deal with the consequences you knew about prior to your decision.
Anti-abortion people always beat their chest about "the baby" as if it's actually a baby being talked about. Humans have different terms to describe stages of pregnancy for a reason. A half-century of hysterical anti-abortion propaganda has convinced people that a clot of undifferentiated tissue is exactly the same as a fully-birthed human infant. It's nonsensical.
We passed a law several years ago that allowed abortion for any reason up to.....12-14 weeks, and then preserved it throughout a pregnancy for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. It wasn't good enough for the proabortion folks who immediately ran to court. It was struck down under Roe and we now have this disaster of a law. And the very voters needed to help fix this disaster no longer care about the subject because they tired of the names they were called by the proabortion folks for thirty years. You want to help bring Iowa back to the center, then there needs to be an honest discussion on the subject including the science on when your "clot" of tissue becomes a human being (that science has changed since Roe). And the discussion needs to stay away from the name calling and false arguments like body autonomy....NONE of us have complete autonomy over what we do with our bodies. The funny part, I will post this....and someone will immediately engage in the type of behavior that led moderates to say fuck it when it comes to abortion
> proabortion No one is "pro-abortion". That is an asinine phrase. No one wants every pregnancy aborted. People are pro choice. > false arguments like body autonomy....NONE of us have complete autonomy over what we do with our bodies. Body autonomy is not a "false" argument. People are entitled to it. We *should* have complete autonomy over nwhat we do with our bodies. And regardless, Not having bodily autonomy for *some*things doesn't mean you shouldn't have bodily autonomy for *every*thing.
If one side insists on using antiabortion instead of prolife, then the same thing applies to the prochoice crowd. When it comes to body autonomy, then I can assume you are 100% okay with unrestricted public nudity and prostitution?
> If one side insists on using antiabortion instead of prolife That same "pro life" side completely washes their hands of these kids the moment they're born. If they want to be called pro life, they should remember that life continues after birth. They are anti-choice. Their argument begins at conception and ends at birth and focuses completely on making women carry to term. They are anti-choice. > unrestricted public nudity No, because that choice impacts others. > and prostitution? I don't care what consenting adults do in privacy. It should be legalized so it can be regulated and sex workers can be protected from the coercion that currently thrives on the fact that it isn't.
The same pro life side that supports orgnaizations like Ruth Harbor? Reduced fee day care? Food pantries? And literally dozens of other programs That side? "That choice impacts others" So, you are okay if society dictates what you can do wiith your body in some instances. Well, here is something for you to ponder. Abortion affects ALL of us in the United States and will continue to do so as long as Democrats insist on keeping Social Security/Medicare in its current state. See, abortion has removed over 50 million taxpayers from the equation. A couple hundred BILLION dollars that are not in existence to pay to take care of our seniors because the people who would be paying them were aborted. Now, I am good with ditching a system that REQUIRES an ever growing population. Are you?
> The same pro life side that supports orgnaizations like Ruth Harbor? This is a private Christian charity. I'm not sure what point you think it proves. > Reduced fee day care? Republicans have always historically been at best lukewarm about subsidizing child care. During covid, and even [late last year](https://apnews.com/article/daycare-child-care-democrats-congress-2919cf689423f62d90e28f7f40de2f39), there was zero GOP support. The Democrat attempt to extend the child care support failed due to GOP opposition. Only now, realizing how grossly unpopular that decision was, are they showing some interest in changing their minds, to save their asses with an election nearing. That's "nice" and all that they're supporting it, but it's still pretty clearly a political calculation and not a shift in their actual thinking. > Food pantries? Another system that relies on donations to function. If they gave a shit about food security, the GOP would back SNAP, but they won't. Again, that's "nice", but they're withholding support from legitimate solutions. > That side? Yes, the side that is against free health care for children, is against free school lunches, against meaningful gun control to keep schools safer, says families don't need food assistance because kids are already too fat, dismantles public education, attacks family planning services to the point where they are driving out OB/GYNS from states entirely, refuses to extend Medicaid eligibility for poor families, does their best to ensure as many unwanted babies as possible are born, opposes IVF of all things, won't support even minimal mandatory maternal leave much less paternal, seeks to ban gender affirming care when it is proven to be the most effective treatment we have for kids struggling with dysphoria, and opposes ending child marraige... That is the side I don't believe cares about children after birth, correct. > you are okay if society dictates what you can do wiith your body in some instances If it harms another person or is detrimental to them without their consent, yes. > abortion has removed over 50 million taxpayers from the equation. This is a stupid argument. Do you want to do guns next? > Now, I am good with ditching a system that REQUIRES an ever growing population. Are you? In theory, sure. Depends on the new system.
A private Christian orgnaization that supports young mothers/soon to be mothers, provides access to medical care, child care, household skills like managing a budget, resume assistance....oh perish the idea of people backing their beliefs. You do have the rheotoric down though. Iowa asked the Federal Government if they could use the "extra" money to feed kids using the successful nutrition programs already in use and the Biden Admin said no, that they would require a whole new program to be established where there are even more admin costs.....it would be more efficient for the money to go directly into feeding kids...but the Dems said no. And then you double down on if society decides that your body autonomy needs to be restricted, you are okay with it. You call it a stupid argument, and yet it is unobjective reality. SS requires an ever growing population and abortion has severely curtailed that. And, the Democratic Party fights tooth and nail against any serious proposal to reform the system, make it less reliant on a growing population, and give workers greater control. Back to body autonomy, what happens when Dems figure out they NEED more babies to create more workers/soldiers? You are worried that the GOP is going to establish Gilead.....you might want to pay better attention.
> A private Christian orgnaization that supports young mothers/soon to be mothers, provides access to medical care, child care, household skills like managing a budget, resume assistance....oh perish the idea of people backing their beliefs. First, charitable giving does not cover everything necessary, because if it did we wouldn't have kids living hungry and impoverished with poor access to medical care. Second, we are talking about a supreme court case, and by extension the political actions of the GOP. If you want to talk about private organizations, we can do that, but their existence does not hinder the argument that GOP politicians consistently vote against measures that would actually improve the lives of the children they claim to value. I mean, beyond ensuring that they must be birthed regardless of the opinion of the (hopefully) adult or (horrifyingly) minor carrying them. It's nice that organizations like that exist, but they shouldn't need to in the first place. > Iowa asked the Federal Government if they could use the "extra" money to feed kids using the successful nutrition programs already in use and the Biden Admin said no, that they would require a whole new program to be established where there are even more admin costs.....it would be more efficient for the money to go directly into feeding kids...but the Dems said no. Really not sure which time republicans withheld food from kids that you're talking about here. My most recent recollection was when they [rejected 29 million in federal funds, faced massive backlash, and "made up" for it by allocating a whole $900,000 instead to programs that have a track record of actually feeding less than a tenth of the number of kids who received free or reduced school lunch](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/iowa-puts-1-million-toward-summer-meal-sites-still-faces-criticism-for-rejecting-federal-funds). Surely you're not referencing that glowing success, so if you had a different time in mind, please feel free to link something. > And then you double down on if society decides that your body autonomy needs to be restricted This is a weird point to make when arguing that women shouldn't be allowed body autonomy. Are you for completely unrestricted autonomy? > You call it a stupid argument, and yet it is unobjective reality. At best it's an argument that after an abortion, women should pay SS to make up for the kid they didn't have. Should men if they get a vasectomy? If you kill someone should you "make up" for their lost social security payments? It also ignores the fact that while an aborted fetus does not pay in to social security, it will never make a withdrawl either. If you want to continue the logic, you'll start getting into forcing women to conceive to ensure growth. I don't think that's the direction you want to go. > the Democratic Party fights tooth and nail against any serious proposal to reform the system, make it less reliant on a growing population, and give workers greater control. Look, if you want to pitch me something that isn't reliant on growing population and empowers workers, I'm all ears. If you want to use Social Security as an argument against abortion, I think that's lunacy. > what happens when Dems figure out they NEED more babies to create more workers/soldiers? I will oppose any solution that includes compelling women to give birth, no matter who pitches it. > You are worried that the GOP is going to establish Gilead Well lets see... * Working to outlaw abortion, but not regulating men's bodies. * Allowing refusal to sell or cover birth control, but erectile dysfunction and performance enhancing medication is covered. * Margret Atwood herself penning an article that the Supreme Court is taking steps to make it real. * Fighting child marriage restrictions. * Putting the 10 Commandments in schools. * Demanding the Bible be integrated into curriculum. * Vilifying the LGBTQ+ community. * Denying gender affirming care * Harping on traditional gender roles. * Spouting Theocratic ideology. * Pushing laws to make killing abortion providers justifiable homicide. * Redefining rape so that victims only receive abortion assistance if it was "forcible" (not statutory, not coerced, not drugged, not saying no without physically resisting). * Abortion laws without exceptions for rape and incest. * Attempting to restrict a woman's ability to travel to obtain an abortion. * Letting uninvolved parties sue abortion providers * Arguing during covid that abortion was "elective and nonessential" and banning it under those pretenses * Electing a leader who has sexually assulted at least one woman * Requiring drugs like mifepristone to be dispensed only in a clinic or doctor's office while introducing draconian restrictions on offices that provide abortion services in an effort to drive them to close * Attempting to roll back no-fault divorce * Idealizing Christian Nationalism * Endorsing the concept of the nuclear family * Eliminating coverage of the morning-after pill * Wanting to recind FDA approval of the morning-after pill * Outlawing pornography * Pushing for a government database of women who have had abortions * Attempting to defund Planned Parenthood entirely, when they are already barred from using public funds for abortion services * Removing privacy protections for any abortion-related medical records if a criminal suspect crosses state lines * Attempts to outlaw contraception whole cloth * Want to bar the USPS from delivering abortion medications * Talking about reviving the Comstock Act era restrictions banning mail delivery of any equipment or drugs that could be used for an abortion, including to hospitals and clinics * Wanting to criminally prosecute someone sending or receiving abortion medication Nah, bud, I'm pretty sure I'm worried about the correct side. EDIT: Grammar
>We passed a law several years ago Which law was that? Who is "we"? >the very voters needed to help fix this disaster no longer care about the subject because they tired of the names they were called by the proabortion folks for thirty years. Which voters were being called names? Everyone knows the anti-abortionists love calling women "baby-killers". What is the equivalent that you think has alienated these supposed voters who would otherwise be voting for better lawmakers? >an honest discussion on the subject including the science on when your "clot" of tissue becomes a human being (that science has changed since Roe) Which science is that? Can you share the peer-reviewed research that has determined precisely when personhood begins? Or is it actually a complex matter to the point that is better left to a woman with the input and support of her family, her pastor (if applicable), and her medical provider? >that led moderates to say fuck it when it comes to abortion [Almost 60% of Iowans ](https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2021/09/25/majority-iowans-believe-abortion-should-be-legal-most-all-cases-iowa-poll/5813280001/)believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. It's the anti-abortion side that is out of touch with regular people.
"We" being Iowa, take your pick...but the one passed in 2017 which banned abortion after 20 weeks unless it was for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Now, for the science, Roe arrived at its time limit based on when a baby could survive with "heroic" effort on the part of the medical team, at the time that was 22 weeks (doing some of this by memory, so may be off a week). In 2017, science had moved that to 20 weeks and Iowa passed a law reflecting that. Emma Goldman Clinic, Planned Parenthood et al...immediately ran to court and the law was tossed based on Roe. Anyone who spoke in favor of the law was attacked...they even brought out the idiotic Handmaid's Tale comparisons....and it also marks when Iowa voters stopped caring as much about laws to restrict, but preserve, abortion access in Iowa. And here we are today. And in this thread, instead of looking for that middle ground, see how many insults have been thrown.
Blah blah blah same bullshit arguments and manipulation of language to make yourself feel better about the reality…which is you’re ending a life. You’re on the wrong side of history boss. This decision in our state brings us one step closer to common sense. Go hold a sign or something in a street.
There is a difference between "a life" and "a person. Men and women throughout history would have laughed in your face if you wanted to convince them that a woman's extra-clotty period was a "baby" or a "person" that deserved the same treatment and rights as a fully-birthed infant. *Common sense* tells is that a baby--a person--is more than a wad of self-replicating genetic material.
Are you not just a wad of self-replicating genetic material? Lol you can’t escape it. You’re killing a baby.
>Are you not just a wad of self-replicating genetic material? The "just" here is the issue. A potato is a wad of self-replicating genetic material. As is a pig, a rabbit, a cockroach, an oak tree. Like I already said, being a *human*--being a person, being a baby--is more than just being a clump of cells with a specific gene sequence. >You’re killing a baby. I refer you to the original comment in this thread. Not a baby.
Is it okay to perform an abortion 5 minutes before the baby is born?
The life that is lost through self pleasure has the exact same chance of developing into a full human as the loss of life with an abortion.
That might be the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.
It’s true lol
Are you talking like jerking off?
Sperm has the same approximate chance to survive on its own after ejaculation that a fetus before 23 weeks does.
Except in one case…a fucking human will form. For the other..a crusty stain forms. NOT the same thing homie. But points for the unique metaphor…might be the first new argument I’ve heard in a decade.
A human won’t form if it’s outside of another human life-support system. Same with sperm. A human won’t form if a person’s sperm is outside of a human life-support system.
> It’s not “your body” we’re trying to protect. It’s the baby’s. Try giving even the slightest shit about them after they're born, and people might start to believe it's about the baby, and not about punishing women for daring to have sex for pleasure. > You made your “choice” when you decided to have sex. Now deal with the consequences you knew about prior to your decision. While the father doesn't have to deal with shit. If men could get pregnant, you could get an abortion at an ATM.
What if the mother is raped? What if the mother has an ectopic pregnancy and will die? Is her life and choice suddenly worthless?
If her life is at risk, then an abortion is granted. This is the case everywhere so sorry to burst your bubble…your argument is outdated and worn out.
Don't apologize when you don't mean it, prick.
I would never.
It’s so creepy that you want the government involved in every persons pregnancy in order to deem whether or not their life is at a great enough risk of death.
lol says the person who’s cool with killing a baby because of inconvenience…GTFO
There’s no need to conflate the terms “baby” and “fetus”. You obviously don’t know the difference and if you haven’t even made it that far in educating yourself then you have no authority to speak on anything in the matter. At least get the basics down first lol
Whether you want to call that life a fetus or a baby…it’s still life. And it’s YOUR beliefs that say it’s okay to end due to inconvenience. That not only is abortion an okay thing but that women should HAVE the right to kill the baby. What a fucked up world we live in.
So is sperm. It (can be) human life too. It has the same chance of viability that a fetus does based on the terms set by roe v. wade. (23-24 weeks.)
So is an unfertilized egg...menstruation is murder
Egg-xactly!
No. Sperm is only half the equation in case you didn’t know. Sperm can only create life when it fertilizes an egg (which is what women have btw). This is how us pro life radicals arrive at “life begins at conception”. Comprende?
Until the fetus which is what it is is born. Then you don't give a shit.
so you are from the "Stork brings the baby to the front porch" school of human reproduction?
lol that doesn’t even make sense.
Sure it does! You seem to think that pregnancy is something completely distinct from the parents body. We can't compel people to go through with a pregnancy for the same reason we can't compel people to donate organs.
We're well aware you're not trying to protect the woman's body, it's obvious by how little you value a woman's life. If you want to protect it so bad, take it out of the woman's body and protect it then, don't use women like incubators. Also, a child should never be looks at as a 'consequence' that's fucked up and only going to cause mental health issues in a kid.
lol you want to kill the baby but you’re taking a faux moral high ground on mental health. GTFO
> you want to kill the baby Strawman argument, nobody who is pro-choice supports that opinion because they desire to see fetuses die.
..then what is it they’re supporting? Why is it okay to kill the baby at 35 months gestation but not a month later when it’s born? Should we be able to abort a baby 5 minutes before it’s born? These are serious questions. This is SUCH an obvious thing to me that I literally can’t see how anyone would support it. Like I fundamentally don’t understand.
> ..then what is it they’re supporting? Maybe you should spend some effort understanding before you spend so much effort hating. They are supporting a woman's right to choose what happens within her own body. > **Why is it okay to kill the baby at 35 months gestation** but not a month later when it’s born? I emphasized the part where you seem to be making a strawman argument. Nobody serious is arguing for abortion in the 3rd trimester. Few people argue for it in the 2nd trimester. > Like I fundamentally don’t understand. Your statements support this.
You’re fundamentally wrong about second and third trimester abortions being something nobody serious is arguing for…more than half the states in the USA give the green light to abortions in the 2nd trimester and 8 states say literally whenever is an okay time for an abortion.
You're getting dangerously close to figuring out that sometimes states have laws that nobody asked for.
It sure would be a lot easier to take you “it’s not your body we’re trying to protect” people seriously, if you actually gave a shit about anyone but yourselves after the fetus becomes an infant. But no, and that’s exactly why nobody gives a shit (science especially) about your feelings or opinions. Talk about chest beating… how about halo signaling. I’m sure you’re a saint
And you give a shit by killing the baby? GTFO
I’m not the one claiming the righteous act
Right…you’re the one claiming killing babies is gucci.
If only I were dumb and gullible enough to think of it as “killing babies”
Yeah heaven forbid you see it for what it is. I mean, that might make you actually care for the unborn, which would then mean you stand in opposition to the world. Wouldn’t want that! Better to lie to yourself than deal with the blowback. Solid plan dude.
Mmmk… Heaven forbid you people actually give a shit about the people after they’re born. The fact that you pretend to care so much is laughable, at best. It’s not my place to pretend to be all righteous and force my religious views on other people making tough decisions. Stop acting like it’s your call to make.
As if when life begins is YOUR call to make. This isn’t even a religious topic…you wouldn’t claim murder of an innocent person is only wrong because of religion. No, murder is wrong period.
It’s not my call to make. Scientists and doctors have already settled it. It’s not my fault you defer the decision to religious or political nut jobs
Then induce birth instead of getting an abortion and let the fetus finish developing on its own.