Woman suing Texas over abortion ban vomits on the stand in emotional reaction during dramatic hearing
Woman suing Texas over abortion ban vomits on the stand in emotional reaction during dramatic hearing
Three plaintiffs testified about the trauma they experienced carrying nonviable pregnancies.
Three plaintiffs testified about the trauma they experienced carrying nonviable pregnancies.
You're viewing a single thread.
On one hand, these "protestors" are mostly unhinged nutjobs. But on the other hand, Texas conservatives are also mostly unhinged nutjobs. It's makes it hard for me to sympathize with either, but I hate authoritarianism that much more so I guess I'll side with protestor nutjobs against these bullshit abortion bans.
She wasn't a protestor, she vomited while recounting being forced to carry a miscarriage and nearly dying as a result. She was just one of 3 who had similar stories who testified. Texas republicans are moving to dismiss their concerns. Not really a "both sides" situation.
On one hand, these “protestors” are mostly unhinged nutjobs.
This is the dumbest thing I've read all week.
Good for you, want a medal?
Sure.
I guess I’ll side with
...body autonomy, and against female slavery. That's what you meant to say. Right?
female slavery
Exaggerations like this end up hurting your cause rather than helping it. It shows that you need hyperbole to make your points, which just delegitimizes them. If you just stated things as they are, more people would appreciate your honesty and would be willing to consider your arguments. Banning abortion is authoritarian, harms women, and the bans don't actually reduce abortion rates per the research. That's all you need to say to have most people support you.
What else would you call women in this scenario? You're literally worth less than a non-sentient proto-fetal clump. Even if that clump is going to kill you. Its like giving cancer the right to live and banning any attempts to remove it.
They're literally forcing women to die. The intended effect isn't to ban abortion, its part of a concentrated effort from far right christian white nationalists to reduce women to an enforced subservient breeding class. Have you ever paid attention to the rest of the shit these people say? They say loud and clear what they want all the time. They want to take away divorce rights, they want gender roles to become legally enforced in particular with regards to clothing and expression, they oppose women in politics and in the work force, they pathologically shame and degrade women based on perceived promiscuity or perceived lack thereof.
This isn't a matter of just having people oppose abortion bans. If it was, we wouldn't be here. If majority public opinion was what mattered, roe v wade would never have been overturned to begin with. Abortion bans are extremely unpopular even with many conservative voters. If you're poor, you're just fucked. You have no recourse whatsoever and a lot of people with complicated pregnancies will just die. If you can't afford the cost of relocating yourself out of a red state then you have nothing. You have no alternative but to try an unsafe method in what is probably going to be a non-clinical setting. And even if you succeed and live you can be tossed in jail for having made a Google search and one family member who calls the police. These are laws meant to kill women. They are meant to cause widespread fear and suffering for women and girls. Legally women and girls are not equal to men, not in bodily autonomy or in health care or in human rights. These laws aren't simply harming women, they're murdering them.
And honest to God if someone is dissuaded from being pro women's rights because they feel that a random person online has made an "exaggeration", and so choose to instead support laws that murder women - then they're a misogynist already in league with the fascists pushing these laws. You're an enemy of women if for absolutely any reason you support a law that's primary aim is to literally end women's lives. Its time to stop dabbling in bullshit, the people who write the laws aren't stupid they are 100% aware of what these laws do. They are aware of how it forces minors who have been r*d to carry pregnancies they are likely to die from. They know, the laws are written specifically so that will happen. There's no ambiguity, there's no exaggeration, these are laws written and created with the specific express intent to cause grievous bodily harm to, and outright murder, women.
What else would you call women in this scenario? You’re literally worth less than a non-sentient proto-fetal clump
Worth an equal amount as another human life, you mean?
You perverting the other sides argument doesn't make you or your argument better, just makes you come off as stupid and lacking any understanding of the issue as a whole.
There is no other human life involved. Or did you forget to read the next thing I said, that it'd be like declaring a tumor a human life and forbidding people from removing them. A proto fetal clump isn't a person. It's not a baby. Its not a human. It's a clump. It has no thoughts, it has no feelings, it is not self aware, it is not an independent organism and is in all senses of the word a parasite. You can screw off if you think that a parasitic tumor has the same worth as a woman, that it has the same worth as a human being. And you're only proving my point by even trying to justify it.
I perverted not a single fucking thing. These laws result directly, not indirectly but literally directly, in the killing of women and girls. Its murder to deny someone life saving medical care. You're a sick misogynist if you defend any part of that. And the people who write these laws are not stupid, they're not unaware, the intention is to result directly in grievous bodily harm and inevitable death of women and girls. Its murder, they know what these laws do. They know these laws don't prevent abortion, and every single one of them will ship their daughter or their wife down to Mexico to get one if they have to. They won't hesitate. There is no moral reason for these laws. These laws relegate women to a subservient breeding class deprived of the most basic fundamental human rights.
You've already shown who you actually are so ill be perfectly honest I don't give a fuck what you have to say. I dont fraternize with misogynists, and defending the murder of women and girls unequivocally makes you a misogynist. Nothing you have to say after that has any validity whatsoever.
This is the actual Republican platform. The guy you're arguing with doesn't actually believe that protofetuses are worth trying to keep them alive. He just wants to be able to tell you what to do, and guess what? If he can force you to die over a nonviable protofetus, that means he has power over you, which is the entire point. He doesn't care about you, save that he doesn't want you to be able to keep him from killing you over a nonviable protofetus. In the pursuit of the 'right' people telling the 'wrong' people what to do, and in the pursuit of keeping the 'wrong' people from telling the 'right' people what to do, anything goes. Hypocrisy, lies, crime, election fraud, subverting courts, coups, false patriotism, false piety, terrorism, even outright murder... anything goes.
Know the enemy, spread the word to your friends and family (and maybe further).
There is no other human life involved.
I believe there is which is why we're having this debate.
the intention is to result directly in grievous bodily harm and inevitable death of women and girls.
And I believe that what's in their belly is a whole other person to consider their lives.
There is no moral reason for these laws.
If someone believes that a fetus is essentially the same as my 2 month old niece, wouldn't there be a moral reason to not want to them?
I understand your argument despite the hostility, I think if you calmly thought about it, you would think that there could be some moral backing, not that you would believe it or anything, simply that you can see how it could be a moral dilemma.
Okay this argument is hypocritical AF. First, your two month old niece isn't about to risk killing you and then die. Second, if she was going to die without you giving her an organ transplant, do you think it's okay for the government to force you to do that surgery against your will? What about if it wasn't your niece? What if you're 10?
You don't respect the autonomy of a woman if you believe in forcing decisions on them about their body, hard stop. There is no wiggle room for you to argue that the fetus matters, because you wouldn't apply that to any other situation in life. Stop acting like it's the moral choice when it's literally forcing woman to risk their lives against their will. Those women are already alive, why don't their rights and lives matter to you?
Okay this argument is hypocritical AF. First, your two month old niece isn’t about to risk killing you and then die. Second, if she was going to die without you giving her an organ transplant, do you think it’s okay for the government to force you to do that surgery against your will? What about if it wasn’t your niece? What if you’re 10?
I'm not arguing in the case that this post is of.
I was simply saying that no, it's not my goal to enslave women. I just think the fetus is a human life that should be protected.
If you think "The fetus is a human life that should be protected" by the government, my reply would be exactly the same. It's no different. The government protecting a fetus is the government taking away a woman's right to her own life and body. Whatever grey areas exist in the debates that have gone on over the decades, this is not grey area. It's black and white.
If I told you I wanted the government to protect homeless people's right to live by forcing you to donate blood, I'm putting the homeless person's rights above yours. If you want the government to force women to literally risk their lives for 9 months you're putting a pile of cells's rights above a woman's. There is no fallacy here, there is no "but what about", it's plain and simple. Either you see women as humans with equal rights and value as yourself, or you believe a fetus has more rights than a woman. The only other possibility is you are the type who actually does want the government to force people to donate blood and organs. I met one once, quite the lunatic.
The government protecting a fetus is the government taking away a woman’s right to her own life and body.
One could easily argue that the government letting the woman end the fetus' life is ruining the fetus' right to his/her own life and body.
If you want the government to force women to literally risk their lives for 9 months you’re putting a pile of cells’s rights above a woman’s.
-
the likelihood of a life risking event is fairly rare, and I'm for exceptions to that
-
Your first sentence says that even if I believe the fetus is a human life that should be protected, your reply would be the same, so why'd you switch your terminology back? You should have said "You're putting a human life that should be protected above a woman's" - once again, you try and pull this emotional terminology rather than being consistent.
Either you see women as humans with equal rights and value as yourself, or you believe a fetus has more rights than a woman.
I think all 3 have equal rights, and that none of us should be able to end the life of the others.
The only other possibility is you are the type who actually does want the government to force people to donate blood and organs
I agree, it's a tough moral dilemma, which makes it hard to have honest conversations about this. That's the biggest argument on the pro-choices corner, in my opinion. But the fact that it's the mothers intentional actions that brought the life to the world makes me lean towards the pro-life side. Contraceptives are easily accessible, I'm for policies that make them available freely to all women. I'm for policies that increase sexual education on pregnancies. I'm for increased funding to the adoptive care system along with foster care systems. I'm for policies ensuring proper healthcare for pregnant women.
I wish more republicans will say this - if we want to be pro life - reduce unwanted pregnancies, provide care to pregnant women and fund options for the baby if they want to provide that baby to a more willing family.
-
Someone doesn't understand the words "non-viable". You really should start by reading a dictionary before you start redefining words like fetus, life, and enslave.
Funny how you only care about the dead unborn child, not the living one or the mother.
I'm fine discussing viability, but don't be rude when that wasn't the topic in the comment you're responding to.
Funny how you only care about the dead unborn child
The comment you're responding to, I even said that I'm not arguing about the article, I'm saying more in general. My response was to someone saying I want to enslave women, because I'm pro-life.
In the specific case of the article, I agree with you, and this is an good scenario which many pro-lifers see an exception for.
If you'd like to converse, all I ask is that you're not hostile. You can state your case and I can state mine, without being a dick.
In this case there absolutely was another human life involved- the twin that's life was at risk because doctors couldn't abort the fetus that was going to die within hours of birth anyway. You don't seem to care about that life.
In this case there absolutely was another human life involved- the twin that’s life was at risk because doctors couldn’t abort the fetus that was going to die within hours of birth anyway. You don’t seem to care about that life.
Agreed! There were 3 lives. I wasn't really talking about this case, more in general.
That user said simply because someones pro-life, that I want to enslave women. That's not true at all, and I'm just saying that's strawmanning our argument, that if you understand it, you would think that morally there could be a question.
Once again, and I'm downvoted to shit because people strawman the argument, I understand your side - do you understand my side?
Ok, I'll engage you on this one, your position at least seems internally consistent.
Let's play out this example - your 2 year old niece is sick, and so are you. You recently found out that she even exists - you didn't know you had a sister until CPS told you she's your responsibility.
An action that risks your life could possibly save her... Let's say a liver transplant. It has to be you, you're her only living family member. And because of that, you'll also be responsible for her - you can put her up for adoption when this is all over, but you're still on the hook for the medical bills whether this works or not.
She's guaranteed to die if you don't give her the transplant, and you would almost certainly recover quickly on your own.
If you go through with the transplant, she has a slim chance to live, and an even slimmer one to have a decent quality of life.
But in your current state, the transplant is very risky - at best you'll see a lengthy and expensive recovery, after missing months of work you'll be tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Complications could see you paralyzed or in lifelong pain, and it's very possible both of you die on the table - maybe even likely.
The doctors are telling you it's a terrible idea to go through with this, that the risk is unacceptable and it would be a mercy to just let her pass, but they're obligated to go through with it if you insist.
Now, no one is stopping you from going through with it - if you want to put your life on the line for another, that's your decision to make. You're her guardian now, so it's your decision if she should have to go through the pain for the chance at life, no matter how small.
That's all well and good - I've seen enough to know that death is often a mercy, but if you believe otherwise there's not much to say
Now, here's my question - should the government be able to force you to attempt the transplant?
Some of these details might seem weird, but I was trying to stick the metaphor as close as possible to a very real scenario with a dangerous pregnancy. The only difference is - the doctor is performing an action here, but withholding one with the pregnancy.
You're not though - pregnancy is not a lack of action. It's an enormous commitment, especially when it's atypical. It can even be a practically guaranteed death sentence - if the fetus implants in the fallopian tubes, it's already not viable - at best you're waiting for the fetus to grow big enough to rupture them, and hoping the bleed that causes doesn't do too much damage before you can get help.
Not to mention if a fetus dies in the womb after it gets to a certain size, it rots and leads to sepsis - unclear laws and harsh punishments have already led to situations where doctors refused care for both of these life threatening cases, and in both these cases the odds aren't slim, they're none. In the second the fetus was already gone... Sometimes when they induce labor the fetus isn't even in one piece... It's pretty grisly
I don't agree with your belief that a potential life is the same as a life, but let's set that aside - I can respect that as a belief
So... My root question to you is - Should you be able to force someone to risk their own for someone else?
If so, how sure do you have to be that the other person will die no matter what you do before you're released from the compulsion to put your own health on the line?
There's always at least some risk of pregnancy turning fatal for the mother. How much danger do you have to be in for the math to check out?
And also, to what point should politicians with little understanding of medicine be able to deny you care?
Let’s play out this example - your 2 year old niece is sick, and so are you.
My actions didn't bring her into this world. That's a huge difference.
But in your current state, the transplant is very risky
I agree there should always be exceptions for cases like these.
I don’t agree with your belief that a potential life is the same as a life, but let’s set that aside - I can respect that as a belief
You see it as a potential life, I see it as a whole life. I thank you for understanding that it's reasonable one might have this believe.
Should you be able to force someone to risk their own for someone else?
See my response above.
There’s always at least some risk of pregnancy turning fatal for the mother. How much danger do you have to be in for the math to check out?
In law there's a lot of 'reasonable' language - would a reasonable person think this is a likely event. In general, pregnancies aren't life risking to mothers.
And also, to what point should politicians with little understanding of medicine be able to deny you care?
If I brought in my twin brother to a doctors office and said 'hey, this guy is really making me sick, can you kill him for me?' I think a reasonable law maker can determine whether that's right or wrong. To some people, there's no difference between the life of you and I, and a fetus.
You saying that you don't bring your niece into this world sounds a lot like the responsibility argument, aka "you had sex and got pregnancy and this is your consequence or punishment". You really seemed to side step the entire analogy by saying you aren't the parent. Neither exceptions nor saying that you believe every fetus is the same as a fully formed human answer the question.
How would you feel and react if the government forced you until a dangerous medical procedure to potentially save the life of someone else? Please, don't side step again. Please, don't give me "it's not my fault they're here, they had sex, therefore they have to do it". Please, don't give me "but I think the fetus has rights too". How would you feel?
“you had sex and got pregnancy and this is your consequence or punishment”
If an individual does the only action that would cause a human life to be created, I don't think they get to kill that being just because it's inconvenient. It's about preserving a human life, not about punishment.
You really seemed to side step the entire analogy by saying you aren’t the parent.
I showed how your hypothetical and where it doesn't apply. If you'd like to use a different hypothetical, I'm fine with that. Why not use my child? If I have a 1 day old child, is it my responsibility to make sure my baby is fed and doesn't die of starvation?
How would you feel and react if the government forced you until a dangerous medical procedure to potentially save the life of someone else?
If that's the only information about the situation that I have, I wouldn't like it.
If you instead word the same exact situation like 'do you have a responsibility to your child to keep them alive' I would say yes.
Women in the U.S. now have fewer rights to their bodies than do corpses. So, unfortunately no, we aren't worth the same as another human life or even a human death for that matter.
In this specific case, I agree, it's a hard moral question with the twin involved which makes it harder.
I'm not speaking on this specific case, and most pro-lifers are open to exceptions, this being a prime example of where I think there should be. but the more broad statement that simply because I'm pro-life, means that I want to enslave woman, is absurdly wrong and simply perverting and strawmanning a fairly reasonable argument that a human life in the womb has inherent human life value.
Nothing hard about it, to have individual rights one must first be an individual. If you don't understand the word individual pick up a dictionary.
to have individual rights one must first be an individual.
Exactly. And some people truly believe it's an individual.
See you're almost there, you just lack the ability to empathize that one may think differently than you.
You missed the bit about reading the dictionary. Something that has never been detached is not individual. Your problem is a literacy one.
You can "truly believe" that the sky is falling too. Doesnt stop you from being wrong because you lack the basic understanding of the concepts.
Doesnt stop you from being wrong because you lack the basic understanding of the concepts.
So you think your argument is 100% factually correct, despite it clearly being an opinion.
I can admit that pro-choices have a reasonable argument, even though I don't subscribe to that opinion. If you refuse to see any other argument on a divided issue, I suggest you learn about the other sides argument, and it either strengthens your position or gives you more nuance on the division. Wanna know why politics is so divided? It's because people 100% think they're right and they won't listen to the other argument to understand it. You share that quality with the MAGA folks, I hope you learn to not have that awful quality.
This is the state treating women as property. People are not comfortable with the word "slavery" and won't even use it to describe the "forced labour" in Xinjiang. I think that's fuck up and due to America's influence. There's nothing wrong with calling this slavery.
You'll get downvoted because Lemmy appears as left wing as reddit, but it's true.
Y'all saying that all we want is to control women and enslave them is bullshit, they know our concern is about the life in the womans stomach, but always try to strawman that shit like we're just heartless woman haters.
As a conservative, why would I ever want to discuss and come to the table to discuss hard issues like these, when I just get called shit like I see in this thread. And people thinking I'm a literal nazi for considering the life of the baby?
Then they have the audacity to ask why we're so divided in this nation.
Unfortunately, it is very hard to believe that you are concerned first and foremost with a human life and not with controlling women. And that is because conservatives are usually vocal in their opposition to abortion, but you rarely (almost never?) hear them being as vocal in their support for low-income families with children. In other words, it seems as if you only pretend to care about the unborn life, but once it is born, you don't care anymore. So how could anyone believe that this is all about life in general and not just about control?
rarely (almost never?) hear them being as vocal in their support for low-income families with children. In other words, it seems as if you only pretend to care about the unborn life, but once it is born, you don’t care anymore. So how could anyone believe that this is all about life in general and not just about control?
I agree, it's one of my huge criticisms to the R's, and that's what makes the whole thing more frustrating with these establishment politicians. We have to have better ways to take care of the basics kids need, make sure our people are fed, the foster care system needs a drastic overhaul and a very simple way is for both republicans and democrats to provide actual tax breaks for charitable contributions. We need to be a giving nation to charities that help people directly and efficiently.
I can't do much except for trying to say that conservatives aren't inherently bad because we share a few loosely related world outlooks with Republicans, who I rarely consider being actually conservatives.
deleted by creator
Was this even really a response?
It was the response it deserved
Interesting, didn't really add anything to the convo.
It added the observation that the parent comment's views are infantile.
Permanently Deleted
You think it's a pile of cells with little value.
I believe it's a human life with inherent value.
Why does that make me stupid? Because I believe something differently than you? Why does that mean I am giving fascists 'coochie'?
Why don't you believe the woman has inherent value and rights then? Even if I did think a lump of cells had human rights, nobody has the right to force a human to risk their lives for another human outside the womb, so why do you believe the government should force a human to risk their lives for an unborn one in the womb?
Why don’t you believe the woman has inherent value and rights then
I do, an equal value to every individual human out there.
All humans are created equal.
But he's not saying women's life has no inherent value...
Just less value than a dermoid cyst.
Where did they write that?
When they claimed that a woman's life isn't worth aborting a pregnancy to save it.
It's heavily implied in the context. It's okay for people to be morally opposed to abortion, but the moment it becomes about making the decision for someone else, the conversation is no longer about the fetus, it's about the woman carrying it and her rights as a human.
All human lives start out as piles of cells... but not all piles of cells can become human lives.
This is my one concession to contributing to this argument. There are pregnancies that aren't viable. For some fetuses, there is literally no way to make it so that those fetuses can live to become infants. Therefore, these fetuses literally objectively don't have inherent value.
Everybody who's downvoting you, is downvoting you because you are advocating to kill mothers over fetuses that already cannot be kept alive. You're not saying it outright, but by god, you're implying it, because that is what is going to happen if those policies are implemented.
Okay this argument is hypocritical AF. If this was about the fetus not the women, you wouldn't support an outright ban. Twins are being killed because of you. Children are being forced to carry because of you. Women are dying because of you. In some cases you are forcing women against their will to attempt to save a lump of cells that is already dead. If the government forced you to risk your life for an unborn child that wasn't attached to you, you would flip shit. If the government forced men to take responsibility for an unborn fetus in any way, you would flip shit.
You don’t respect the autonomy or rights of a woman if you believe in forcing decisions on them about their body, hard stop. There is no wiggle room for you to argue that the fetus matters, because you wouldn’t apply that to any other situation in life. Stop acting like it’s the moral choice when it’s literally forcing woman to risk their lives against their will. Those women are already alive, why don’t their rights and lives matter to you?
How is it a straw man? Regardless of what your “intended concern” is the result is control over a woman’s body autonomy. How can you not see that reality?
How is it a straw man? Regardless of what your “intended concern” is the result is control over a woman’s body autonomy. How can you not see that reality?
Do you think because I believe the life in a womans belly has inherent value, that I literally want to enslave women?
If you think that, that's the the exact problem in our politics. You take things to the extremes and don't actually want to have conversation, you want to dominate and have your way. I understand the argument that women have a right to make choices on behalf of their bodies and what's best for it. Do you understand my argument?
it's not alive until it is born and can survive outside the womb. Nice logical leaps though.
You believe that.
Many don't.
Does that make them enslavers to women?
Say they can survive outside the womb at 6 months. That's the point that you say 'okay, no more killing this being'?
They can survive outside the womb at 6 months with the right kind of medical care (very high mortality rate, though) and the previous cutoff for abortion was around 5 months, so, yeah I guess someone did say that very thing at some point.
Which was the point of Roe V Wade. Abortions were cut off at viability.
Yeah, unfortunately, I think it's just bad law. I think it'd be okay legislatively, which is why it's sooooo incredibly odd that the democrats didn't codify RvW despite having many many many opportunities. But ultimately, I think it was a terribly ruled case that I think the SC was right to overturn. Fun fact, RBG also shares my belief.
They didn't actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it's terrible that it isn't enshrined in law, but no. Don't blame Democrats when they didn't have near as much chance as everyone claims.
They didn't actually have so many opportunities. Yes, it's terrible that it isn't enshrined in law, but no. Don't blame Democrats when they didn't have near as much chance as everyone claims.
No, I don't understand, because I dont respect your argument. The argument that women have a right to their bodily autonomy, is enough. Show me a problem in the argument before I care about your argument. When you realize the argument is successful, then you will give up on your own argument and become pro-choice. Asking me to consider your argument is exactly how you remain pro-life. To examine your argument is to pause consideration of my own, and to waste my time inspecting yours. You will never accept any flaw in your argument. Asking me to examine it is completely pointless. That is the conservative way, in essence. I can only ever fail, either fail to convince you or fail by erroneously becoming convinced. In the same way that you can walk East-West and never set one foot North-South, examining your argument has nothing to do with my own. If you want to convince me, convince me why I should not be pro-choice. The right to abortion seems like my own right to bodily autonomy. I see no reason why anyone should have any say over whether I choose to give from my body. Demonstrate why I should think it is so.
he argument that women have a right to their bodily autonomy, is enough.
Well sounds like you already decided your argument is right and every other argument is wrong, so we don't need to discuss any further. I would implore you to explore multiple sides of an argument, so even though you may not agree, much like I disagree with your side, you can understand it, much like I understand your side.
I refuse to consider your argument until you've considered mine. There's no point otherwise. Your invitation to consider your argument, is an invitation to distract and waste my time. You will never accept any flaws in your own position, that's why you invite me so openly. The only possibility by accepting, is that I lose. You will mistakenly become convinced that you have a strong argument, when your strategy leads yet another pro-choicer to fail to change your mind, because you won't change your mind.
That's why, like I said, the only thing I care about, is if you can convince me that *I'm * incorrect. Abortion should be legal because of our right to bodily autonomy. There is no other argument that needs to be considered.
I'm happy to explain to you why you're wrong to be anti-choice. Don't pretend like conservatives don't love to shit talk about liberals. I've seen it too. If you have something you want to talk about, then talk. Don't ask me to feel sorry, unless you're going to feel sorry for me, first.
I’m happy to explain to you why you’re wrong to be anti-choice
I'm open to hearing your argument, but as you can imagine, as a conservative on lemmy/reddit I've heard every argument, and it's made me more refined in my belief, and more able to argue my belief well.
Don’t pretend like conservatives don’t love to shit talk about liberals.
I didn't. but generally no, I don't see conservatives talk trash about liberals, nor liberals conservatives. I see Republicans and Democrats talk trash, but I don't equate them to conservatives and liberals.
If you have something you want to talk about, then talk.
Okay. I'm pro-life, you calling me anti-choice is an absurd mischaracterization of my argument, and you know it. You just try to name call instead of actually put forward your position. If you have a good argument, you don't need to resort to such childish and rude comments.
Additionally, my argument is, just because I'm pro life doesn't mean I want to enslave women.
If you'd like to discuss either of these in good faith, and without being a dick, I'm down.
I called you anti-choice because it's accurate. It would be inaccurate to call you pro-life when we do not agree, yet I myself am in favor of life and living. It misrepresents my position when I agree to call you pro-life. It gives the impression that I am not pro-life because I am opposed to your position. So, I choose to label you accurately. If I'm pro-choice, that makes you anti-choice. If I'm pro-autonomy, you're anti-autonomy. Which do you prefer?
Additionally, my argument is, just because I'm pro life doesn't mean I want to enslave women.
That's not an argument. Also, it doesn't matter about your feelings about whether your actions are good or not. What matters is the impact it has, in reality. In reality, your positions have the effect of harming women. It matters not at all, that you want to pat yourself for believing you don't want to enslave women. You don't have to believe you are enslaving women to do harm. You just have to actually enslave them, which, in effect, you are supporting.
I called you anti-choice because it’s accurate
It's more accurate to call me 'pro-baby lives,' which would make you 'anti-baby lives' which is a bold stance. If you want to play dumb games like that instead of civilly discussing, I'm fine with that. But I won't converse with someone that continues to be this uncivil and rude.
You don't civily discuss. I've asked you to tell me what is wrong with the argument from bodily autonomy. You will not. I've had, I think, 4 replies with you since then. Just like I thought, just like the other conservatives, you will not discuss. You have no discussion. You have no argument. Your tactics are manipulation and misdirection. That's why you have words and words to say about every little tangential topic, but nothing to say about bodily autonomy.
You don’t civily discuss.
Okay, then we don't need to discuss if you feel that way.
Pro-lifers don't discuss. They rally the troops. It's mindless, because if they had to think about their position, they couldn't hold it.
As a conservative, why would I ever want to discuss and come to the table to discuss hard issues like these
Why would we want you to? Nobody's changing their mind. And frankly I've seen conservatives engage in bad faith arguments so many times I no longer consider honest discussions a possibility.
I think that's the problem. I've listened to each of the lefts arguments, it's unavoidable for someone young and on social media.
But the minute I speak up, saying I can be pro-life and not pro-slavery, I get 60 downvotes. Not that I care about the votes, more of the symbol of, what did I say that was controversial? That being pro life isn't comparable to slavery? That's not controversial to anyone, we all know it. But I'm a conservative, so downvote away.
Look, I get that you think your logic is sound and that you don't like being called pro-slavery. I guess in your head "saving a baby" cannot equate to "enslaving women", right? The unfortunate truth, as this post shows, is that these laws and these concepts you support are indeed enslaving women. It doesn't really matter if you don't like it, or if you don't want that. The fact of supporting these laws makes it an automatic consequence. The fact is, the US government is now forcing women to give birth. If you can put aside for an instant the fetus, baby, whatever, that is what's happening. I'm not sure you can imagine all the possible psychological and physical consequences of giving birth. Now it's forced on women. Can you imagine if for 9 months you were forced to do something that you don't want, that has lifelong consequences and may put your life at risk? And this not only for adults, but also minors. Let's bring it close: imagine you have a 13yo daughter. She is in school and may not have understood all of the sex ed that I'm sure you and the school system has given her yet. Her cycle has already started. Then she's maybe r*ped maybe not and now she's pregnant. Would you let her go through with the pregnancy, the trauma of it and the risks? It's a 13 yo. What if it's ectopic and she dies? What if she gives birth and she dies?
In conclusion, it's a lot like treating women like cattle. Also please don't reply with anything like "but the baby". A 13yo is a baby.
is that these laws and these concepts you support are indeed enslaving women.
That's where we disagree. I think it's absolutely absurd you equate it to slavery, and belittles past and modern day slavery.
The women in the court? Not sure who you're referring to or maybe I'm missing some information here. I thought they were women who became pregnant, were denied abortions, went through some heinous shit, and are suing the state in protest of a law that most people already don't agree with. Kind of missing the 'nutjob' part of your thoughts..
What an odd hot take.
I know, American politics is so littered partisan hacks that anything that doesn't align with liberal or conservative propaganda seems odd.
How are these women unhinged nut jobs?
What an odd hot take.