Texas v abortion
- Thread starter Trunkage
- Start date
Are you 1) advocating abstinence, or 2) claiming that birth control is 100% effective and never fails?
It has to be one of those, both of which are nonsense.
It's not hard, but then the ones who helped put this law into effect aren't looking to actually help people. They know this anti-abortion law isn't going to decrease abortions or child neglect/abuse. The only thing it's going to increase is conservatives' sense of moral superiority.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,981
- 3,843
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
There are a few lines about it I think. But the most rabid anti-choice people are also the most religious. You will see some more atheistic anti-choice but the vast majority are really religious.
Thank Jerry Falwell and the self-proclaimed Moral Majority. They turned it into an issue shortly after the Roe v Wade decision came down.
They've decided that their book tells them all life is sacred, because souls and angels and all that bullshit, and that "thou shalt not kill" rule they only give a shit about when it's someone else doing the killing (they are more than happy to kill people themselves).
Essentially they've infected every aspect of life with religion, so they can use it as a bludgeoning tool to get whatever they want done legally.
Before Jerry, evangelicals were generally pro-abortion
It's called identity politics. And culture war nonsense. All to win elections
I believe the key word tstorm used would be 'require'. No, it technically wouldn't require abortions to have make sure that you dont parent until your ready
But it would require such a shift in society that it would be easier to become a communist country
And the GOP plans here don't even have this goal and clear don't take into account that they are talking about human beings
1. Reid was very clearly comparing (rightly or wrongly) other aspects of the USSR than abortion. This would be clearly evident if you'd read her tweet to understand her point than just looking for ways to dunk on it.
2. The USSR then proceeded to criminalize abortion in 1936. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia#1936-1955
3. By the time the USSR re-legalized it in 1955, Hungary and North Korea had legalized in the meantime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#Timeline_of_abortion_on_request
3a. If we're counting the very first instance of legalization in a country's history, then the USSR no longer counts as "first" since abortion was legal across most of the globe largely until the 19th century.
3b. If we're counting only modern nation-states, then Hungary would be "first" due to continual access to the right.
4. The quoted line from the wikipedia page isn't even sourced... It supposedly comes from Encyclopedia Britannica, but the linked EB page says nothing related to it.
It's more fun to dunk on her since she...
Has very poor history understanding. And while I'm not going to go into a full on defense of the Soviet Union, they did explicitly guarantee the right before the US, un-guaranteed it, then re-guaranteed it again (before the US, again). It's why you really really shouldn't compare the US to most socialist states on healthcare, because healthcare is one of those things socialist states tend to do better than the US, and a lot of other places too.
Well, the bit about collecting cash bounties is directly about the recent anti-abortion legislation. Reid's very first tweet in the same thread explicitly connects that point to the abortion bill.
Maybe I wasn't clear with my post :/
Reid's argument is being made in relation to the Texas abortion bill, correct.
However, the linked tweet is making the argument that Texas and the USSR are comparable in 2 areas: "neighbors spying on neighbors hoping to collect a cash bounty" and "being an apartheid state for nonwhite voters". Neither of those comparisons is countered by the USSR having legal abortion (before criminalizing it again).
The comparisons are silly for other reasons, but neither Crimson nor "Brian" actually argue those reasons...
She could have just went with McCarthyism instead of red baiting with a dissolved nation that actually guaranteed abortion, the key issue being discussed here, for most of it's lifetime.
As for the apartheid line, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she was talking about actual apartheid and not the Soviet Union because that'd be a hilarious case of the pot calling the kettle black, and while there was explicit discrimination against certain ethnicities, comparing it to even modern day America is laughable.
Because the one year old can physically survive without being inside a human being.
A foetus starts off as a single celled zygote. The majority will just spontaneously abort before anyone even knows they're there (honestly, anyone who actually believes that life begins at conception should be doing everything possible to make sure everyone uses contraception all the time to prevent any ova being fertilized at all, thus avoiding the multi-hundred-million a year death toll of spontaneous abortion). Some manage to survive long enough to become a little clump of cells, and then eventually a recognizable foetus. But until right at the end of pregnancy, they still need the environment provided by their mother's body.
The abortion debate isn't really about "killing" foetuses. Some abortion methods do directly result in the death of the foetus, but these are incredibly rare and generally only used in emergencies. In the vast majority of cases, all an abortionist does is to remove a foetus from the womb, at which point it will almost always die naturally. In the incredibly, inconceivably rare case that it doesn't die naturally, if it shows signs of independent life, then that becomes an issue of medical ethics, but the issue is still not whether to kill it or not, but how aggressively to try and prolong its life. It's a similar decision to the one that has to be made when deciding to withdraw care from someone who is dying. Just because it is possible to keep someone metabolizing a bit longer doesn't mean it's always the best option.
So, even assuming we see the foetus as a person, the question is not "is it okay to kill someone" but "does a person have a medical responsibility to allow their body to be used to prolong someone else's life beyond the point of natural viability." Our answer, and it's a fairly consistent answer, is no.
Personally I think the most offensive part is calling Yugoslavia Soviet.
And that Slovakia is/was part of Yugoslavia. Maybe she's xenophobic English and thinks all eastern Europeans are the same, bad?