We should really get rid of the term "pro-life", because the people with those beliefs are not pro-life. They're pro-birth. They don't care what happens to the children or the mothers after the birth has happened.
They arenât pro-birth either, or theyâd support things like paid family leave, etc.
These people are forced-birth
Letâs not mince words. Pro-gestational slavery.
They're simply anti-abortion.
Annoyingly, they're often also opposed to any of the things that are known to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
They claim to be anti-abortion. In reality, many of their policies lead to increasing abortions: defunding education, defunding birth control, etc.
Exactly.
The only fully accurate term is pro-gestational-slavery.
Anti-choice?
Don't care? They know it and they want it. The cruelty is the point.
It's weirder then that: The reason is: "It's god's plan that you became pregnant, and if you do not survive, that's god's plan too. We just need to trust the plan".
It's one of the reasons why I strongly believe religion is the source of all things evil.
I don't know how this never occurred to me but yes, this sounds right. Fuck this is terrifying.
This is why so many "founding fathers" around the world, including the US, did not want religion to play ANY part in politics.
We should return to their plan on this point.
That's not religion. That's abusers using religion to control people. Which unfortunately the most vocal make sound like that's all religion.
Thatâs abusers using religion to control people.
I always thought that was the entire point of religion.
Then you don't know much about religion.
And you don't know much about history.
Apparently more than you do.
Apparently not.
Islam says (for instance) that they have the final word of god. Thats pretty damning in and of itself. It leaves no room for anything else.
Christianity had been used through the ages to commit the most heinous crimes against humanity. They still do.
We should try a world without religion.
And nothing heinous has ever been done without religion?
The faithful give over three times as much in charitable donations as the secular, and volunteer three to four times as often.
Plus, the religious have been persecuted for their beliefs as long as there had been human history, which is what you are proposing by suggesting that religion should be eliminated.
Tell me 1 good deed done in the name of religion that could not have been done without religion.
There are numerous heinous deeds done in the name of religion because it told them to do it...
People are people, they will do bad and good things. But religion always makes them worse because they put themselves above others.
The religious are only persecuted by other religions and currently religions are persecuting the non believers. (Christo fascism in the USA as a prime example)
And lastly, if churches would start paying their fair share of tax. No one will need to donate ever again.
I wonder if it's the point so much as an 'unfortunate' byproduct. I think it's more of a take a win at any cost because "fuck the libs"
@argv_minus_one@hedge both extremes have incorrect points, abortions should neither be encouraged nor be banned. they should be allowed as a medical procedure, not a form of birth control.
Abortion has never been a form of birth control. It has always been a fail-safe for when birth control fails (e.g. a condom breaks) or could not be used (e.g. because a woman was raped). Please do not repeat right-wing misinformation.
@argv_minus_one making abortions completely legal and encouraging them would lead to that right? statistics all seem to support abortions being used as a form of birth control. this is not right wing misinformation, studies by the NAF states that 48% of women who have had an abortion have had two or more. which is quite high considering 48% of women do not have those abortions as a medical procedure.
making abortions completely legal and encouraging them would lead to that right?
No, because they're more expensive, more time-consuming, and more dangerous than birth control.
studies by the NAF states that 48% of women who have had an abortion have had two or more.
Which does not demonstrate that they are using abortion as birth control. That would be demonstrated by hundreds of abortions, not merely two, and virtually no one can even afford hundreds of abortions.
Once again, please stop repeating right-wing misinformation.
I'm sorry, why can't it be used as birth control? Why can't a medical procedure between a doctor and patient be done to better the life of the patient?
This whole anti abortion thing started with one guy in America forever ago and has spread from there. But before his crusade against abortions not many people felt one way or another about them. This seems to me like a group of people advocating making any cancer removal illegal.
@Didros personally I believe that life begins at conception. I don't find myself agreeing with the argument of "oh it's not a living being yet, so it's okay to kill". I believe that even though it's a clump of cells, eliminating it would take away the potential of life from it. In the same sense, destroying a TV remote is fine because it has zero potential for life. However this does not make me Pro life, because I do acknowledge the hardships of life ; abortions are okay as a medical procedure.
Yeah, but cancer is a litteral lump of living cells. It's an apt comparison.
And a sperm meeting an egg suddenly meaning life potential which is worth intervening in another's medical decision is such a weird line. Especially in this county obsessed with freedoms.
It feels like such an arbitrary line to draw and agree with. When did you start this belief?
@Didros cancer is a clump of living cells that does not have the potential to turn into a living human being.
I'm quite young and I'm still yet to form opinions that are set in stone, I'd say I started believing in my arbitrary line about a month ago. It was influenced by emotions along with statistics about abortions in the US.
It is totally OK to be young and still forming your opinions! It is doubly OK, a sign of maturity even, to be self-aware about where those opinions are abased in fact and where they are driven by emotion (well done, there).
Now, if you can add a healthy understanding of how your opinions might impact the emotions of others (say, pregnant people whose health is under threat), why, youâve got yourself the makings of an adult conversation.
So maybe go back, re-read the title of the article and give it a think. Youâll be miles ahead of 99% of the âadultsâ on the internet if you do.
@circularfish I can see how my opinions can hurt the feelings of pregnant people, however I still voice them to give myself the opportunity to be corrected and also to hear the views of people.
Yes, that is accurate, they won't become a human baby. But neither will a pregnancy of a woman who can not afford to be pregnant. Studies show legal and illegal abortions happen at about the same rate, just not safey. Usually when abortions are legal for a bit the rate of abortions actually drops more than when illegal for a time.
Also fun fact time: a clump of cancer cells turned out to be one of the biggest medical discoveries of this Era of medicine. If you wanna know more about what happened to Henrietta Lacks: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/
@Didros i understand your views and i shall read the sources you have sent. thank you for the information
No problem at all. Reach out if you wanna chat about something.
This is a great stance to take until the government forces you to regularly go through a life-threatening procedure to harvest your bone marrow so another person might live.
Even if it's life, no life is allowed to commandeer another person's body to survive. Period.
Maternal mortality rates in the US were already abysmal. And the difference between red and blue states is appalling.
Louisiana: 58.1 per 100k
California: 4 per 100k
What are the red states doing with all the federal tax money donated to them by the blue states? How could they remain this horrific when they receive so much aid? How can they look at their maternal mortality rates and unabashedly proclaim their states to be âpro lifeâ?
(Stats from World Population Review)
Edit: and let us not forget that the #1 cause of death for pregnant women in the US is murder by their husband or boyfriend. That statistic is going to get worse now, too.
Idk if you ever read various subreddits or forums about relationships etc but it seems very common now for really nice guys to just out of the blue turn into a woman hating monster and their partners are shocked and appalled because it seems out of character for that person. Social media is really pushing that red pill stuff, and coupled with these types of legal changes, it creates a very dangerous environment for a lot of people to be in.
Imagine what would happen if instead of all these laws and punishments being aimed at women, someone proposed forcing men to accept some responsibility. Even just making them pay child support for 18 years, let alone personally caring for their children.
We all know women would be dying like flies if any of this âpro-lifeâ legislation had any impact on men.
So it gets glossed over and pushed under the rug âitâs all the womanâs fault, sheâs a slut.â
Until your mind cracks open upon seeing the bumper sticker that says: 100% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by men.
The cruelty is the point. They wantpeople women to suffer so they are easier to control.
It's absolutely using suffering to produce a coercive control effect. They want you to feel broken and lost and like no one is coming to help, because it means you're more likely to give up and follow their rules to survive... even when that doesn't guarantee your survival.
When are people going to stop being shocked by this?
This is authoritarianism and fascism and it's sad but unsurprising.
Specifically in this case, they want people they perceive as women (any human with a working uterus) to suffer so they are easier to control. I worry that your phrasing erases the sex-based violence part of this. Fascists are coming for most of us in one way or another, but this particular front is about controlling people they see as women. My husband (a cis dude) didnât have to get parts of his body removed to have full citizenship rights; I did.
Forgive me, it was not my intent to diminish how this impacts people who have a uterus. This is absolutely about controlling women as well as what the definition of a woman is. I have edited the original comment slightly to acknowledge this.
Wow. Thank you. Sorry if I was less-than-polite, this stuff really fucks me up.
No apologies necessary, because it's totally understandable that this stuff would fuck you up.
I read the edit as you making a point about the fascists not seeing women as people.
For me to be powerful, someone else must be powerless.
For me to be strong, someone else must be weak.
For me to be smart, someone else must be stupid.
For me to be clean, someone else must be dirty.
For me to be right, someone else must be wrong.
Why would they care? They don't care for any one's life, they only care about punishing women and denying them their human right to agency.
Anti-choice work to deny women the human right to decide what happens to their own bodies which is dehumanising. When women are stripped of their right to agency, then men will have the power to control women's bodies. Men will get to decide what women do, what they wear, who they meet, where they go, when & how often they get pregnant. Much like what happens to domesticated animals and slaves.
Life without liberty is slavery, and turning women into slaves is the anti-choice goal. so why they care about maternal mortaity?
Can we please stop calling them "pro-life". They are demonstrably not.
I came here to write this. "Pro-life" is a cynical bastard of a euphemism. All that these people are in support of is destroying the life (and potentially health) of pregnant women. If anything, that's anti-life.
Pro forced birthers don't care.
Not even in a 'the cruelty IS the point' way, though obviously sex is bad and suffering must happen to women (in their world view).
They don't care because it's a numbers game. Some women will die. Some will be maimed to the point where they can no longer conceive.
Those women don't matter. Only the endless brood mares who are pumping out kids. Sure a few will suffer, and 'blah blah gods plan', but they aren't part of the equation. The mass of humans being pumped out who will fodder for the corporate grist mill, or failing that filling the ranks of military or prisons.
I don't think it's about corporatism. For a lot of them it's about religion. They want more babies for Jesus. From a more cynical point of view, the earlier a woman has children, the more damaging it is to her future economic and educational prospects. Poor uneducated people are more likely to be religious and conservative. It's a culture war.
The true believers are absolutely part of it.
And as we enter the third wave of the Tea Party (MAGA chuds and now the Freedom Caucus), the cynical despots at the reins have been replaced by a LOT of true believers who are both dumb as a post and have drunk all of the Flavor Aid.
But there are still plenty of Phyllis Schlafly types in the party. Hardened opportunists with nothing more than a deep hunger for power, and no moral compass.
It was never about life. It's about punishing women for taking ownership of their sexuality.
The people voting republican know the only chance they will ever have kids is if their partner is forced to. Nobody would willingly do so otherwise
It's an act of desperation imho
That's because to them, those women brought it upon themselves by having sex before they're ready to have kids, and they just don't understand the very real consequences of what they're asking for. They just parrot these talking points without thinking about what they really mean in the real world.
We should really get rid of the term "pro-life", because the people with those beliefs are not pro-life. They're pro-birth. They don't care what happens to the children or the mothers after the birth has happened.
They arenât pro-birth either, or theyâd support things like paid family leave, etc.
These people are forced-birth
Letâs not mince words. Pro-gestational slavery.
They're simply anti-abortion.
Annoyingly, they're often also opposed to any of the things that are known to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
They claim to be anti-abortion. In reality, many of their policies lead to increasing abortions: defunding education, defunding birth control, etc.
Exactly.
The only fully accurate term is pro-gestational-slavery.
Anti-choice?
Don't care? They know it and they want it. The cruelty is the point.
It's weirder then that: The reason is: "It's god's plan that you became pregnant, and if you do not survive, that's god's plan too. We just need to trust the plan".
It's one of the reasons why I strongly believe religion is the source of all things evil.
I don't know how this never occurred to me but yes, this sounds right. Fuck this is terrifying.
This is why so many "founding fathers" around the world, including the US, did not want religion to play ANY part in politics.
We should return to their plan on this point.
That's not religion. That's abusers using religion to control people. Which unfortunately the most vocal make sound like that's all religion.
I always thought that was the entire point of religion.
Then you don't know much about religion.
And you don't know much about history.
Apparently more than you do.
Apparently not.
Islam says (for instance) that they have the final word of god. Thats pretty damning in and of itself. It leaves no room for anything else.
Christianity had been used through the ages to commit the most heinous crimes against humanity. They still do.
We should try a world without religion.
And nothing heinous has ever been done without religion?
The faithful give over three times as much in charitable donations as the secular, and volunteer three to four times as often.
Plus, the religious have been persecuted for their beliefs as long as there had been human history, which is what you are proposing by suggesting that religion should be eliminated.
Tell me 1 good deed done in the name of religion that could not have been done without religion.
There are numerous heinous deeds done in the name of religion because it told them to do it...
People are people, they will do bad and good things. But religion always makes them worse because they put themselves above others.
The religious are only persecuted by other religions and currently religions are persecuting the non believers. (Christo fascism in the USA as a prime example)
And lastly, if churches would start paying their fair share of tax. No one will need to donate ever again.
I wonder if it's the point so much as an 'unfortunate' byproduct. I think it's more of a take a win at any cost because "fuck the libs"
@argv_minus_one @hedge both extremes have incorrect points, abortions should neither be encouraged nor be banned. they should be allowed as a medical procedure, not a form of birth control.
Abortion has never been a form of birth control. It has always been a fail-safe for when birth control fails (e.g. a condom breaks) or could not be used (e.g. because a woman was raped). Please do not repeat right-wing misinformation.
@argv_minus_one making abortions completely legal and encouraging them would lead to that right? statistics all seem to support abortions being used as a form of birth control. this is not right wing misinformation, studies by the NAF states that 48% of women who have had an abortion have had two or more. which is quite high considering 48% of women do not have those abortions as a medical procedure.
No, because they're more expensive, more time-consuming, and more dangerous than birth control.
Which does not demonstrate that they are using abortion as birth control. That would be demonstrated by hundreds of abortions, not merely two, and virtually no one can even afford hundreds of abortions.
Once again, please stop repeating right-wing misinformation.
I'm sorry, why can't it be used as birth control? Why can't a medical procedure between a doctor and patient be done to better the life of the patient?
This whole anti abortion thing started with one guy in America forever ago and has spread from there. But before his crusade against abortions not many people felt one way or another about them. This seems to me like a group of people advocating making any cancer removal illegal.
@Didros personally I believe that life begins at conception. I don't find myself agreeing with the argument of "oh it's not a living being yet, so it's okay to kill". I believe that even though it's a clump of cells, eliminating it would take away the potential of life from it. In the same sense, destroying a TV remote is fine because it has zero potential for life. However this does not make me Pro life, because I do acknowledge the hardships of life ; abortions are okay as a medical procedure.
Yeah, but cancer is a litteral lump of living cells. It's an apt comparison.
And a sperm meeting an egg suddenly meaning life potential which is worth intervening in another's medical decision is such a weird line. Especially in this county obsessed with freedoms.
It feels like such an arbitrary line to draw and agree with. When did you start this belief?
@Didros cancer is a clump of living cells that does not have the potential to turn into a living human being.
I'm quite young and I'm still yet to form opinions that are set in stone, I'd say I started believing in my arbitrary line about a month ago. It was influenced by emotions along with statistics about abortions in the US.
It is totally OK to be young and still forming your opinions! It is doubly OK, a sign of maturity even, to be self-aware about where those opinions are abased in fact and where they are driven by emotion (well done, there).
Now, if you can add a healthy understanding of how your opinions might impact the emotions of others (say, pregnant people whose health is under threat), why, youâve got yourself the makings of an adult conversation.
So maybe go back, re-read the title of the article and give it a think. Youâll be miles ahead of 99% of the âadultsâ on the internet if you do.
@circularfish I can see how my opinions can hurt the feelings of pregnant people, however I still voice them to give myself the opportunity to be corrected and also to hear the views of people.
Yes, that is accurate, they won't become a human baby. But neither will a pregnancy of a woman who can not afford to be pregnant. Studies show legal and illegal abortions happen at about the same rate, just not safey. Usually when abortions are legal for a bit the rate of abortions actually drops more than when illegal for a time.
Edit: a source for abortion rates and legality: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-the-u-s-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world-on-abortion-rights
Though because of the nature of this debate you can find very convincing studies that find tge exact opposite from all over tge internet. Figured PBS would be a mostly trusted source.
Also fun fact time: a clump of cancer cells turned out to be one of the biggest medical discoveries of this Era of medicine. If you wanna know more about what happened to Henrietta Lacks: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/
@Didros i understand your views and i shall read the sources you have sent. thank you for the information
No problem at all. Reach out if you wanna chat about something.
This is a great stance to take until the government forces you to regularly go through a life-threatening procedure to harvest your bone marrow so another person might live.
Even if it's life, no life is allowed to commandeer another person's body to survive. Period.
Maternal mortality rates in the US were already abysmal. And the difference between red and blue states is appalling.
Louisiana: 58.1 per 100k
California: 4 per 100k
What are the red states doing with all the federal tax money donated to them by the blue states? How could they remain this horrific when they receive so much aid? How can they look at their maternal mortality rates and unabashedly proclaim their states to be âpro lifeâ?
(Stats from World Population Review)
Edit: and let us not forget that the #1 cause of death for pregnant women in the US is murder by their husband or boyfriend. That statistic is going to get worse now, too.
Idk if you ever read various subreddits or forums about relationships etc but it seems very common now for really nice guys to just out of the blue turn into a woman hating monster and their partners are shocked and appalled because it seems out of character for that person. Social media is really pushing that red pill stuff, and coupled with these types of legal changes, it creates a very dangerous environment for a lot of people to be in.
Imagine what would happen if instead of all these laws and punishments being aimed at women, someone proposed forcing men to accept some responsibility. Even just making them pay child support for 18 years, let alone personally caring for their children.
We all know women would be dying like flies if any of this âpro-lifeâ legislation had any impact on men.
So it gets glossed over and pushed under the rug âitâs all the womanâs fault, sheâs a slut.â
Until your mind cracks open upon seeing the bumper sticker that says: 100% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by men.
The cruelty is the point. They want
peoplewomen to suffer so they are easier to control.It's absolutely using suffering to produce a coercive control effect. They want you to feel broken and lost and like no one is coming to help, because it means you're more likely to give up and follow their rules to survive... even when that doesn't guarantee your survival.
When are people going to stop being shocked by this?
This is authoritarianism and fascism and it's sad but unsurprising.
Specifically in this case, they want people they perceive as women (any human with a working uterus) to suffer so they are easier to control. I worry that your phrasing erases the sex-based violence part of this. Fascists are coming for most of us in one way or another, but this particular front is about controlling people they see as women. My husband (a cis dude) didnât have to get parts of his body removed to have full citizenship rights; I did.
Forgive me, it was not my intent to diminish how this impacts people who have a uterus. This is absolutely about controlling women as well as what the definition of a woman is. I have edited the original comment slightly to acknowledge this.
Wow. Thank you. Sorry if I was less-than-polite, this stuff really fucks me up.
No apologies necessary, because it's totally understandable that this stuff would fuck you up.
I read the edit as you making a point about the fascists not seeing women as people.
For me to be powerful, someone else must be powerless.
For me to be strong, someone else must be weak.
For me to be smart, someone else must be stupid.
For me to be clean, someone else must be dirty.
For me to be right, someone else must be wrong.
Why would they care? They don't care for any one's life, they only care about punishing women and denying them their human right to agency.
Anti-choice work to deny women the human right to decide what happens to their own bodies which is dehumanising. When women are stripped of their right to agency, then men will have the power to control women's bodies. Men will get to decide what women do, what they wear, who they meet, where they go, when & how often they get pregnant. Much like what happens to domesticated animals and slaves.
Life without liberty is slavery, and turning women into slaves is the anti-choice goal. so why they care about maternal mortaity?
Can we please stop calling them "pro-life". They are demonstrably not.
I came here to write this. "Pro-life" is a cynical bastard of a euphemism. All that these people are in support of is destroying the life (and potentially health) of pregnant women. If anything, that's anti-life.
Pro forced birthers don't care.
Not even in a 'the cruelty IS the point' way, though obviously sex is bad and suffering must happen to women (in their world view).
They don't care because it's a numbers game. Some women will die. Some will be maimed to the point where they can no longer conceive.
Those women don't matter. Only the endless brood mares who are pumping out kids. Sure a few will suffer, and 'blah blah gods plan', but they aren't part of the equation. The mass of humans being pumped out who will fodder for the corporate grist mill, or failing that filling the ranks of military or prisons.
I don't think it's about corporatism. For a lot of them it's about religion. They want more babies for Jesus. From a more cynical point of view, the earlier a woman has children, the more damaging it is to her future economic and educational prospects. Poor uneducated people are more likely to be religious and conservative. It's a culture war.
The true believers are absolutely part of it.
And as we enter the third wave of the Tea Party (MAGA chuds and now the Freedom Caucus), the cynical despots at the reins have been replaced by a LOT of true believers who are both dumb as a post and have drunk all of the Flavor Aid.
But there are still plenty of Phyllis Schlafly types in the party. Hardened opportunists with nothing more than a deep hunger for power, and no moral compass.
It was never about life. It's about punishing women for taking ownership of their sexuality.
The people voting republican know the only chance they will ever have kids is if their partner is forced to. Nobody would willingly do so otherwise
It's an act of desperation imho
That's because to them, those women brought it upon themselves by having sex before they're ready to have kids, and they just don't understand the very real consequences of what they're asking for. They just parrot these talking points without thinking about what they really mean in the real world.
https://archive.ph/QZSZo