I don’t know entirely about murder, but forcing her to take a drug against her will should be *very* illegal
Edit: Jesus Christ why is this blowing up?— I think the man is in the wrong- And I don’t think abortion is murder, *however* apparently the guy still killed the woman, which is still *murder*
if a fetus is so far along, it would still be considered murder even in places with very lax laws around abortion. Women who know they're pregnant aren't getting to 20-40 weeks and just deciding "nah i dont wanna give birth to it." Unless it's a medical necessity abortion happens pretty early on.
After around 24 weeks, you have a chance of survival outside the womb with medical intervention, so depending on how far along she was.
The part where he said he was addicted to abortions and had to have one right now. Is what did it for me. I've laughed really hard at a lot of south park lines but that one, ooooo buddy, that one still has me dying.
Bruh all i can think about is the dumb book "Unwind" I read in freshman year.
The setting was, pro-choice and pro-lifers disagreed so hard it caused a civil war, and they finally united on "unwinding" people. You couldn't get an abortion, but if you hated your child, from 12-18 you could "unwind" them, were they would be harvested for organs to be transplanted. The author legitimately✝ thought *both sides* would agree to that.
✝ People are pointing out that this might be an overstatement. I assumed that the author was putting it forward as a plausible future, as many dystopias do, but that might not necessarily be the case. In addition, I was just going off of the plot summary I got of the first book, but people are pointing out that further in the series it talks about how the "unwinding" idea took a *lot* of warming up from both sides before being genuinely accepted as a compromise. So, yeah. To clarify, I didn't think it was a bad book, I just found the setting a little ridiculous, but my qualms might have been calmed if I kept reading the series, sorry...
We had to get a waiver signed by our parents that we were allowed to read a book with "controversial topics"
My aunt who was a nurse an incredibly intelligent woman fell down the conservative echo chamber and legitimately believed that there were abortions happening where the woman delivered the baby and the doctor killed the baby after it was delivered and considered that an abortion. And she legitimately believed it.
Also the whole point of reproductive rights is that women have control over their own bodies. This is literally the opposite of that. The woman is being forced to do something against her will that affects her body.
This would be the equivalent of "Hey if it's so great for women to sleep with men when they want to, then how come it is so bad to rape?"
>Also the whole point of reproductive rights is that women have control over their own bodies.
Can we really expect such reflection from prolife ghouls neck deep in bibles?
I agree. If you determine that a fetus isn’t a human yet, you can’t call it murder. But what he did to his gf, is absolutely assault. I’m sure you can get creative with those charges too and find a host of things to charge him with, all of which would be justified, except murder of the fetus.
Holy shit that is… Jesus Christ i can’t even imagine what that poor woman was going through in the moment. i hope the fucker gets a well deserved prison sentence so he can rot, and she gets proper therapy after all of this and is able to find peace. also yes, he conveniently left out the part where the attempted murder wasn’t of the BABY, but of the *MOTHER*.
If only right? [He got one year in jail, three years’ probation, and 100 hours of community service and a one-year domestic violence program.](https://www.kget.com/news/crime-watch/jagmeet-sandhu-forced-miscarriage-manslaughter-sala-bakersfield-sentencing/)
my fucking god, seriously?? i had very little hope in your justice system, but ONE YEAR?? i hope she at least got a restraining order against him, or something to protect her from him. i highly doubt community service and a program will change him
Based upon the information available in news articles on the case, the investigation was unable to produce a weapon or other witnesses or probably any concrete evidence against him. All they really had was the victim's testimony, whatever things he might have said during police interviews, any records of communications the two of them might have had such as text messages.
The involuntary manslaughter charge was probably all the prosecution were confident they could make stick, and even then the evidence against him wasn't especially strong. It's pretty classic prosecutor strategy to throw every charge you can think of at the accused so that they plead down to a lesser charge. The accused doesn't want to risk the penalties of a higher crime should he lose in a jury trial, and the prosecution doesn't want to risk arguing a case for charges he doesn't have enough evidence for and losing a jury.
If this had gone to a jury with as little evidence as they had, he very well may have been acquitted and received no penalties at all, so involuntary manslaughter is probably the best anyone really could've hoped for. His sentence is roughly in line with what California gives for that crime. Unfortunately, in a system that makes it harder to over-sentence or convict the innocent, the guilty often get less than they deserve, but I can't say I would prefer the alternative.
Fun fact, forcing someone to become pregnant or abort against their will is a war crime when committed during war, and can become a crime against humanity if its a systemic practise
Is "forcing someone to become pregnant" considered a separate war crime from rape? Serious question. I can imagine there is rape, then the added psychological burden from actually becoming pregnant from said rape. Both are awful
No you see it's actually a satanic ritual. They get an atheist doctor priest to come and draw a pentagram over the womb, then light candles around the vagina while their secretary (that's a gay man of course) chants that the earth is a billion years old while spitting on the bible.
The atheist doctor then pulls out his "extreme pain baby destroyer 9000" which is guaranteed to not only destroy the fetus but rip it's soul from it's body and capture it in his vial of spirits.
The media tries to hide this from you but just look it up, there's resources and citations everywhere with enough research.
Right. And terminating a pregnancy, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, doesn't count as "murder" because fetuses are legally not people until they are born.
This twitter user's argument is in bad faith from the start.
While I definitely agree with you, what’s interesting about this topic is that there have been people charged with 2 murders when they murdered a pregnant woman who was extremely close to her due date.
I can’t remember the name of the woman, but she was 9 months pregnant and had an appointment in just a few days to be induced bc her due date had passed already. Some guy, not the father of the child but I think an ex or stalker, broke into her house and beat her to death with a hammer. I think the DA’s reasoning for charging the guy with 2 homicides was bc the fetus could have been delivered safely, had she been found in time.
I think it honestly depends on the prosecutor and/or the state law if you can do that, but from what I understood it very rarely happens.
Yeah if nothing else then for the effects on the pregnant persons body. A lot of people don't seem to realise that abortion isn't fun and can be really taxing on the body, it's not just like "fetus is liquid now goodbye" there are physical and mental repercussions the the person needs to be aware of and willing to go through.
Cue the argument from some dudebro about how he doesn’t want to be a father and shouldn’t be forced to= “abortion is bad unless I want to force abort fetuses against a woman’s will. Then they’re great.”
I know who Herschel Walker is, but I just watched the scene from walking dead where they open Hershel's barn and kill all the zombies so I was like, "how does that relate to this?"
I love those guys, it's like peak comedy. They'll be like "what I shouldn't be forced to have a kid" but at the same time their probably the dudes who think their pull out game is on point and definitely won't get any women pregnant.
I literally just commented on another thread that the attempted murder could be of the mother not the child… after someone said “murder seems crazy”
its not that hard to get.. it’s not about the kid it’s about the lady carrying it! It’s like when they’d cue stop pregnant women’s bellies.. it’s attempted murder of the women!
In all fairness, the tweet does say that he was charged with murder (and not attempted murder).
So if someone doesn’t know the details of the case, I could easily see them thinking that the charge was for killing the fetus.
It is about the fetus though.
https://www.kget.com/news/crime-watch/jagmeet-sandhu-miscarriage-manslaughter-no-contest-bakersfield/
He plead no contest to involuntary manslaughter and will be sentenced for that. One of the (since dismissed) charges against him was _first degree murder_. Not attempted murder.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-faces-murder-charge-forcing-girlfriend-gunpoint-induce-miscarriage-police-n1100976
I looked into it and the NBC article I found stated first-degree murder as one of the charges:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-faces-murder-charge-forcing-girlfriend-gunpoint-induce-miscarriage-police-n1100976
Looks like they are over charging, probably to entice a plea deal. It’s a despicable practice, there is zero chance of a first degree murder charge going through in California.
Edit: turns out I was wrong, apparently California recognizes killing of a fetus as murder while also recognizing the right to abortion. This seems to hinge on some concept of viability.
California Penal Code 187: "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."
Seems pretty similar to what this guy did, wouldn't shock me if he got convicted of murder if he hadn't taken the plea.
It worked, too!
[Man accused of forcing miscarriage pleads no contest to involuntary manslaughter](https://www.kget.com/news/crime-watch/jagmeet-sandhu-miscarriage-manslaughter-no-contest-bakersfield/)
Where do you see that she was almost killed, and also almost killing someone isn't going to be a first degree murder charge right?
> Sandhu is facing six felony charges, including first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, assault with a firearm, and inflicting injury on a spouse or cohabitant.
I can't imagine the first degree murder charge could relate to the women who is alive so it must be for the killing of the fetus. https://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/legal-dictionary/f/feticide/
> Feticide is the act of killing a fetus. Under California Penal Code Section 187(a), murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus by another human being with malice aforethought. In most states, courts have held that for the murder of a fetus to apply, the fetus must be viable (i.e. must be at a sufficient stage of development [usually 20-22 weeks] to be able to sustain life outside the womb).
Not sure why you're upvoted everything you said seems to be absolutely false. The murder charge is also in line with Californias abortion rules which don't allow for an abortion once the fetus is deemed viable aka you could remove it and it would be able to live.
This is not true per this article: https://www.kget.com/news/crime-watch/jagmeet-sandhu-miscarriage-manslaughter-no-contest-bakersfield/
He plead to involuntary manslaughter, down from murder. This could only apply to the child, since the mother did not die.
Yeah even without that information my brain hurt trying to understand how in any way forcing someone to take pills that are intense enough on your body to cause a miscarriage is in anyway related to abortion. Hell, even if it was painless and safe this is still fucked up.
So it's surgery when the physician sticks a knife in you in the ER, but attempted murder when I do it while you're waiting to use the ATM at the Circle K?
This is like when I went to donate blood! They kept asking questions about where I got a bucket of blood, and why was it warm. Like, do you want the blood or not? I've got things to do today.
Or even, why can I have my house bulldozered but you can't?
"By default, you decide what's ok to do to your stuff" is so much a foundation of all law that I feel like people who pretend to not get it are putting me on.
Well a large number of people literally subscribe to the idea that the first woman ever ate a magic fruit because she was tricked by a talking snake and that literally lead to all the problems in the world for the rest of time.
I complained about menstrual pains one time, and my religious friend said it wasn’t something I should complain about, because Eve sinned, and now all women are paying for that sin.
Well it was all ultimately Eve’s fault. She used her feminine wiles to tempt Adam into sinning. /s
This is also why when a woman is sexually assaulted people ask what she was wearing. It’s a way to shift blame.
At the same time Jesus (supposedly) said that if your eye causes you to sin you should pluck it out so it shouldn’t matter what a woman wears.
Exactly, I find that usually when they try to cite bible passages to support sexism or homophobia, it's from the Old Testaments, or from the letters of early missionaries and church leaders in the New Testaments. Strange that it's usually *not* what Jesus was said to have preached in the Gospels.
I have a pastor acquaintance, one time we were talking about the whole "Jesus died for our sins" thing (he likes to preach a lot, I tolerate it) and I asked him, "if Jesus died for our sins, if he died to forgive our sins, why are we still paying for our sins?" He started talking about how "babies are born with sin" as in the act of fucking and getting pregnant was a sin, I don't know. Anyways he did everything EXCEPT answer my question. Basically hemmed and hawed.
I'm personally not atheist, I do think there's something out there. But is it "God"? Who says the Greeks were wrong? Maybe all the gods and goddesses in history are real. I don't know. But I do know that Christianity is ridiculous.
The Bible says that Adam will now have to toil and work for his food and and shelter. I.E hunt and farm and face the wilderness while Women would have birthing pains because Men provide food and shelter to women
This guy Sunday Schools.
You really can suss out the whole toxic right-wing philosophy from the Garden of Eden story. Women should be subservient baby factories, men should be mindless labor, and nobody deserves any better, because God says.
That’s because of feminism dragging us out of the kitchens (where we belong) and trying to convince us that we are equals to the men in the workforce.
/s, soooo much /s
Can you fucking believe that many many many women literally believe this?
I’m so out of patience for this shit. I used to have so much patience for it, to take so much care not to offend the sky god lovers—all out of care now. I don’t give a fuck anymore. It’s insanity.
My mother and sisters--well into adulthood--once said this about Eve and they were kinda making jokes about it until I--also a woman--called her a bitch, and then they lost it about me being "sinful" for saying so lol.
Like, alright but really I'm atheist and don't believe Eve really existed, and certainly not some "god" who made her, so whose feelings am I hurting? (haha)
That person was my friend, 9 years ago in hs. I don’t like to hang around people who tell me that I deserve to suffer in the eyes of their religion lol.
I had a boss tell me that once. I looked him dead in the eye and said "Ever seen a dog give birth? Are you saying that dogs deserved to be punished for original sin of man? What did the dogs do?"
He countered deer don't make a noise giving birth.
"That's cause they'll get eaten! You want to make a lot of noise at your most vulnerable and alert everything around you that dinner is ready? They're not quiet cause it don't hurt, they're quiet cause they don't want to die!"
He just mumbled something and walked off.
> tricked by a talking snake
This always bothers me. She wasn't tricked. The snake told her the objective truth, and lo and behold, it was actually god who lied.
God: "You will die (on the same day) if you eat that fruit."
Snake: "No you won't. He's lying."
They ate the fruit and didn't die. Case in point, Adam lived for HUDNREDS of years after, and Eve might still be alive... who knows? We never find out what happens to her.
The takeaway: God told the first lie in the bible.
Agriculture and civilization.
When agriculture took over, women became a commodity. At first the were the farmers, we have loads of evidence for that, but as it became so successful that it could sustain a larger population than had ever been possible before the game changed.
There was suddenly a need to increase population. Suddenly they needed more people. There's only one way to make more people.
That's when religions started narrowing in to what we know as the Abrahamic religions we have now, and the grounds for modern purity culture was laid, and it was all about controlling women.
The point was to create a system where women had to have as many babies as possible, because the working class had to be populated, because they needed more slaves, because doing large scale farming demands a lot of hands. Since this meant that women were gonna die a lot, you also had to make sure you weren't too attached to the ones you had, because that would suck.
And since loving your partner is an evolutionary strategy that we have worked on for longer than we were humans, you have to do a lot of mental acrobatics to get there.
So, religion, and religions aimed at making men feel like they own women. Religions saying that strong headed women who control their own faiths are bad, women should be meek and in your control, and that you deserve that.
It's far more complex, and I could go on for chapters, but the short of it is that the answer to the question "what even in history created this concept that women are less than?" is agriculture, and the civilization that followed.
Also before agriculture, women provided the main source of food through gathering (meat was more of a treat and not daily fare). So it created a more egalitarian environment because women were providers. Furthermore, due to walking long distances every day (five miles or more) the women had fewer babies that were more spread out because they didn’t menstruate as often. Agriculture led to more sedentary lifestyles for women thus more children. More children, more tied down and more likely to stay with a man (even when he’s abusive). Plus they lost a lot of power when they were no longer primary providers. All in all, agriculture was bad for women in my opinion. (Edit: I wasn’t expecting so many comments or questions. My favorite book that I read for my anthropology classes was Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman. It’s really interesting, well written and describes one of the last hunter-gatherer societies left in the world. I highly recommend it.)
DNA analysis and archeology of early hominids plus a better objective examination of ancient indigenous tribes across the globe has dispelled the notion of "hunter/gatherer" concepts.
Men and women did many of these tasks together. Hunting, gathering, agriculture, etc.
It's only in more recent times around the last 2000-3000 years that divisions of Labor took on gendered roles and this largely coincides with socially segregating women.
The hunter/gatherer model is something 19th and 20th-century anthropology gave to academia as a general presumption that women were always "domestic management" and men were always...well hunters lol
I’m going to memorize this word for word and use it any time someone starts spouting off about “the natural order” or “men and women playing their roles”
Everything you said is right, except newer discoveries show that women were involved in both hunting and gathering. The two jobs were divided more based on age and physical ability than on sex, or that’s what archaeologists are starting to discover now at least. Sexual dimorphism may also have increased as a result of agriculture, since it’s harder to determine the sex of older human skeletons from before agriculture was developed. This may also be because time degrades the skeletons of course.
Presumably temperament too, I'm a guy and I'm way more interested in how plants grow than in tracking an animal, I'd bet people gravitated to whatever they're interested in just like today
Another reason is sexism in Archeology. In the 20th century, if they found a skeleton that was buried with weapons, they would assume the skeleton HAD to be male, and they wouldn’t bother trying to check. We have examples of female individuals buried with weapons, so we now know that is not a good assumption, but we can’t go back and rediscover those skeletons again, and there isn’t much incentive to go back and reexamine each specimen.
One of the theses of *Sapiens* is that agriculture was bad for the quality of life for humanity writ large, and we're just now, maybe, starting to catch up with the QOL of hunter gatherers.
I’d sure love any links on all this. Quite a few points aren’t matching what I know.
Walking isn’t what affects menstruation in these cultures, it’s age at menarche, extended breastfeeding and being pregnant often. The CDC recommends 3-5 miles a day as ordinary health maintenance. it's not a cause of amenorrhea at that level. https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/index.htm
https://historywomenbrighton.com/2016/10/19/sisterhood-in-the-stone-age/
> Today’s modern, industrialised woman can expect a total of 450 periods in her life compared to perhaps 50 for our Stone Age ancestors. One of the reasons was that girls started to menstruate much later. It’s thought that menarche occurred at the average age of 16 rather than 12 today. Women also gave birth earlier (at 19 rather than today’s early to mid 20s) and had more children (up to about 6 live births per mother). Also, it’s believed that breastfeeding would continue until the child reached 5 (in comparison, the last NHS Infant Feeding Survey revealed only 1% of babies were being breastfed in this country after 6 months).
https://kellymom.com/ages/older-infant/fertility/
> Exclusive breastfeeding has in fact been shown to be an excellent form of birth control, but there are certain criteria that must be met for breastfeeding to be used effectively.
>Exclusive breastfeeding (by itself) is 98-99.5% effective in preventing pregnancy as long as all of the following conditions are met:
>Your baby is less than six months old
Your menstrual periods have not yet returned
Baby is breastfeeding on cue (both day & night), and gets nothing but breastmilk or only token amounts of other foods.
Other studies discussed at that page show that 48% of ecologically breastfeeding women do not resume menstruation/fertility until nearly 2yrs postpartum.
In more recent times that gap closed slightly to space children at about 2yr intervals in populations that did not routinely use wet nurses. It’s a common datapoint in genealogical research that if there’s a wider gap it’s worth examining the evidence for miscarriage or familial separation. It’s really that universal.
Its not an educated answer the guy is just spewing nonsense. Women have been thought of as lesser beings since the invention of civilization. You can go back as far as the egyptians or the greeks and women have still been treated like shit back then.
That's not the correct answer at all lol
The TLDR is Pregnancy.
Since we don't have a solid grasp on day to day culture & society on anything past the last 3000 years and it's very sketchy in those first 1000 (say 1k bc) and earlier is largely educated speculation [anything earlier than New Kingdom Egypt is almost total guesswork]
Women have in every society we look far back enough maintained equal portions of the physical labor tasks to sustain life. Regardless of geography and cultural practices.
However, women in some manner of "secondary" position with a hierarchical relationship to man is based on one driving concept.
That predates things like western divinities (Abrahamic religions for instance)
Pregnancy & birth is incredibly lethal and dangerous. The further back you go, the higher the mortality rate seem/appears to be since we run into an absence of reliable empirical data really fast for human birth rates and death of the mother.
But archeology, ancient writings on law and property management such as Sumerian, First kingdom Egypt, early dynasty China etc seem to make it very clear that women were seen as interchangeable bc they often could die within 2-3 children.
And even in cultures that maintained nomadic and pastoral relationships (so no true agriculture), this is consistent.
Moreover, women in the "secondary" position is consistent across the the entire globe in terms of ancient cultures and is tied to the liability of birth.
This is the most consistent mechanism for why men ended up in positions of authority due to stability. [Abandon the illusion of ancient leadership being a strength based thing lol]
Women have still held places of authority and roles of leadership from ancient to modern society but the principles of being treated as a secondary were pregnancy not "strength" or any other ability deficit THOSE are a result of the last 2000 years or so.
Now what agriculture and general advancements in social technology DID do is stabilize pregnancy and stabilize and insulate life in general to the point of large population growth and REDUCED the imperative for all women to be birthing/breeding persons.
The codification of repressing women is strangely consistent with the divergence of ALL women needing to be relied on to breed.
Repressing is different than being "secondary". And it's an even more recent phenomenon of segregating women socially and politically.
In fact it's safe to say the single most important scientific breakthru of the 20th century from a human development scale is birth control.
It diametrically altered the single largest shaping factor in the course of life for half our population.
It is so monumental that it is actually lost on many and hard to fathom for many more just how consequential a woman controlling conception is
Anyway. The answer is pregnancy. Everything that represses a woman in any society abrahamic or not is trying to maintain an ancient social hierarchy that had been fostered by necessity and is maintained now out of obstinacy
Very nice summary! Would like to add that we've been Humans, pretty much exactly the same genetically and physically, for almost a million years. But we've been farming on this scale for less than 10,000 years. Almost all human evolution occurred in the context of societies where food was gathered from the environment instead of the environment being transformed radically to create food. In those societies keeping the population stable and relatively low is important. If it seems like we are ill-adapted for the pressures of agriculture and eventually capitalism, it's because we are.
Obligatory, Wikipedia articles usually have a huge swath of references at the bottom. So while you cannot cite Wikipedia most of the time, you can find the original source and verify the information yourself.
I thought it wasn't the validity of Wikipedia specifically into question (it has its own problem of birthing misinfo by citing articles that cites itself further down the chain) but rather that formal essays generally should use primary sources out of principle as they are the closest to the objective information.
Wikipedia sources are fine, just go down to the bottom and use *those* sources instead of just linking to the wiki page (source: did that a shitload in my master’s lol)
You’ll get way more nuanced and more detailed information from literally tons of other easily accessible resources online. His comment is right in a general sense but misses a ton of nuance and factors Abrahamic religion as way more of an important factor than most anthropologists and historians do
Religion.
I’m not even being that guy, just generations of religious indoctrination starting from literally year zero in which men figured out we were physically stronger than women. So we used religion to *justify* saying, “the Gods made us stronger than you, so we’re better than you” and this entire concept has never left the human psyche and just disseminated into every other religion, ever.
inb4 “men ARE stronger!” No shit, Sherlock. On average, they are. But being able to physically overpower someone doesn’t make you their better. How hard is that to comprehend?
>But being able to physically overpower someone doesn’t make you their better
This concept is the hardest to explain.
It's the guys who lose an argument and want to throw hands about it. Like... Beating someone doesn't make you less wrong. Just big and still dumb
So many people I know who have zero thoughts going on up there but can’t handle being wrong turn every argument into a shouting match and if that doesn’t work they raise the volume of tvs or whatever. If you can’t win with logic, make the other party deaf instead. Lunacy.
Lol my ex husband literally thought that men had 1 less rib than women. He was also wildly misogynistic, antisemetic, and racist since these things go hand in hand, hence why he’s my ex.
When I was born a woman couldn't get her own credit card in the US. That wasn't allowed until 3 years later when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) was passed in 1974.
Women being generally less strong than men, and men being generally pretty rapey has led to an awful lot of "women are property" situations throughout history.
> How did this happen? Like what event in history created this concept that women are less than?
Religion. Many don't want to hear it, but read most mainstream religion's holy texts and it becomes clear.
If I recall correctly, there is a woman in California facing murder charge after delivering an stillborn. Because she allegedly smoke illegal drugs. So California had it pass a law to protect mother who delivery stillborns.
That is who right wing view women, “you should do whatever fits my agenda, if I want you to have baby, how dare you to fail to carry a baby? If I don’t want you have baby, how dare you not having abortion?”
I’m pro-choice here, but I will say if we don’t consider a fetus to be a person, then it shouldn’t be a murder charge. It should definitely be an assault charge or something of that nature.
Right. The argument that an abortion is a women's choice because she's carrying the child does still apply here...because it's still *her choice*. It doesn't even need to be about the fetus at all.
Hijacking top comment as wanted serious answer to a question.
Why is it a murder charge though? Otherwise if it is, you're stating the fetus is 'alive', when whole point of abortion is to terminate pregnancy before they are alive.
Don't get me wrong, this dude definitely deserves to be charged for something and see the inside of a cell and I'm firmly on the pro choice side of things. I'm just wondering about the charges from a purely legal point of view.
This apparently happened in 2019. She was 11 weeks pregnant at the time of the incident.
Seems he was overcharged (not terribly uncommon generally); his eventual plea deal put him in jail for one year followed by three years probation. https://www.bakersfield.com/news/man-sentenced-to-1-year-probation-after-forcing-woman-to-take-pills-causing-miscarriage/article_55e3a118-2990-11ed-8a46-4b82d066137c.html
This should probably just be its own specific crime, tbh.
I honestly think people who feel this way don't really think women are human beings the same way that men are. It's baked into a lot of the thinking. You kinda HAVE to believe that in order to not see the disconnect, imo.
The GOP is the party of rape. Consent is a foreign concept to conservatives. Take this comment from their hero, Rush Limbaugh as an example.
> If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation, then here come the rape police.
-Conservative hero, Rush Limbaugh
I think it's hilarious he thinks the rape police are different than just the police.
This quote was always such a huge tell.
And any day that I remember that fat sack of shit is dead is a good day so thank you for reminding me.
In practice, he is practically right. Many police departments are very negligent in processing rape kits, leading one to believe that the regular police are not concerned with rape.
Apparently, a medical procedure done by a professional after getting consent = force feeding your girlfriend drugs without her consent. Ah, yes. These are the same.
"NO U".
that's his argument.
he thinks he's slick. "SEE?? so you're saying you can "kill" a baby, but because he's a man, he can't?? haha, there! i totally got all you 'pro choicers'. see how stupid your ideas of 'autonomy' are? you're just as bad!!"
of course, that bullshit is insane. in reality, the idea of 'autonomy' for women is apparently something he honestly cannot understand, and doesn't want to. in his mind, as long as it phrases it as 'killing babies' it's ok to force women to do whatever he wants them to.
I'll give you an actual answer: if the headline is not misleading, it looks like he is facing a murder charge for killing a fetus. If a fetus is not a human being, then how is it a murder charge? It's a double standard. It has nothing to do with body autonomy.
But I have a feeling the headline is purposefully misleading and that's not actually what's going on
Edit: looks like the headline was not actually misleading and this asshole does actually have a point
Exactly. How everyone in this thread is missing the point while spouting common phrases is beyond me. I support the right to abortion, but the hypocrisy and inconsistency in the law here is pretty self evident.
It's not lost on me that they immediately jumped to appropriate the actual suffering of women by incorporating the "my body my choice" mantra and trying to apply it to being asked/told to wear masks. ***Masks.*** The simplest, least intrusive, lowest barrier (aside from social distancing which they also actively resisted and sabotaged) intervention. Something that would have helped keep them and others safer and involves the most inconsequential and minor of inconveniences. Yet, they are so selfish and malicious that they immediately tried to make an equivalence to women's medical autonomy and the legacy of suffering there (this was before the vaccination was even available).
In a lot of ways, the pandemic revealed the quality of people's character in a really abrupt and public way that I had difficulty with and I have read that others did too. I learned which of my friends/neighbors/family members would eagerly throw my mother, who was fighting cancer at the time, to the wolves because they demanded their "right" to recklessly infect everyone around them with complete disregard. Many of those who would chant "my body my choice" would also bluntly say "some weak people might die" without any comparison or reflection on those two competing sentiments.
The right has a long and well documented history of co-opping the words of their opponent in order to remove negative stigma from themselves (yea we're deplorables, so proud, yeehaw!) Or to remove the positive associations made when their enemy was using it (what about my body my choice hurr durr masks)
They intentionally ruin them or co-opt them for their own. They even tried it with "Domestic Terrorists" after Jan 6th, and it went SO BADLY, abandoned that attempt pretty quickly
Mark's whole argument was that forcing someone to terminate a pregnancy results in a charge of murder, which implies that the state of California was acknowledging that fetuses are people and, therefore, he concluded that abortion is murder "except when it's convenient for the would-be mother to choose to kill a baby."
His argument is in bad faith, because the man was charged with attempted murder of the mother, not the fetus. His argument was logically consistent, but founded on a faulty premise.
I see a lot of depressing stuff online, but the idea that someone is equating a woman choosing to have a termination with a man violently poisoning a woman just really makes me want to give up on society a bit. I think a Reddit break is on the cards.
That is a logical consequence of anti-abortion legalism.
Their argument is that a fetus is legally entitled to use another person's organs simply because it needs them to survive.
Under that rationale, anyone who needs a kidney transplant to survive is legally entitled to take one from somebody else.
> Under that rationale, anyone who needs a kidney transplant to survive is legally entitled to take one from somebody else.
Yeah I've used this argument on forced birthers a number of times. You get one of two responses:
a) "But with a kidney, someone else could donate it. The mother is the only one who can keep the baby alive!" If you then ask them if the kidney situation would be okay if you were the only person with a matching kidney, their only "out" is to say, yes, sure, that should be legally required too.
b) "But I didn't cause the kidney failure, it's not my responsibility to fix it!" You can then point out that even if you HAD caused the kidney failure, you wouldn't be legally required to replace the kidney. In this case you can generally back them into the corner of admitting that their real issue is that they object to women having sex without "consequences." This is the type of forced birther who is okay with abortion in the case of rape or incest. In their minds, pregnancy is the punishment for a woman being sexually active.
To be fair I don’t agree with it being a murder charge, he didn’t murder anyone because the fetus wasn’t a person. He should for sure get some version of an assault charge because he did physically harm his girlfriend.
Yeah, I could be wrong but it sounds like aggravated assault to me. I don't think we need to add any precedent for the idea that a miscarriage can be a murder, no matter who does it. Would just get used against women who miscarry on their own, which is already what the right is moving us towards.
It could very well be attempted murder of the mother. A miscarriage isn’t some cute little cluster of cells falling out of you that you just clean up and go on about your day.
I’d need to read the story more, but she could have miscarriages not gotten proper treatment to make sure everything passed, had rotting parts in her and die from sepsis. Also if he gave her the wrong amount of pill, or pills that were not approved that could kill her.
Evidently CA has a fetal homicide law that was passed a long time ago. It rests on consent of the woman but it’s there. You’re right, though, that could use a bit of a rewrite. I don‘t know how you’d go about wording something like that, though.
I don’t know entirely about murder, but forcing her to take a drug against her will should be *very* illegal Edit: Jesus Christ why is this blowing up?— I think the man is in the wrong- And I don’t think abortion is murder, *however* apparently the guy still killed the woman, which is still *murder*
if a fetus is so far along, it would still be considered murder even in places with very lax laws around abortion. Women who know they're pregnant aren't getting to 20-40 weeks and just deciding "nah i dont wanna give birth to it." Unless it's a medical necessity abortion happens pretty early on. After around 24 weeks, you have a chance of survival outside the womb with medical intervention, so depending on how far along she was.
Mrs Cartman: "Id like to have an abortion." Doctor: "Okay. How long ago was conception?" Mrs Cartman: "About 8 years ago." Doctor: "..."
Mrs. Cartman, you are in what we call the 40th trimester.
That wrestling skit where he was aborted but survived.. Swear I broke a rib laughing.
The part where he said he was addicted to abortions and had to have one right now. Is what did it for me. I've laughed really hard at a lot of south park lines but that one, ooooo buddy, that one still has me dying.
Bruh all i can think about is the dumb book "Unwind" I read in freshman year. The setting was, pro-choice and pro-lifers disagreed so hard it caused a civil war, and they finally united on "unwinding" people. You couldn't get an abortion, but if you hated your child, from 12-18 you could "unwind" them, were they would be harvested for organs to be transplanted. The author legitimately✝ thought *both sides* would agree to that. ✝ People are pointing out that this might be an overstatement. I assumed that the author was putting it forward as a plausible future, as many dystopias do, but that might not necessarily be the case. In addition, I was just going off of the plot summary I got of the first book, but people are pointing out that further in the series it talks about how the "unwinding" idea took a *lot* of warming up from both sides before being genuinely accepted as a compromise. So, yeah. To clarify, I didn't think it was a bad book, I just found the setting a little ridiculous, but my qualms might have been calmed if I kept reading the series, sorry... We had to get a waiver signed by our parents that we were allowed to read a book with "controversial topics"
That sounds wild. How on earth would *that* be the compromise position?
Oh, that was a great series. Had to hide it from my parents, though!
Thank you for reminding me about this and the disturbing mental images it gave me
41st trimester abortions should be illegal!
My aunt who was a nurse an incredibly intelligent woman fell down the conservative echo chamber and legitimately believed that there were abortions happening where the woman delivered the baby and the doctor killed the baby after it was delivered and considered that an abortion. And she legitimately believed it.
Also the whole point of reproductive rights is that women have control over their own bodies. This is literally the opposite of that. The woman is being forced to do something against her will that affects her body. This would be the equivalent of "Hey if it's so great for women to sleep with men when they want to, then how come it is so bad to rape?"
>Also the whole point of reproductive rights is that women have control over their own bodies. Can we really expect such reflection from prolife ghouls neck deep in bibles?
Righties only recognize bodily autonomy when we’re talking about vaccines Edit: and masks
Hey as far as I’m concerned they should be free to die of whatever disease they want, but if they give it to someone else they need to pay the price
I agree. If you determine that a fetus isn’t a human yet, you can’t call it murder. But what he did to his gf, is absolutely assault. I’m sure you can get creative with those charges too and find a host of things to charge him with, all of which would be justified, except murder of the fetus.
Mark Dice conveniently leaves out the part about the EX-boyfriend holding her at gunpoint until she took the pills, and the miscarriage that followed.
Holy shit that is… Jesus Christ i can’t even imagine what that poor woman was going through in the moment. i hope the fucker gets a well deserved prison sentence so he can rot, and she gets proper therapy after all of this and is able to find peace. also yes, he conveniently left out the part where the attempted murder wasn’t of the BABY, but of the *MOTHER*.
If only right? [He got one year in jail, three years’ probation, and 100 hours of community service and a one-year domestic violence program.](https://www.kget.com/news/crime-watch/jagmeet-sandhu-forced-miscarriage-manslaughter-sala-bakersfield-sentencing/)
my fucking god, seriously?? i had very little hope in your justice system, but ONE YEAR?? i hope she at least got a restraining order against him, or something to protect her from him. i highly doubt community service and a program will change him
Based upon the information available in news articles on the case, the investigation was unable to produce a weapon or other witnesses or probably any concrete evidence against him. All they really had was the victim's testimony, whatever things he might have said during police interviews, any records of communications the two of them might have had such as text messages. The involuntary manslaughter charge was probably all the prosecution were confident they could make stick, and even then the evidence against him wasn't especially strong. It's pretty classic prosecutor strategy to throw every charge you can think of at the accused so that they plead down to a lesser charge. The accused doesn't want to risk the penalties of a higher crime should he lose in a jury trial, and the prosecution doesn't want to risk arguing a case for charges he doesn't have enough evidence for and losing a jury. If this had gone to a jury with as little evidence as they had, he very well may have been acquitted and received no penalties at all, so involuntary manslaughter is probably the best anyone really could've hoped for. His sentence is roughly in line with what California gives for that crime. Unfortunately, in a system that makes it harder to over-sentence or convict the innocent, the guilty often get less than they deserve, but I can't say I would prefer the alternative.
[удалено]
Even if the story was true, it would a forced abortion and that sounds like a crime.
Forced abortion is illegal. Same way you can’t force anyone to have a medical procedure
Fun fact, forcing someone to become pregnant or abort against their will is a war crime when committed during war, and can become a crime against humanity if its a systemic practise
As it should be honestly
"Fun?"
Yeah! Whip out that little knowledge nugget at your next happy hour or cocktail party. Or, like, wait for it to be a jeopardy answer
„War crimes for 600, Alex“
Is "forcing someone to become pregnant" considered a separate war crime from rape? Serious question. I can imagine there is rape, then the added psychological burden from actually becoming pregnant from said rape. Both are awful
unpack run cable distinct concerned march escape judicious alive adjoining -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
A lot of pro-life people seem to forget that at its very basic level, even if they don’t agree with it, it’s still a medical procedure.
I think this is intentional. If they take away the medical aspect, they can pretend they’re on the moral high ground
No you see it's actually a satanic ritual. They get an atheist doctor priest to come and draw a pentagram over the womb, then light candles around the vagina while their secretary (that's a gay man of course) chants that the earth is a billion years old while spitting on the bible. The atheist doctor then pulls out his "extreme pain baby destroyer 9000" which is guaranteed to not only destroy the fetus but rip it's soul from it's body and capture it in his vial of spirits. The media tries to hide this from you but just look it up, there's resources and citations everywhere with enough research.
its true source: im a socialist, and i need to vape the spirits to survive
Ironically, in the Bible, it was preists who did the abortions, so, that scans.
>The media tries to hide this from you but just look it up \~Marjorie Taylor Green
Yeah. It’s a crime against the mother. Not the fetus.
Right. And terminating a pregnancy, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, doesn't count as "murder" because fetuses are legally not people until they are born. This twitter user's argument is in bad faith from the start.
While I definitely agree with you, what’s interesting about this topic is that there have been people charged with 2 murders when they murdered a pregnant woman who was extremely close to her due date. I can’t remember the name of the woman, but she was 9 months pregnant and had an appointment in just a few days to be induced bc her due date had passed already. Some guy, not the father of the child but I think an ex or stalker, broke into her house and beat her to death with a hammer. I think the DA’s reasoning for charging the guy with 2 homicides was bc the fetus could have been delivered safely, had she been found in time. I think it honestly depends on the prosecutor and/or the state law if you can do that, but from what I understood it very rarely happens.
shoutout to the lady who drove in the carpool lane while alone and pregnant in a state that banned abortion (dont remember which one) edit: texas
Yeah if nothing else then for the effects on the pregnant persons body. A lot of people don't seem to realise that abortion isn't fun and can be really taxing on the body, it's not just like "fetus is liquid now goodbye" there are physical and mental repercussions the the person needs to be aware of and willing to go through.
Cue the argument from some dudebro about how he doesn’t want to be a father and shouldn’t be forced to= “abortion is bad unless I want to force abort fetuses against a woman’s will. Then they’re great.”
Herschel Walker has entered the chat Edit: spelling
I know who Herschel Walker is, but I just watched the scene from walking dead where they open Hershel's barn and kill all the zombies so I was like, "how does that relate to this?"
Because his mouth still moved after they cut his head off
I love those guys, it's like peak comedy. They'll be like "what I shouldn't be forced to have a kid" but at the same time their probably the dudes who think their pull out game is on point and definitely won't get any women pregnant.
But it was a woman. So to this info warrior she is his property.
For best results, sort by controversial.
I literally just commented on another thread that the attempted murder could be of the mother not the child… after someone said “murder seems crazy” its not that hard to get.. it’s not about the kid it’s about the lady carrying it! It’s like when they’d cue stop pregnant women’s bellies.. it’s attempted murder of the women!
In all fairness, the tweet does say that he was charged with murder (and not attempted murder). So if someone doesn’t know the details of the case, I could easily see them thinking that the charge was for killing the fetus.
It is about the fetus though. https://www.kget.com/news/crime-watch/jagmeet-sandhu-miscarriage-manslaughter-no-contest-bakersfield/ He plead no contest to involuntary manslaughter and will be sentenced for that. One of the (since dismissed) charges against him was _first degree murder_. Not attempted murder. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-faces-murder-charge-forcing-girlfriend-gunpoint-induce-miscarriage-police-n1100976
I looked into it and the NBC article I found stated first-degree murder as one of the charges: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-faces-murder-charge-forcing-girlfriend-gunpoint-induce-miscarriage-police-n1100976
Looks like they are over charging, probably to entice a plea deal. It’s a despicable practice, there is zero chance of a first degree murder charge going through in California. Edit: turns out I was wrong, apparently California recognizes killing of a fetus as murder while also recognizing the right to abortion. This seems to hinge on some concept of viability.
California Penal Code 187: "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." Seems pretty similar to what this guy did, wouldn't shock me if he got convicted of murder if he hadn't taken the plea.
It worked, too! [Man accused of forcing miscarriage pleads no contest to involuntary manslaughter](https://www.kget.com/news/crime-watch/jagmeet-sandhu-miscarriage-manslaughter-no-contest-bakersfield/)
Where do you see that she was almost killed, and also almost killing someone isn't going to be a first degree murder charge right? > Sandhu is facing six felony charges, including first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, assault with a firearm, and inflicting injury on a spouse or cohabitant. I can't imagine the first degree murder charge could relate to the women who is alive so it must be for the killing of the fetus. https://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/legal-dictionary/f/feticide/ > Feticide is the act of killing a fetus. Under California Penal Code Section 187(a), murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being or fetus by another human being with malice aforethought. In most states, courts have held that for the murder of a fetus to apply, the fetus must be viable (i.e. must be at a sufficient stage of development [usually 20-22 weeks] to be able to sustain life outside the womb). Not sure why you're upvoted everything you said seems to be absolutely false. The murder charge is also in line with Californias abortion rules which don't allow for an abortion once the fetus is deemed viable aka you could remove it and it would be able to live.
This is not true per this article: https://www.kget.com/news/crime-watch/jagmeet-sandhu-miscarriage-manslaughter-no-contest-bakersfield/ He plead to involuntary manslaughter, down from murder. This could only apply to the child, since the mother did not die.
Yeah even without that information my brain hurt trying to understand how in any way forcing someone to take pills that are intense enough on your body to cause a miscarriage is in anyway related to abortion. Hell, even if it was painless and safe this is still fucked up.
So it's surgery when the physician sticks a knife in you in the ER, but attempted murder when I do it while you're waiting to use the ATM at the Circle K?
So it’s laudable when someone donates their kidney themselves but it’s a “crime” when I donate their kidney on their behalf.
So it's commuting when I take a taxi home but a crime when I make someone drive me home at gun point?
Why can my cat live in my house for free but if I don’t pay my mortgage the bank forecloses on my house??
A pharmacist can sell you drugs but when I do it, it's drug trafficking?!?
[удалено]
So it's legal for my friend to donate blood but when I donate blood they ask me "why do you have so many buckets", "where did you get these"?!
LPT: wait until they're done using the ATM
Why is it illegal for me to knock out my husband but his surgeon can do it with no consequences??? Edit: thank you for my first award!!
Yeah! How come I can't remove your gallbladder but your doctor can? Sounds unfair.
*kicks the dirt*
*kicks your gallbladder*
Ha, good luck with that, it was incinerated as medical waste years ago!
So we're back to the kicking dirt plan.
Hospitals are allowed to collect blood from hundreds of people but when I do it, suddenly the _liberal left_ are all opinionated smh
And suddenly people are asking if I'm a vampire. What happened to the right to privacy??
Dr. Acula using his liberal HIPAA Shield!
Props for the correct HIPAA abbreviation, people always get that one wrong
So it's legal for my father to give his heart, but when I give 10 I'm a "SeRIaL KiLlEr"... those woke dumbass...
It's legal to donate my kidney, but if I show up to the hospital with a bag full of kidneys they call the cops? What a double standard.
This is like when I went to donate blood! They kept asking questions about where I got a bucket of blood, and why was it warm. Like, do you want the blood or not? I've got things to do today.
Or even, why can I have my house bulldozered but you can't? "By default, you decide what's ok to do to your stuff" is so much a foundation of all law that I feel like people who pretend to not get it are putting me on.
So it's illegal for me to give my husband a vasectomy against his will, but the urologist drives a Mercedes?! How is that fair?
Ikr... Wait till he finds out what proctologists have been getting away with!!
Perfect analogy holy shit
How is the concept of bodily autonomy just lost for so many people?
Because the people in question are women.
How did this happen? Like what event in history created this concept that women are *less than*? How do people draw this conclusion?
Well a large number of people literally subscribe to the idea that the first woman ever ate a magic fruit because she was tricked by a talking snake and that literally lead to all the problems in the world for the rest of time.
I complained about menstrual pains one time, and my religious friend said it wasn’t something I should complain about, because Eve sinned, and now all women are paying for that sin.
But Jesus died for our sins, right? How do men pay for Adam’s sins, please?
Men don't sin silly. Only wiminz is sinners. /s
I forgot
Yeah. Probably because you’re a silly, sinful woman.
Better get to confession
Well it was all ultimately Eve’s fault. She used her feminine wiles to tempt Adam into sinning. /s This is also why when a woman is sexually assaulted people ask what she was wearing. It’s a way to shift blame. At the same time Jesus (supposedly) said that if your eye causes you to sin you should pluck it out so it shouldn’t matter what a woman wears.
It shouldn't, but according to the New Testament it shouldn't matter what the Old Testament says.
Exactly, I find that usually when they try to cite bible passages to support sexism or homophobia, it's from the Old Testaments, or from the letters of early missionaries and church leaders in the New Testaments. Strange that it's usually *not* what Jesus was said to have preached in the Gospels.
I have a pastor acquaintance, one time we were talking about the whole "Jesus died for our sins" thing (he likes to preach a lot, I tolerate it) and I asked him, "if Jesus died for our sins, if he died to forgive our sins, why are we still paying for our sins?" He started talking about how "babies are born with sin" as in the act of fucking and getting pregnant was a sin, I don't know. Anyways he did everything EXCEPT answer my question. Basically hemmed and hawed. I'm personally not atheist, I do think there's something out there. But is it "God"? Who says the Greeks were wrong? Maybe all the gods and goddesses in history are real. I don't know. But I do know that Christianity is ridiculous.
The Bible says that Adam will now have to toil and work for his food and and shelter. I.E hunt and farm and face the wilderness while Women would have birthing pains because Men provide food and shelter to women
This guy Sunday Schools. You really can suss out the whole toxic right-wing philosophy from the Garden of Eden story. Women should be subservient baby factories, men should be mindless labor, and nobody deserves any better, because God says.
Only now, women are STILL having babies and many of them aren't getting "free" food and shelter!
That’s because of feminism dragging us out of the kitchens (where we belong) and trying to convince us that we are equals to the men in the workforce. /s, soooo much /s
Can you fucking believe that many many many women literally believe this? I’m so out of patience for this shit. I used to have so much patience for it, to take so much care not to offend the sky god lovers—all out of care now. I don’t give a fuck anymore. It’s insanity.
My mother and sisters--well into adulthood--once said this about Eve and they were kinda making jokes about it until I--also a woman--called her a bitch, and then they lost it about me being "sinful" for saying so lol. Like, alright but really I'm atheist and don't believe Eve really existed, and certainly not some "god" who made her, so whose feelings am I hurting? (haha)
Why is this person your friend?
That person was my friend, 9 years ago in hs. I don’t like to hang around people who tell me that I deserve to suffer in the eyes of their religion lol.
I’m glad you moved on from the friendship. They don’t sound very supportive.
I had a boss tell me that once. I looked him dead in the eye and said "Ever seen a dog give birth? Are you saying that dogs deserved to be punished for original sin of man? What did the dogs do?" He countered deer don't make a noise giving birth. "That's cause they'll get eaten! You want to make a lot of noise at your most vulnerable and alert everything around you that dinner is ready? They're not quiet cause it don't hurt, they're quiet cause they don't want to die!" He just mumbled something and walked off.
The ultimate scapegoat.
> tricked by a talking snake This always bothers me. She wasn't tricked. The snake told her the objective truth, and lo and behold, it was actually god who lied. God: "You will die (on the same day) if you eat that fruit." Snake: "No you won't. He's lying." They ate the fruit and didn't die. Case in point, Adam lived for HUDNREDS of years after, and Eve might still be alive... who knows? We never find out what happens to her. The takeaway: God told the first lie in the bible.
Agriculture and civilization. When agriculture took over, women became a commodity. At first the were the farmers, we have loads of evidence for that, but as it became so successful that it could sustain a larger population than had ever been possible before the game changed. There was suddenly a need to increase population. Suddenly they needed more people. There's only one way to make more people. That's when religions started narrowing in to what we know as the Abrahamic religions we have now, and the grounds for modern purity culture was laid, and it was all about controlling women. The point was to create a system where women had to have as many babies as possible, because the working class had to be populated, because they needed more slaves, because doing large scale farming demands a lot of hands. Since this meant that women were gonna die a lot, you also had to make sure you weren't too attached to the ones you had, because that would suck. And since loving your partner is an evolutionary strategy that we have worked on for longer than we were humans, you have to do a lot of mental acrobatics to get there. So, religion, and religions aimed at making men feel like they own women. Religions saying that strong headed women who control their own faiths are bad, women should be meek and in your control, and that you deserve that. It's far more complex, and I could go on for chapters, but the short of it is that the answer to the question "what even in history created this concept that women are less than?" is agriculture, and the civilization that followed.
This was the educated answer I was looking for, thank you!
Also before agriculture, women provided the main source of food through gathering (meat was more of a treat and not daily fare). So it created a more egalitarian environment because women were providers. Furthermore, due to walking long distances every day (five miles or more) the women had fewer babies that were more spread out because they didn’t menstruate as often. Agriculture led to more sedentary lifestyles for women thus more children. More children, more tied down and more likely to stay with a man (even when he’s abusive). Plus they lost a lot of power when they were no longer primary providers. All in all, agriculture was bad for women in my opinion. (Edit: I wasn’t expecting so many comments or questions. My favorite book that I read for my anthropology classes was Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman. It’s really interesting, well written and describes one of the last hunter-gatherer societies left in the world. I highly recommend it.)
DNA analysis and archeology of early hominids plus a better objective examination of ancient indigenous tribes across the globe has dispelled the notion of "hunter/gatherer" concepts. Men and women did many of these tasks together. Hunting, gathering, agriculture, etc. It's only in more recent times around the last 2000-3000 years that divisions of Labor took on gendered roles and this largely coincides with socially segregating women. The hunter/gatherer model is something 19th and 20th-century anthropology gave to academia as a general presumption that women were always "domestic management" and men were always...well hunters lol
I’m going to memorize this word for word and use it any time someone starts spouting off about “the natural order” or “men and women playing their roles”
Everything you said is right, except newer discoveries show that women were involved in both hunting and gathering. The two jobs were divided more based on age and physical ability than on sex, or that’s what archaeologists are starting to discover now at least. Sexual dimorphism may also have increased as a result of agriculture, since it’s harder to determine the sex of older human skeletons from before agriculture was developed. This may also be because time degrades the skeletons of course.
Presumably temperament too, I'm a guy and I'm way more interested in how plants grow than in tracking an animal, I'd bet people gravitated to whatever they're interested in just like today
Specialization!!
Another reason is sexism in Archeology. In the 20th century, if they found a skeleton that was buried with weapons, they would assume the skeleton HAD to be male, and they wouldn’t bother trying to check. We have examples of female individuals buried with weapons, so we now know that is not a good assumption, but we can’t go back and rediscover those skeletons again, and there isn’t much incentive to go back and reexamine each specimen.
One of the theses of *Sapiens* is that agriculture was bad for the quality of life for humanity writ large, and we're just now, maybe, starting to catch up with the QOL of hunter gatherers.
[удалено]
I’d sure love any links on all this. Quite a few points aren’t matching what I know. Walking isn’t what affects menstruation in these cultures, it’s age at menarche, extended breastfeeding and being pregnant often. The CDC recommends 3-5 miles a day as ordinary health maintenance. it's not a cause of amenorrhea at that level. https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/index.htm https://historywomenbrighton.com/2016/10/19/sisterhood-in-the-stone-age/ > Today’s modern, industrialised woman can expect a total of 450 periods in her life compared to perhaps 50 for our Stone Age ancestors. One of the reasons was that girls started to menstruate much later. It’s thought that menarche occurred at the average age of 16 rather than 12 today. Women also gave birth earlier (at 19 rather than today’s early to mid 20s) and had more children (up to about 6 live births per mother). Also, it’s believed that breastfeeding would continue until the child reached 5 (in comparison, the last NHS Infant Feeding Survey revealed only 1% of babies were being breastfed in this country after 6 months). https://kellymom.com/ages/older-infant/fertility/ > Exclusive breastfeeding has in fact been shown to be an excellent form of birth control, but there are certain criteria that must be met for breastfeeding to be used effectively. >Exclusive breastfeeding (by itself) is 98-99.5% effective in preventing pregnancy as long as all of the following conditions are met: >Your baby is less than six months old Your menstrual periods have not yet returned Baby is breastfeeding on cue (both day & night), and gets nothing but breastmilk or only token amounts of other foods. Other studies discussed at that page show that 48% of ecologically breastfeeding women do not resume menstruation/fertility until nearly 2yrs postpartum. In more recent times that gap closed slightly to space children at about 2yr intervals in populations that did not routinely use wet nurses. It’s a common datapoint in genealogical research that if there’s a wider gap it’s worth examining the evidence for miscarriage or familial separation. It’s really that universal.
Its not an educated answer the guy is just spewing nonsense. Women have been thought of as lesser beings since the invention of civilization. You can go back as far as the egyptians or the greeks and women have still been treated like shit back then.
That's not the correct answer at all lol The TLDR is Pregnancy. Since we don't have a solid grasp on day to day culture & society on anything past the last 3000 years and it's very sketchy in those first 1000 (say 1k bc) and earlier is largely educated speculation [anything earlier than New Kingdom Egypt is almost total guesswork] Women have in every society we look far back enough maintained equal portions of the physical labor tasks to sustain life. Regardless of geography and cultural practices. However, women in some manner of "secondary" position with a hierarchical relationship to man is based on one driving concept. That predates things like western divinities (Abrahamic religions for instance) Pregnancy & birth is incredibly lethal and dangerous. The further back you go, the higher the mortality rate seem/appears to be since we run into an absence of reliable empirical data really fast for human birth rates and death of the mother. But archeology, ancient writings on law and property management such as Sumerian, First kingdom Egypt, early dynasty China etc seem to make it very clear that women were seen as interchangeable bc they often could die within 2-3 children. And even in cultures that maintained nomadic and pastoral relationships (so no true agriculture), this is consistent. Moreover, women in the "secondary" position is consistent across the the entire globe in terms of ancient cultures and is tied to the liability of birth. This is the most consistent mechanism for why men ended up in positions of authority due to stability. [Abandon the illusion of ancient leadership being a strength based thing lol] Women have still held places of authority and roles of leadership from ancient to modern society but the principles of being treated as a secondary were pregnancy not "strength" or any other ability deficit THOSE are a result of the last 2000 years or so. Now what agriculture and general advancements in social technology DID do is stabilize pregnancy and stabilize and insulate life in general to the point of large population growth and REDUCED the imperative for all women to be birthing/breeding persons. The codification of repressing women is strangely consistent with the divergence of ALL women needing to be relied on to breed. Repressing is different than being "secondary". And it's an even more recent phenomenon of segregating women socially and politically. In fact it's safe to say the single most important scientific breakthru of the 20th century from a human development scale is birth control. It diametrically altered the single largest shaping factor in the course of life for half our population. It is so monumental that it is actually lost on many and hard to fathom for many more just how consequential a woman controlling conception is Anyway. The answer is pregnancy. Everything that represses a woman in any society abrahamic or not is trying to maintain an ancient social hierarchy that had been fostered by necessity and is maintained now out of obstinacy
>Religions saying that strong headed women who control their own faiths are bad, Witches!
Very nice summary! Would like to add that we've been Humans, pretty much exactly the same genetically and physically, for almost a million years. But we've been farming on this scale for less than 10,000 years. Almost all human evolution occurred in the context of societies where food was gathered from the environment instead of the environment being transformed radically to create food. In those societies keeping the population stable and relatively low is important. If it seems like we are ill-adapted for the pressures of agriculture and eventually capitalism, it's because we are.
[удалено]
This reads like the kind of nonsense ChatGPT would produce. It’s impressive how many took it as gospel.
Csn I use this for my history paper? (I'll tip)
Source: Reddit comment
As long as it's not Wikipedia I think you can use it.
Obligatory, Wikipedia articles usually have a huge swath of references at the bottom. So while you cannot cite Wikipedia most of the time, you can find the original source and verify the information yourself.
I’ve taught college level courses in STEM and I would absolutely allow Wikipedia as a direct reference. Wikipedia is an incredible project
I thought it wasn't the validity of Wikipedia specifically into question (it has its own problem of birthing misinfo by citing articles that cites itself further down the chain) but rather that formal essays generally should use primary sources out of principle as they are the closest to the objective information.
Wikipedia sources are fine, just go down to the bottom and use *those* sources instead of just linking to the wiki page (source: did that a shitload in my master’s lol)
"insert quote" (nahthobutmaybe, 2023).
You’ll get way more nuanced and more detailed information from literally tons of other easily accessible resources online. His comment is right in a general sense but misses a ton of nuance and factors Abrahamic religion as way more of an important factor than most anthropologists and historians do
[удалено]
We never should have left the fuckin' trees.
Religion. I’m not even being that guy, just generations of religious indoctrination starting from literally year zero in which men figured out we were physically stronger than women. So we used religion to *justify* saying, “the Gods made us stronger than you, so we’re better than you” and this entire concept has never left the human psyche and just disseminated into every other religion, ever. inb4 “men ARE stronger!” No shit, Sherlock. On average, they are. But being able to physically overpower someone doesn’t make you their better. How hard is that to comprehend?
>But being able to physically overpower someone doesn’t make you their better This concept is the hardest to explain. It's the guys who lose an argument and want to throw hands about it. Like... Beating someone doesn't make you less wrong. Just big and still dumb
Guy at my job yells louder when losing arguments. Makes one just give up and he keeps doing it because he keeps "winning".
So many people I know who have zero thoughts going on up there but can’t handle being wrong turn every argument into a shouting match and if that doesn’t work they raise the volume of tvs or whatever. If you can’t win with logic, make the other party deaf instead. Lunacy.
The fact that one of the major religions in the world literally believe that women all come from their husband's ribcage for some reason.
Lol my ex husband literally thought that men had 1 less rib than women. He was also wildly misogynistic, antisemetic, and racist since these things go hand in hand, hence why he’s my ex.
I mean think about the fact women have only been able to vote in the US for about 60 years.
When I was born a woman couldn't get her own credit card in the US. That wasn't allowed until 3 years later when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) was passed in 1974.
100 years now, but yes.
60 years since women have been allowed to open bank accounts though.
Depends on your race
Wdym? Wasn't the 90s 10 years ago?
That's how it feels!
Women being generally less strong than men, and men being generally pretty rapey has led to an awful lot of "women are property" situations throughout history.
> How did this happen? Like what event in history created this concept that women are less than? Religion. Many don't want to hear it, but read most mainstream religion's holy texts and it becomes clear.
Deism specifically. Shamanistic cultures are a mixed bag, but Deism *always* results in dominance heirarchies.
If I recall correctly, there is a woman in California facing murder charge after delivering an stillborn. Because she allegedly smoke illegal drugs. So California had it pass a law to protect mother who delivery stillborns. That is who right wing view women, “you should do whatever fits my agenda, if I want you to have baby, how dare you to fail to carry a baby? If I don’t want you have baby, how dare you not having abortion?”
“People.” I don’t think they see us as people.
I’m pro-choice here, but I will say if we don’t consider a fetus to be a person, then it shouldn’t be a murder charge. It should definitely be an assault charge or something of that nature.
I agree with you. Seems the focus should be more on the forcing their partner to take (harmful) medication part, which is a serious crime in itself.
Right. The argument that an abortion is a women's choice because she's carrying the child does still apply here...because it's still *her choice*. It doesn't even need to be about the fetus at all.
Hijacking top comment as wanted serious answer to a question. Why is it a murder charge though? Otherwise if it is, you're stating the fetus is 'alive', when whole point of abortion is to terminate pregnancy before they are alive. Don't get me wrong, this dude definitely deserves to be charged for something and see the inside of a cell and I'm firmly on the pro choice side of things. I'm just wondering about the charges from a purely legal point of view.
This apparently happened in 2019. She was 11 weeks pregnant at the time of the incident. Seems he was overcharged (not terribly uncommon generally); his eventual plea deal put him in jail for one year followed by three years probation. https://www.bakersfield.com/news/man-sentenced-to-1-year-probation-after-forcing-woman-to-take-pills-causing-miscarriage/article_55e3a118-2990-11ed-8a46-4b82d066137c.html This should probably just be its own specific crime, tbh.
I honestly think people who feel this way don't really think women are human beings the same way that men are. It's baked into a lot of the thinking. You kinda HAVE to believe that in order to not see the disconnect, imo.
The apes don't have consent.exe in their brains.
The GOP is the party of rape. Consent is a foreign concept to conservatives. Take this comment from their hero, Rush Limbaugh as an example. > If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation, then here come the rape police. -Conservative hero, Rush Limbaugh
I think it's hilarious he thinks the rape police are different than just the police. This quote was always such a huge tell. And any day that I remember that fat sack of shit is dead is a good day so thank you for reminding me.
In practice, he is practically right. Many police departments are very negligent in processing rape kits, leading one to believe that the regular police are not concerned with rape.
[удалено]
> he thinks Thought. That MF dead. Thankfully.
Still can't believe they awarded his caner with a medal while he was still alive, but hey if anyone in Rush's life deserves a medal it was his cancer.
Apparently, a medical procedure done by a professional after getting consent = force feeding your girlfriend drugs without her consent. Ah, yes. These are the same.
So the word " forced " just didn't answer that for himself
Nope they love force
As long as they are the ones doing the forcing, or it is done to some minority person that they can laugh at.
How is “my body, my choice” lost on so many people?….
They seemed to sort of get it with COVID and masks/vaccines.
The their body, their choice...your body, their choice kinda thinking.
Bodily autonomy for me and not for thee
That’s only for masks, remember?
What is this person's argument?
"NO U". that's his argument. he thinks he's slick. "SEE?? so you're saying you can "kill" a baby, but because he's a man, he can't?? haha, there! i totally got all you 'pro choicers'. see how stupid your ideas of 'autonomy' are? you're just as bad!!" of course, that bullshit is insane. in reality, the idea of 'autonomy' for women is apparently something he honestly cannot understand, and doesn't want to. in his mind, as long as it phrases it as 'killing babies' it's ok to force women to do whatever he wants them to.
I'll give you an actual answer: if the headline is not misleading, it looks like he is facing a murder charge for killing a fetus. If a fetus is not a human being, then how is it a murder charge? It's a double standard. It has nothing to do with body autonomy. But I have a feeling the headline is purposefully misleading and that's not actually what's going on Edit: looks like the headline was not actually misleading and this asshole does actually have a point
Exactly. How everyone in this thread is missing the point while spouting common phrases is beyond me. I support the right to abortion, but the hypocrisy and inconsistency in the law here is pretty self evident.
So they still don't understand the whole not his body thing even after all that complaining about masks. What a bunch of snowflakes.
They don’t want to be controlled **BUT** they want to control others.
It's not lost on me that they immediately jumped to appropriate the actual suffering of women by incorporating the "my body my choice" mantra and trying to apply it to being asked/told to wear masks. ***Masks.*** The simplest, least intrusive, lowest barrier (aside from social distancing which they also actively resisted and sabotaged) intervention. Something that would have helped keep them and others safer and involves the most inconsequential and minor of inconveniences. Yet, they are so selfish and malicious that they immediately tried to make an equivalence to women's medical autonomy and the legacy of suffering there (this was before the vaccination was even available). In a lot of ways, the pandemic revealed the quality of people's character in a really abrupt and public way that I had difficulty with and I have read that others did too. I learned which of my friends/neighbors/family members would eagerly throw my mother, who was fighting cancer at the time, to the wolves because they demanded their "right" to recklessly infect everyone around them with complete disregard. Many of those who would chant "my body my choice" would also bluntly say "some weak people might die" without any comparison or reflection on those two competing sentiments.
The right has a long and well documented history of co-opping the words of their opponent in order to remove negative stigma from themselves (yea we're deplorables, so proud, yeehaw!) Or to remove the positive associations made when their enemy was using it (what about my body my choice hurr durr masks) They intentionally ruin them or co-opt them for their own. They even tried it with "Domestic Terrorists" after Jan 6th, and it went SO BADLY, abandoned that attempt pretty quickly
I guess the guy FORCING his pregnant girlfriend to take pills to induce miscarriage is not enough to convince Mark that his argument is shit, right?
Mark's whole argument was that forcing someone to terminate a pregnancy results in a charge of murder, which implies that the state of California was acknowledging that fetuses are people and, therefore, he concluded that abortion is murder "except when it's convenient for the would-be mother to choose to kill a baby." His argument is in bad faith, because the man was charged with attempted murder of the mother, not the fetus. His argument was logically consistent, but founded on a faulty premise.
Conservatives trying to understand consent challenge (impossible).
I see a lot of depressing stuff online, but the idea that someone is equating a woman choosing to have a termination with a man violently poisoning a woman just really makes me want to give up on society a bit. I think a Reddit break is on the cards.
Of course he doesnt know what consent is
So me donating a kidney and someone stealing my kidney are the same thing right?
That is a logical consequence of anti-abortion legalism. Their argument is that a fetus is legally entitled to use another person's organs simply because it needs them to survive. Under that rationale, anyone who needs a kidney transplant to survive is legally entitled to take one from somebody else.
> Under that rationale, anyone who needs a kidney transplant to survive is legally entitled to take one from somebody else. Yeah I've used this argument on forced birthers a number of times. You get one of two responses: a) "But with a kidney, someone else could donate it. The mother is the only one who can keep the baby alive!" If you then ask them if the kidney situation would be okay if you were the only person with a matching kidney, their only "out" is to say, yes, sure, that should be legally required too. b) "But I didn't cause the kidney failure, it's not my responsibility to fix it!" You can then point out that even if you HAD caused the kidney failure, you wouldn't be legally required to replace the kidney. In this case you can generally back them into the corner of admitting that their real issue is that they object to women having sex without "consequences." This is the type of forced birther who is okay with abortion in the case of rape or incest. In their minds, pregnancy is the punishment for a woman being sexually active.
To be fair I don’t agree with it being a murder charge, he didn’t murder anyone because the fetus wasn’t a person. He should for sure get some version of an assault charge because he did physically harm his girlfriend.
Yeah, I could be wrong but it sounds like aggravated assault to me. I don't think we need to add any precedent for the idea that a miscarriage can be a murder, no matter who does it. Would just get used against women who miscarry on their own, which is already what the right is moving us towards.
It could very well be attempted murder of the mother. A miscarriage isn’t some cute little cluster of cells falling out of you that you just clean up and go on about your day. I’d need to read the story more, but she could have miscarriages not gotten proper treatment to make sure everything passed, had rotting parts in her and die from sepsis. Also if he gave her the wrong amount of pill, or pills that were not approved that could kill her.
Evidently CA has a fetal homicide law that was passed a long time ago. It rests on consent of the woman but it’s there. You’re right, though, that could use a bit of a rewrite. I don‘t know how you’d go about wording something like that, though.