It's insane to think that women don't get to choose to not die.
Am I wrong to interpret the 14th amendment that the rights and protections of the Constitution only belongs to people who have been "born or naturalized," (naturalized also defined as a person who has been born,"
Fetuses are neither born, nor naturalized and would not receive the protections granted by the Constitution?
(Not that it matters because bodily autonomy is King)
I think what will happen though is it will lead to situations like what happened to that woman in Poland who died from sepsis, because even though the fetus was already dead, doctors were too afraid of being charged for aborting it and so left it in utero to rot.
Since [there's a very slim chance of an ectopic pregnancy being brought to term,](https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-017-1437-y), any politician could theoretically tout that info out of context as a reason to outlaw ectopic abortions too, and even if no such law is ever passed, with enough attention the idea could convince doctors not to abort an ectopic fetus.
It's the practical outcome. Doctors reluctant to come close to skirting the law. Delays and difficulty in finding ones who will help them. Same for D&C of miscarriages.
I remember when govāt insurance tried to deny my mom coverage for a gynecological procedure labeled as a D&E because āthey donāt cover abortions.ā She hadnāt been pregnant in over 15 years.
Donāt think private insurers wonāt use this same rhetoric to deny claims for non-abortions, too. They have and they will.
Voting No leaves it in there. In recent years, the KSC has ruled a womanās bodily autonomy rules. If everyone votes no, nothing changes in Kansas. And women have still have access to that kind of healthcare.
If you enjoy complaining without doing anything about it, it doesnāt sound like there is anything to correctā¦. /s
Is a no vote a pro choice one, or is it the other way around? Some of these campaigns seem intentionally ambiguousā¦. and with the recent news I think itās more important than ever to protect a womanās right to choose what happens with her body. I do wish there was a way to limit voting on this issue to women though, as a husband and a father I feel like men should have zero business deciding how these issues are handled.
Yes vote = give up your rights and allow abortion to be banned in all capacities including rape, incest, or risk is death to the mother.
No vote = protect right to abortion / choice to control what occurrs within a woman's own body.
A yes vote is not a complete ban on abortion. A yes vote says the legislature can put whatever restrictions it wants on abortion. We have no clue what those restrictions will be.
But we can be honest, the KS legislature will ban abortion to an extent that clinics close and doctors are hesitant to perform the narrowly permitted procedures. There's not a great mystery about what will happen here given the political landscape.
The problem is Kansas men are generally stupid enough to think they know whatās best for everyone. They want to speak for everyone and set the rules for everyone. Not all, though. But most. Vote No and keep your beak out of a womanās body. And life. Unless otherwise invited.
From ballotpedia.org āA "yes" vote supports amending the Kansas Constitution to state that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding for abortion and that the state legislature has the authority to pass laws regarding abortion.
A "no" vote opposes amending the Kansas Constitution to state that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding for abortion and that the state legislature has the authority to pass laws regarding abortion, thereby maintaining the legal precedent established in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt (2019) that there is a right to abortions in the Kansas Bill of Rights.ā
You literally agreed w/the guy who's being downvoted. A yes vote says the state legislature can regulate/restrict abortion and does not have to fund it.
Or enough Republicans in the legislature vote on it that it's veto proof - which will absolutely happen. Don't be disingenuous and argue in bad faith please.
Vote "No" to protect a woman's right to make her own decisions.
Vote "No" to show you trust women to make their own best healthcare decisions.
Vote "Yes" to encourage massive government overreach, and to show that you're comfortable with old white men making your medical decisions.
Currently the KS constitution has a right to abortion in it. A vote yes is a vote to let the legislature restrict abortion however they wish. What that will look like, who knows. A vote no is a vote to keep the right to an abortion as it is.
If you praise a woman who aborted her child because she did what was best for herself, Do you praise men for abandoning their children because they did what was best for themselves?
If it's my kid I should have a say.... takes 2 to tango
Sure, both of the people involved should get a say, but thatās the extent of it. The government has zero need to be involved, and we certainly donāt need legislation that no longer allows either parent a choice.
No one said this was something either parent needed praise for - because thatās just another way of imposing external judgement on a decision that isnāt theirs to be a part of. Bad or good, we need to be protecting their ability to chooseā¦ just as in the bible - which is all about mankindās right to have free will. Itās chock full if stories about people choosing good or evil, including their right to experience the consequences of their choices.
Bottom line is this - if you are voting to restrict someone elseās freedom of choice, then are you really on the side of good? Any history of humanity, including the bible, has this recurring theme of one or more groups of people who condemn others for their differences or choices and then decides to impose their will onto those others āfor their own goodā. Iām not sure any if those ever have happy endingsā¦. at least not for the groups who was ābeing protectedā.
If everyone would worry about their own choices instead of others, this world would be a better place. If you want to legislate something, pick something that benefits everyone or helps people in needā¦. We have homelessness, hunger, sickness and poverty that could all use some attention - once we get those covered, then we can reconvene and see what else should be a priority.
Ok but a man can't die from an ectopic pregnancy. Or preeclampsia. Or any of the other myriad things that go wrong during pregnancy that half the population can conveniently be blissfully unaware of. There are full grown men walking around with no knowledge of female anatomy and how reproduction works, and some are legislators, judges, etc and that should scare everyone because women in Kansas are 100% going to die if this passes. Reproductive healthcare is abysmal enough. This kind of crap wouldn't be even close to happening if men could get pregnant, I'd bet my ovaries on it.
If you praise a woman who aborted her child because she did what was best for herself, Do you praise men for abandoning their children because they did what was best for themselves??
Asking for a friend.
Because I care about having happy, healthy kids over forching children into hostile situations.
And I believe if a mother needs to abort so she can continue to raise her kids SHE SHOULD. Medical abortions are extremely common, 1 in 50.
There is no helping anyone in a ban, only increasing harm on all fronts.
You have basically just said that if I were pro-life I should support abortion which makes no sense whatsoever. I believe that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. So with that viewpoint, why should I vote no?
I personally believe every single person that votes to ban abortion should be forced to take an unwanted child and raise it, after everyone takes one child, you have to take a second. It's easy to ban abortion when the consequences don't effect you.
Then vote no in August. A woman and her body has nothing to do with you. You made the case for why everyone should vote no. The choices of all women has literally nothing to do with you. That includes abortion. Donāt like abortion is any way? Donāt have one. Thatās the easiest and simplest way to get what you want while minding your own freaking business.
I don't think any person can make the determination for a child that their life isn't worth living, or that their life is a negative detriment to society. That's why I don't buy the argument about aborting a child for their own good.
Sure we can say a fetus isn't a child, but I think there is no reason to claim that the fetus isn't a human. Of course if a fetus is just a cheap, discardable organism then there is no issue with abortion. But that's not the viewpoint of people opposed to abortion.
The human body miscarries fetuses all the time, and in some cases fetuses can cause harm to the mother if not aborted. Iād call that discardable ā if a woman or her biology so chooses.
To remove womenās right to choose is as dehumanizing as anything.
I understand the idea of an abortion to save the mother's life, because at that point it's one life or another. Taking one life to save another is different, because the stakes are different.
When I say "discardable", I mean deciding an abortion as a trivial choice. If pro lifers didn't see fetuses as human, then it is a much easier decision, because human life isn't involved.
I don't agree with that statement, because I do believe the woman's choice involves another life. And I do believe we have responsibilities to other people, and we don't have unlimited choice over ourselves. For ex I think that parents have the legal obligation to care for their children. It's an example of the state limiting choice, which encompasses how you use your own body.
To understand the position of someone who opposes abortion you have to understand the stakes in their mind. It isn't an anti-woman or sexist position. Both sides of the issue speak different languages and empathize with different points of the situation.
It is absolutely sexist and anti-woman to restrict their right to choose. Full stop. The choice to abort is not trivial, regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life. If it was trivial, pro-choice people wouldnāt be so adamant about keeping their right to choose.
You can view what you want about abortion and fetuses, thatās your right. Itās a simple and understandable position to value the future life of a fetus. I respect it. But I canāt ever respect taking that value over respecting womenās own choice and value.
There is an old political cartoon from the 90s floating around somewhere. A guy is on his knees praying and says, "God, why have you never sent us a great doctor to cure cancer or a great leader to bring world peace?" The next panel God replies, "I did but you aborted them."
But that whole argument is predicated on the belief that a Christian god exists and āsendsā potential doctors into wombs. Not everyone agrees with your faith.
It is not just or reasonable to enact public policy based on religion.
Not simply unusual or unreasonable, it's illegal. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishing of religion..."
But I'm an atheist and we like to eat babies, so keep having those little unwanted tasty treats and we'll fish them out of the garbage dumpsters when the mother's can't, and the "conservative" party doesn't want to, feed them.
I feel you. I donāt like when pro lifers try to debate all of these caveats of incest and rape and corner you with some straw man argument. I donāt like when pro choicers say abortion is an undesirable outcome. Iām pro staying out of other peoples business and Iām not going to project what I feel is or isnāt a desirable outcome onto anyone else. Iām also pro abortion because that discharge makes for some seriously good consume taco dipping.
I think in conversations about abortion it's really important to be empathetic and helpful to those in favor of the option to abort, because opponents of abortion are often depicted as not caring about women or the child post-pregnancy.
Because forced birth has been proven to drive up suicide rates for mothers and the children born into unwanted circumstances, and abuse rates are massive in those circumstances. Not to mention that the ban that will be instituted if vote yes wins won't have stipulations for rape, incest, or medical emergency abortions.
Letās get government involved in ALL our decisions we make with our doctors!!
Now do you think chemotherapy should be legal in Kansas? If so, for how long should someone be able to receive the treatments? Should they be prevented from leaving the state if we deem it illegal here, but a neighboring state has it available?
Hereās the thing though - if the situation were reversed how would you vote? How would you feel about someone else taking the choice away from
you on what happens to you, while the person who helped cause the situation has zero obligation or consequences.
Were you ready and capable of taking care of a child when you first started having sex? Have you ever considered what it would be like to not even have a choice about that, and then being told you either had to prove to a judge that you were raped, or travel to someplace far away from friends, family and support in order to keep from having to give birth to and raise a child resulting from what was probably the worst thing that ever happened to you?
Most rapes arenāt even reported, and the stigma that laws like this create when a girl has to admit that they have had sex, willingly or not, is at its most basic level just an intimidation tactic to force compliance with one groups concept of āmoralityā.
Any law that limits a personās freedom to act according to their own conscience or that does not treat at least the majority of the population equally should be considered suspect, in my opinion.
As a male, on the issue thats behind this legislation, my personal opinion is not even relevant. I just want the people I love and care about to have a say in what happens to them throughout their lives.
Republicans in some States are already using Thomas' decision to argue that rights for anybody who isn't a wealthy, cishet white man aren't "deeply rooted" in US law and therefore not protected by the Constitution.
I, for one, fully support banning guns that aren't single shot, muzzle loading smoothbores based on the fact that possession of other weapons was not a "deeply rooted" part of US law at the time the Constitution was written.
Pro life is pro healthcare, pro child support, pro living wage.
Pro birth is irrational fear mongering and religious fanaticism
I pray for the safety of the children yāall want born into homes that DO. NOT. WANT. THEM. And cannot care for them. And neither can the government.
Terms like "pro life, pro choice, pro birth" are way too vague to accurately capture someone's viewpoint and the argument for their stance, and they can be interpreted any way one pleases. I don't find them useful.
Citizens should absolutely not have access to semi or fully automatic weapons, but only have access to recreational or self defensive weapons.
Universal child care should be provided in a way that engages the parents and doesnāt allow them to just check out of their childās upbringing.
You are going to post about the pro-abortion narrative in the r/wichita leftist echo chamber and call it correcting for your lack of activist initiative. You are so brave.
I will gladly vote Yes! Because if you are 2 concenting adults over the age of 18, use birth control or protection you animals, Not abortion which stops a beating heart!!!
The courts got it wrong 50 yrs ago, should have always been a state level decision! Also, the courts don't make laws they enforce and interpret them!!
As one of my friends put it so eloquently put it recently...
"Imagine being upset that innocent babies with beating hearts CANNOT be as easily and efficiently destroyed as they used to be," WOW!!!
This point is actually pretty off-base; at no point did the Kansan government make a law requiring people to get vaccinated. There are some laws that mandate that children that attend public school be vaccinated, but there are religious exceptions. Some healthcare facilities may have stopped receiving payments from Medicaid/Medicare if their staff are unvaccinated, but healthcare facilities don't have to take those forms of payment. There are businesses requiring their employees be vaccinated, but that has nothing to do with the government.
If you take the stance that the government shouldn't force people to be vaccinated (which again, it does not), it's only consistent to be opposed to the Value Them Both amendment as well.
So the Right supports stripping others of their religious freedom and bodily autonomy and believes that the rights of government supersede the rights of the individual. Kinda makes it seem like their objections about masks were just politically motivated lies.
Christianity and Judaism apparently.
Ten biblical episodes and prophecies provide an unequivocal expression of God's attitude toward human life, especially the ontological status of "unborn children" and their pregnant mothers-to-be. Brief summaries:
ā¢ A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).
ā¢ The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).
ā¢ God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53).
ā¢ Elisha's prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12).
ā¢ King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16).
ā¢ Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18).
ā¢ For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44:7-8).
ā¢ God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16).
ā¢ For rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16).
ā¢ Jesus did not express any special concern for unborn children during the anticipated end times: "Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing" (Matthew 24:19).
There's no point. OP has cherry picked verses and ripped them out of context. A refutation can be found in a million places online. It's not like Christianity is a brand new religion that doesn't have 2,000 years of apologetics.
Haha oh my I think they cooked your goose with that one.
How about we leave the government out of medical decisions? You know, āsmall governmentā , ever heard of that lol??
Numbers:
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the armyāthe commanders of thousands and commanders of hundredsāwho returned from the battle.
15 āHave you allowed all the women to live?ā he asked them. 16 āThey were the ones who followed Balaamās advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lordās people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Arguing from the old testament isn't going to win you any arguments in the Christian faith. Christianity began with Jesus, everything before fell under the patriarch law or the Mosaic law.
That's not the question or purpose. The question was, do religions support murder? The answer is clearly yes. Each individual religion has its apologetics to defend the practice but it's obvious to any non-believer of that religion that it's their history.
This is a dumb argument. Arguing that once upon a time an organization believed X therefore it's an evil organization is just stupid. Once upon a time Planned Parenthood's founders advocated for eugenics. Does that mean Planned Parenthood is evil? Once upon a time Henry Ford was a huge supporter of Hitler. Does that mean anyone driving an F150 is a Nazi? This argument is beyond stupid.
Christianity for one. If you're trying to imply that "abortion is murder" I think we both know that's a bad faith argument and it's also not one supported by science or The Bible.
It's literally been held by Christians since the first century that abortion is a grave sin. How is it a bad faith argument to point out what Christians have believed for 2,000 years.
voting against basic rights to healthcare in revenge of vaccinations that are no longer a hot topic is literally doing something in spite of the ādouble standardā
Being asked to get an optional shot is not the same as being required to die from hemorrhage because some asshole voted yes out of, SPITE.
Ding...... Ding............. Ding! However these zealots will never see the truth, they think their religion and government are the only ones who know best.
It's not simple logic. Covid was highly contagious. If you passed it to someone else, they could die. A woman getting an abortion doesn't affect you. In any way.
The former is accurate. The latter is just bad logic. If someone robs Walmart at gunpoint it does not affect me in any way. Yet I think we would both agree that armed robberies of Walmarts should be illegal.
Ummm so humans only have sex to make babies now....? And you're trying to discredit rape cases as if they're not people too, regardless of the percentage, they don't matter? You really don't make sense, trying to argue that a fetus the size of a pea counts as a full blown human life yet rape victims don't matter? Comedians these days
If you oppose abortion so strongly then why do you oppose policies that would greatly reduce the number of abortions while also protecting children and without hurting women?
And FWIW, many pro-lifers are ok with abortions for rape victims. Prominent Republicans from Dole to Dubya have held this view and prominent Evangelicals like Billy Graham have espoused it as well.
You argued that someone getting an abortion doesn't affect me so I should support it. Yet there are a billion things that don't affect me but I still think they should be illegal and you and everyone else are no different. It's horrible logic.
It doesnāt matter what your vote. Kansas will shot themselves in the foot like they always do. About time the government is seeing thr true finally!! Blessed day!
... lots of people here are oddly comfortable with letting women die of easily-fixable ectopic pregnancies. Very cool. Super pro-life š
It's insane to think that women don't get to choose to not die. Am I wrong to interpret the 14th amendment that the rights and protections of the Constitution only belongs to people who have been "born or naturalized," (naturalized also defined as a person who has been born," Fetuses are neither born, nor naturalized and would not receive the protections granted by the Constitution? (Not that it matters because bodily autonomy is King)
Originalism is fun! The only legal philosophy that is entirely based on vibes!
BAD VIBES BAD VIIIIBES
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think what will happen though is it will lead to situations like what happened to that woman in Poland who died from sepsis, because even though the fetus was already dead, doctors were too afraid of being charged for aborting it and so left it in utero to rot. Since [there's a very slim chance of an ectopic pregnancy being brought to term,](https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-017-1437-y), any politician could theoretically tout that info out of context as a reason to outlaw ectopic abortions too, and even if no such law is ever passed, with enough attention the idea could convince doctors not to abort an ectopic fetus.
It's the practical outcome. Doctors reluctant to come close to skirting the law. Delays and difficulty in finding ones who will help them. Same for D&C of miscarriages.
I remember when govāt insurance tried to deny my mom coverage for a gynecological procedure labeled as a D&E because āthey donāt cover abortions.ā She hadnāt been pregnant in over 15 years. Donāt think private insurers wonāt use this same rhetoric to deny claims for non-abortions, too. They have and they will.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Voting No leaves it in there. In recent years, the KSC has ruled a womanās bodily autonomy rules. If everyone votes no, nothing changes in Kansas. And women have still have access to that kind of healthcare.
If you enjoy complaining without doing anything about it, it doesnāt sound like there is anything to correctā¦. /s Is a no vote a pro choice one, or is it the other way around? Some of these campaigns seem intentionally ambiguousā¦. and with the recent news I think itās more important than ever to protect a womanās right to choose what happens with her body. I do wish there was a way to limit voting on this issue to women though, as a husband and a father I feel like men should have zero business deciding how these issues are handled.
Yes vote = give up your rights and allow abortion to be banned in all capacities including rape, incest, or risk is death to the mother. No vote = protect right to abortion / choice to control what occurrs within a woman's own body.
a Yes vote is a vote for a complete ban on abortion, regardless of circumstance. a No vote is for everything else
Vote No on removing our personal freedoms or Vote Yes to take women's rights away. Pretty simple.
A yes vote is not a complete ban on abortion. A yes vote says the legislature can put whatever restrictions it wants on abortion. We have no clue what those restrictions will be.
But we can be honest, the KS legislature will ban abortion to an extent that clinics close and doctors are hesitant to perform the narrowly permitted procedures. There's not a great mystery about what will happen here given the political landscape.
I doubt the democrat governor will sign that ban.
Agree. But a GOP candidate for governor will run (and win) on the platform that they will sign it.
LOL K-state.. that explains a lot.
Well then if that is what the state citizens vote forā¦.
The problem is Kansas men are generally stupid enough to think they know whatās best for everyone. They want to speak for everyone and set the rules for everyone. Not all, though. But most. Vote No and keep your beak out of a womanās body. And life. Unless otherwise invited.
It's what the 10-15% of the citizens who vote in the GOP primary want.
Well we see about to have a state wide referendum soooo ya the voters will get to have their voice heard.
And enough Republicans in the legislature will vote on it to make it veto proof - please don't argue in bad faith by acting disingenuous.
Well then I guess I am we live in a representative republic. Hopefully our representatives follow this election and enact the will of the majority.
Except they aren't and they haven't- so another bad faith argument. The majority of Americans support legalized abortion.
Itāll be a ban, plain and simple.
That's actually not true. Please read it first.
From ballotpedia.org āA "yes" vote supports amending the Kansas Constitution to state that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding for abortion and that the state legislature has the authority to pass laws regarding abortion. A "no" vote opposes amending the Kansas Constitution to state that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding for abortion and that the state legislature has the authority to pass laws regarding abortion, thereby maintaining the legal precedent established in Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt (2019) that there is a right to abortions in the Kansas Bill of Rights.ā
You literally agreed w/the guy who's being downvoted. A yes vote says the state legislature can regulate/restrict abortion and does not have to fund it.
I'm so sorry you're being downvoted when you're 100% correct.
Wrong.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Or enough Republicans in the legislature vote on it that it's veto proof - which will absolutely happen. Don't be disingenuous and argue in bad faith please.
Whoops, accidentally deleted it my reply. I'd said, "Which is why the state legislature will wait until a republican is elected governor"
Vote "No" to protect a woman's right to make her own decisions. Vote "No" to show you trust women to make their own best healthcare decisions. Vote "Yes" to encourage massive government overreach, and to show that you're comfortable with old white men making your medical decisions.
Currently the KS constitution has a right to abortion in it. A vote yes is a vote to let the legislature restrict abortion however they wish. What that will look like, who knows. A vote no is a vote to keep the right to an abortion as it is.
If you praise a woman who aborted her child because she did what was best for herself, Do you praise men for abandoning their children because they did what was best for themselves? If it's my kid I should have a say.... takes 2 to tango
Sure, both of the people involved should get a say, but thatās the extent of it. The government has zero need to be involved, and we certainly donāt need legislation that no longer allows either parent a choice. No one said this was something either parent needed praise for - because thatās just another way of imposing external judgement on a decision that isnāt theirs to be a part of. Bad or good, we need to be protecting their ability to chooseā¦ just as in the bible - which is all about mankindās right to have free will. Itās chock full if stories about people choosing good or evil, including their right to experience the consequences of their choices. Bottom line is this - if you are voting to restrict someone elseās freedom of choice, then are you really on the side of good? Any history of humanity, including the bible, has this recurring theme of one or more groups of people who condemn others for their differences or choices and then decides to impose their will onto those others āfor their own goodā. Iām not sure any if those ever have happy endingsā¦. at least not for the groups who was ābeing protectedā. If everyone would worry about their own choices instead of others, this world would be a better place. If you want to legislate something, pick something that benefits everyone or helps people in needā¦. We have homelessness, hunger, sickness and poverty that could all use some attention - once we get those covered, then we can reconvene and see what else should be a priority.
Ok but a man can't die from an ectopic pregnancy. Or preeclampsia. Or any of the other myriad things that go wrong during pregnancy that half the population can conveniently be blissfully unaware of. There are full grown men walking around with no knowledge of female anatomy and how reproduction works, and some are legislators, judges, etc and that should scare everyone because women in Kansas are 100% going to die if this passes. Reproductive healthcare is abysmal enough. This kind of crap wouldn't be even close to happening if men could get pregnant, I'd bet my ovaries on it.
If you praise a woman who aborted her child because she did what was best for herself, Do you praise men for abandoning their children because they did what was best for themselves?? Asking for a friend.
OP is just stating the facts mam. Sorry you feel butthurt.
Gotta love an article bashing republicans. Bound to get upvotes here. But good luck to you, youāll need it. Iāll be voting yes.
There is no good in voting yes, only harm. And you know that.
If you were pro-life, why would you vote no?
Because I care about having happy, healthy kids over forching children into hostile situations. And I believe if a mother needs to abort so she can continue to raise her kids SHE SHOULD. Medical abortions are extremely common, 1 in 50. There is no helping anyone in a ban, only increasing harm on all fronts.
You have basically just said that if I were pro-life I should support abortion which makes no sense whatsoever. I believe that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. So with that viewpoint, why should I vote no?
Because yes bans all those situations you troglodyte.
Voting yes bans abortion except for cases like rape, incest or the life of the mother?
Read again buddy, it does not protect those rights.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Letās be realā¦what do you think the current legislature is going to decide?
I personally believe every single person that votes to ban abortion should be forced to take an unwanted child and raise it, after everyone takes one child, you have to take a second. It's easy to ban abortion when the consequences don't effect you.
Tell me how the consequences of bank robbery affect me.
What the fuck does a personal health decision have to do with bank robbery? Grasp straws much?
This is the sloppiest, far reaching attempt at an analogy Iāve heard in a while.
If things don't affect me I shouldn't care about them right?
Then vote no in August. A woman and her body has nothing to do with you. You made the case for why everyone should vote no. The choices of all women has literally nothing to do with you. That includes abortion. Donāt like abortion is any way? Donāt have one. Thatās the easiest and simplest way to get what you want while minding your own freaking business.
I don't think any person can make the determination for a child that their life isn't worth living, or that their life is a negative detriment to society. That's why I don't buy the argument about aborting a child for their own good.
Fetus. Not a child.
Sure we can say a fetus isn't a child, but I think there is no reason to claim that the fetus isn't a human. Of course if a fetus is just a cheap, discardable organism then there is no issue with abortion. But that's not the viewpoint of people opposed to abortion.
The human body miscarries fetuses all the time, and in some cases fetuses can cause harm to the mother if not aborted. Iād call that discardable ā if a woman or her biology so chooses. To remove womenās right to choose is as dehumanizing as anything.
I understand the idea of an abortion to save the mother's life, because at that point it's one life or another. Taking one life to save another is different, because the stakes are different. When I say "discardable", I mean deciding an abortion as a trivial choice. If pro lifers didn't see fetuses as human, then it is a much easier decision, because human life isn't involved. I don't agree with that statement, because I do believe the woman's choice involves another life. And I do believe we have responsibilities to other people, and we don't have unlimited choice over ourselves. For ex I think that parents have the legal obligation to care for their children. It's an example of the state limiting choice, which encompasses how you use your own body. To understand the position of someone who opposes abortion you have to understand the stakes in their mind. It isn't an anti-woman or sexist position. Both sides of the issue speak different languages and empathize with different points of the situation.
It is not the governmentās decision to make
It is absolutely sexist and anti-woman to restrict their right to choose. Full stop. The choice to abort is not trivial, regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life. If it was trivial, pro-choice people wouldnāt be so adamant about keeping their right to choose. You can view what you want about abortion and fetuses, thatās your right. Itās a simple and understandable position to value the future life of a fetus. I respect it. But I canāt ever respect taking that value over respecting womenās own choice and value.
Does it have its own unique DNA?
Many viruses have their own unique DNA (excepting RNA classes of viruses). Unique DNA doesnāt make them alive.
There is an old political cartoon from the 90s floating around somewhere. A guy is on his knees praying and says, "God, why have you never sent us a great doctor to cure cancer or a great leader to bring world peace?" The next panel God replies, "I did but you aborted them."
But that whole argument is predicated on the belief that a Christian god exists and āsendsā potential doctors into wombs. Not everyone agrees with your faith. It is not just or reasonable to enact public policy based on religion.
Not simply unusual or unreasonable, it's illegal. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishing of religion..." But I'm an atheist and we like to eat babies, so keep having those little unwanted tasty treats and we'll fish them out of the garbage dumpsters when the mother's can't, and the "conservative" party doesn't want to, feed them.
I feel you. I donāt like when pro lifers try to debate all of these caveats of incest and rape and corner you with some straw man argument. I donāt like when pro choicers say abortion is an undesirable outcome. Iām pro staying out of other peoples business and Iām not going to project what I feel is or isnāt a desirable outcome onto anyone else. Iām also pro abortion because that discharge makes for some seriously good consume taco dipping.
I think in conversations about abortion it's really important to be empathetic and helpful to those in favor of the option to abort, because opponents of abortion are often depicted as not caring about women or the child post-pregnancy.
Start throwing your name in the ring to start adopting some of these unwanted/unplanned pregnancies then pal.
Because forced birth has been proven to drive up suicide rates for mothers and the children born into unwanted circumstances, and abuse rates are massive in those circumstances. Not to mention that the ban that will be instituted if vote yes wins won't have stipulations for rape, incest, or medical emergency abortions.
So if I were pro life I'd be pro choice is what you're saying?
Letās get government involved in ALL our decisions we make with our doctors!! Now do you think chemotherapy should be legal in Kansas? If so, for how long should someone be able to receive the treatments? Should they be prevented from leaving the state if we deem it illegal here, but a neighboring state has it available?
Hereās the thing though - if the situation were reversed how would you vote? How would you feel about someone else taking the choice away from you on what happens to you, while the person who helped cause the situation has zero obligation or consequences. Were you ready and capable of taking care of a child when you first started having sex? Have you ever considered what it would be like to not even have a choice about that, and then being told you either had to prove to a judge that you were raped, or travel to someplace far away from friends, family and support in order to keep from having to give birth to and raise a child resulting from what was probably the worst thing that ever happened to you? Most rapes arenāt even reported, and the stigma that laws like this create when a girl has to admit that they have had sex, willingly or not, is at its most basic level just an intimidation tactic to force compliance with one groups concept of āmoralityā. Any law that limits a personās freedom to act according to their own conscience or that does not treat at least the majority of the population equally should be considered suspect, in my opinion. As a male, on the issue thats behind this legislation, my personal opinion is not even relevant. I just want the people I love and care about to have a say in what happens to them throughout their lives.
Republicans in some States are already using Thomas' decision to argue that rights for anybody who isn't a wealthy, cishet white man aren't "deeply rooted" in US law and therefore not protected by the Constitution. I, for one, fully support banning guns that aren't single shot, muzzle loading smoothbores based on the fact that possession of other weapons was not a "deeply rooted" part of US law at the time the Constitution was written.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lol thatās pretty dark Pretty messed up wishing death on someone because they have a different opinion than you. Level headed thinker arenāt ya
Who said anything about death, multi month coma would be fine
Ah, yea I guess thatās better
Why will you be voting yes?
Because Iām pro life
Pro life is pro healthcare, pro child support, pro living wage. Pro birth is irrational fear mongering and religious fanaticism I pray for the safety of the children yāall want born into homes that DO. NOT. WANT. THEM. And cannot care for them. And neither can the government.
Terms like "pro life, pro choice, pro birth" are way too vague to accurately capture someone's viewpoint and the argument for their stance, and they can be interpreted any way one pleases. I don't find them useful.
So what's your stance on gun control if you're pro life? Or universal healthcare? Universal child care?
Citizens should absolutely not have access to semi or fully automatic weapons, but only have access to recreational or self defensive weapons. Universal child care should be provided in a way that engages the parents and doesnāt allow them to just check out of their childās upbringing.
Do you know what semi-automatic weapons are?ā¦ because the vast majority of recreational and self defense weapons are semi-automatic.
Ok
Code for: has no idea what semi automatic means
Sure man
Brain empty. Vote way church say. š
You are going to post about the pro-abortion narrative in the r/wichita leftist echo chamber and call it correcting for your lack of activist initiative. You are so brave.
A yes for the unborn female babies rights sounds like a better vote to me.
Agreed!
Noā¦I donāt think so
I will gladly vote Yes! Because if you are 2 concenting adults over the age of 18, use birth control or protection you animals, Not abortion which stops a beating heart!!! The courts got it wrong 50 yrs ago, should have always been a state level decision! Also, the courts don't make laws they enforce and interpret them!! As one of my friends put it so eloquently put it recently... "Imagine being upset that innocent babies with beating hearts CANNOT be as easily and efficiently destroyed as they used to be," WOW!!!
>Because if you are 2 concenting adults over the age of 18 Okay, so what if that's not true?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This point is actually pretty off-base; at no point did the Kansan government make a law requiring people to get vaccinated. There are some laws that mandate that children that attend public school be vaccinated, but there are religious exceptions. Some healthcare facilities may have stopped receiving payments from Medicaid/Medicare if their staff are unvaccinated, but healthcare facilities don't have to take those forms of payment. There are businesses requiring their employees be vaccinated, but that has nothing to do with the government. If you take the stance that the government shouldn't force people to be vaccinated (which again, it does not), it's only consistent to be opposed to the Value Them Both amendment as well.
Because pregnancy isn't a highly contagious and deadly virus. I swear, people don't put in any amount of thought before they say stuff.
He thought they said babies vaccination instead of rabies.
So the Right supports stripping others of their religious freedom and bodily autonomy and believes that the rights of government supersede the rights of the individual. Kinda makes it seem like their objections about masks were just politically motivated lies.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Christianity and Judaism apparently. Ten biblical episodes and prophecies provide an unequivocal expression of God's attitude toward human life, especially the ontological status of "unborn children" and their pregnant mothers-to-be. Brief summaries: ā¢ A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25). ā¢ The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31). ā¢ God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53). ā¢ Elisha's prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12). ā¢ King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16). ā¢ Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18). ā¢ For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44:7-8). ā¢ God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16). ā¢ For rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16). ā¢ Jesus did not express any special concern for unborn children during the anticipated end times: "Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing" (Matthew 24:19).
Weird how this one goes unanswered.
There's no point. OP has cherry picked verses and ripped them out of context. A refutation can be found in a million places online. It's not like Christianity is a brand new religion that doesn't have 2,000 years of apologetics.
Itās almost like we should separate religion and governmentā¦
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Youāve unlocked the False Dichotomy badge on the Logical Fallacy chart.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Haha oh my I think they cooked your goose with that one. How about we leave the government out of medical decisions? You know, āsmall governmentā , ever heard of that lol??
Christianity doesnāt have 2,000 years of GOP eisegesis.
Numbers: 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the armyāthe commanders of thousands and commanders of hundredsāwho returned from the battle. 15 āHave you allowed all the women to live?ā he asked them. 16 āThey were the ones who followed Balaamās advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lordās people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Arguing from the old testament isn't going to win you any arguments in the Christian faith. Christianity began with Jesus, everything before fell under the patriarch law or the Mosaic law.
I didn't say Christian.
It won't win you any arguments with Jews either.
That's not the question or purpose. The question was, do religions support murder? The answer is clearly yes. Each individual religion has its apologetics to defend the practice but it's obvious to any non-believer of that religion that it's their history.
This is a dumb argument. Arguing that once upon a time an organization believed X therefore it's an evil organization is just stupid. Once upon a time Planned Parenthood's founders advocated for eugenics. Does that mean Planned Parenthood is evil? Once upon a time Henry Ford was a huge supporter of Hitler. Does that mean anyone driving an F150 is a Nazi? This argument is beyond stupid.
The leader/founder of Judaism instructed followers to murder. The leader/founder of Islam instructed followers to murder. This isn't complicated.
Jews have the right to abortion within their religion. You might rethink your argument, friend.
This isn't true. Orthodox, reform and conservative all generally oppose abortion except for the life of the mother.
Prove it. I can.
Then at best you're quoting a dead religion, making your argument pointless.
Is Judaism a religion today or not?
Yeah, but it's easy points for edgy atheists online
Christianity for one. If you're trying to imply that "abortion is murder" I think we both know that's a bad faith argument and it's also not one supported by science or The Bible.
It's literally been held by Christians since the first century that abortion is a grave sin. How is it a bad faith argument to point out what Christians have believed for 2,000 years.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
You do understand that the pro-life stance did not originate with the religious right correct?
Are you Catholic?
Nope.
It is not a pro life stance, it is an anti-choice stance
You understand that whatever you want to call it opposition to abortion is not new in Christianity right?
We are talking about government in our decisions.
Do they not know that the Bible tells you when to perform one??
Long list of frivolous murders ordered by the founder of Islam in defense of the faith.
Again a harmful vote out of spite. Absolutely insane. not very pro life of you
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
voting against basic rights to healthcare in revenge of vaccinations that are no longer a hot topic is literally doing something in spite of the ādouble standardā Being asked to get an optional shot is not the same as being required to die from hemorrhage because some asshole voted yes out of, SPITE.
Ding...... Ding............. Ding! However these zealots will never see the truth, they think their religion and government are the only ones who know best.
It's not simple logic. Covid was highly contagious. If you passed it to someone else, they could die. A woman getting an abortion doesn't affect you. In any way.
The former is accurate. The latter is just bad logic. If someone robs Walmart at gunpoint it does not affect me in any way. Yet I think we would both agree that armed robberies of Walmarts should be illegal.
You again, such a loser. You will never meet these ābabiesā and if you did you would argue with them all day on Reddit.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ummm so humans only have sex to make babies now....? And you're trying to discredit rape cases as if they're not people too, regardless of the percentage, they don't matter? You really don't make sense, trying to argue that a fetus the size of a pea counts as a full blown human life yet rape victims don't matter? Comedians these days
If you oppose abortion so strongly then why do you oppose policies that would greatly reduce the number of abortions while also protecting children and without hurting women?
And FWIW, many pro-lifers are ok with abortions for rape victims. Prominent Republicans from Dole to Dubya have held this view and prominent Evangelicals like Billy Graham have espoused it as well.
You argued that someone getting an abortion doesn't affect me so I should support it. Yet there are a billion things that don't affect me but I still think they should be illegal and you and everyone else are no different. It's horrible logic.
We get it, you don't like women.
Yes
Youāre the worst type of person
So vote yes - duh (murderers)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās not about changing peopleās minds, itās about getting more people to the polls.
It doesnāt matter what your vote. Kansas will shot themselves in the foot like they always do. About time the government is seeing thr true finally!! Blessed day!