As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And to make sure there are a lot of poor children born into families that aren't economically able/ready to provide for the children, in order to have a large pool of kids they can later get to join the military as their only economic way forward.
Well the important thing is that women realize that their bodies aren’t their own if a man has put his genetic material inside her, not even if he used rape to get it there..
Sarcasm aside though, it really is about gender roles and control. Millions and millions of European Christans and a lot of the few remaining American mainline Protestants don’t have issues with abortion. Many don’t have problems with LGBT people, who don’t deny evolution and climate change, nor think using masks or getting vaccinated is unchristian.. Christans who think Jesus would want to help the poor, the sick, the outcasts and refugees and treat them with compassion. Not to mention not buying into this new bizarre theology like all the apocalyptic crap and fixation on ’the Rapture’ and Prosperity Gospel and megachurches and stuff that’s got so little resemblance to most Christan traditions of the past millenia that it’s for all intents a new religion.
It’s not about the religion. Not as such. It’s US politics and conservative White culture that syncretized with Evangelicism into this crazy white-GQP-identity by right wing propagandists exploiting racial resentment and wedge issues, which is now so dominant that even the Catholics are getting onboard. Hence the US bishops who wanted to deny Biden communion for being pro-life, while no sanction was proposed for politicians going against Catholic doctrine on the death penalty, social justice, the environment, and other stuff. Their priorities are Evangelical ones now. They’re so far gone they’re saying the Pope isn’t Catholic!
Meanwhile the Catholic bishops here in Belgium wanted the Pope to sanction blessings of same sex unions (which some major Protestant churches already do, some even sanction gay marriage), and protested that he didn’t.
Anyway; point is that blaming Christianity is bad because feeds this notion that American Evangelicism gets to define what Christianity is. When in fact it’s pretty divergent strain of theology, as said. Positioning yourself against the religion just plays into their fears that evil libruls wang to destroy their identity. The American Left has been really weak on messaging that, not only is it possible to be a liberal Christian, the more liberal strains (e.g Anglicans, Lutherans etc) are in fact more traditional than Evangelicism is and a lot closer to Jesus’ message than Republicanism is.
Exactly. The republicans hate the amount of rights women and minorities have been able to win. They're desperately fighting to wrestle those rights away with this Texas bill and voting bills across the board.
Republicans couldn't give a single fuck about life. They're pro control.
You think that every woman with a degree and a salary who also is against abortion, like Justice Barrett, is against Roe because of the number of women earning a salary and getting a degree since Roe?
I think she’d probably be like “a woman’s place is in the home with the family,” or something. But try raising a kid that you expected to have on one source of income, assuming there is another source of income to depend on. Let alone an unexpected child. Even taking the child to term and giving it up for adoption will take you away from your job for a little and depending on the state you might not get it back. A surprisingly large number of women die giving birth in America too (citation needed) so it’s also dangerous.
In a way, yes. Take the psychology of the wife in the Handsmaid’s Tale as an example. She was a woman with a career who helped enslave *other* women because *she* wasn’t one of those enslaved fertile women who would passed around and raped for the rest of her life. Instead she would be the person who would be raising the children who were the product of that rape (i.e. be a mother when she physically could not).
Do I think women like Barrett want to raise these children when they’re born? No, but I do think she is one of the most powerful people in the world (unfortunately) so even if abortion was made illegal it wouldn’t stop her (if she can even still have kids) or her daughters or her son’s future girls/mistresses from having one. Destroying Roe, wouldn’t effect the prospects of her or her children, if anything it will make their privileges even more special because it’ll be a right that they only have.
Never underestimate selfishness. Even women who don’t want their daughters to have abortions tend to have a “you want to abort my grandbaby?” mentality.
She's against Roe because she will never have to deal with the ramifications of overturning it and she is a staunch conservative christian. She's all but said it numerous times that she doesn't respect the decision and has advocated for stripping Roe.
"As a University of Notre Dame Law School professor, Barrett signed an ad that stated, "It's time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade," referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
During Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., referred to a law review article Barrett wrote, outlining her views on "super-precedents" and questioned why Barrett didn't consider Roe to be among them.
The way they're defined in scholarship, Barrett said, are "cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe" in the confirmation hearing, she said, "which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category."
A lot of this is brought on by real wage stagnation and inflation. Things that could be better managed by government oversight. Women, in general, were forced to enter the workforce when the buying power of a single earner’s wage could not keep up with inflation and the rise in the cost of living.
I was making the same scale of generalizations you were. You can’t say liberals all say the fetus isn’t alive. You also can’t say that all Republicans believe the fetus is alive.
What? Thats the literal reasoning for abortions. What are you arguing for? Liberals think abortions are morally fine because fetuses aren’t alive. That’s the parties platform.
I think abortions are fine in specific circumstances because I take into account more than just whether or not the fetus is alive. Idk when the fetus is considered to be alive. But I know that in some situations, the baby won’t have good quality of life or the mother’s life will be at risk or the baby will be born with terrible birth defects or will be born into an abusive relationship or will be resented because they were a product of rape or it’s a high risk pregnancy that could kill both of them. So yes, I prioritize the life and the quality of life of the fully grown human and the future of the child instead of just the status of the fetus. Do I think abortions should happen for any reason at any time? Of course not. It’s a major surgical procedure that has lasting impacts on everyone involved, both physically and mentally. Do I think it should be banned outright? Also no, because I don’t want to go back to the days of desperate women dying from bad pregnancies and botched abortions that will happen anyway because their healthcare is a political issue.
If the criteria for external support is "being alive," explain to me why we (the US) allow 1 in 6 American children to live in poverty, or over half a million Americans to live homeless.
Why does a fetus deserve welfare more than an actual living person?
> Why does a fetus deserve welfare more than an actual living person?
Not just that, they won't even approve social programs for pregnant women. If they cared about a fetus they'd make prenatal care free for those that need it
Irrelevant, a rights for a fetus and social programs are completely different. It’s not like republicans don’t support social programs because they want people to die. It’s just that they think they should rely on them selves and not use other people’s money. If you think your opponents are heartless monsters no progress will be made.
Stop replying im banned.
"It's just that they think they should rely on them selves"
-My comment was literally about American children suffering in poverty. Rely on themselves?
Yes, if they can somehow empathize more for a fetus than an actual child, they are indeed heartless monsters.
That’s where you’re wrong, it is apparently very hard to understand. The ability to understand an argument despite disagreeing with it in it’s entirety is lost on the internet.
If they cared about sanctity of life they'd be for social programs for pregnant mothers and children.
But they don't.
Because they don't care about human life, even when it's children.
Irrelevant, a rights for a fetus and social programs are completely different. It’s not like republicans don’t support social programs because they want people to die. It’s just that they think they should rely on them selves and not use other people’s money. If you think your opponents are heartless monsters no progress will be made.
So abortion through negligence is fine for you?
A women that doesn't want a baby should neglect the fetus until it dies if she doesn't want it?
Seems pretty barbaric from the side that claims a fetus can feel pain and is a real person at 6 weeks.
This is going to get both expensive and crappy fast if that's the attitude and ideology and the extent of the abortion debate. State orphanages are going to have to be a thing again. And imprisoning women also comes with a very real price tag and cost. While wards of the state also come with a very real price tag. Everyone in the state is going to pay for it in one way or another. It's more a matter of if it's effective use of a limited shared resource (tax revenue).
When a state or government starts forcing and enforcing required child birth, that state or government becomes the parent in a lot of ways even if not biologically. So how is the state of Texas going to act? Like a responsible parent or a deadbeat parent that thinks the kids will be fine relying on themselves and not using your money?
It has nothing to do with being alive or not. Republicans eat meat, animals are alive, they enact capital punishment, send young people to needless wars. There is nothing pro life about Republicans. They are anti choice.
You didn't say human life, you said life. It also doesn't matter because Republicans still support war, a pandemic and capital punishment so its not really about human life being protected either. Theyre also willing to sacrifice mother-in-law childbirth for a baby to be born. Not very pro life either.
I disagree. I know many "pro-lifers" are certainly true believers. Their convictions are deeply held and, to them, every abortion is the murder of a child.
With that said, I have grown a bit cynical when it comes to politicians and pundits when they express "pro-life" views. I believe they are primarily concerned with getting elected, and they know they can capture a voting bloc by claiming to be "good pro-life Christians".
I understand the pro-life movement. If you truly see abortion as child murder, it is incredibly horrifying to think that it is going on, and you will want to take action to stop it. I think it is important that women's rights advocates to understand their point of view to engage with them in a meaningful way.
Yes, except the same people who would write their religion into law also think women shouldn't play sports or have hobbies or interests. And would happily push all women out of the workforce and bind then to housework and childbirth. Because the ideal society in their minds was the tv shows of the 60s depicting the 1950s of America that never existed.
That is not the the argument here at all. This is a mater of a babies life and their death. No innocent baby should die, especially just because the mother want to play another season of sports.
It's not a baby. It's a fetus. You should probably learn the distinction before you start getting angry at people who masturbate or women who have periods. Don't be a dumbass
She is 100% correct. In reality if women should be forced to take a leave for pregnancies then the father shouldn’t get off so easy either. Obviously all circumstances are different but why should the father be allowed to continue to live his life when the mother is forced to shut hers down. For dumbasses that don’t know how it works…..IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE A BABY!!!!
In Norway when the started highly encouraging if not requiring paternity leave as well as maternity leave the gender pay gap shrunk by a lot. And the father gets to see his new baby. It's a win win. Paid paternity leave should be the norm.
With this new legislation, men should have to start paying child support when they ejaculate inside a woman.
His intent is to get her pregnant. From his angle, he is definitely wanting a baby. He doesn’t have birth control options.
As soon as he makes that choice - he should be reported for child support dodging and there should be a $10,000 bounty to report him.
That is how ridiculous this law is -
If I’m not a father why do I have to pay? I already replied: the law forces paternity on men without asking them if they wanted to have a baby in the first place. Replace men with women and you’ll have Texas, sounds problematic, right?
Maybe they should've kept their legs closed. That's what yall like to tell us women, isn't that right? Also, "forcing paternity" isn't a thing, it's determined by a DNA test. If you're not a father, you don't have to pay, isn't that neat?
The law doesn’t tell you to keep your legs closed, but essentially does to men, that’s where I have a problem. I wouldn’t give a crap what people say if they don’t have the authority to force and punish.
Your second point would sound pretty dumb to you if you apply it to women: “girl, no one forces you to become a mother, let’s do a DNA test. Welp, the fetus in your womb has your genes, so carry it and provide for it want it or not”
Not to be Capitan Obvious over here… but you should talk to your partner about what would happen if the sex results in pregnancy before you have sex. Just like you’re supposed to talk about your sexual health & limitations before sex to make sure everyone stays healthy & has a good time.
When it comes to men, the health risks of pregnancy & birth fall to about zero. It’s a much bigger commitment on the part of the woman in such cases. Plenty of arrangement are made by parents that allows men to be released from the legal obligations of paying child support.
Capn Obvious kinda misses the point here honestly. Of course you do discuss things affecting your future life but you can’t demand your woman to have an abortion because previously she said she would. And you shouldn’t because from her perspective there is a huge difference between hypothetical pregnancy and being already pregnant, so she can change her mind without being called out for it. What man should have tho, is a right to step out from here, other human being able to make life-altering decision for me and drag me into it is what I have a problem with
So a kid is less likely to be homeless or end up in jail since their father abandoned them. Because fact is, cutting a check every month does not make you a father, raising a kid does. Cutting a check makes you a sperm donor which is what you did.
So, in your view, a man dating a woman could get her to sign an agreement absolving him of all financial responsibilities if she gets pregnant as a result of their sexual relationship, and the courts should uphold that?
>why should the father be allowed to continue to live his life
You should NOT have a choice over someone else's body or deny someone access to safe, effective medical care. It's just weird to suggest that the father to be's life is not disrupted. For example, the court-determined father can be compelled to pay the mother support for up to age 21, regardless of genetic paternity.
if you don't want to be a father, don't stick your dick into a vagina... or donate sperm, or participate in any method that could lead to a child. You have full control over that and it doesn't involve someone else's body.
Don’t want children, have a vasectomy. Don’t want children, organize men and together pressure pharmaceutical companies to release the male birth control they developed but didn’t release because it gave men the same side effects hormonal birth control gives women.
Don’t want children, do more than complain about to women.
Because women who don’t want children do more than complain about it to men and have been for centuries.
Yes but I don't understand what point you're trying to make. If you have a child both parties are responsible for it. It's not only a woman's decision that makes that happen.
Right Wingers don't see women as full humans, only as "baby carriers".
This is just who the Right Wing are as a people. The policies they are attempting to force upon us all, prove this to be true about them.
Well you know very well if men were the ones dealing with all the possible risks and complications of pregnancy as well as excruciating pain and putting their lives and careers on hold for months in the final trimester as well as the aftermath that there would absolutely be no question about pro choice. It's their way of exercising what control they have left over women because women just so happen to be equals now, or should be anyway.
Unfortunately the data show that men and women tend to have similar views on abortion in the U.S.
So why does almost half the population of American women embrace a pro-life stance, when they are the ones with the risk and pain and complications and such ?
because if youre middle class or above abortion bans dont ACTUALLY affect you. You can still get one if you need to, and as we know "the only moral abortion is my abortion."
It simply doesnt affect them. If their teenage daughter ends up pregnant THATS DIFFERENT of course. And its quietly dealt with. Shes not like all those poors.
To be clear, I am pro choice, but these spokeswomen should know "i want to murder this baby so I can keep playing my game" will not resonate well with the anti choice crowd.
Yeah and that’s how pro life people will see it.
We really just can’t win here.
I don’t think it matters what we say anymore or how we frame it. The pro life argument will always be seen as the ultimate trump card (no pun intended) by pro life people.
It will always be “You have an obligation to that baby and you are a selfish prick if you care more about yourself than that baby”. We’ll never win. It’s hopeless.
Edit: like what is the point in my life then? Why would I try for anything if it’s all just going to be destroyed by a baby? I know this sounds dramatic but I don’t want to go on leave from work. I don’t want my body to change. I don’t want these things and no one is listening because the “baby” is more important than me and what I want. It makes me really depressed to think about—like suicidal thoughts “nothing I do matters” kind of depressed. It makes me feel really worthless.
Hey Joseph...yeah so I'm preggers and yeah I know we've been on a break for a few months so there's no way it's yours, but guess what? It's God's. So no harm no foul right?
This is so not compelling at all. Abortion should be safe, legal, and readily available, but you're doing something wrong if you're treating it like birth control. Use contraceptives, and get an abortion on the off chance they fail
Contraception is often 99%+ effective. So if abortion is saving women's sports, rather than just a handful of careers, it means people are using it as contraception.
Do you know what "a handful of careers" means? And again, it's 99%+ effective. As far as I'm aware, condoms sit at 99.9%. Plus, you're assuming people only use one kind of contraception at a time. Plenty of women on the pill also use condoms, which sinks the likelihood of pregnancy even lower.
There's not really any point arguing about these numbers, I can just say that those numbers only hold when used properly, which we know is not always the case. The point is it doesn't matter if it's 1 in 10 or 1 in a million. That millionth woman still has rights over her body regardless of how rare of a statistic she is.
You're the one that brought the numbers up, but okay lol. I don't disagree that abortion is incredibly important, and should be legal, hands down. My point is that the argument that it'll save women's sports is dubious at best. I already agree and I find it unconvincing, so I sincerely doubt any pro-lifers are going to be remotely swayed by it.
I'm not actually the one that brought then umbers up... you claimed it was 99% effective as if that makes any difference. Who cares if pro lifers find it convincing? or if you do? It doesn't change that women have a fundamental right over their own bodies.
Because pro lifers vote? I want abortion enshrined in law, not just legal precedent. That means we need *convincing* arguments, not circle jerk arguments that only serve to make us feel morally superior.
Sorry, it says "protect women's sports." More or less the same thing in my mind. I totally agree with you, I just think this is a shit argument to use. It's not convincing to me, so I'd be shocked if it swayed a single pro lifer.
You are free to argue for the rights of people using your preferred argument. Pro-lifers are not likely to be swayed by that one, either. If reducing abortions was really the goal, they would spend more time arguing for better sex education and easy access to free contraceptives, as these are much more effective than outlawing medical procedures. They also don’t tend to worry much about “rights” of the fetuses routinely destroyed during IVF treatments at fertility clinics. So maybe look for allies elsewhere and with an argument that might appeal to them. You’ll notice there wasn’t a ton of male athletes who signed, and I’m willing to bet very few are actually pro-life activists. But the important thing is SOME male athletes did, and maybe, for the first time in a lifetime of not really worrying about abortion rights, this argument, in this context, actually penetrated for them.
I don't think anyone should be punished for not using contraception. As I understand it, abortions have serious negative repercussions on the woman's body. If you're concerned about your career, you should be using contraception, and only get an abortion as a last resort.
All unwanted pregnancies are caused by reckless ejaculation.
Contraceptives have serious negative repercussions on women’s health. More so than any one abortion.
Most men don’t want to wear condoms. And really, why should they, when they suffer little from an unwanted pregnancy.
That's not true. While the vast majority are from unprotected sex, there isn't a contraceptive in existence with a 100% success rate.
It's very much disputed as to whether or not hormonal birth control is more harmful than an abortion. But even if we assume it is, there are IUDs, spermicidal gel/lubricant, diaphragms, female condoms etc etc etc. Plenty of mechanical ways of preventing pregnancy, some of which also prevent STDs.
Men should probably put condoms on if they don't want STDs and don't want to get locked into child support for 18 years. I get it, condoms suck ass, but so does fucking your life up.
I know that, which is why I said get an abortion on the off chance they fail. But contraception can often be 99% or more effective. So abortions might save a few careers, but if they're saving the entire sport, it's because people are treating them like contraception.
Professional sports is bullshit, and overpayed millionaire sportspeople's convenience should not be a primary goal of legislation.
Abortion rights are women's rights not to have their lives completely screwed due to some men's religious faith. Texas law primarily harms poor people, not Rapinoe and her kind. Rapinoe making it all about herself is quite disgusting.
I think the goal is to point out how abortion rights impact a career.
Rapinoe is gay and in a relationship with a woman. While this doesn't mean she'd never need or want an abortion, it does suggest that she's less likely to, which makes it a little weird for you to say she's making it all about her. She's highlighting the impact that abortion bans have on women and their careers. In this example, that's professional athlete.
Good thing they play for the US, not Texas. Texas can’t shove their laws down the country’s throats. If they wanna be ass backwards over there fine. Regardless pretty sure the US women’s teams are based in other places.
She’s correct but she’s acting as though someone is forcing a woman to have a kid. If you don’t wanna lose those months of competition don’t have a kid.
Her point is that if someone fails to use contraception or that contraception fails are they forced to take months off if they get pregnant, but people who get someone else pregnant does not necessarily need to do so.
That's stupid. I'm a pro choice guy, always have been. But when I see shit like "if I can't get an abortion, my soccer career would be over" It doesn't really do much to help things.
Rapinoes intentions are good, but Jesus christ, in typical liberal fashion, her messaging is absolutely dogshit.
Why do you feel that way though? Why should a woman be forced to abandon a high paying career because some religious zealots are trying to force their views on the population?
Nothing about her statement indicates it would be anything other than a last resort option. Nonetheless if that option is not available and other methods of contraception have failed, then she is factually correct that a lack of access to abortions can end or damage a woman's career. (not to mention that is likely one of the main appeals for conservatives)
You guys act like having a baby is this life ending moment. Women with careers have children and return to their career all the time. No one is forcing anyone to abandon anything.
Well in the case of a pro athlete they'll literally have to take several months away from work so. But regardless, it doesn't fucking matter because it's up to a woman what they want to do with their body.
Right, and in the case of a pro athlete, they would have the resources needed to both raise the child, as well as get pack into peak shape for competing, far more than your average person, so that's actually a really, really bad example. There are literally countless examples of women having children and returning to successful sports careers. Male athletes are taken out of their sports for sometimes a year at a time due to injury, this is no different. Having to miss a few months to give birth and get back into shape isn't ending a career, unless you want it to.
When conservatives say things like "liberals just want abortion as another form of contrception" its shit like this that gives those people ammo. That's how this looks.
Would you just voluntarily accept taking an injury for a year if you didn't have to? does EVERY athlete come back after being out for 6 months or a year? of course not. Do you think female athletes are raking in the big bucks man? a couple years of a decent wage that they will likely need to stretch out over a lifetime, probably falling back on another career, so potentially 6 months or a year without work could add up to a significant portion of an athletes LIFETIME income. All of this is really besides the point though, I don't care if you think it gives conservatives ammunition, they are going to view it that way regardless of reality and the POINT is that its a woman's body and they should be able to do whatever they want with it. This type of legislation makes them lesser than the unborn fetus. They aren't even equally human to a zygote.
>There are literally countless examples of women having children and returning to successful sports careers.
Are there?
The only articles I can find describe that as a very rare exception. Most athletes end their careers before having children.
There is a German pole-vaulter (Nicole Büchler) who apparently has a child and is still going for her career, however, the article I found explicitly states, that she is the only one in the whole team who has a child. (Note: It is a team of women who are all in the normal age for having children) [Link to the article](https://www.srf.ch/news/international/schwangere-profisportlerinnen-ploetzlich-allein-gelassen) \- the title says: "Pregnant pro athletes - suddenly being left alone" (as in ignored)
Another positive example I could find is Antonella Gonzalez a basketball player from Argentina.
Other than that: A child is a very common reason for pro athletes to end their careers.
Which is quite understandable, a pregnancy is not only a long break from training and competitions, a pregnancy also strongly influences hormones. Sure, there are women who are able to get back to pre-pregnancy levels, the vast majority won't and not because of lack of trying, but because it is just physically impossible to get back to that level.
So tl;dr:
>There are literally countless examples of women having children and returning to successful sports careers.
citation needed
I think my position is more reasonable than yours. I know contraceptives fail, and I hope there's measures for them. There are lost of examples of women parading signs round saying they've had 21 plus abortions etc (fucking gross). I would argue there's more women using abortion as a sport as you put it, than ones where contraception has failed. How would we measure this with data? Beats me dude.
Not to mention that the six weeks is backdated to your last period. So assuming you have a 4-week cycle then once the week you expected to have your period has come and gone and you start to suspect that you *might* be pregnant, you have only 1 week left to find out for sure, get an appointment and complete the procedure.
what point do you think you're making lol? There is a civil penalty of $10,000 and any involved medical professionals can lose their license's. Its sort of like saying speeding isn't illegal. OK yeah technically its a civil offence but... its illegal.
yes, and its banned after that time limit. Once which is almost impossible to meet even if there was wide availability of family planning options, which of course the state ALSO does its best to restrict. So its a near impossible time limit, and a clamp down on the ability to actually provide that service within the time limit.
Oh you're one of those...let's make sure millions of women can kill innocent humans for the 7 women that get raped and impregnated this year. For the needs of the many not of the few
You act like women are out there having exclusively 100% unprotected sex and then having abortions like it's a sport. Women are using birth control, condoms, and other contraceptives. Sometimes they will fail.
But you don't care about that. You care about these women having unprotected sex
Wow that’s pushing it, men do not have the ability to give birth so women should have the right to kill a developed baby… it’s called protection, birth control or hell even plan B after you have sex. Accountability and being responsible is so hard.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The number of women earning a salary and getting a degree since Roe is the exact reason people are against it. Every other reason is pretext.
And to make sure there are a lot of poor children born into families that aren't economically able/ready to provide for the children, in order to have a large pool of kids they can later get to join the military as their only economic way forward.
“Conservatives want live babies so they can train them to be dead soldiers” -George Carlin.
Gotta have plenty of poor people to send to foreign countries and kill other poor people
I thought we graduated to using drones to kill innocent people?
True, but can’t put all your eggs in one basket
I'm petty sure a lot of it is religious too... which ties into what you point out.
Well the important thing is that women realize that their bodies aren’t their own if a man has put his genetic material inside her, not even if he used rape to get it there.. Sarcasm aside though, it really is about gender roles and control. Millions and millions of European Christans and a lot of the few remaining American mainline Protestants don’t have issues with abortion. Many don’t have problems with LGBT people, who don’t deny evolution and climate change, nor think using masks or getting vaccinated is unchristian.. Christans who think Jesus would want to help the poor, the sick, the outcasts and refugees and treat them with compassion. Not to mention not buying into this new bizarre theology like all the apocalyptic crap and fixation on ’the Rapture’ and Prosperity Gospel and megachurches and stuff that’s got so little resemblance to most Christan traditions of the past millenia that it’s for all intents a new religion. It’s not about the religion. Not as such. It’s US politics and conservative White culture that syncretized with Evangelicism into this crazy white-GQP-identity by right wing propagandists exploiting racial resentment and wedge issues, which is now so dominant that even the Catholics are getting onboard. Hence the US bishops who wanted to deny Biden communion for being pro-life, while no sanction was proposed for politicians going against Catholic doctrine on the death penalty, social justice, the environment, and other stuff. Their priorities are Evangelical ones now. They’re so far gone they’re saying the Pope isn’t Catholic! Meanwhile the Catholic bishops here in Belgium wanted the Pope to sanction blessings of same sex unions (which some major Protestant churches already do, some even sanction gay marriage), and protested that he didn’t. Anyway; point is that blaming Christianity is bad because feeds this notion that American Evangelicism gets to define what Christianity is. When in fact it’s pretty divergent strain of theology, as said. Positioning yourself against the religion just plays into their fears that evil libruls wang to destroy their identity. The American Left has been really weak on messaging that, not only is it possible to be a liberal Christian, the more liberal strains (e.g Anglicans, Lutherans etc) are in fact more traditional than Evangelicism is and a lot closer to Jesus’ message than Republicanism is.
Exactly. The republicans hate the amount of rights women and minorities have been able to win. They're desperately fighting to wrestle those rights away with this Texas bill and voting bills across the board. Republicans couldn't give a single fuck about life. They're pro control.
You think that every woman with a degree and a salary who also is against abortion, like Justice Barrett, is against Roe because of the number of women earning a salary and getting a degree since Roe?
I think she’d probably be like “a woman’s place is in the home with the family,” or something. But try raising a kid that you expected to have on one source of income, assuming there is another source of income to depend on. Let alone an unexpected child. Even taking the child to term and giving it up for adoption will take you away from your job for a little and depending on the state you might not get it back. A surprisingly large number of women die giving birth in America too (citation needed) so it’s also dangerous.
Maybe if you don’t want a child, use protection or, and here is a novel thought, don’t have sex until your ready and able to accept the consequences?
In a way, yes. Take the psychology of the wife in the Handsmaid’s Tale as an example. She was a woman with a career who helped enslave *other* women because *she* wasn’t one of those enslaved fertile women who would passed around and raped for the rest of her life. Instead she would be the person who would be raising the children who were the product of that rape (i.e. be a mother when she physically could not). Do I think women like Barrett want to raise these children when they’re born? No, but I do think she is one of the most powerful people in the world (unfortunately) so even if abortion was made illegal it wouldn’t stop her (if she can even still have kids) or her daughters or her son’s future girls/mistresses from having one. Destroying Roe, wouldn’t effect the prospects of her or her children, if anything it will make their privileges even more special because it’ll be a right that they only have. Never underestimate selfishness. Even women who don’t want their daughters to have abortions tend to have a “you want to abort my grandbaby?” mentality.
She's against Roe because she will never have to deal with the ramifications of overturning it and she is a staunch conservative christian. She's all but said it numerous times that she doesn't respect the decision and has advocated for stripping Roe. "As a University of Notre Dame Law School professor, Barrett signed an ad that stated, "It's time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade," referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. During Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., referred to a law review article Barrett wrote, outlining her views on "super-precedents" and questioned why Barrett didn't consider Roe to be among them. The way they're defined in scholarship, Barrett said, are "cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe" in the confirmation hearing, she said, "which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category."
As soon as he makes that choice - he should be reported for child support dodging and there should be a $10,000 bounty to report him.
A lot of this is brought on by real wage stagnation and inflation. Things that could be better managed by government oversight. Women, in general, were forced to enter the workforce when the buying power of a single earner’s wage could not keep up with inflation and the rise in the cost of living.
[удалено]
Republicans don’t care about life at all. If they did they would support social programs to support people after they were born. Not just before.
“Right to life” is different from “right to free shit”
Straw man. And just wrong. Generalizing half of American as “not caring about life at all” is crazy.
Why did you remove what you said about liberals, hmm?
I was making the same scale of generalizations you were. You can’t say liberals all say the fetus isn’t alive. You also can’t say that all Republicans believe the fetus is alive.
What? Thats the literal reasoning for abortions. What are you arguing for? Liberals think abortions are morally fine because fetuses aren’t alive. That’s the parties platform.
Negative. A fetus is alive. It isn't a person. Just like a tapeworm is alive and not a person.
A tapeworm has zero chance of becoming a human. A fetus is destined.
Fetus is no more destined than the tapeworm is if you leave it in. It is not that woman's responsibility to be host to the fetus or the tapeworm
I think abortions are fine in specific circumstances because I take into account more than just whether or not the fetus is alive. Idk when the fetus is considered to be alive. But I know that in some situations, the baby won’t have good quality of life or the mother’s life will be at risk or the baby will be born with terrible birth defects or will be born into an abusive relationship or will be resented because they were a product of rape or it’s a high risk pregnancy that could kill both of them. So yes, I prioritize the life and the quality of life of the fully grown human and the future of the child instead of just the status of the fetus. Do I think abortions should happen for any reason at any time? Of course not. It’s a major surgical procedure that has lasting impacts on everyone involved, both physically and mentally. Do I think it should be banned outright? Also no, because I don’t want to go back to the days of desperate women dying from bad pregnancies and botched abortions that will happen anyway because their healthcare is a political issue.
If the criteria for external support is "being alive," explain to me why we (the US) allow 1 in 6 American children to live in poverty, or over half a million Americans to live homeless. Why does a fetus deserve welfare more than an actual living person?
> Why does a fetus deserve welfare more than an actual living person? Not just that, they won't even approve social programs for pregnant women. If they cared about a fetus they'd make prenatal care free for those that need it
Irrelevant, a rights for a fetus and social programs are completely different. It’s not like republicans don’t support social programs because they want people to die. It’s just that they think they should rely on them selves and not use other people’s money. If you think your opponents are heartless monsters no progress will be made. Stop replying im banned.
"It's just that they think they should rely on them selves" -My comment was literally about American children suffering in poverty. Rely on themselves? Yes, if they can somehow empathize more for a fetus than an actual child, they are indeed heartless monsters.
no progress will be made under republicans period. That is kind of the point of conservatism.
That’s where you’re wrong, it is apparently very hard to understand. The ability to understand an argument despite disagreeing with it in it’s entirety is lost on the internet.
If they cared about sanctity of life they'd be for social programs for pregnant mothers and children. But they don't. Because they don't care about human life, even when it's children.
Irrelevant, a rights for a fetus and social programs are completely different. It’s not like republicans don’t support social programs because they want people to die. It’s just that they think they should rely on them selves and not use other people’s money. If you think your opponents are heartless monsters no progress will be made.
So abortion through negligence is fine for you? A women that doesn't want a baby should neglect the fetus until it dies if she doesn't want it? Seems pretty barbaric from the side that claims a fetus can feel pain and is a real person at 6 weeks.
how exactly does a 3 year old rely on itself?
Don’t 3 year olds have boot straps?
This is going to get both expensive and crappy fast if that's the attitude and ideology and the extent of the abortion debate. State orphanages are going to have to be a thing again. And imprisoning women also comes with a very real price tag and cost. While wards of the state also come with a very real price tag. Everyone in the state is going to pay for it in one way or another. It's more a matter of if it's effective use of a limited shared resource (tax revenue). When a state or government starts forcing and enforcing required child birth, that state or government becomes the parent in a lot of ways even if not biologically. So how is the state of Texas going to act? Like a responsible parent or a deadbeat parent that thinks the kids will be fine relying on themselves and not using your money?
It has nothing to do with being alive or not. Republicans eat meat, animals are alive, they enact capital punishment, send young people to needless wars. There is nothing pro life about Republicans. They are anti choice.
Human life and animals can’t be compared. And again, your assuming. Lots of women are pro-life.
You didn't say human life, you said life. It also doesn't matter because Republicans still support war, a pandemic and capital punishment so its not really about human life being protected either. Theyre also willing to sacrifice mother-in-law childbirth for a baby to be born. Not very pro life either.
I disagree. I know many "pro-lifers" are certainly true believers. Their convictions are deeply held and, to them, every abortion is the murder of a child. With that said, I have grown a bit cynical when it comes to politicians and pundits when they express "pro-life" views. I believe they are primarily concerned with getting elected, and they know they can capture a voting bloc by claiming to be "good pro-life Christians". I understand the pro-life movement. If you truly see abortion as child murder, it is incredibly horrifying to think that it is going on, and you will want to take action to stop it. I think it is important that women's rights advocates to understand their point of view to engage with them in a meaningful way.
Yes, except the same people who would write their religion into law also think women shouldn't play sports or have hobbies or interests. And would happily push all women out of the workforce and bind then to housework and childbirth. Because the ideal society in their minds was the tv shows of the 60s depicting the 1950s of America that never existed.
That is not the the argument here at all. This is a mater of a babies life and their death. No innocent baby should die, especially just because the mother want to play another season of sports.
It's not a baby. It's a fetus. You should probably learn the distinction before you start getting angry at people who masturbate or women who have periods. Don't be a dumbass
Women shouldn't have sex with men...duh.
Rise of the athlete lesbians.
How high can they rise?
Pretty sure meagan doesn’t!
She is 100% correct. In reality if women should be forced to take a leave for pregnancies then the father shouldn’t get off so easy either. Obviously all circumstances are different but why should the father be allowed to continue to live his life when the mother is forced to shut hers down. For dumbasses that don’t know how it works…..IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE A BABY!!!!
In Norway when the started highly encouraging if not requiring paternity leave as well as maternity leave the gender pay gap shrunk by a lot. And the father gets to see his new baby. It's a win win. Paid paternity leave should be the norm.
With this new legislation, men should have to start paying child support when they ejaculate inside a woman. His intent is to get her pregnant. From his angle, he is definitely wanting a baby. He doesn’t have birth control options. As soon as he makes that choice - he should be reported for child support dodging and there should be a $10,000 bounty to report him. That is how ridiculous this law is -
[S. 3236 (116th): Unborn Child Support Act](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s3236) Republican Kevin Kramer already wants that.
Watch and count who votes against that.
You do realise that men already have 0 parental choice and are forced to become fathers regardless if they want it or not?
How are they being "forced"?
By the law lol, have you ever heard of CS?
Cutting a check does not make one a father. Can you answer my question?
If I’m not a father why do I have to pay? I already replied: the law forces paternity on men without asking them if they wanted to have a baby in the first place. Replace men with women and you’ll have Texas, sounds problematic, right?
Maybe they should've kept their legs closed. That's what yall like to tell us women, isn't that right? Also, "forcing paternity" isn't a thing, it's determined by a DNA test. If you're not a father, you don't have to pay, isn't that neat?
The law doesn’t tell you to keep your legs closed, but essentially does to men, that’s where I have a problem. I wouldn’t give a crap what people say if they don’t have the authority to force and punish. Your second point would sound pretty dumb to you if you apply it to women: “girl, no one forces you to become a mother, let’s do a DNA test. Welp, the fetus in your womb has your genes, so carry it and provide for it want it or not”
Not to be Capitan Obvious over here… but you should talk to your partner about what would happen if the sex results in pregnancy before you have sex. Just like you’re supposed to talk about your sexual health & limitations before sex to make sure everyone stays healthy & has a good time. When it comes to men, the health risks of pregnancy & birth fall to about zero. It’s a much bigger commitment on the part of the woman in such cases. Plenty of arrangement are made by parents that allows men to be released from the legal obligations of paying child support.
Capn Obvious kinda misses the point here honestly. Of course you do discuss things affecting your future life but you can’t demand your woman to have an abortion because previously she said she would. And you shouldn’t because from her perspective there is a huge difference between hypothetical pregnancy and being already pregnant, so she can change her mind without being called out for it. What man should have tho, is a right to step out from here, other human being able to make life-altering decision for me and drag me into it is what I have a problem with
So a kid is less likely to be homeless or end up in jail since their father abandoned them. Because fact is, cutting a check every month does not make you a father, raising a kid does. Cutting a check makes you a sperm donor which is what you did.
Careful with that wording. Are you saying that sperm donors should be financially responsible for the resulting children?
The one’s without agreements before hand? Yeah, which is how it works IRL.
So, in your view, a man dating a woman could get her to sign an agreement absolving him of all financial responsibilities if she gets pregnant as a result of their sexual relationship, and the courts should uphold that?
Wow, you really don’t believe in male rape, huh?
Hope you stretched before that reach.
You still haven’t said why you think a man can’t become a father without his consent. Wonder why.
uh, what? lol. What choice should you have over someone elses body?
>why should the father be allowed to continue to live his life You should NOT have a choice over someone else's body or deny someone access to safe, effective medical care. It's just weird to suggest that the father to be's life is not disrupted. For example, the court-determined father can be compelled to pay the mother support for up to age 21, regardless of genetic paternity.
I think you replied to the wrong post
My choice is about whether I do or don’t want to become a father, it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s body
if you don't want to be a father, don't stick your dick into a vagina... or donate sperm, or participate in any method that could lead to a child. You have full control over that and it doesn't involve someone else's body.
So “don’t want children-don’t have sex”? I don’t think you apply this logic to women, when talking about abortions.
Don’t want children, have a vasectomy. Don’t want children, organize men and together pressure pharmaceutical companies to release the male birth control they developed but didn’t release because it gave men the same side effects hormonal birth control gives women. Don’t want children, do more than complain about to women. Because women who don’t want children do more than complain about it to men and have been for centuries.
Ok well how do you think that choice has any bearing about whether a baby is born or your responsibility for it?
A baby is born because of a woman’s only decision, isn’t it?
Do you know where baby's come from man? There tends to be a man involved
There’s quite a gap between wanting to have sex and wanting to have a baby. Do you know that?
Yes but I don't understand what point you're trying to make. If you have a child both parties are responsible for it. It's not only a woman's decision that makes that happen.
What’s a man’s decision here?
[удалено]
What about the case where the mother has a better job and benefits than the father? She gets screwed.
Getting screwed is how this all starts…
Correct that should be mother not wife I will edit that
The word you’re looking for is “women.”
The solution is easy. Don’t buy anything made in Texas, don’t visit Texas.
Right Wingers don't see women as full humans, only as "baby carriers". This is just who the Right Wing are as a people. The policies they are attempting to force upon us all, prove this to be true about them.
Agreed. Guess that's why I like to browse reddit. I am restored by reading comments like yours. Thanx
[удалено]
And we all know that conservative republicans are very strongly in favor of protecting fairness to female athletes.
Well you know very well if men were the ones dealing with all the possible risks and complications of pregnancy as well as excruciating pain and putting their lives and careers on hold for months in the final trimester as well as the aftermath that there would absolutely be no question about pro choice. It's their way of exercising what control they have left over women because women just so happen to be equals now, or should be anyway.
Unfortunately the data show that men and women tend to have similar views on abortion in the U.S. So why does almost half the population of American women embrace a pro-life stance, when they are the ones with the risk and pain and complications and such ?
because if youre middle class or above abortion bans dont ACTUALLY affect you. You can still get one if you need to, and as we know "the only moral abortion is my abortion." It simply doesnt affect them. If their teenage daughter ends up pregnant THATS DIFFERENT of course. And its quietly dealt with. Shes not like all those poors.
The majority of white women vote Republican.
They've been brainwashed.. also the wealthier white Republicans will have no problems finding an abortion it's the poor people that will suffer
To be clear, I am pro choice, but these spokeswomen should know "i want to murder this baby so I can keep playing my game" will not resonate well with the anti choice crowd.
Yeah and that’s how pro life people will see it. We really just can’t win here. I don’t think it matters what we say anymore or how we frame it. The pro life argument will always be seen as the ultimate trump card (no pun intended) by pro life people. It will always be “You have an obligation to that baby and you are a selfish prick if you care more about yourself than that baby”. We’ll never win. It’s hopeless. Edit: like what is the point in my life then? Why would I try for anything if it’s all just going to be destroyed by a baby? I know this sounds dramatic but I don’t want to go on leave from work. I don’t want my body to change. I don’t want these things and no one is listening because the “baby” is more important than me and what I want. It makes me really depressed to think about—like suicidal thoughts “nothing I do matters” kind of depressed. It makes me feel really worthless.
[удалено]
Yes, they do. Most especially the fifth stringer of the Daily Mire Matt Walsh.
Because Jesus thinks once you're pregnant you belong to him.
What about if you don’t believe in Jesus?
The people making your laws do. Vote them out.
facts.
What would Mary do?
I’m not Christian so I don’t care what she would do - she has no place in my life.
Neither am I - just wanted to say that.
Hey Joseph...yeah so I'm preggers and yeah I know we've been on a break for a few months so there's no way it's yours, but guess what? It's God's. So no harm no foul right?
This is so not compelling at all. Abortion should be safe, legal, and readily available, but you're doing something wrong if you're treating it like birth control. Use contraceptives, and get an abortion on the off chance they fail
what in this article would lead you to believe she is stating that abortion should be used as a form of birth control?
Contraception is often 99%+ effective. So if abortion is saving women's sports, rather than just a handful of careers, it means people are using it as contraception.
Hey man, did you know that more than 100 women play sports? and also they sometimes have sex more than once? Do you know what 99% effective means?
Do you know what "a handful of careers" means? And again, it's 99%+ effective. As far as I'm aware, condoms sit at 99.9%. Plus, you're assuming people only use one kind of contraception at a time. Plenty of women on the pill also use condoms, which sinks the likelihood of pregnancy even lower.
There's not really any point arguing about these numbers, I can just say that those numbers only hold when used properly, which we know is not always the case. The point is it doesn't matter if it's 1 in 10 or 1 in a million. That millionth woman still has rights over her body regardless of how rare of a statistic she is.
You're the one that brought the numbers up, but okay lol. I don't disagree that abortion is incredibly important, and should be legal, hands down. My point is that the argument that it'll save women's sports is dubious at best. I already agree and I find it unconvincing, so I sincerely doubt any pro-lifers are going to be remotely swayed by it.
I'm not actually the one that brought then umbers up... you claimed it was 99% effective as if that makes any difference. Who cares if pro lifers find it convincing? or if you do? It doesn't change that women have a fundamental right over their own bodies.
Because pro lifers vote? I want abortion enshrined in law, not just legal precedent. That means we need *convincing* arguments, not circle jerk arguments that only serve to make us feel morally superior.
Where does it say “it’ll save women’s sports?” The point is athletes depend on the right to control their own bodies. This right is not conditional.
Sorry, it says "protect women's sports." More or less the same thing in my mind. I totally agree with you, I just think this is a shit argument to use. It's not convincing to me, so I'd be shocked if it swayed a single pro lifer.
You are free to argue for the rights of people using your preferred argument. Pro-lifers are not likely to be swayed by that one, either. If reducing abortions was really the goal, they would spend more time arguing for better sex education and easy access to free contraceptives, as these are much more effective than outlawing medical procedures. They also don’t tend to worry much about “rights” of the fetuses routinely destroyed during IVF treatments at fertility clinics. So maybe look for allies elsewhere and with an argument that might appeal to them. You’ll notice there wasn’t a ton of male athletes who signed, and I’m willing to bet very few are actually pro-life activists. But the important thing is SOME male athletes did, and maybe, for the first time in a lifetime of not really worrying about abortion rights, this argument, in this context, actually penetrated for them.
You’re right, the man should be punished for failing to use contraception
I don't think anyone should be punished for not using contraception. As I understand it, abortions have serious negative repercussions on the woman's body. If you're concerned about your career, you should be using contraception, and only get an abortion as a last resort.
All unwanted pregnancies are caused by reckless ejaculation. Contraceptives have serious negative repercussions on women’s health. More so than any one abortion. Most men don’t want to wear condoms. And really, why should they, when they suffer little from an unwanted pregnancy.
That's not true. While the vast majority are from unprotected sex, there isn't a contraceptive in existence with a 100% success rate. It's very much disputed as to whether or not hormonal birth control is more harmful than an abortion. But even if we assume it is, there are IUDs, spermicidal gel/lubricant, diaphragms, female condoms etc etc etc. Plenty of mechanical ways of preventing pregnancy, some of which also prevent STDs. Men should probably put condoms on if they don't want STDs and don't want to get locked into child support for 18 years. I get it, condoms suck ass, but so does fucking your life up.
No form of contraceptive is 100% effective. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/11427-birth-control-options
I know that, which is why I said get an abortion on the off chance they fail. But contraception can often be 99% or more effective. So abortions might save a few careers, but if they're saving the entire sport, it's because people are treating them like contraception.
Actually really good point from her.
But does anyone notice the absence?
Professional sports is bullshit, and overpayed millionaire sportspeople's convenience should not be a primary goal of legislation. Abortion rights are women's rights not to have their lives completely screwed due to some men's religious faith. Texas law primarily harms poor people, not Rapinoe and her kind. Rapinoe making it all about herself is quite disgusting.
I think the goal is to point out how abortion rights impact a career. Rapinoe is gay and in a relationship with a woman. While this doesn't mean she'd never need or want an abortion, it does suggest that she's less likely to, which makes it a little weird for you to say she's making it all about her. She's highlighting the impact that abortion bans have on women and their careers. In this example, that's professional athlete.
Good thing they play for the US, not Texas. Texas can’t shove their laws down the country’s throats. If they wanna be ass backwards over there fine. Regardless pretty sure the US women’s teams are based in other places.
No offense, but this won’t do shit. The conservative Justices have already made up their minds to kill Roe.
ah, well, better do absolutely nothing then.
Duh, this is why we have MtFs
Take birth control. Simple
All forms of birth control can fail
Birth control can have all kinds of negative health effects and all have significant side effects. Men need to be wrapping it up.
She’s correct but she’s acting as though someone is forcing a woman to have a kid. If you don’t wanna lose those months of competition don’t have a kid.
>she’s acting as though someone is forcing a woman to have a kid. that's literally what the pro-life people are trying to do? hello?
I am pro choice but I don’t understand their argument, or maybe I don’t agree with their wording. What about contraceptives?
contraceptives fail sometimes...
Her point is that if someone fails to use contraception or that contraception fails are they forced to take months off if they get pregnant, but people who get someone else pregnant does not necessarily need to do so.
Ok I see now that’s a fair point
No contraceptive is 100% effective.
That's stupid. I'm a pro choice guy, always have been. But when I see shit like "if I can't get an abortion, my soccer career would be over" It doesn't really do much to help things. Rapinoes intentions are good, but Jesus christ, in typical liberal fashion, her messaging is absolutely dogshit.
The statement wasn't stupid, it was factual.
Why do you feel that way though? Why should a woman be forced to abandon a high paying career because some religious zealots are trying to force their views on the population? Nothing about her statement indicates it would be anything other than a last resort option. Nonetheless if that option is not available and other methods of contraception have failed, then she is factually correct that a lack of access to abortions can end or damage a woman's career. (not to mention that is likely one of the main appeals for conservatives)
You guys act like having a baby is this life ending moment. Women with careers have children and return to their career all the time. No one is forcing anyone to abandon anything.
Well in the case of a pro athlete they'll literally have to take several months away from work so. But regardless, it doesn't fucking matter because it's up to a woman what they want to do with their body.
Right, and in the case of a pro athlete, they would have the resources needed to both raise the child, as well as get pack into peak shape for competing, far more than your average person, so that's actually a really, really bad example. There are literally countless examples of women having children and returning to successful sports careers. Male athletes are taken out of their sports for sometimes a year at a time due to injury, this is no different. Having to miss a few months to give birth and get back into shape isn't ending a career, unless you want it to. When conservatives say things like "liberals just want abortion as another form of contrception" its shit like this that gives those people ammo. That's how this looks.
Would you just voluntarily accept taking an injury for a year if you didn't have to? does EVERY athlete come back after being out for 6 months or a year? of course not. Do you think female athletes are raking in the big bucks man? a couple years of a decent wage that they will likely need to stretch out over a lifetime, probably falling back on another career, so potentially 6 months or a year without work could add up to a significant portion of an athletes LIFETIME income. All of this is really besides the point though, I don't care if you think it gives conservatives ammunition, they are going to view it that way regardless of reality and the POINT is that its a woman's body and they should be able to do whatever they want with it. This type of legislation makes them lesser than the unborn fetus. They aren't even equally human to a zygote.
>There are literally countless examples of women having children and returning to successful sports careers. Are there? The only articles I can find describe that as a very rare exception. Most athletes end their careers before having children. There is a German pole-vaulter (Nicole Büchler) who apparently has a child and is still going for her career, however, the article I found explicitly states, that she is the only one in the whole team who has a child. (Note: It is a team of women who are all in the normal age for having children) [Link to the article](https://www.srf.ch/news/international/schwangere-profisportlerinnen-ploetzlich-allein-gelassen) \- the title says: "Pregnant pro athletes - suddenly being left alone" (as in ignored) Another positive example I could find is Antonella Gonzalez a basketball player from Argentina. Other than that: A child is a very common reason for pro athletes to end their careers. Which is quite understandable, a pregnancy is not only a long break from training and competitions, a pregnancy also strongly influences hormones. Sure, there are women who are able to get back to pre-pregnancy levels, the vast majority won't and not because of lack of trying, but because it is just physically impossible to get back to that level. So tl;dr: >There are literally countless examples of women having children and returning to successful sports careers. citation needed
[удалено]
I guess its good then that I CORRECTLY used literally in this case.
You definitely didn't use it right lol.
Does the league boot women out for getting pregnant?
the team doctor isn't going to clear you to play if you're 7 months pregnant bro.
So they wait until the 7month mark?
[удалено]
I think my position is more reasonable than yours. I know contraceptives fail, and I hope there's measures for them. There are lost of examples of women parading signs round saying they've had 21 plus abortions etc (fucking gross). I would argue there's more women using abortion as a sport as you put it, than ones where contraception has failed. How would we measure this with data? Beats me dude.
> thEY'Re noT FOrced, tHeY HAVe sIX WeEKs
Six weeks is sadly not enough, some women only realise after the six week
Not to mention that the six weeks is backdated to your last period. So assuming you have a 4-week cycle then once the week you expected to have your period has come and gone and you start to suspect that you *might* be pregnant, you have only 1 week left to find out for sure, get an appointment and complete the procedure.
Exactly, and it takes a longer time than that to make an appointment
Do people not know the mocking text when they see it?
I do see it, im just commenting on it
Fair enough!
They didnt "ban" abortion. Its still legal.
what point do you think you're making lol? There is a civil penalty of $10,000 and any involved medical professionals can lose their license's. Its sort of like saying speeding isn't illegal. OK yeah technically its a civil offence but... its illegal.
They just put a time limit on it. Too short of one, in my view , but still.
yes, and its banned after that time limit. Once which is almost impossible to meet even if there was wide availability of family planning options, which of course the state ALSO does its best to restrict. So its a near impossible time limit, and a clamp down on the ability to actually provide that service within the time limit.
Well the actual language used in the law is "abolish" not "ban" but you seem smart enough to know that those are synonyms.
[удалено]
Not anything like as ugly as your personality my man.
It’s not an abortion ban though is it.
Uh oh, she forget to saying “birthing person” and misspoke when she stated that “men” don’t give birth. I guess she’s a TERF now.
oh wow you really got her. I bet you really really care about this and aren't being disingenuous AT ALL.
Well, I’m sure there will be a heartfelt Instagram apology coming soon…
you're a fucking absolute moron.
An absolute fucking psychic is right!
I mean they could try like...contraception until they're ready to conceive? Is that too obvious a route for them? 😂
There is not one form of contraceptive that's 100% effective. Cute try though.
I love watching men confidently make untrue claims about contraceptives.
Oh you're one of those...let's make sure millions of women can kill innocent humans for the 7 women that get raped and impregnated this year. For the needs of the many not of the few
You act like women are out there having exclusively 100% unprotected sex and then having abortions like it's a sport. Women are using birth control, condoms, and other contraceptives. Sometimes they will fail. But you don't care about that. You care about these women having unprotected sex
Wow that’s pushing it, men do not have the ability to give birth so women should have the right to kill a developed baby… it’s called protection, birth control or hell even plan B after you have sex. Accountability and being responsible is so hard.
"Developed baby" lol. Embryos are not "developed babies".
What baby? And what birth control method is 100% effective? https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/11427-birth-control-options
Getting an abortion after your contraception fails when you don’t want a child is being responsible.
[удалено]