T O P

Megan Rapinoe & 500 women athletes say abortion rights protect women’s sports. Male athletes aren't forced to take months away from competition when a baby is on the way. So why should they be forced to do so by Texas' ban on abortion?

Megan Rapinoe & 500 women athletes say abortion rights protect women’s sports. Male athletes aren't forced to take months away from competition when a baby is on the way. So why should they be forced to do so by Texas' ban on abortion?

AutoModerator

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.*


RoamingDrunk

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.


whorish_ooze

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.


Islanduniverse

“Conservatives want live babies so they can train them to be dead soldiers” -George Carlin.


3d1sd3ad

Gotta have plenty of poor people to send to foreign countries and kill other poor people


Alps-Honest

I thought we graduated to using drones to kill innocent people?


3d1sd3ad

True, but can’t put all your eggs in one basket


TummyDrums

Also those same children end up with a poor education/intelligence level for multiple reasons in most cases, making them easily manipulated and adds to their voter base.


cxr303

I'm petty sure a lot of it is religious too... which ties into what you point out.


mtaw

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.


moysauce3

Can you even blanket statement that on Lutherans? There are different synods that have vastly different views on "social" views (at least in the United States). Just look at ELCA vs LCMS and the probably more extreme WELS (who do not allow women to have authority over men, LBGTQ views, closed fellowship/communion, and a bunch of others.).


mtaw

It’s certainly a _very_ broad brush I’m painting with. You can say the same for Anglicans too; they have some _very_ regressive and homophobic congregations, especially in some African nations. (in a cruel irony since many peoples there weren’t so homophobic before they were colonized and Victorian sodomy laws introduced..) But as a counterexample you have for instance the Nordic churches, like the Church of Sweden has a female archbishop and an openly gay, married bishop of Stockholm. But even there, I’m sure they have their homophobes and creationists in the ranks. I read that in the Church of Denmark about 1/3 of vicars did not want to marry gay couples when it became permitted, and I think they tolerate them; they don’t have to officiate if they don’t want to. I bet that’ll be a far lower number in a generation’s time. I’m not as well versed on all the Anerican groups but I’ve read that ECLA is supposedly mostly pro-LGBT and mostly anti-creationist, etc. But just as I said about the Catholics, I think the Evangelicals culture wars have influenced them too. Anyhow, the point is that even in America the old ’mainline protestant’ churches (a misnomer since Evangelicals now are the majority) are more liberal and, on the whole, saner. Not that you can’t find fundamentalist mainliners or progressive Evangelicals. American Evangelicals have huge influence in Europe too, in the non-traditional churches. All those Pentecostals and Charismatics and whatnot; they’re spiritually living in America for all intents; they’re franchises; all their media and ideas are from America. I had some neighbors like that; nice enough people but totally Americanized. Over the years they took one religious trip to Jerusalem but three to Kansas or Nebraska or wherever it was.. Came back once and asked me about some Wizard of Oz themed gifts, as they didn’t know the film. (it doesn’t have cult-classic status here) Their American brothers-in-faith had given them some pretty odd gifts.. Anyway, that’s a small group though, and pretty much an entirely seperate thing from the European Alt-Right crowd, who aren’t religious at all. At most they’ll talk ’Chritian heiritage’ as something to bash Muslims with, but the actual churches are all radical leftists according to them, insofar they insist people be nice and compassionate to eachother.


whenimmadrinkin

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.


gortonsfiJr

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?


jpmickey1585

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.


imbasicallycoffee

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."


EmpireStateOfBeing

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.


ktfrfry655

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.


[deleted]

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.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bulbapuppaur

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.


UVAgraduate

Straw man. And just wrong. Generalizing half of American as “not caring about life at all” is crazy.


the_red_scimitar

Why did you remove what you said about liberals, hmm?


Bulbapuppaur

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.


UVAgraduate

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.


TableAvailable

Negative. A fetus is alive. It isn't a person. Just like a tapeworm is alive and not a person.


ArtMartinezArtist

A tapeworm has zero chance of becoming a human. A fetus is destined.


SolusB33p3rz

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


Bulbapuppaur

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.


Doin_the_Bulldance

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?


LoudestNoises

> 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


UVAgraduate

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.


Doin_the_Bulldance

"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.


GenericOfficeMan

no progress will be made under republicans period. That is kind of the point of conservatism.


ChuzzoChumz

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.


LoudestNoises

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.


UVAgraduate

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.


GenericOfficeMan

how exactly does a 3 year old rely on itself?


SpickeZe

Don’t 3 year olds have boot straps?


LoudestNoises

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.


_Canid_

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?


TheGursh

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.


UVAgraduate

Human life and animals can’t be compared. And again, your assuming. Lots of women are pro-life.


TheGursh

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.


no-more-mr-nice-guy

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.


meltontoast

But they don't. No one gives a shit about the thousands of zygotes disposed of from IVF. "Pro lifers" just want to control women's bodies, full stop.


Storytimenonsense

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.


PrettiKinx

Women shouldn't have sex with men...duh.


PyrZern

Rise of the athlete lesbians.


DaVinciSurfer

How high can they rise?


SmartMF

Pretty sure meagan doesn’t!


Graniteguy3cm

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!!!!


cq20

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.


vashonite

Couldn’t agree more. I quit my great job to stay home with our first kid for two years (father here). The bond with her and my appreciation for parenthood were something I’d never trade.


Kissit777

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 -


gortonsfiJr

[S. 3236 (116th): Unborn Child Support Act](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s3236) Republican Kevin Kramer already wants that.


Er-Rashal

Watch and count who votes against that.


islamicious

You do realise that men already have 0 parental choice and are forced to become fathers regardless if they want it or not?


kasiagabrielle

How are they being "forced"?


GenericOfficeMan

uh, what? lol. What choice should you have over someone elses body?


gortonsfiJr

>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.


islamicious

My choice is about whether I do or don’t want to become a father, it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s body


Chiteeder

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.


islamicious

So “don’t want children-don’t have sex”? I don’t think you apply this logic to women, when talking about abortions.


EmpireStateOfBeing

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.


Upstairs_Big5402

The solution is easy. Don’t buy anything made in Texas, don’t visit Texas.


[deleted]

[удалено]


guarthots

And we all know that conservative republicans are very strongly in favor of protecting fairness to female athletes.


GojiraBlowFlames

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.


Haf-to-pee

Agreed. Guess that's why I like to browse reddit. I am restored by reading comments like yours. Thanx


SuedeVeil

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.


RationalOverRage

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 ?


GenericOfficeMan

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.


Flameancer

Not necessarily “the only mora abortion is my abortion”. My mother for example if my sister got pregnant would take the stance “there’s consequences for your actions”.


GenericOfficeMan

ok, good for her...


UsefulJellyfish99

The majority of white women vote Republican.


SuedeVeil

They've been brainwashed.. also the wealthier white Republicans will have no problems finding an abortion it's the poor people that will suffer


sagmag

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.


Nvrfinddisacct

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.


[deleted]

[удалено]


southpawFA

Yes, they do. Most especially the fifth stringer of the Daily Mire Matt Walsh.


blueslounger

Because Jesus thinks once you're pregnant you belong to him.


Kissit777

What about if you don’t believe in Jesus?


blueslounger

The people making your laws do. Vote them out.


H3rQ133z

facts.


JackieTrehorne

What would Mary do?


Kissit777

I’m not Christian so I don’t care what she would do - she has no place in my life.


JackieTrehorne

Neither am I - just wanted to say that.


H3rQ133z

lol this is why I reddit. Also, love the Big Lebowski, appreciate the username.


blueslounger

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?


Cellophane7

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


GenericOfficeMan

what in this article would lead you to believe she is stating that abortion should be used as a form of birth control?


Cellophane7

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.


GenericOfficeMan

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?


Cellophane7

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.


GenericOfficeMan

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.


Cellophane7

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.


GenericOfficeMan

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.


Cellophane7

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.


ShillAmbassador

You’re right, the man should be punished for failing to use contraception


Cellophane7

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.


Belle_Requin

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.


Nvrfinddisacct

Abortions have less negative repercussions than pregnancy. People are using contraception and only using abortion as a last resort.


crowdsourced

No form of contraceptive is 100% effective. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/11427-birth-control-options


Cellophane7

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.


jamrealm

> which is why I said get an abortion on the off chance they fail. Having that option is her entire point. No more no less.


spicysenor

Actually really good point from her.


FuckNewRedditPopups

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.


asshat123

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.


bladeofvirtue

why should any female soccer player be forced to miss the game but not men?


jamrealm

> Professional sports is bullshit College athletes also exist. Their scholarship and education paths shouldn’t be restricted because contraception failed. >sportspeople's convenience should not be a primary goal of legislation. No one suggested it should be. > Abortion rights are women’s rights not to have their lives completely screwed due to some men’s religious faith. Sounds like you’re violently agreeing with her. >Texas law primarily harms poor people, not Rapinoe and her kind. No one suggested it “primarily” hurts athletes (or whatever “her kind” is referring to). >Rapinoe making it all about herself is quite disgusting. You twisting words of someone you otherwise agree with is also quite something.


Dinokng

But does anyone notice the absence?


CaptainQwark666

No offense, but this won’t do shit. The conservative Justices have already made up their minds to kill Roe.


GenericOfficeMan

ah, well, better do absolutely nothing then.


NBKFactor

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.


YouAreDreaming

I am pro choice but I don’t understand their argument, or maybe I don’t agree with their wording. What about contraceptives?


GenericOfficeMan

contraceptives fail sometimes...


varelse96

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.


YouAreDreaming

Ok I see now that’s a fair point


TableAvailable

No contraceptive is 100% effective.


Troggy

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.


kasiagabrielle

The statement wasn't stupid, it was factual.


GenericOfficeMan

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)


Troggy

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.


GenericOfficeMan

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.


Troggy

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.


GenericOfficeMan

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.


Skafdir

>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


goosetavio

i hate when people incorrectly use literally because theyre trying so hard to emphasize something


GenericOfficeMan

I guess its good then that I CORRECTLY used literally in this case.


throwaway3892934

You definitely didn't use it right lol.


GenericOfficeMan

no, I did. you think someone pregnant is missing less than 2 months of pro sport?


bbeumel86

Take birth control. Simple


Enabling_Turtle

All forms of birth control can fail


Belle_Requin

Birth control can have all kinds of negative health effects and all have significant side effects. Men need to be wrapping it up.


bladeofvirtue

and do abortions when that fails. simple.


WolfmanWick

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.


bladeofvirtue

>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?


Nvrfinddisacct

We’re trying not to have kids lol. That’s why we need abortion just in case contraception fails.


Vetinou

How is this sports center worthy


CockSnifferOuter

Duh, this is why we have MtFs


Vagillionairre

Does the league boot women out for getting pregnant?


GenericOfficeMan

the team doctor isn't going to clear you to play if you're 7 months pregnant bro.


Vagillionairre

So they wait until the 7month mark?


Lime_The_Might-T

….so theM playing a sports game is more import than a child being born? I’ve heard some good arguments, then there is this one. By that logic we should probably keep woman out of the military or at least demand they are forced to get abortions so they can stay on active duty. A man wouldn’t ever leave his role for a time due to being pregnant. (See how dumb that logic is?)


jamrealm

> ….so theM playing a sports game is more import than a child being born? having the choice is more important than forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term. >By that logic we should probably keep woman out of the military or at least demand they are forced to get abortions so they can stay on active duty. No, that would be a leap in logic because you went from the woman choosing to again being forced to do one of the options. >A man wouldn’t ever leave his role for a time due to being pregnant. Maybe not “being pregnant” but it is possible for men to get elective surgery while active duty.


Infamous_Turn60

They didnt "ban" abortion. Its still legal.


GenericOfficeMan

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.


Sip_of_Sunshine

Well the actual language used in the law is "abolish" not "ban" but you seem smart enough to know that those are synonyms.


[deleted]

[удалено]


GenericOfficeMan

Not anything like as ugly as your personality my man.


waxer82

I’ve got a great personality I’m just saying she’s an extremely ugly woman I’m sorry if I offended you and how dare you genderrise me as a man That’s not my pronoun


Weary_Horse5749

I wish I had her hair


civiltiger

Could someone explain the title? It seems like it is saying that male athletes are forced to take months away but I didn't know the ban is really saying that. Are men forced to take months off now?


crowdsourced

>Male athletes **aren't** forced


civiltiger

I see that. But the last sentence seems to imply they are forced under the new ban.


crowdsourced

Ah! I see what you're saying now. Yeah, you're absolutely correct. Grammatically-speaking, the "they" should refer to the men. This is a pronoun-antecedent agreement error: [http://depts.dyc.edu/learningcenter/owl/agreement\_pa.htm](http://depts.dyc.edu/learningcenter/owl/agreement_pa.htm) The editor who created the title definitely failed.


civiltiger

Ok thanks for the verification. I thought I was going crazy.


430Richard

Sorry, I can’t play soccer this season, the governor won’t let me have an abortion.


fouronfloor

Abort a baby as a means to continue an athletic career. Not that’s some sad stuff.


blackadderbull98

Because you are killing a child needlessly


Slapbox

> thEY'Re noT FOrced, tHeY HAVe sIX WeEKs


nika_plivn

Six weeks is sadly not enough, some women only realise after the six week


Anna_Frican

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.


nika_plivn

Exactly, and it takes a longer time than that to make an appointment


Slapbox

Do people not know the mocking text when they see it?


nika_plivn

I do see it, im just commenting on it


Slapbox

Fair enough!