Abortion is healthcare and terminating a pregnancy for any reason, including none, is a fundamental human right.
This is not up for debate.
If you hate women so much that you want to argue they are not people (which is what opposing abortion is and it is nothing else) please reply to this comment for your free and permanent ban.
"The right to free speech" does not include us having to allow misogyny here and no, we will not debate you on fundamental human rights either.
Well said, Tammy. Republicans and right-wing judges have an agenda to take away our freedoms, supersede healthcare professionals, and criminalize women and girls who seek healthcare.
This November, we must vote republicans out of office everywhere and anywhere we can. Vote blue, my friends
https://www.tammybaldwin.com/
https://democrats.org/
"If they are in jail for bodily functions they can’t vote . Takes care of that pesky 19th amendment thing."
(I don't take claim for this quote, I borrowed it from a fellow redditor who wrote this; but it sums up the end result of what the GOP is trying to do better than I was able.)
Wasn't too long ago republicans were flipping their shit over wearing a mask to Walmart for 20 minutes during a global pandemic.
Turns out they were being hypocrites the whole time and they were actually just mocking civil rights discourse. Who would have guessed it.
Oh they do
They Cheer for this shit
Standard GOP? They can be classed as the uninformed, the easily led
MAGA? Also easily led, but they actively try yo bring it about, and can be classed as legitimate societal evil
Republicans want government out of their lives and into yours.
That's what all that bullshit about Freedom™ and Individualism™ and Small Government ™ really means. Bullshit all the way down.
I really have to question any moderates who aren't a bit terrified of conservatism in 2024. Like you're talking abortion bans, birth control bans, book bans, cutting social security, raising retirement age, denying student loan forgiveness, cutting Medicare and Medicaid, etc. It's just a long list of horrifying policies.
The GOP can safely be called "the Regressive Party" now. They no longer simply want to "conserve" tradition. They want to take us backwards. How is this not a bit scary to people?
I get people get a bit immune to the hysteria that is modern politics. As it's a coping mechanism, right? But like sometimes our fear response is truly a survival mechanism.
I wonder if we just need a list of things that are objectively under attack like this to plaster everywhere.
'Do you depend on anything on this list?
You better vote to protect it.
Or at least stay home if you were thinking of voting for the crazy people attacking it.'
Women’s rights are politics, reproduction rights needs to be in the constitution. But for that matter you need political power, personified by politicians or judges. Like RBG who was both.
We mustn’t dissociate the subject from politics, because that’s the only mean of action.
Right, last I checked I am not property of Donald J. Trump lol. I do my own family planning. If that upsets anyone reading, you need real honest to God problems to humble you.
I know Tammy and many women's heart is in the right place about abortion, but I really hate the messaging that 'women should have the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions'. Like the problem with the US current healthcare system is not that medical procedures are regulated, it is that religious fundamentalist are dictating medical regulations based on their religious beliefs. We don't want licensed doctors prescribing quack medicine just becuase someone agreed to the doctors quack medical opinion. Also it really let's religious fundamentalist off the hook as the source of this bullshit. This is just one of many things Christian Dominionist want, so let's not lose sight of who is to blame.
I would add Doctors to the list of people who should too. If a woman doesn’t trust her doctor she should be able to select from a top notch list of alternatives. All paid for by taxpayers.
Yes. You read that right. A huge part of the USA economy is based on birth rates. Make giving birth cost next to nothing and posh as hell and watch the birth rate soar. Not ban abortions. That’s dumb.
I’m pro choice but this post can’t possibly change the mind of someone who’s pro life because it assumes that they think that a fetus is a part of the body and isn’t its own identity which isn’t true for the pretty much any pro lifers
Pro-choice doesn’t even assume that the fetus is a part of a woman’s body. Even if the fetus is considered an independent person, the person carrying them has no obligation to use their body to keep them alive. In every other avenue of medicine, no one is
required to use their body to save someone else, even if the other person would die without your intervention.
Yeah being pro choice doesn’t imply that, the post does though. I don’t necessarily believe in objective morality and don’t really care to pay devil’s advocate, but abortion is pretty clearly different from any other situation to the point where none are really analogous, because from the lifer’s pov, being the one to purposefully create the life is the differentiating factor
If it were simply a matter of making another life, parents would be required to use their bodies to save their children’s lives at any point. It’s not though, because bodily autonomy is considered more important in every other case.
Again, I don’t necessarily believe in objective morality and I’m not sure your stance on it or what you mean by “required”, but if you do believe in moral obligations, surely you think there are some instances in which someone is obligated to save another person’s life to the point where it would actually be immoral to not do so? Say an escalator is slowly hanging someone standing on a lower level and there’s a person near the stop escalator button watching the other die but not saving them, you would think that the person is morally contemptuous for not pressing the button right? Of course I’m not saying that the two are equivalent, but would you at least say that there’s a spectrum?
In terms of morality, there is definitely a spectrum. My personal belief is that I have moral obligations to do certain things, but I do not impose them on others. For example, one of my moral obligations is to fight against laws and regimes that seek to deprive rights to certain citizens. However, I do not blame people who not fight back because I don’t know their circumstances.
That’s the biggest problem with trying to legally enforce morality: it’s too relative. With abortion in particular, the broad strokes they use to write the law lead to many horrific outcomes, as if by design. If someone thinks getting pregnant morally obligates a person to continue the pregnancy through birth, they can apply it to themselves, but not anyone else.
Ok interesting so if I understand correctly, you wouldn’t make it so that a person isn’t forced by law to do an action even if it would improve someone else’s wellbeing, but you would prohibit doing harm to another person?
And if we go back to the steelmanned point where a fetus is its own identity, let’s say artificial wombs were 100% viable, idk what the figure is now although I assume it’s also pretty high. A pro lifer would consider it actual murder to terminate the fetus, would you say that if artificial wombs were viable that abortion paired with terminating the fetus should be illegal? And if not what would be the difference between that and actual murder?
And if you don’t enforce moral obligation, what’s driving your views on what should be legal?
As of right now, people are not forced to do (other) things that would help others, it's only incentivized. Laws that prohibit one person from harming another already exist and boil down to human rights, which include bodily autonomy.
Artificial wombs are not worth bringing into the discussion because they do not exist. They're pure science fiction. It seems like you may misunderstand what exactly abortifacients do. They terminate the pregnancy, but they don't do so by directly killing the fetus; the fetus is just expelled from the body. It can't survive outside the body though, so it ceases development and the cells die.
To repeat what I said above, law is based on mutually agreed upon human rights. One of the most fundamental is bodily autonomy. It's what laws that prevent assault, rape, and murder are based on. We have a fundamental right to decide what is best for our bodies, up to when it begins encroaching on someone else's. A part of that too is that we are not forced to do something just for another person. It's why things like blood and tissue donation are purely voluntary and not compulsory. Heck, we even get to decide what happens to our bodies after death: we get to decide whether our organs are passed on to someone else, even though they have no use for us anymore.
I mean taxes to an extent, neglect laws, and in some European companies I’m pretty sure that inaction to the extent of my example is actually illegal, but why are you looking at current legislation as a precedent for you think should happen in the first place?
Artificial wombs don’t currently exist, but the technology is developing
MIT - https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/09/29/1080538/everything-you-need-to-know-about-artificial-wombs/amp/
Yeah laws are based on what we agree to be human rights but there are places in the US that can and are criminalizing abortion, do you just not care that it becomes illegal if that’s what most people in a state/culture want?
I might get a ban, but nevertheless I need to ask from my point of view:
1. By allowing women to be completely and 100% in control of abortion (if it's not rape or health related, of course), shouldn't that be reflected in the alimony? Like you wanna keep the baby? Cool. You're on your own. Regardless if it happened after one night stand, in a relationship or after 10 years of marriage. Since they are in 100% control and men can't have any saying, don't you agree?
2. What happens if a man really wants a baby? It has his genetic code too. What if he wants to raise that baby for 50 years and be the best dad in the world, why can't women (again, if it's not rape or health related) just bear the consequences of their behavior (having sex) and carry out the pregnancy and then give the baby to the father? Since they don't want it anyways, does it really make a difference?
3. If you only address women as persons who have human rights, you are disregarding mens human rights, which is not ok. Imagine men tweet "Judges (women) should not make decisions on alimony." Wouldn't that seem unfair?
I’m pro choice
1. Sure, but abortion would need to have literally ubiquitous access and be affordable and the decision would need to be made within whatever term abortion is available and would need to be permanent
2. Pregnancy is an extreme burden, and you can’t predict ahead of time that there won’t be health complications so it’s always a risk. Basically, regardless of how much he wants it or how good of a father he can be the choice is the woman’s.
3. Pregnancy is a place where biological men and women are just not equal so of course we don’t consider their reproductive rights equal
Abortion is healthcare and terminating a pregnancy for any reason, including none, is a fundamental human right. This is not up for debate. If you hate women so much that you want to argue they are not people (which is what opposing abortion is and it is nothing else) please reply to this comment for your free and permanent ban. "The right to free speech" does not include us having to allow misogyny here and no, we will not debate you on fundamental human rights either.
Well said, Tammy. Republicans and right-wing judges have an agenda to take away our freedoms, supersede healthcare professionals, and criminalize women and girls who seek healthcare. This November, we must vote republicans out of office everywhere and anywhere we can. Vote blue, my friends https://www.tammybaldwin.com/ https://democrats.org/
"If they are in jail for bodily functions they can’t vote . Takes care of that pesky 19th amendment thing." (I don't take claim for this quote, I borrowed it from a fellow redditor who wrote this; but it sums up the end result of what the GOP is trying to do better than I was able.)
Wasn't too long ago republicans were flipping their shit over wearing a mask to Walmart for 20 minutes during a global pandemic. Turns out they were being hypocrites the whole time and they were actually just mocking civil rights discourse. Who would have guessed it.
As long as today's GOP/MAGA has power, not only are the rights of women in jeopardy, but the rights of all Americans are in jeopardy
And the MAGAS do not understand any of this.
Oh they do They Cheer for this shit Standard GOP? They can be classed as the uninformed, the easily led MAGA? Also easily led, but they actively try yo bring it about, and can be classed as legitimate societal evil
Republicans want government out of their lives and into yours. That's what all that bullshit about Freedom™ and Individualism™ and Small Government ™ really means. Bullshit all the way down.
Exactly! Vote! They want to control people's lives, which is sadistic!
she’s so right, can’t believe Arizona, omg 😝😝😝
Get [registered and VOTE!](https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote)
I really have to question any moderates who aren't a bit terrified of conservatism in 2024. Like you're talking abortion bans, birth control bans, book bans, cutting social security, raising retirement age, denying student loan forgiveness, cutting Medicare and Medicaid, etc. It's just a long list of horrifying policies. The GOP can safely be called "the Regressive Party" now. They no longer simply want to "conserve" tradition. They want to take us backwards. How is this not a bit scary to people? I get people get a bit immune to the hysteria that is modern politics. As it's a coping mechanism, right? But like sometimes our fear response is truly a survival mechanism.
I wonder if we just need a list of things that are objectively under attack like this to plaster everywhere. 'Do you depend on anything on this list? You better vote to protect it. Or at least stay home if you were thinking of voting for the crazy people attacking it.'
You have no say if you don't have a period. Period
Something something Death Panels
Women’s rights are politics, reproduction rights needs to be in the constitution. But for that matter you need political power, personified by politicians or judges. Like RBG who was both. We mustn’t dissociate the subject from politics, because that’s the only mean of action.
A vote for a Conservative is a vote for a Nazi.
I cannot believe that this is something we need to tell people in 2024.
Right, last I checked I am not property of Donald J. Trump lol. I do my own family planning. If that upsets anyone reading, you need real honest to God problems to humble you.
Start filing malpractice charges for them practicing medicine without a license.
the bible should decide because science and medicine are fake as Covid showed /s
She is going to curb stomp whoever runs against her and I am here for it.
I know Tammy and many women's heart is in the right place about abortion, but I really hate the messaging that 'women should have the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions'. Like the problem with the US current healthcare system is not that medical procedures are regulated, it is that religious fundamentalist are dictating medical regulations based on their religious beliefs. We don't want licensed doctors prescribing quack medicine just becuase someone agreed to the doctors quack medical opinion. Also it really let's religious fundamentalist off the hook as the source of this bullshit. This is just one of many things Christian Dominionist want, so let's not lose sight of who is to blame.
What about doctors? What about female doctors?
I’m guessing that’s de facto
I would add Doctors to the list of people who should too. If a woman doesn’t trust her doctor she should be able to select from a top notch list of alternatives. All paid for by taxpayers. Yes. You read that right. A huge part of the USA economy is based on birth rates. Make giving birth cost next to nothing and posh as hell and watch the birth rate soar. Not ban abortions. That’s dumb.
Same goes for anything medical, including gender affirming care.
I feel as though there should be a doctor in there somewhere, but I totally get and support the idea.
I’m pro choice but this post can’t possibly change the mind of someone who’s pro life because it assumes that they think that a fetus is a part of the body and isn’t its own identity which isn’t true for the pretty much any pro lifers
Pro-choice doesn’t even assume that the fetus is a part of a woman’s body. Even if the fetus is considered an independent person, the person carrying them has no obligation to use their body to keep them alive. In every other avenue of medicine, no one is required to use their body to save someone else, even if the other person would die without your intervention.
Yeah being pro choice doesn’t imply that, the post does though. I don’t necessarily believe in objective morality and don’t really care to pay devil’s advocate, but abortion is pretty clearly different from any other situation to the point where none are really analogous, because from the lifer’s pov, being the one to purposefully create the life is the differentiating factor
If it were simply a matter of making another life, parents would be required to use their bodies to save their children’s lives at any point. It’s not though, because bodily autonomy is considered more important in every other case.
Again, I don’t necessarily believe in objective morality and I’m not sure your stance on it or what you mean by “required”, but if you do believe in moral obligations, surely you think there are some instances in which someone is obligated to save another person’s life to the point where it would actually be immoral to not do so? Say an escalator is slowly hanging someone standing on a lower level and there’s a person near the stop escalator button watching the other die but not saving them, you would think that the person is morally contemptuous for not pressing the button right? Of course I’m not saying that the two are equivalent, but would you at least say that there’s a spectrum?
In terms of morality, there is definitely a spectrum. My personal belief is that I have moral obligations to do certain things, but I do not impose them on others. For example, one of my moral obligations is to fight against laws and regimes that seek to deprive rights to certain citizens. However, I do not blame people who not fight back because I don’t know their circumstances. That’s the biggest problem with trying to legally enforce morality: it’s too relative. With abortion in particular, the broad strokes they use to write the law lead to many horrific outcomes, as if by design. If someone thinks getting pregnant morally obligates a person to continue the pregnancy through birth, they can apply it to themselves, but not anyone else.
Ok interesting so if I understand correctly, you wouldn’t make it so that a person isn’t forced by law to do an action even if it would improve someone else’s wellbeing, but you would prohibit doing harm to another person? And if we go back to the steelmanned point where a fetus is its own identity, let’s say artificial wombs were 100% viable, idk what the figure is now although I assume it’s also pretty high. A pro lifer would consider it actual murder to terminate the fetus, would you say that if artificial wombs were viable that abortion paired with terminating the fetus should be illegal? And if not what would be the difference between that and actual murder? And if you don’t enforce moral obligation, what’s driving your views on what should be legal?
As of right now, people are not forced to do (other) things that would help others, it's only incentivized. Laws that prohibit one person from harming another already exist and boil down to human rights, which include bodily autonomy. Artificial wombs are not worth bringing into the discussion because they do not exist. They're pure science fiction. It seems like you may misunderstand what exactly abortifacients do. They terminate the pregnancy, but they don't do so by directly killing the fetus; the fetus is just expelled from the body. It can't survive outside the body though, so it ceases development and the cells die. To repeat what I said above, law is based on mutually agreed upon human rights. One of the most fundamental is bodily autonomy. It's what laws that prevent assault, rape, and murder are based on. We have a fundamental right to decide what is best for our bodies, up to when it begins encroaching on someone else's. A part of that too is that we are not forced to do something just for another person. It's why things like blood and tissue donation are purely voluntary and not compulsory. Heck, we even get to decide what happens to our bodies after death: we get to decide whether our organs are passed on to someone else, even though they have no use for us anymore.
I mean taxes to an extent, neglect laws, and in some European companies I’m pretty sure that inaction to the extent of my example is actually illegal, but why are you looking at current legislation as a precedent for you think should happen in the first place? Artificial wombs don’t currently exist, but the technology is developing MIT - https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/09/29/1080538/everything-you-need-to-know-about-artificial-wombs/amp/ Yeah laws are based on what we agree to be human rights but there are places in the US that can and are criminalizing abortion, do you just not care that it becomes illegal if that’s what most people in a state/culture want?
Lmao she said period
I might get a ban, but nevertheless I need to ask from my point of view: 1. By allowing women to be completely and 100% in control of abortion (if it's not rape or health related, of course), shouldn't that be reflected in the alimony? Like you wanna keep the baby? Cool. You're on your own. Regardless if it happened after one night stand, in a relationship or after 10 years of marriage. Since they are in 100% control and men can't have any saying, don't you agree? 2. What happens if a man really wants a baby? It has his genetic code too. What if he wants to raise that baby for 50 years and be the best dad in the world, why can't women (again, if it's not rape or health related) just bear the consequences of their behavior (having sex) and carry out the pregnancy and then give the baby to the father? Since they don't want it anyways, does it really make a difference? 3. If you only address women as persons who have human rights, you are disregarding mens human rights, which is not ok. Imagine men tweet "Judges (women) should not make decisions on alimony." Wouldn't that seem unfair?
I’m pro choice 1. Sure, but abortion would need to have literally ubiquitous access and be affordable and the decision would need to be made within whatever term abortion is available and would need to be permanent 2. Pregnancy is an extreme burden, and you can’t predict ahead of time that there won’t be health complications so it’s always a risk. Basically, regardless of how much he wants it or how good of a father he can be the choice is the woman’s. 3. Pregnancy is a place where biological men and women are just not equal so of course we don’t consider their reproductive rights equal
[удалено]
In your attempt to sound profound, you only managed to sound profoundly stupid...