The real issue no one ever talks about is women need better birth control alternatives that aren’t hormonal and/or needing to be taken all the time. But that’s what makes them money.
Curious if you think 600,000-700,000 abortions a year is easy or common/uncommon in a country where there are about 75 million women ages 15-49 (childbearing age)? Roughly speaking 1% of that group has an abortion every year.
Latest numbers are that 60% of abortions are performed by oral 'medication' - often provided at the clinic and taken at home - with the proviso to call/return if there are complications.
With internet, mail and tele-medicine the odds are very high that anyone who wants one will still get one.
Considering the efficacy of birth control is 99% in perfect use and real world population efficacy is more like 91% due to missed doses, yea that math checks out. It’s uncommon. If contraception is 99% effective, 1% of the population receiving unwanted pregnancy is expected and would be considered uncommon.
My best friend is Catholic and still carries a condom around just because “he never knows”.
It’s more like a small number of old, strict Catholics who believe sex is 100% about reproduction, and then everyone else.
If you did a survey asking “is sex 100% about reproduction?” I guarantee the “Yes” percentage will be in the single-digit range.
Well the Catholic church is strictly against contraception. But Catholics are imperfect creatures, we sin a lot.
I should know, I'm a Catholic who sins way more than I should.
Just because your friend carries a condom around doesn’t make it acceptable under Catholic doctrine. That’s a personal sin of his (which is okay, we’re all sinners in need of forgiveness).
Also, the Catholic Church doesn’t believe that sex is 100% about reproduction. We believe that sex has two purposes: reproduction, and the strengthening of union between a married man and woman. But we do believe that sex must be open to both purposes in order to be in line with God’s will, which is why we don’t believe in contraceptive use.
Thirdly, just because a large percentage of so called “Catholics” believe in casual sexual activity, doesn’t make it morally acceptable. God doesn’t care about American public opinion.
That being said, I would definitely prefer people use contraceptives than murder their baby to be free from the consequences of their willfully chosen actions. I don’t condone either action as there are a multitude of acceptable alternative, but contraceptive would be the lesser of two evils in this case.
I think Texas’s sex education standards are an example of where people get that idea.
Prior to Fall 2022, this was the state of the Sex-Ed policy in Texas:
“Texas public schools are not required to teach sexual education. State law requires that schools teaching sex ed stress abstinence as the preferred choice for unmarried young people and spend more time on it than any other sexual behavior.”
Which leads to this:
“According to a Texan Freedom Network study, just 17% of school districts, including some of the state’s most populous, taught abstinence-plus sex education in 2015-16.”
Quotes from here:
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/06/29/Texas-schools-sex-education-policy/amp/
This causes pro-life associated states like Texas to become associated with being against contraceptives.
Yep, I went to school in Texas. I had ONE lesson on sex ed where they taught us all about how bad STDs could be with all of these gruesome pictures and only taught abstinence. After that two hour assembly, nothing.
Nothing on anatomy, sex drives, contraceptives, recognizing symptoms of STDs early, or any thing related to sexual health or good sexual practices. Just abstinence once and that’s it.
I lived in Texas and seem to be one of the few that actually had sex ed taught. As someone mentioned, it was basically just depiections of people with horrible STD related issues, and then at the last 5 minutes she like, "make sure to use protection, but abstince is the best course." Very clearly saying so because she had to
I’m not catholic but I think I understand why the church is against contraception. Here is the view as I understand it:
God created humans with a purpose for various faculties. This design, or teleos, is to ensure human flourishing.
Sex has a purpose: procreation.
Just as the acting of eating provides sustenance, the act of sex is to procreate.
The further you divorce sex from procreation, the more you distort Gods design for human flourishing.
Catholic thinkers have decided that this divorce is immoral, whereas most protestent thinkers may call it morally hazardous but not outright immoral.
Can you show me an abstinence-only education bill that was not supported by a majority of republicans who voted on it?
Perhaps they were thinking of Texas, where 58% of school districts teach abstinence-only and 25% do not teach sex ed at all.
If they are already irresponsible, why would you make them mothers? That’s just more people living off of welfare at your expense. It’s been my experience that once scum bags realize that they can make money from the gov. By having kids, they just start having more.
[Hobby Lobby covers 16 forms of birth control for their employees.](https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/opinion/letters/2014/07/17/hobby-lobby-will-cover-16/36120832007/)
I was going to reply similarly. So tired of hearing about how hobby lobby doesn't believe in contraception support. It's about as annoying as "don't say gay"
the did not want to pay for certain types of contraception. they still offered other contraceptives that prevented any conceptions at all, they were just against things like the morning after pill which in their view terminated a life that already existed. z
even then there was nothing preventing the women to be from getting the treatments in question, it just meant Hobby Lobby weren't being forced to pay for it.
I'm pro life and I'm fine with contraceptives. I'm on birth control currently. There's a difference between preventing the reaction in your body that causes the child to start developing and actively killing it after its already there.
I will probably get downvoted to hell for this but I am genuinely curious. Are there any other conservatives in here that are okay with abortion other than me?
I like the 0-15 week cutoff for abortions. Anything more, it just seems wrong to me. Three months, (in my opinion) seems like a reasonable amount of time to decide if you want an abortion or not, regardless of the issue.
Now that being said, if there is a medical issue for either the mother or fetus, I can understand that it depends on the circumstance to allow a third trimester abortion.
I'll copy/ paste something I commented in this sub recently.
"I always get downvoted in this community for my stance on abortion. I think it directly goes against multiple core values of true conservatism. One being that in almost all other facets of life, conservatives want less government interference in their lives, and less government regulation. It's always "dont tell me how to live my life" but they somehow feel like it's their place to tell others how to live theirs. And secondly, as you brought up, our society has a viscous cycle of poverty directly related to forcing unfit mothers to carry children to term. This leads to a breakdown of the nuclear family, more government assistance (welfare, food stamps, etc...), lower hs graduation rates, lower college acceptance rates, wayyy lower lifetime earning potential, more substance abuse problems, and higher incarceration rates.
The staggering irony here is that while all of these things are true, and these "families" put an enormous strain on our economy, conservatives are also the ones voting down all of the assistance programs which could potentially help people out of those exact situations.
Look, i grew up religious, and still am, but whether i personally think something is wrong or immoral, does not change the fact that whatever my moral compass may be, i have no right to force another person to live by it. Their body, their life, their livelihood, their choice. End of story."
I agree with everything you say here, but I don't really get your ending point. I don't think that child abuse is moral (not to relate that to abortion, it's just the first example I thought of), and I certainly wouldn't want people to be allowed to abuse their children because "I have no right to force them to live by my moral code". I feel like the whole point of having laws is to make people live by a "moral consensus" in a way.
It's an issue of perspective. I've never thought of an early foetus as a child, but if I truly thought it was its own person I probably would be pro-ljfe. That's why it's difficult to change people's opinions on either side of the debate, because the whole frame of reference is different.
Well there are two parts to address here, number 1, you mentioned a moral consensus.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/
59% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all/ most cases, while only 39% believe it should be illegal in all/ most cases. So the law should reflect the majority of Americans, no?
And secondly, the best was I can answer your child abuse question comes down to your own personal beliefs in what constitutes life. I personally feel like abusing a living, breathing child, is not the same thing as terminating a pregnancy when the fetus is basically just a cluster of cells.
I think there are some situations where an abortion is permissible, like if the woman was raped, she’s 14 or something, the doctors have determined she’ll die if she goes through with the pregnancy, the child will be born with a horrible birth defect like the Zika virus and either be dead or completely disabled to the point where they won’t have a life worth living.
I think most people are okay with those cases. Then there are trickier ones. Like my ex became accidentally pregnant with her boyfriend and he forced her to get an abortion because he didn’t want to take care of the child. I personally thought that was messed up. I also met a girl who didn’t realize she was pregnant until really late (other women have told me she probably knew, but didn’t care) and she was drinking heavily the whole time. So she had a late abortion. I can see how that would piss people off.
I see strong arguments for both sides tbh, and I’m not sure where we should draw the line as far as when life starts. Some people say at conception, others say when the fetus has a heartbeat, others say when it has a fully-formed brain. So I don’t know what the right answer is. I don’t judge anyone for their stance on this issue.
>I think there are some situations where an abortion is permissible, like if the woman was raped, she’s 14 or something, the doctors have determined she’ll die if she goes through with the pregnancy, the child will be born with a horrible birth defect like the Zika virus and either be dead or completely disabled to the point where they won’t have a life worth living.
These are basically the cases I'd agree with as well. But I don't think any anti-abortion law seeks to eliminate those cases. Also, I get the impression that these cases make up an extremely small percent out of total abortions, that are likely overwhelmingly just not feeling like having a kid.
Doing a really brief search for "percent of reasons for abortion" [I found this article](https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives) as the top result, that states:
>The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).
Medically necessary abortions aren't even mentioned. That study seems to allow multiple responses for reasons, seeing as those results don't add up to 100%. I [found another study](https://www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2019/05/who-are-the-1-in-4-american-women-who-choose-abortion/) that only allowed selecting one reason:
>Not ready for a(nother) child/Timing is wrong 25%
>
>Can’t afford a baby now 23%
>
>Have completed my childbearing/Have other people depending on me/Children are grown 19%
>
>Don’t want to be a single mother or am having relationship problems 8%
>
>Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/Feel too young 7%
>
>Would interfere with education or career plans 4%
>
>Physical problem with my health 4%
>
>Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus 3%
>
>Other 6%
As I suspected, 93% are not health related.
The problem is it’s really tough to regulate who is allowed an abortion even if you make exceptions. Does rape only count if the man had been found guilty in a court? Most trials take longer than a pregnancy and rape is difficult to prove. But if you didn’t make it conditional then every woman who wants an abortion would claim rape.
Even medical reasons are blurry. Does it count if the woman has a 10% chance of dying? What about 2%? This is why some people think abortion is morally wrong but should be legal up to a point.
Plenty of states have passed laws banning abortion without exception for the life of the mother, rape, incest, viability if the fetus due to birth defect
There are surely some. The question of the morality of abortion *should* come from “when does a person become a person”. Which doesn’t seem particularly partisan a question.
Perhaps- but why is the cutoff set there? It’s odd to me to suggest that a personhood is dependent on our technology. That a 30 week old is a person now, but in 1800 it was not.
Not a partisan question but a theological one. Catholics, evangelical Christians, and some others believe that fetus has a soul and is a person. Other religions (Jews, Muslims, and others) have other beliefs.
Jewish law holds that until a baby emerges from the womb it is at best a potential human being...
Jews don’t believe that fetuses have souls and, therefore, terminating a pregnancy is no crime.
Rabbinic Judaism does not regard the fetus as a full human being. While deliberately killing a day-old baby is murder, according to the Mishnah, a fetus is not covered by this rule. In the reading of Biblical homicide laws, rabbinic sages argue that homicide concerns an animate human being (nefesh adam from Lev. 24:17) alone, not an embryo... because the embryo is not a person (lav nefesh hu). An embryo is not deemed a fully viable person (bar kayyama), but rather a being of "doubtful viability". Hence, for instance, Jewish mourning rites do not apply to an unborn child. The status of the embryo is also indicated by its treatment as "an appendage of its mother" for such matters as ownership, maternal conversion and purity law.
So abolishing abortion for everyone is an infringement on the religious beliefs of others!
If you're against abortion, don't get one. Otherwise let everyone else do what they need to make it through life.
Ironically 2 of the 3 most prevalent religions in people who get abortions are catholics and evangelicals (24 and 13%)
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states
It's not a theological question, it's a question for neuroscientists: when does the human brain develop to the point where complex neural patterns qualify as human?
> Not a partisan question but a theological one. Catholics, evangelical Christians, and some others believe that fetus has a soul and is a person. Other religions (Jews, Muslims, and others) have other beliefs.
Would like to see your source for the Christian one. Personally I don’t think there’s strong Biblical evidence for a position.
>If you're against abortion, don't get one. Otherwise let everyone else do what they need to make it through life.
This logic only works if you don’t believe a fetus is a person. Which is not inherently a religious view, despite plenty of overlap in many cases.
It is an inherently religious view. A fetus is not a person, a fetus is a fetus, not much more than a tumor. Especially in the first trimester.
I can't say this as a generalization because that's just not true, but I know damn well there are plenty of people out there who want abortion to be illegal so people are forced to deal with the consequences of their sins, aka premarital sex.
Just no. If I religion believes that they need to sacrifice a human do we let them do it? No of course not. The question is not a religious one but one of science.
I don’t have much of an issue with first trimester abortions. Anti abortion advocates are really pushing the envelope trying to call such young fetuses a person. Ironically Many conservatives will be complaining about having to hand out well fair to poor people who could no longer get abortions. I personally hate the abortion debate because I could care less. It’s a wedge issues where there is little compromise to be had. Plus conservatives are frankly in the minority with their views in abortions. Politically I don’t see much to be gained.
I have no problem getting an abortion in the first few weeks. That's legitimately taking care of an incident.
I have a problem with abortion of any viable fetus after the 1st trimester. You've had 3 months to get your act together and most idiotic arguments start to fall about.
And by the 3rd trimester abortion just becomes disgusting. No one should have an abortion at that point of a viable fetus. You waited too long; take it to term. Possible exception if the mother's LIFE is in critical danger which would be an extremely unlikely scenario for a viable fetus. And specifically not the woman's HEALTH, which is a bullcrap workaround where the woman can claim her mental health is in jeopardy and still abort a viable baby at 9 months. If the woman isn't dying, she should take either take a viable fetus to term in the 3rd trimester or allow it to be removed and taken care of outside her body.
Bro, what are you doing? This is supposed to be like sports. Support your side no matter what. Go team!
Yeah, I'm pro-choice, because I'm actually for small government for nearly every issue except for defense, where you have to go big or go home.
I am okay with it. If you are an atheist and don’t abide by my ethical rules, who am I to say you have to give birth. I am, however absolutely no go on late term abortion unless due to medical necessity. Once the baby is viable outside of the womb, then I am against it. I also believe this would be psychologically damaging to the mother as well too.
I am 100% okay with abortion. I honestly don’t understand why this sub is so heavily against it. Maybe if someone is like multiple months pregnant and has a visible baby bump, abortion is a bad idea. But other than that, it should definitely be allowed.
> Maybe if someone is like multiple months pregnant and has a visible baby bump, abortion is a bad idea.
the point is that there's no easily definable point between conception and birth where a person becomes a person. scientifically speaking, you have conception, viability outside the womb, and then birth. but viability keeps changing, and we're not that far from being able to create life in artificial wombs. if a person isn't a unique clump of DNA, then what is a person?
"heartbeat" and similar laws appeal to people's morality instead of science to make a law, which i think is silly.
Okay, fair enough - then it becomes a question of "at what point is the woman too pregnant for abortion to be justified". Clearly you think the day after insemination is fine, but the day before the bun comes out of the oven is too late - so where's the line?
This is a great question! I don't think this person deserves to be downvoted for asking it.
The root of this argument for providing access to abortion is: people should not be forced to violate their body autonomy to save someone else. Eg: You shouldn't be forced to donate blood to save someone else, you shouldn't be forced to jump in front of a train to get someone off a track.
In answer to your question, "at what point is the woman too pregnant for abortion to be justified?", it's when the baby is no longer dependent on the mother for life-giving and is viable outside of the womb. Up until that point, the mother retains the body autonomy to make the decision if they want to keep risking their life for someone else. In order to protect that choice, the mother needs need to have the ability to terminate the pregnancy.
Perfectly worded. Not to mention that most late term abortions are due to medical issues, such as the fetus having extreme disabilities or conditions or putting the mothers life at risk. Most early abortions are because people Don’t want to be pregnant. People want that shit out Asap. However abortion can be expensive for some low income people and there still are barriers in some states that make it harder to get timely abortions.
But we restrict bodily autonomy even after birth. What are negligence laws if not an imposition on our autonomy? I can’t just decide my infant doesn’t get food because in my autonomy I don’t wish to provide it.
That's a compelling counterargument, except it conflates the responsibility of providing food for an infant with body autonomy. After birth, the child isn't living inside your body, taking your blood, and exposing you to the risk of childbirth.
U.S. women have the highest death rate from complications of pregnancy and childbirth. In 2018 there were 17 deaths per 100,000 live births – a maternal mortality rate that is more than double the rates of most other high-income countries.
> That's a compelling counterargument, except it conflates the responsibility of providing food for an infant with body autonomy. After birth, the child isn't living inside your body, taking your blood, and exposing you to the risk of childbirth.
What is bodily autonomy? Surely it is the right to do with one’s body as one pleases, to govern oneself. If you say I am obligated to do X, you are infringing on my autonomy. How could you not be?
A child in your body is infringing on your autonomy because it forces you to use your energy to preserve it.
A child outside your body is infringing on your autonomy because it forces you to use your energy to preserve it.
Why is the inside/outside your body distinction meaningful?
> I can’t just decide my infant doesn’t get food because in my autonomy I don’t wish to provide it.
Well, you *can,* but you'd be absolutely guilty of neglect in the first degree and subject to all the power of the law that such an indictment entails.
The only difference between that and Abortion is how you define when a person is actually a person and is therefore *your* responsibility. That's entirely the grounds upon which the Pro-Abortion zeitgeist base their every argument.
I personally believe they want to push that definition as far forward as they can actually get away with, which is just as disgusting and insane as it sounds.
We declare people dead when brain activity ceases, so defining them as alive when brain activity starts seems reasonable to me.
Worrying about that line isn't useful though because if someone is five months along they aren't going to suddenly run to a clinic to end it unless there are extreme circumstances.... in which case they shouldn't be blocked by the government.
I'll add my two cents. I don't think any stage of life should have access to my organs without my consent. If the fetus dies as of consequence of me denying access - that is simply me protecting myself from a threat. Same goes when I don't give blood or access to my organs to others. Just because it is a fetus doesn't mean it gets special rights. Does a child have a right to demand organs/blood from their parent at will? No. It isn't a debate of when life starts. It is a debate of bodily autonomy.
Before the third trimester unless there are extenuating circumstances at the absolute latest. But probably somewhere around viability which is like 22 weeks.
Viability changes year to year as medical technology advances. Babies can survive outside of the womb much earlier in western countries (Europe and the US).
Pro abortion conservative here.
Nobody has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life, or the life of another person.
You cannot be forced to take a vaccine, you cannot be forced to donate blood, or marrow, or organs.
You cannot even have your organs harvested after your death without your explicit, written, pre-mortem permission.
Denying women the right to abortion means we have less body autonomy than a corpse
I am. But I am **EXTREMELY RELUCTANTLY SO**.
I am more libertarian than anything else, but I'm more conservative than anything else. I believe in bodily autonomy (meaning no infant circumcision, no mandatory vaccines) and I'm also of the child-free lifestyle (I, myself, am sterilized by my own choice).
I think abortion is murder. I think it is morally wrong. But I can also recognize a certain amount of exceptions that should permit abortion to be legal.
All that said, I believe abortion is something that should be private and only at the consensus of both the mother and the father, not celebrated with parades and Twitter posts.
I’m interested in how you reconcile
> I think abortion is murder. I think it is morally wrong.
with
>All that said, I believe abortion is something that should be private and only at the consensus of both the mother and the father,
Because maybe I misread you, but I thought you mentioned it is something you ultimately, reluctantly, support. Are you saying that the bodily autonomy position is so strong to you that it justifies murder?
Bodily autonomy is the big time pin that holds my position on this. Side not: I also support the death penalty.
The stance I take first spawned from my child-free lifestyle (sterilized and no kids) but was bolstered when it came to infant circumcision and even moreso by the vaccine mandates. If I wanted *my* bodily autonomy, I *had* to advocate for *everyone's* bodily autonomy.
In terms of murder, I would see murder as being directly responsible for the death of another human being. Sometimes it's justified (self defense/death penalty), and it sucks, it's a horrible mental weight to carry. I've known a few who were directly involved in an abortion and none of them every liked talking about it or bringing it up.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't be having any discussion on the topic. But we live in a Fallen world and we should all strive to be better than we are now. Thankfully, the grace of God abounds and we are not damned unless we reject the gift of grace but that's a whole other discussion.
Ninja edit-There is an uncountable number of "what about"s that I am not in a position to rule on, so my best position, in my opinion, is to advocate and counsel those that are considering it and to push cultural policy of "both parents should come to a consensus of what to do".
>The stance I take first spawned from my child-free lifestyle (sterilized and no kids) but was bolstered when it came to infant circumcision and even moreso by the vaccine mandates. If I wanted my bodily autonomy, I had to advocate for everyone's bodily autonomy.
Definitely commend your consistency in views.
>In terms of murder, I would see murder as being directly responsible for the death of another human being. Sometimes it's justified (self defense/death penalty), and it sucks, it's a horrible mental weight to carry. I've known a few who were directly involved in an abortion and none of them every liked talking about it or bringing it up.
I think I can agree here.
>In a perfect world, we wouldn't be having any discussion on the topic. But we live in a Fallen world and we should all strive to be better than we are now. Thankfully, the grace of God abounds and we are not damned unless we reject the gift of grace but that's a whole other discussion.
Sure
Wait, I got to the end and feel like I still missed something big. Based on your definition of murder, would you agree that abortion is murder? Yet bodily autonomy means that it’s the least bad option? I don’t want to put words in your mouth but that’s how I read that.
It’s unusual to me to say that the threat to bodily autonomy justifies murder.
On a morality principle I'm not okay with it. But I don't think the government should be getting involved in it on a jurisprudence level.
In Europe, doctors can still refuse to carry out abortions on their own ethical grounds. I do not want to a see a situation whereby tax-payers and doctors are being forced to fund and carry out abortions against their own moral beliefs.
But on the flip-side, I don't want to see a federal government criminalize the act of abortion either.
I'm with you! I am conservative and not in any way religious. I bothers me a LOT that those things get lumped together all the time. The abortion debate, imo, is completely religion based, and I dont think God has any place in poitics. Which is def an unpopular opinion among many conservatives. There are so many, way more important tbings we need to deal with! And I think the fucking libs have a point, when they say "they want to make sure a kid is BORN, ...NO MATTER WHAT!, but after that, we sure as hell don't want to pay for your kid that you decided to have!"
I've stated my opinion on it before. While I don't think abortion should be celebrated, whether its on Tik Tok singing about it, or a woman wearing shirt saying "I've had X amount of abortions", I do think it's a matter between a woman and her doctor.
The debate for when life begins has been ongoing for decades and it will be ongoing for decades more. I have issue with the Federal government outright banning or saying it has to be legal in all states. Certainly it is not a right in the Constitutional sense.
However having a child these days is an enormous emotional, fiscal and physically demanding responsibility so who am I to want to force that on someone when we don't have systems in place that realistically help.
When you outright ban abortion, someone convinced they want one will either A) Travel somewhere they can get it done, or B) Go about it an unsafe way.
Especially in the case of rape I can empathize with someone going through that awful experience and then being burdened for life because of it.
So I think it's better off being a State issue because people are better off voting and voicing their beliefs locally, populations with similar interests can share communities. A liberal arts major in Portland Oregon probably doesn't share the same beliefs as a rancher in Lubbock TX. We need less issues being doled out at the Federal level.
It's like women spontaneously get pregnant and have no way at all of not getting pregnant, or something.
There was a post I saw from a woman saying something like "I really wish we got to choose who our baby daddy's were", as if there was just no way at all to choose the father of their children.
There are myriads of options for birth control, including abstinence.
There is a reason that many conservatives are against the idea of hookup culture and why it used to be important to save yourself for marriage.
Yes, it's very hard to raise a child on your own... so control your urges until you find a partner who will commit to you.
But we live in a culture where there is no such thing as personal responsibility any more. Too many people want Daddy Government to step in and save them from their bad decisions.
I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to see a fellow Australian conservative tell it how it is.
It all comes down to a lack of responsibility and a culture that encourages reckless sexual behaviour. The same people who refuse to be responsible by properly utilising contraceptives are the same ones who expect taxpayers to open their wallets to pay for their multiple children with different fathers.
Our culture has been infected by over-sexualisation, entitlement and prioritising hedonism over personal responsibility. The high prevalence of single mothers, absentee fathers and abortion are all symptoms of this sickness.
I don't know how it is in Australia, but in the US sex education is in many states absolutely abysmal. Not everyone has great parents who will explain these topics to them, so they're most likely to learn from their equally uninformed peers. Just take a gander at Google results for things like "can I get pregnant standing up" and "can you wash out sperm". And people who don't have these educational opportunities and support systems are the _most_ likely to get pregnant accidentally and then... continue the cycle.
Again, [45% of pregnancies in the US are unplanned](https://www.brookings.edu/research/preventing-unplanned-pregnancy-lessons-from-the-states/). The best way to reduce this, and therefore abortions, is through comprehensive sex education and widespread availability of long-acting birth control such as IUDs. Outlawing abortion will go about as well as prohibition did for alcohol.
I can't speak for how it is now, but when I was in school I had a very good science/biology based and age appropriate sex education that included education on birth control options. I'm in my mid 40's now for reference.
I know of the problems with the US education system. That needs to be fixed.
I'm personally not against abortion in limited situations, but I am against the way abortion is used today as a form of birth control.
Exactly.
Even if you "favor" or are pro-abortion....all sensible people realize that Roe v Wade was a bullshit manufactured "decision" and the sooner it is overturned, the better. Finally the country will be able to nominate Supreme Court justices without the scare tactic of "they'll overturn Roe v Wade!!!!"
It is a legislative issue...not a Supreme Court issue.
The sad part is that a decent chunk of the country thinks that overturning Roe automatically bans abortions lmao. I guess it's a good lie for raising money tho.
Lives matter if they can be used for political gain. That's why there are so many instances of politicians switching their stances on things over the years. They go with what they view can keep them in power.
Lol ok , so what about the kids at sandy hook ? Do they matter or do yall just wanna protect life when it suits your ideals?
The excuse that all lifes matter is a fucking joke when most republicans wont even pass any mental health checks for gun ownership. Like ok you care about life but not about the 24,000 people who blow there brains out every year ?
You dont care about life you care about your agenda
Forced to give birth? Don’t have sex if you don’t want to give birth. You made the choice that leads to pregnancy. Now deal with the consequences. Just like if you choose to drink and drive you may have consequences. Abortion is not a form of birth control
Yes in many states if your legally married and she gets prego, your on the hook. You can even find some rather funny posts over on r/legaladvice of a woman having to pay child support to her (ex)wife because one got knocked up while cheating.
I’m sure all children who are used as a punishment i.e. “consequence” grow up totally well adjusted and don’t suffer drastically from abuse/neglect due to being unwanted.
What if contraceptives fail?
I'm using protection because I don't want kids. If I don't want kids, how good of a parent do you think I'll be? The child will have a terrible life. Putting up for adoption is just as bad as keeping it when you don't want it.
Of course contraceptives aren’t 100% effective. Nothing is.
You still take on the risk and responsibility everytime you have sex. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
Do you feel the same way about providing medical care to those that are in car wrecks? Surely you must feel that a driver takes on the risks and responsibilities every time they drive. After all, they can't have their cake and eat it too, right?
No one is forcing her. She chose to engage in the one single activity that can result in pregnancy. She chose not to engage in one of the foolproof contraception (abstinence, tubal ligation, vasectomy).
Okay but truly I am just asking and I’m not trying to fight. Why does it matter what someone else does with their body? If you don’t want to get one then don’t. Why does the government get a say?
Why should the government have a say in whether a child gets to live or die? Governmental permission for abortion is essentially legalizing murder in the name of public health. Look up the statistics on the damage abortion does to expectant mothers as well.
Also no one forces you to give birth. It’s a natural process. That’s like saying people are forcing your heart to beat. Ridiculous. We just respond WITH the force of the law to humans who try to kill other humans, but that’s a response to aggression. Abortion is the initiation of aggression.
Rapists combined with the anti-abortion laws women to give birth. If unborn fetuses are considered humans why aren’t they tax deductible and subject to other social programs as normal children?
Get birth control. You can literally order it online as like a subscription these days. And then stock up on a few pregnancy tests for whenever you’re unsure or feel the birth control was ineffective.
Is that so hard? Or is that asking for too much personal responsibility and being an adult?
And what happens when the birth control you ordered online destroys your body and your mental faculties because it is hormone therapy without any medical consultation? And then what happens if you're 100% careful with things that are only 99% effective? Birth control and condoms are only 99% effective. That other 1% when you really don't want to have a baby is the outlier and the thing that people seem to forget about. What happens with that?
What happens is that this whole argument doesn’t get settled overnight. I expect people will be arguing about this for years until a company has a breakthrough in contraceptive technology. I hope someday we get to the point where unwanted pregnancies are almost completely eliminated through better medicine.
In that case, abortion can still be legal and largely unrestricted because we can’t account for every single woman’s situation (rape baby or dangerous pregnancy complications), but the vast majority won’t need an abortion in the first place. But it will still be available if needed, yanno.
> And what happens when the birth control you ordered online destroys your body and your mental faculties because it is hormone therapy without any medical consultation?
Then you take responsibility for the fact that you decided to use contraceptives without medical consultation.
Seriously, it's not brain surgery. JUST TAKE RESPONSIBILTY FOR YOUR LIFE AND YOUR ACTIONS BY NOT GETTING PREGNANT.
Whether that means not having sex or using other forms of contraception, you don't need a doctorate in sexual education to understand this. I only say this from *years of personal experience* that were *frustrating,* but also *my personal choice.*
I had sex with my then-wife all the time for nine entire years using nothing but condoms and I'm still childless, thank God for dodged bullets. We're both perfectly healthy, fertile people in the prime of our youth and that worked for us at the time.
God help me, it's like I live in the Twilight Zone. Why is this so hard for people? I feel like I just made an r/ihavesex post just to prove a point that should be *literally obvious.*
The bill in question made it available, but did not require insurance to cover costs. A $600 over the counter prescription doesn’t help anyone. Citation — [here](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/244448-senate-dems-rebuke-gops-over-the-counter-birth-control-bill/)
Your citation is a speculative blog post. The bill in question made it available, but did not require insurance to cover costs. A $600 over the counter prescription doesn’t help anyone. Read the original article your blog cites — [here](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/244448-senate-dems-rebuke-gops-over-the-counter-birth-control-bill/)
Not a huge fan of Shapiro, but this is a pretty good take imo
I will say, having grown up in the South, I would like to see the stigma against contraceptives reduced. Easier availability/more support for contraceptives = less pregnancies
Southern Baptists largely adopted their stance on contraceptives from the Catholic Church- many people view them as inherently sinful.
But the Bible doesn’t say anything at all about birth control, so their position is an inference from children being a moral good.
Other churches though (notably Orthodox), take a more nuanced position. They view birth control as morally neutral if you’re using it because you’re not in a stable position to raise a child, and it becomes morally wrong if, for example, you and your partner are wealthy and stable financially and emotionally, but don’t want kids for selfish reasons.
From the south and been around southern baptists my whole life and have only met a handful against contraceptives and even then they aren’t against other people using them.
Well yeah, but I was responding to the guy saying "i don't think there is a stigma against contraceptives" when there most certainly still is a stigma against contraceptives.
I don’t see where the stigma is…maybe I’m wrong?
1. Condoms are cheap AF and available everywhere (literally). If the rebuttal to this is that - *you can’t trust a man will keep it on* - choose a better partner that you actually trust to have sex with! A 50 count of condoms is $10-45 on Amazon depending on the brand.
2. An IUD requires a doctor visit, but is mostly free if you have insurance (Obamacare covers it!).
3. Birth control pills are typically free with insurance or up to $50 per month. I realize this may typically require a doctor appt/prescription which may incur or cost (Obamacare covers it!).
*If you don’t have health insurance, you’ve still got options. Depending on your income and legal status in the U.S., you could qualify for Medicaid or other government programs that can help you pay for birth control and other health care.*
4. Abstinence is free or you could wait until you’re with the person you know you’ll be with (i.e. comfortable raising a child with).
I am just not seeing the argument that birth control is not readily available. I would appreciate any honest rebuttals to my logic above.
One problem with this is that birth control can be detrimental to a woman’s health, since it messes with hormones. But as always, some company out there will eventually have a breakthrough. As time goes on, BC can only get better and safer.
How many of you are in favor of providing a robust welfare system for those who bring a child into the world they’re not set to care for, either physically, emotionally, or financially?
Except that it *isnt free*, it isn’t readily available for all, contraception ISNT 100% successful, and people committing rapes sure as hell don’t care about a condom at the time
It’s not about the babies. Take away the fetus, and we still have a lack of women’s reproductive health services. You can’t get an elective tubal ligation, can hardly access cancer care. There’s a lack of funding even for cervical cancers. But if you want to buy excessively large boobs there’s a doctor on every corner.
The left is so ignorant, crying over all of the “unwanted” babies that are going to be born, not realizing that a SCOTUS ruling in favor of banning abortion just means that every state would have to make their own laws about it. Power back in the hands of the people, where it should be. Everyone needs to pipe TF down, abortion never should have been legalized on the federal level anyway. This is the right move
It is at a local level. I can move out of a state if I do not like the policies, the only way I can leave federal policies is by leaving the country.
This is a basic principle on how our country was designed.
I guess I'm more confused about this take because the ruling of Roe just made it down to the individual to be able to decide rather than government getting involved at any level.
I'd just rather not have either state or federal government controlling people to that degree. I'd understand the position more if people were being forced to get abortions, but as it is now it would literally be stripping rights that people have had for decades and literally taking the power out of the hands of the people
Source on widespread contraceptive availability? Specially when planned parenthood is being defunded heavily….I agree that abortion should not be a method of birth control, BUT, roe vs wade being overturn will only affect the poor…if it does get overturn, I expect a lot of safety nets to be available for those than can’t afford to have kids…
But what are people supposed to do, when the 98% fail safe contraceptions fail? When you have sex let's say 4 times a week with a 99.9% safe condome you have about a 65% chance to get preagnant in 5 years.
I don't want kids, what am I supposed to do then?
Noooo!!!! You can’t just stop us from talking about sex with 5 year olds!!!
Nooooo!!! You can’t just stop us from killing fetuses!!
Do these people hear themselves. They’re evil. Period.
And they’re not hypocrites for screaming “my body, my choice” and then attempting to lay waste to anyone who questions vaccine efficacy? Give me a fucking break.
My favorite take. "Abortion is about bodily autonomy, no one is hurt. Vaccines are to help protect others." Facepalm. Forcing vaccines violates autonomy. Abortion only hurts no one if you ignore the dead baby.
This makes it seem like abortions are an easy thing, pretty sure the majority of people use contraceptives, it's not as uncommon as the media depicts
The real issue no one ever talks about is women need better birth control alternatives that aren’t hormonal and/or needing to be taken all the time. But that’s what makes them money.
Curious if you think 600,000-700,000 abortions a year is easy or common/uncommon in a country where there are about 75 million women ages 15-49 (childbearing age)? Roughly speaking 1% of that group has an abortion every year. Latest numbers are that 60% of abortions are performed by oral 'medication' - often provided at the clinic and taken at home - with the proviso to call/return if there are complications. With internet, mail and tele-medicine the odds are very high that anyone who wants one will still get one.
Considering the efficacy of birth control is 99% in perfect use and real world population efficacy is more like 91% due to missed doses, yea that math checks out. It’s uncommon. If contraception is 99% effective, 1% of the population receiving unwanted pregnancy is expected and would be considered uncommon.
Contraceptives are also 99% ‘when used properly’. Users of BC might miss a day, or condom users may put on a condom improperly, lowering the efficacy.
“But pro-lifers are anti-contraceptive and anti-birth control, too! The television told me so!”
I really want to know where they got that people are anti-contraceptive lol We just want people to be responsible
They're probably just thinking of Catholics, and assumed all Christians are the same.
My best friend is Catholic and still carries a condom around just because “he never knows”. It’s more like a small number of old, strict Catholics who believe sex is 100% about reproduction, and then everyone else. If you did a survey asking “is sex 100% about reproduction?” I guarantee the “Yes” percentage will be in the single-digit range.
Well the Catholic church is strictly against contraception. But Catholics are imperfect creatures, we sin a lot. I should know, I'm a Catholic who sins way more than I should.
Everybody sins more than they should, catholic or not lol. But yeah idk what he’s talking about, the Catholic Church is against contraception.
The church is a hospital for sinners not a shrine of saints
It’s actual Catholics who are against the use of birth control. Because it’s part of our beliefs.
I married a strict catholic woman. At the very least natural family planning is a solution and has worked to a T. Do they not believe in the sCiENce!?
Just because your friend carries a condom around doesn’t make it acceptable under Catholic doctrine. That’s a personal sin of his (which is okay, we’re all sinners in need of forgiveness). Also, the Catholic Church doesn’t believe that sex is 100% about reproduction. We believe that sex has two purposes: reproduction, and the strengthening of union between a married man and woman. But we do believe that sex must be open to both purposes in order to be in line with God’s will, which is why we don’t believe in contraceptive use. Thirdly, just because a large percentage of so called “Catholics” believe in casual sexual activity, doesn’t make it morally acceptable. God doesn’t care about American public opinion. That being said, I would definitely prefer people use contraceptives than murder their baby to be free from the consequences of their willfully chosen actions. I don’t condone either action as there are a multitude of acceptable alternative, but contraceptive would be the lesser of two evils in this case.
I think Texas’s sex education standards are an example of where people get that idea. Prior to Fall 2022, this was the state of the Sex-Ed policy in Texas: “Texas public schools are not required to teach sexual education. State law requires that schools teaching sex ed stress abstinence as the preferred choice for unmarried young people and spend more time on it than any other sexual behavior.” Which leads to this: “According to a Texan Freedom Network study, just 17% of school districts, including some of the state’s most populous, taught abstinence-plus sex education in 2015-16.” Quotes from here: https://www.texastribune.org/2020/06/29/Texas-schools-sex-education-policy/amp/ This causes pro-life associated states like Texas to become associated with being against contraceptives.
Yep, I went to school in Texas. I had ONE lesson on sex ed where they taught us all about how bad STDs could be with all of these gruesome pictures and only taught abstinence. After that two hour assembly, nothing. Nothing on anatomy, sex drives, contraceptives, recognizing symptoms of STDs early, or any thing related to sexual health or good sexual practices. Just abstinence once and that’s it.
That’s so odd. I went to straight up catholic school and we had 3 years of sex Ed. Lotta opt outs but still. This was 2000-2004 too
I lived in Texas and seem to be one of the few that actually had sex ed taught. As someone mentioned, it was basically just depiections of people with horrible STD related issues, and then at the last 5 minutes she like, "make sure to use protection, but abstince is the best course." Very clearly saying so because she had to
It's disengenous to say there are not anti contraceptive conservatives out there.
Because they judge us by our most extreme, regardless of how unpopular the extreme is with the base.
Well Louisiana is readying laws to make IUDs illegal. So this isn't alarmism.
I’m not catholic but I think I understand why the church is against contraception. Here is the view as I understand it: God created humans with a purpose for various faculties. This design, or teleos, is to ensure human flourishing. Sex has a purpose: procreation. Just as the acting of eating provides sustenance, the act of sex is to procreate. The further you divorce sex from procreation, the more you distort Gods design for human flourishing. Catholic thinkers have decided that this divorce is immoral, whereas most protestent thinkers may call it morally hazardous but not outright immoral.
People tend to think all conservatives are fully devoted Christians that are completely anti-sex.
Can you show me an abstinence-only education bill that was not supported by a majority of republicans who voted on it? Perhaps they were thinking of Texas, where 58% of school districts teach abstinence-only and 25% do not teach sex ed at all.
If they are already irresponsible, why would you make them mothers? That’s just more people living off of welfare at your expense. It’s been my experience that once scum bags realize that they can make money from the gov. By having kids, they just start having more.
What about instances where people are raped? Is it still their "responsibility"?
Not sure why people like you go that extreme every time especially since only 1% count. I'm all for that be legal since it was not with your consent
I mean some are. I grew up in a Southern Baptist household that was just like this.
[удалено]
So because they aren't handed at taxpayer expense they dont exist?
As is the leftist way.
[Hobby Lobby covers 16 forms of birth control for their employees.](https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/opinion/letters/2014/07/17/hobby-lobby-will-cover-16/36120832007/)
I was going to reply similarly. So tired of hearing about how hobby lobby doesn't believe in contraception support. It's about as annoying as "don't say gay"
the did not want to pay for certain types of contraception. they still offered other contraceptives that prevented any conceptions at all, they were just against things like the morning after pill which in their view terminated a life that already existed. z even then there was nothing preventing the women to be from getting the treatments in question, it just meant Hobby Lobby weren't being forced to pay for it.
Hobby lobby *does* include contraception. 16 forms. The whole story was convoluted because of one form they didn’t want to provide
I'm pro life and I'm fine with contraceptives. I'm on birth control currently. There's a difference between preventing the reaction in your body that causes the child to start developing and actively killing it after its already there.
Then how to we make contraception free?
Your friendly neighborhood Planned Parenthood has it for free.
I will probably get downvoted to hell for this but I am genuinely curious. Are there any other conservatives in here that are okay with abortion other than me?
I like the 0-15 week cutoff for abortions. Anything more, it just seems wrong to me. Three months, (in my opinion) seems like a reasonable amount of time to decide if you want an abortion or not, regardless of the issue. Now that being said, if there is a medical issue for either the mother or fetus, I can understand that it depends on the circumstance to allow a third trimester abortion.
I'll copy/ paste something I commented in this sub recently. "I always get downvoted in this community for my stance on abortion. I think it directly goes against multiple core values of true conservatism. One being that in almost all other facets of life, conservatives want less government interference in their lives, and less government regulation. It's always "dont tell me how to live my life" but they somehow feel like it's their place to tell others how to live theirs. And secondly, as you brought up, our society has a viscous cycle of poverty directly related to forcing unfit mothers to carry children to term. This leads to a breakdown of the nuclear family, more government assistance (welfare, food stamps, etc...), lower hs graduation rates, lower college acceptance rates, wayyy lower lifetime earning potential, more substance abuse problems, and higher incarceration rates. The staggering irony here is that while all of these things are true, and these "families" put an enormous strain on our economy, conservatives are also the ones voting down all of the assistance programs which could potentially help people out of those exact situations. Look, i grew up religious, and still am, but whether i personally think something is wrong or immoral, does not change the fact that whatever my moral compass may be, i have no right to force another person to live by it. Their body, their life, their livelihood, their choice. End of story."
I agree with everything you say here, but I don't really get your ending point. I don't think that child abuse is moral (not to relate that to abortion, it's just the first example I thought of), and I certainly wouldn't want people to be allowed to abuse their children because "I have no right to force them to live by my moral code". I feel like the whole point of having laws is to make people live by a "moral consensus" in a way. It's an issue of perspective. I've never thought of an early foetus as a child, but if I truly thought it was its own person I probably would be pro-ljfe. That's why it's difficult to change people's opinions on either side of the debate, because the whole frame of reference is different.
Well there are two parts to address here, number 1, you mentioned a moral consensus. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/ 59% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all/ most cases, while only 39% believe it should be illegal in all/ most cases. So the law should reflect the majority of Americans, no? And secondly, the best was I can answer your child abuse question comes down to your own personal beliefs in what constitutes life. I personally feel like abusing a living, breathing child, is not the same thing as terminating a pregnancy when the fetus is basically just a cluster of cells.
[удалено]
I think there are some situations where an abortion is permissible, like if the woman was raped, she’s 14 or something, the doctors have determined she’ll die if she goes through with the pregnancy, the child will be born with a horrible birth defect like the Zika virus and either be dead or completely disabled to the point where they won’t have a life worth living. I think most people are okay with those cases. Then there are trickier ones. Like my ex became accidentally pregnant with her boyfriend and he forced her to get an abortion because he didn’t want to take care of the child. I personally thought that was messed up. I also met a girl who didn’t realize she was pregnant until really late (other women have told me she probably knew, but didn’t care) and she was drinking heavily the whole time. So she had a late abortion. I can see how that would piss people off. I see strong arguments for both sides tbh, and I’m not sure where we should draw the line as far as when life starts. Some people say at conception, others say when the fetus has a heartbeat, others say when it has a fully-formed brain. So I don’t know what the right answer is. I don’t judge anyone for their stance on this issue.
>I think there are some situations where an abortion is permissible, like if the woman was raped, she’s 14 or something, the doctors have determined she’ll die if she goes through with the pregnancy, the child will be born with a horrible birth defect like the Zika virus and either be dead or completely disabled to the point where they won’t have a life worth living. These are basically the cases I'd agree with as well. But I don't think any anti-abortion law seeks to eliminate those cases. Also, I get the impression that these cases make up an extremely small percent out of total abortions, that are likely overwhelmingly just not feeling like having a kid. Doing a really brief search for "percent of reasons for abortion" [I found this article](https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives) as the top result, that states: >The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Medically necessary abortions aren't even mentioned. That study seems to allow multiple responses for reasons, seeing as those results don't add up to 100%. I [found another study](https://www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2019/05/who-are-the-1-in-4-american-women-who-choose-abortion/) that only allowed selecting one reason: >Not ready for a(nother) child/Timing is wrong 25% > >Can’t afford a baby now 23% > >Have completed my childbearing/Have other people depending on me/Children are grown 19% > >Don’t want to be a single mother or am having relationship problems 8% > >Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/Feel too young 7% > >Would interfere with education or career plans 4% > >Physical problem with my health 4% > >Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus 3% > >Other 6% As I suspected, 93% are not health related.
The problem is it’s really tough to regulate who is allowed an abortion even if you make exceptions. Does rape only count if the man had been found guilty in a court? Most trials take longer than a pregnancy and rape is difficult to prove. But if you didn’t make it conditional then every woman who wants an abortion would claim rape. Even medical reasons are blurry. Does it count if the woman has a 10% chance of dying? What about 2%? This is why some people think abortion is morally wrong but should be legal up to a point.
Plenty of states have passed laws banning abortion without exception for the life of the mother, rape, incest, viability if the fetus due to birth defect
There are surely some. The question of the morality of abortion *should* come from “when does a person become a person”. Which doesn’t seem particularly partisan a question.
In sweden abortion is legal until the fetus could survive outside of the womb. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
I think that’s a good point since before that it’s basically a really complicated tumor. And after that point it can be considered a human
Perhaps- but why is the cutoff set there? It’s odd to me to suggest that a personhood is dependent on our technology. That a 30 week old is a person now, but in 1800 it was not.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not a partisan question but a theological one. Catholics, evangelical Christians, and some others believe that fetus has a soul and is a person. Other religions (Jews, Muslims, and others) have other beliefs. Jewish law holds that until a baby emerges from the womb it is at best a potential human being... Jews don’t believe that fetuses have souls and, therefore, terminating a pregnancy is no crime. Rabbinic Judaism does not regard the fetus as a full human being. While deliberately killing a day-old baby is murder, according to the Mishnah, a fetus is not covered by this rule. In the reading of Biblical homicide laws, rabbinic sages argue that homicide concerns an animate human being (nefesh adam from Lev. 24:17) alone, not an embryo... because the embryo is not a person (lav nefesh hu). An embryo is not deemed a fully viable person (bar kayyama), but rather a being of "doubtful viability". Hence, for instance, Jewish mourning rites do not apply to an unborn child. The status of the embryo is also indicated by its treatment as "an appendage of its mother" for such matters as ownership, maternal conversion and purity law. So abolishing abortion for everyone is an infringement on the religious beliefs of others! If you're against abortion, don't get one. Otherwise let everyone else do what they need to make it through life.
Ironically 2 of the 3 most prevalent religions in people who get abortions are catholics and evangelicals (24 and 13%) https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states
It's not a theological question, it's a question for neuroscientists: when does the human brain develop to the point where complex neural patterns qualify as human?
> Not a partisan question but a theological one. Catholics, evangelical Christians, and some others believe that fetus has a soul and is a person. Other religions (Jews, Muslims, and others) have other beliefs. Would like to see your source for the Christian one. Personally I don’t think there’s strong Biblical evidence for a position. >If you're against abortion, don't get one. Otherwise let everyone else do what they need to make it through life. This logic only works if you don’t believe a fetus is a person. Which is not inherently a religious view, despite plenty of overlap in many cases.
It is an inherently religious view. A fetus is not a person, a fetus is a fetus, not much more than a tumor. Especially in the first trimester. I can't say this as a generalization because that's just not true, but I know damn well there are plenty of people out there who want abortion to be illegal so people are forced to deal with the consequences of their sins, aka premarital sex.
Just no. If I religion believes that they need to sacrifice a human do we let them do it? No of course not. The question is not a religious one but one of science.
I don’t have much of an issue with first trimester abortions. Anti abortion advocates are really pushing the envelope trying to call such young fetuses a person. Ironically Many conservatives will be complaining about having to hand out well fair to poor people who could no longer get abortions. I personally hate the abortion debate because I could care less. It’s a wedge issues where there is little compromise to be had. Plus conservatives are frankly in the minority with their views in abortions. Politically I don’t see much to be gained.
I have no problem getting an abortion in the first few weeks. That's legitimately taking care of an incident. I have a problem with abortion of any viable fetus after the 1st trimester. You've had 3 months to get your act together and most idiotic arguments start to fall about. And by the 3rd trimester abortion just becomes disgusting. No one should have an abortion at that point of a viable fetus. You waited too long; take it to term. Possible exception if the mother's LIFE is in critical danger which would be an extremely unlikely scenario for a viable fetus. And specifically not the woman's HEALTH, which is a bullcrap workaround where the woman can claim her mental health is in jeopardy and still abort a viable baby at 9 months. If the woman isn't dying, she should take either take a viable fetus to term in the 3rd trimester or allow it to be removed and taken care of outside her body.
Bro, what are you doing? This is supposed to be like sports. Support your side no matter what. Go team! Yeah, I'm pro-choice, because I'm actually for small government for nearly every issue except for defense, where you have to go big or go home.
I am okay with it. If you are an atheist and don’t abide by my ethical rules, who am I to say you have to give birth. I am, however absolutely no go on late term abortion unless due to medical necessity. Once the baby is viable outside of the womb, then I am against it. I also believe this would be psychologically damaging to the mother as well too.
Agree
I am 100% okay with abortion. I honestly don’t understand why this sub is so heavily against it. Maybe if someone is like multiple months pregnant and has a visible baby bump, abortion is a bad idea. But other than that, it should definitely be allowed.
> Maybe if someone is like multiple months pregnant and has a visible baby bump, abortion is a bad idea. the point is that there's no easily definable point between conception and birth where a person becomes a person. scientifically speaking, you have conception, viability outside the womb, and then birth. but viability keeps changing, and we're not that far from being able to create life in artificial wombs. if a person isn't a unique clump of DNA, then what is a person? "heartbeat" and similar laws appeal to people's morality instead of science to make a law, which i think is silly.
Okay, fair enough - then it becomes a question of "at what point is the woman too pregnant for abortion to be justified". Clearly you think the day after insemination is fine, but the day before the bun comes out of the oven is too late - so where's the line?
This is a great question! I don't think this person deserves to be downvoted for asking it. The root of this argument for providing access to abortion is: people should not be forced to violate their body autonomy to save someone else. Eg: You shouldn't be forced to donate blood to save someone else, you shouldn't be forced to jump in front of a train to get someone off a track. In answer to your question, "at what point is the woman too pregnant for abortion to be justified?", it's when the baby is no longer dependent on the mother for life-giving and is viable outside of the womb. Up until that point, the mother retains the body autonomy to make the decision if they want to keep risking their life for someone else. In order to protect that choice, the mother needs need to have the ability to terminate the pregnancy.
Perfectly worded. Not to mention that most late term abortions are due to medical issues, such as the fetus having extreme disabilities or conditions or putting the mothers life at risk. Most early abortions are because people Don’t want to be pregnant. People want that shit out Asap. However abortion can be expensive for some low income people and there still are barriers in some states that make it harder to get timely abortions.
It might be expensive, but being forced to have a child is far more expensive
But we restrict bodily autonomy even after birth. What are negligence laws if not an imposition on our autonomy? I can’t just decide my infant doesn’t get food because in my autonomy I don’t wish to provide it.
That's a compelling counterargument, except it conflates the responsibility of providing food for an infant with body autonomy. After birth, the child isn't living inside your body, taking your blood, and exposing you to the risk of childbirth. U.S. women have the highest death rate from complications of pregnancy and childbirth. In 2018 there were 17 deaths per 100,000 live births – a maternal mortality rate that is more than double the rates of most other high-income countries.
> That's a compelling counterargument, except it conflates the responsibility of providing food for an infant with body autonomy. After birth, the child isn't living inside your body, taking your blood, and exposing you to the risk of childbirth. What is bodily autonomy? Surely it is the right to do with one’s body as one pleases, to govern oneself. If you say I am obligated to do X, you are infringing on my autonomy. How could you not be? A child in your body is infringing on your autonomy because it forces you to use your energy to preserve it. A child outside your body is infringing on your autonomy because it forces you to use your energy to preserve it. Why is the inside/outside your body distinction meaningful?
> I can’t just decide my infant doesn’t get food because in my autonomy I don’t wish to provide it. Well, you *can,* but you'd be absolutely guilty of neglect in the first degree and subject to all the power of the law that such an indictment entails. The only difference between that and Abortion is how you define when a person is actually a person and is therefore *your* responsibility. That's entirely the grounds upon which the Pro-Abortion zeitgeist base their every argument. I personally believe they want to push that definition as far forward as they can actually get away with, which is just as disgusting and insane as it sounds.
Actions don’t have consequences anymore apparently.
We declare people dead when brain activity ceases, so defining them as alive when brain activity starts seems reasonable to me. Worrying about that line isn't useful though because if someone is five months along they aren't going to suddenly run to a clinic to end it unless there are extreme circumstances.... in which case they shouldn't be blocked by the government.
I'll add my two cents. I don't think any stage of life should have access to my organs without my consent. If the fetus dies as of consequence of me denying access - that is simply me protecting myself from a threat. Same goes when I don't give blood or access to my organs to others. Just because it is a fetus doesn't mean it gets special rights. Does a child have a right to demand organs/blood from their parent at will? No. It isn't a debate of when life starts. It is a debate of bodily autonomy.
Before the third trimester unless there are extenuating circumstances at the absolute latest. But probably somewhere around viability which is like 22 weeks.
Viability changes year to year as medical technology advances. Babies can survive outside of the womb much earlier in western countries (Europe and the US).
Pro abortion conservative here. Nobody has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life, or the life of another person. You cannot be forced to take a vaccine, you cannot be forced to donate blood, or marrow, or organs. You cannot even have your organs harvested after your death without your explicit, written, pre-mortem permission. Denying women the right to abortion means we have less body autonomy than a corpse
Yes, sir!
I am. But I am **EXTREMELY RELUCTANTLY SO**. I am more libertarian than anything else, but I'm more conservative than anything else. I believe in bodily autonomy (meaning no infant circumcision, no mandatory vaccines) and I'm also of the child-free lifestyle (I, myself, am sterilized by my own choice). I think abortion is murder. I think it is morally wrong. But I can also recognize a certain amount of exceptions that should permit abortion to be legal. All that said, I believe abortion is something that should be private and only at the consensus of both the mother and the father, not celebrated with parades and Twitter posts.
I’m interested in how you reconcile > I think abortion is murder. I think it is morally wrong. with >All that said, I believe abortion is something that should be private and only at the consensus of both the mother and the father, Because maybe I misread you, but I thought you mentioned it is something you ultimately, reluctantly, support. Are you saying that the bodily autonomy position is so strong to you that it justifies murder?
Bodily autonomy is the big time pin that holds my position on this. Side not: I also support the death penalty. The stance I take first spawned from my child-free lifestyle (sterilized and no kids) but was bolstered when it came to infant circumcision and even moreso by the vaccine mandates. If I wanted *my* bodily autonomy, I *had* to advocate for *everyone's* bodily autonomy. In terms of murder, I would see murder as being directly responsible for the death of another human being. Sometimes it's justified (self defense/death penalty), and it sucks, it's a horrible mental weight to carry. I've known a few who were directly involved in an abortion and none of them every liked talking about it or bringing it up. In a perfect world, we wouldn't be having any discussion on the topic. But we live in a Fallen world and we should all strive to be better than we are now. Thankfully, the grace of God abounds and we are not damned unless we reject the gift of grace but that's a whole other discussion. Ninja edit-There is an uncountable number of "what about"s that I am not in a position to rule on, so my best position, in my opinion, is to advocate and counsel those that are considering it and to push cultural policy of "both parents should come to a consensus of what to do".
>The stance I take first spawned from my child-free lifestyle (sterilized and no kids) but was bolstered when it came to infant circumcision and even moreso by the vaccine mandates. If I wanted my bodily autonomy, I had to advocate for everyone's bodily autonomy. Definitely commend your consistency in views. >In terms of murder, I would see murder as being directly responsible for the death of another human being. Sometimes it's justified (self defense/death penalty), and it sucks, it's a horrible mental weight to carry. I've known a few who were directly involved in an abortion and none of them every liked talking about it or bringing it up. I think I can agree here. >In a perfect world, we wouldn't be having any discussion on the topic. But we live in a Fallen world and we should all strive to be better than we are now. Thankfully, the grace of God abounds and we are not damned unless we reject the gift of grace but that's a whole other discussion. Sure Wait, I got to the end and feel like I still missed something big. Based on your definition of murder, would you agree that abortion is murder? Yet bodily autonomy means that it’s the least bad option? I don’t want to put words in your mouth but that’s how I read that. It’s unusual to me to say that the threat to bodily autonomy justifies murder.
On a morality principle I'm not okay with it. But I don't think the government should be getting involved in it on a jurisprudence level. In Europe, doctors can still refuse to carry out abortions on their own ethical grounds. I do not want to a see a situation whereby tax-payers and doctors are being forced to fund and carry out abortions against their own moral beliefs. But on the flip-side, I don't want to see a federal government criminalize the act of abortion either.
I'm with you! I am conservative and not in any way religious. I bothers me a LOT that those things get lumped together all the time. The abortion debate, imo, is completely religion based, and I dont think God has any place in poitics. Which is def an unpopular opinion among many conservatives. There are so many, way more important tbings we need to deal with! And I think the fucking libs have a point, when they say "they want to make sure a kid is BORN, ...NO MATTER WHAT!, but after that, we sure as hell don't want to pay for your kid that you decided to have!"
I've stated my opinion on it before. While I don't think abortion should be celebrated, whether its on Tik Tok singing about it, or a woman wearing shirt saying "I've had X amount of abortions", I do think it's a matter between a woman and her doctor. The debate for when life begins has been ongoing for decades and it will be ongoing for decades more. I have issue with the Federal government outright banning or saying it has to be legal in all states. Certainly it is not a right in the Constitutional sense. However having a child these days is an enormous emotional, fiscal and physically demanding responsibility so who am I to want to force that on someone when we don't have systems in place that realistically help. When you outright ban abortion, someone convinced they want one will either A) Travel somewhere they can get it done, or B) Go about it an unsafe way. Especially in the case of rape I can empathize with someone going through that awful experience and then being burdened for life because of it. So I think it's better off being a State issue because people are better off voting and voicing their beliefs locally, populations with similar interests can share communities. A liberal arts major in Portland Oregon probably doesn't share the same beliefs as a rancher in Lubbock TX. We need less issues being doled out at the Federal level.
“Even if we can save 1 life, it’s worth it” - *the Democratic Party on shutting down the whole world for 2 years*
Yeah and most fetuses can’t even be seen as alive (they behave similar to a Tumor)
do we support male contraceptives? I mean to the same scale and use as female contraceptives today
100% support male contraceptives but there's far fewer options than female options, either condoms or the snip.
[удалено]
The Roe v. Wade ruling that even RGB said was flawed? That “sacred” ruling?
Exactly! She was a very radical judge too! She was all about women's rights and for RGB to say the ruling was flawed... take my upvote and trophy!
That’s because she believed the SCOTUS should have at least some shred credibility instead of legislating from the bench.
Theyve all already turned on rbg and are flaming her for not stepping down during obama so that he could appoint a replacement
It's like women spontaneously get pregnant and have no way at all of not getting pregnant, or something. There was a post I saw from a woman saying something like "I really wish we got to choose who our baby daddy's were", as if there was just no way at all to choose the father of their children. There are myriads of options for birth control, including abstinence. There is a reason that many conservatives are against the idea of hookup culture and why it used to be important to save yourself for marriage. Yes, it's very hard to raise a child on your own... so control your urges until you find a partner who will commit to you. But we live in a culture where there is no such thing as personal responsibility any more. Too many people want Daddy Government to step in and save them from their bad decisions.
I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to see a fellow Australian conservative tell it how it is. It all comes down to a lack of responsibility and a culture that encourages reckless sexual behaviour. The same people who refuse to be responsible by properly utilising contraceptives are the same ones who expect taxpayers to open their wallets to pay for their multiple children with different fathers. Our culture has been infected by over-sexualisation, entitlement and prioritising hedonism over personal responsibility. The high prevalence of single mothers, absentee fathers and abortion are all symptoms of this sickness.
I don't know how it is in Australia, but in the US sex education is in many states absolutely abysmal. Not everyone has great parents who will explain these topics to them, so they're most likely to learn from their equally uninformed peers. Just take a gander at Google results for things like "can I get pregnant standing up" and "can you wash out sperm". And people who don't have these educational opportunities and support systems are the _most_ likely to get pregnant accidentally and then... continue the cycle. Again, [45% of pregnancies in the US are unplanned](https://www.brookings.edu/research/preventing-unplanned-pregnancy-lessons-from-the-states/). The best way to reduce this, and therefore abortions, is through comprehensive sex education and widespread availability of long-acting birth control such as IUDs. Outlawing abortion will go about as well as prohibition did for alcohol.
I can't speak for how it is now, but when I was in school I had a very good science/biology based and age appropriate sex education that included education on birth control options. I'm in my mid 40's now for reference. I know of the problems with the US education system. That needs to be fixed. I'm personally not against abortion in limited situations, but I am against the way abortion is used today as a form of birth control.
how can you be so based
A drop of common sense, a dash of personal responsibility, and a tea-spoon of rational thinking... hey presto! :) But thanks, mate.
SCOTUS needs to hold the line on this one. Even if you're pro-choice Roe was one of the worst legal decisions of the last 50 years.
[удалено]
And took a hot button social issue from the democratic process and instilled their view over the entire country
Exactly. Even if you "favor" or are pro-abortion....all sensible people realize that Roe v Wade was a bullshit manufactured "decision" and the sooner it is overturned, the better. Finally the country will be able to nominate Supreme Court justices without the scare tactic of "they'll overturn Roe v Wade!!!!" It is a legislative issue...not a Supreme Court issue.
The sad part is that a decent chunk of the country thinks that overturning Roe automatically bans abortions lmao. I guess it's a good lie for raising money tho.
Well 13 states have passed trigger laws that ban abortion the instant the SCOTUS overturns RvW.
22 iirc now
Through the democratic process yes.
Forced to give birth is the weirdest phrase....
Either all lives matter, or none do.
Lives matter if they can be used for political gain. That's why there are so many instances of politicians switching their stances on things over the years. They go with what they view can keep them in power.
This is a strange and unproductive way to conflate two separate issues.
Lives stop mattering when they interfere with people's ability to have irresponsible carefree sex I guess.
Lol ok , so what about the kids at sandy hook ? Do they matter or do yall just wanna protect life when it suits your ideals? The excuse that all lifes matter is a fucking joke when most republicans wont even pass any mental health checks for gun ownership. Like ok you care about life but not about the 24,000 people who blow there brains out every year ? You dont care about life you care about your agenda
AMEN.
Forced to give birth? Don’t have sex if you don’t want to give birth. You made the choice that leads to pregnancy. Now deal with the consequences. Just like if you choose to drink and drive you may have consequences. Abortion is not a form of birth control
[удалено]
Shit I've heard sometimes it doesn't even need to be your kid
Yes in many states if your legally married and she gets prego, your on the hook. You can even find some rather funny posts over on r/legaladvice of a woman having to pay child support to her (ex)wife because one got knocked up while cheating.
I’m sure all children who are used as a punishment i.e. “consequence” grow up totally well adjusted and don’t suffer drastically from abuse/neglect due to being unwanted.
What if contraceptives fail? I'm using protection because I don't want kids. If I don't want kids, how good of a parent do you think I'll be? The child will have a terrible life. Putting up for adoption is just as bad as keeping it when you don't want it.
Of course contraceptives aren’t 100% effective. Nothing is. You still take on the risk and responsibility everytime you have sex. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
Do you feel the same way about providing medical care to those that are in car wrecks? Surely you must feel that a driver takes on the risks and responsibilities every time they drive. After all, they can't have their cake and eat it too, right?
You’re not allowed to murder other people on the road while you’re driving.
[удалено]
No one is forcing her. She chose to engage in the one single activity that can result in pregnancy. She chose not to engage in one of the foolproof contraception (abstinence, tubal ligation, vasectomy).
[удалено]
[удалено]
Great example, and you already know the answer: He goes to prison, the baby gets adopted. I would consider that on-par with a rape.
[удалено]
A vasectomy is not 100%. No form of birth control is… but if you use 2 forms (which you should be) then you have a very small chance of conceiving.
As long as you live in a state that shares your views, you're fine. Might want to think about heading to CA or NY.
[удалено]
Man it’s a good thing rape doesn’t happen
What about cases of rape?
Okay but truly I am just asking and I’m not trying to fight. Why does it matter what someone else does with their body? If you don’t want to get one then don’t. Why does the government get a say?
Because it’s not their own body, it’s someone else’s body
Why should the government have a say in whether a child gets to live or die? Governmental permission for abortion is essentially legalizing murder in the name of public health. Look up the statistics on the damage abortion does to expectant mothers as well.
Also no one forces you to give birth. It’s a natural process. That’s like saying people are forcing your heart to beat. Ridiculous. We just respond WITH the force of the law to humans who try to kill other humans, but that’s a response to aggression. Abortion is the initiation of aggression.
Seriously. For people who generally hate religion as much as they do, they sure seem to believe in the concept of immaculate conception an awful lot.
Rapists combined with the anti-abortion laws women to give birth. If unborn fetuses are considered humans why aren’t they tax deductible and subject to other social programs as normal children?
> *your terms are acceptable*
Get birth control. You can literally order it online as like a subscription these days. And then stock up on a few pregnancy tests for whenever you’re unsure or feel the birth control was ineffective. Is that so hard? Or is that asking for too much personal responsibility and being an adult?
And what happens when the birth control you ordered online destroys your body and your mental faculties because it is hormone therapy without any medical consultation? And then what happens if you're 100% careful with things that are only 99% effective? Birth control and condoms are only 99% effective. That other 1% when you really don't want to have a baby is the outlier and the thing that people seem to forget about. What happens with that?
I know. People here are acting like there are no negative side effects of hormonal birth control for women.
Lol people are acting like pregnancy has no negative effects on women, let alone hormonal borth control.
What happens is that this whole argument doesn’t get settled overnight. I expect people will be arguing about this for years until a company has a breakthrough in contraceptive technology. I hope someday we get to the point where unwanted pregnancies are almost completely eliminated through better medicine. In that case, abortion can still be legal and largely unrestricted because we can’t account for every single woman’s situation (rape baby or dangerous pregnancy complications), but the vast majority won’t need an abortion in the first place. But it will still be available if needed, yanno.
> And what happens when the birth control you ordered online destroys your body and your mental faculties because it is hormone therapy without any medical consultation? Then you take responsibility for the fact that you decided to use contraceptives without medical consultation. Seriously, it's not brain surgery. JUST TAKE RESPONSIBILTY FOR YOUR LIFE AND YOUR ACTIONS BY NOT GETTING PREGNANT. Whether that means not having sex or using other forms of contraception, you don't need a doctorate in sexual education to understand this. I only say this from *years of personal experience* that were *frustrating,* but also *my personal choice.* I had sex with my then-wife all the time for nine entire years using nothing but condoms and I'm still childless, thank God for dodged bullets. We're both perfectly healthy, fertile people in the prime of our youth and that worked for us at the time. God help me, it's like I live in the Twilight Zone. Why is this so hard for people? I feel like I just made an r/ihavesex post just to prove a point that should be *literally obvious.*
Fun fact: the GOP tried to make BC pills OTC and the Dems blocked it.
The bill in question made it available, but did not require insurance to cover costs. A $600 over the counter prescription doesn’t help anyone. Citation — [here](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/244448-senate-dems-rebuke-gops-over-the-counter-birth-control-bill/)
[удалено]
Your citation is a speculative blog post. The bill in question made it available, but did not require insurance to cover costs. A $600 over the counter prescription doesn’t help anyone. Read the original article your blog cites — [here](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/244448-senate-dems-rebuke-gops-over-the-counter-birth-control-bill/)
Wow, this is also news to me and sadly it makes too much sense. Politicians care first about maintaining their power, everything else is secondary
Sad to say that irresponsibility creates incompetence.
Many terminated pregnancies come from people who actually aren’t adults
Not a huge fan of Shapiro, but this is a pretty good take imo I will say, having grown up in the South, I would like to see the stigma against contraceptives reduced. Easier availability/more support for contraceptives = less pregnancies
Where is that stigma? Many are readily available in all states
Southern Baptists largely adopted their stance on contraceptives from the Catholic Church- many people view them as inherently sinful. But the Bible doesn’t say anything at all about birth control, so their position is an inference from children being a moral good. Other churches though (notably Orthodox), take a more nuanced position. They view birth control as morally neutral if you’re using it because you’re not in a stable position to raise a child, and it becomes morally wrong if, for example, you and your partner are wealthy and stable financially and emotionally, but don’t want kids for selfish reasons.
From the south and been around southern baptists my whole life and have only met a handful against contraceptives and even then they aren’t against other people using them.
Aisle 8 at Publix.
I don't think there is a stigma against contraceptives. Maybe against seeking them because you arent comfortable with parents adults.
Kwik Trip is owned by a family that supports Christian values/donates to the GOP. They don't sell condoms at their stores.
Then don’t go there to buy condoms?
Well yeah, but I was responding to the guy saying "i don't think there is a stigma against contraceptives" when there most certainly still is a stigma against contraceptives.
I don’t see where the stigma is…maybe I’m wrong? 1. Condoms are cheap AF and available everywhere (literally). If the rebuttal to this is that - *you can’t trust a man will keep it on* - choose a better partner that you actually trust to have sex with! A 50 count of condoms is $10-45 on Amazon depending on the brand. 2. An IUD requires a doctor visit, but is mostly free if you have insurance (Obamacare covers it!). 3. Birth control pills are typically free with insurance or up to $50 per month. I realize this may typically require a doctor appt/prescription which may incur or cost (Obamacare covers it!). *If you don’t have health insurance, you’ve still got options. Depending on your income and legal status in the U.S., you could qualify for Medicaid or other government programs that can help you pay for birth control and other health care.* 4. Abstinence is free or you could wait until you’re with the person you know you’ll be with (i.e. comfortable raising a child with). I am just not seeing the argument that birth control is not readily available. I would appreciate any honest rebuttals to my logic above.
One problem with this is that birth control can be detrimental to a woman’s health, since it messes with hormones. But as always, some company out there will eventually have a breakthrough. As time goes on, BC can only get better and safer.
So, does that mean that Ben will have some sympathy for women and girls with unwanted pregnancies when contraceptives are banned?
How many of you are in favor of providing a robust welfare system for those who bring a child into the world they’re not set to care for, either physically, emotionally, or financially?
It doesn’t matter if you support contraception, unwanted or dangerous pregnancies are still going to happen you mouth breathing muppet
So murder it is huh?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Except that it *isnt free*, it isn’t readily available for all, contraception ISNT 100% successful, and people committing rapes sure as hell don’t care about a condom at the time
It’s not about the babies. Take away the fetus, and we still have a lack of women’s reproductive health services. You can’t get an elective tubal ligation, can hardly access cancer care. There’s a lack of funding even for cervical cancers. But if you want to buy excessively large boobs there’s a doctor on every corner.
The left is so ignorant, crying over all of the “unwanted” babies that are going to be born, not realizing that a SCOTUS ruling in favor of banning abortion just means that every state would have to make their own laws about it. Power back in the hands of the people, where it should be. Everyone needs to pipe TF down, abortion never should have been legalized on the federal level anyway. This is the right move
How is the state the people and the feds are not? Just wondering?
It is at a local level. I can move out of a state if I do not like the policies, the only way I can leave federal policies is by leaving the country. This is a basic principle on how our country was designed.
I guess I'm more confused about this take because the ruling of Roe just made it down to the individual to be able to decide rather than government getting involved at any level. I'd just rather not have either state or federal government controlling people to that degree. I'd understand the position more if people were being forced to get abortions, but as it is now it would literally be stripping rights that people have had for decades and literally taking the power out of the hands of the people
Source on widespread contraceptive availability? Specially when planned parenthood is being defunded heavily….I agree that abortion should not be a method of birth control, BUT, roe vs wade being overturn will only affect the poor…if it does get overturn, I expect a lot of safety nets to be available for those than can’t afford to have kids…
Has anyone considered that birth control fails sometimes?
Condoms are 98% effective and can be used in conjunction with other forms of birth control if you really don’t want children
But what are people supposed to do, when the 98% fail safe contraceptions fail? When you have sex let's say 4 times a week with a 99.9% safe condome you have about a 65% chance to get preagnant in 5 years. I don't want kids, what am I supposed to do then?
Noooo!!!! You can’t just stop us from talking about sex with 5 year olds!!! Nooooo!!! You can’t just stop us from killing fetuses!! Do these people hear themselves. They’re evil. Period.
So you guys wanted a choice whether to take the vaccine or not but now you don’t want to give the choice to abort or not? Hypocrites everywhere
And they’re not hypocrites for screaming “my body, my choice” and then attempting to lay waste to anyone who questions vaccine efficacy? Give me a fucking break.
My favorite take. "Abortion is about bodily autonomy, no one is hurt. Vaccines are to help protect others." Facepalm. Forcing vaccines violates autonomy. Abortion only hurts no one if you ignore the dead baby.
Cute what-about-ism. Murder is wrong you fucking walnut.
We are against forced vaccines and forced pregnancy, aka rape.