This is a form of class warfare: it isn’t the rich women - they can go out of state or country to get proper medical care if they need it… it’s poor women that are bearing this awful cost.
Oddly enough, it’s the poor that are making this happen to themselves by voting for these people. Religion is a hell of a drug.
It isn’t just “poor” so much as brainwashed religious nutjobs with no education
Yeah, middle class just feels the same as poor these days.
You think poor people showed up to Jan 6th? Many of these people run terrible businesses, boebert comes to mind.
The people that showed up to Jan 6th are the minority of people that keep republicans in power.
deleted by creator
The thing is that those assholes don’t care.
deleted by creator
Their families will be fine. They will just go out of state, or out of country if need be. The poor will suffer. So it goes.
deleted by creator
Sorry… what do arms have to do with this? I’m pretty sure doctors don’t recommend using speeding bullets as a safe way to end a pregnancy.
Please support Elevated Access in any way you can. Even if you are not a pilot or know jack shit about general aviation, you can help. Donate to them or reach out and drive a friend to a local ga airport. Its probably outside of your hometown. Ill land on a dirt strip to help.
I personally fly for them. Many pilots in texas do. We can cross state borders to get texas women the care they need and deserve. Colorado or new mexico doesnt have to be a ten hour drive. Ken Paxton and his ilk want to shut down the state highways to stop pro choice in Texas, but they cant stop federal airways.
I knew about Angel Flight but wasn’t aware of this. Thank you for sharing, and for flying! My dad was the top contributing pilot for Angel Flight in Texas a few years back. If he was still able to fly, I’d be pushing him to take this on as well.
so much for being “pro life”
They were never pro-life. They were never even pro-birth. They’ve never argued for anything like free pre-natal care. If something is wrong with your baby and you and your baby are going to die, that’s god’s will, so don’t you dare get an abortion.
They are not pro-anything. They’re anti-abortion. That’s as far as it goes whether they admit it or not.
they’re not even anti-abortion. they’re just anti-woman.
i know, but it’s what they claim to be
I know. I just don’t think they should be allowed to get away with calling themselves that unchallenged beyond the “and you call yourselves pro-life?” I feel the need to point out that they literally could not give less of a shit whether or not any given fetus lives or dies as long as medical intervention isn’t required for the latter.
fair enough
On the one hand, I absolutely think it’s worth calling out. On the other hand, they’ll often be very quick to try and turn it around on you, calling anyone pro-choice pro-death or saying they “want to kill babies”.
Obviously those aren’t quite the same thing, but they see it as the same and I just wish there was a way to bridge that gap and have everyone listen to each other…
At which point, I tell them that it’s not about the fetus, it’s about the fact that people have a fundamental right to their own bodies and no one should be allowed to use their body without their consent. Just like we have people consent to organ donation.
If they want fetuses to live, great. Start working on artificial womb technology. They don’t seem interested.
Again, I agree with you. I just see the danger of refusing to acknowledge how a group conceptualizes their own position, even if they’re being deliberately blind to other factors.
And I wish people could spend more effort trying to understand each other’s perspectives, because otherwise how does it ever change?
I’m only barely talking about pro-life/anti-choice or pro-choice/pro-death here, too. The same kind of thinking and focusing on aspects the other person isn’t addressing is everywhere in discourse these days. And a lot of them are very close to home for me and I guess I want them to be able to consider my perspective. But they won’t, because they think of the world this way, so they see me as a problem and a problem-causer just by being me.
Any way… Rant over I guess
How does it ever change? The 70+% of people that disagree show up to vote. I was raised by forced birthers and have been to family therapy with them to try to talk with a neutral third party. The therapist gave us all a blanket statement that we’ll never change each other’s minds. So, fine. My brother and I just have to cancel out their votes and get more people to tip the scales.
Every state that’s been able to vote on it has upheld protections for abortion. More are on the ballot for November. Check your state and be ready to show up.
I call them forced-birth, which sums up their position well. They care nothing for the woman having the child and care nothing for the child after it’s born. It’s all about forcing that birth by whatever means… then walking away.
But they don’t even care if there’s a birth. If the fetus dies inside the mother and then the mother dies- god’s will.
They’re not pro life. They’re anti women having sex, and want to punish women for doing something as natural as breathing. It’s going to bite them in the ass, but it will be too late for so many before it does.
The Republicans in power can see in the statistics that more black and brown people are dying, so they don’t care. Less people voting against them.
that’s fuck up.
Fuck those murderers and those who voted for them.
You risk your own and others situational awareness when you paint everything as a race issue.
I grew up in Texas in a deep red county.
They believe abortion is literally the same as killing a healthy 2 year old. Straight up. THAT is the basis for their opposition to abortion, plain and simple.
You are dumbing down the discourse by being so focused on race.
“This stops them from killing babies” and “This also predominantly affects the group I don’t like” aren’t mutually exclusive ideas
They literally don’t care about skin color here. Not one iota. Murder is murder and this is that (to them).
I grew up in Texas in a deep red county.
In a country notorious for it’s systemic and institutionalized racism, you grew up in a section that votes predominantly for the party that is notoriously racist ( In general, not in comparison to any other party ) and would claim that race has no part in a decision that is known to have racial divides in applicability.
That might be the greatest feat of mental gymnastics i’ve ever seen, truly.
On the off-chance you genuinely mean what you say:
That you and the people you know don’t care about race is laudable, but it doesn’t seem to be broadly applicable to the rest of the state or country ( and in the case of republicans their party )
This shouldn’t be hard to believe.
These are largely white people voting to stop their largely white neighbors from getting abortions.
Are you under the impression their position toward abortion would be different if the entire state or country were 100% white? I assure you it would not be. And if that’s true, it cannot be based on race.
What’s more is this argument that their position on abortion is informed by statistics is laughable. These are low information voters. You seriously think they even know the stats? Why in the world would anyone think that?
Are you under the impression their position toward abortion would be different if the entire state or country were 100% white? I assure you it would not be. And if that’s true, it cannot be based on race.
I’ve no idea, all i was stating is that dismissing race as a part of the decision making process (consciously or unconsciously) in a place known for outcomes based on race could be considered dumbing down the argument.
What’s more is this argument that their position on abortion is informed by statistics is laughable. These are low information voters. You seriously think they even know the stats? Why in the world would anyone think that?
Entirely laughable, which is why nobody has claimed this.
I was saying these people are what makes up the statistics.
As an entirely made up example:
“10% of the population don’t like the taste of potatoes” doesn’t mean 10% of the population base their decisions about eating fries on reading the statistics.
claims such as “All the people i know like potatoes , so potato preference can’t possibly be related to the amount of fries eaten” just doesnt make any sense.
and to be clear I’m not claiming all positions are race based, just that it’s enough of a factor that pretending it doesn’t have any impact at all is some gold medal mental gymnastics.
I’ve no idea
I think knowing that these voters base their position on abortion on the belief that it is murder hurts your position so it’s better not to answer. Or you just don’t know them that well and really have no idea.
Entirely laughable, which is why nobody has claimed this.
The argument that these voters’ position on abortion (and therefore their votes) are based on race necessarily requires that they are aware of the statistics. If the claim is they vote this way because it disproportionately harms minorities, how do they know it disproportionately harms minorities?
But I’m glad we agree that they do not know that.
It’s both. Unfortunately, a lot of people are incredibly racist without even knowing that they are racists. They are just doing whatever they’ve always been doing, “and now, all of a sudden, that’s racist.” It’s like when people are defending slavery because it was “normal at the time.” It was still racist! It is now and it was then.
You’re getting down voted, but you’re right. The actual lawmakers are probably more racially motivated. But based on my experience growing up in Alabama, most of the regular “pro-life” voters seem motivated by a genuine belief that abortion is murder.
Until they need an abortion. Then they’re fine with it. Ask anyone who works at an abortion clinic how many times people out there protesting come in for abortions
Yes because they don’t actually believe that they are killing a living human. That’s why they will get it done for themselves or their mistresses.
I could see the race thing being more true for the politicians but even then I think it’s less of a thing than most people on Lemmy think.
If we stop to think about it a moment I think that becomes clear.
Do we think Ted Cruz would rather have a black Republican neighbor or a white Democrat? I truly think he’d rather have a black Republican neighbor. I believe the same is true for everyone I grew up with in Texas.
IF we accept that (big if, admittedly) it can’t be a race thing. It would have to extend to a cultural thing.
Are you from an area that mainly espouses colorblindness as its racism?
A month ago, I was sent a picture of a black lynching by a Nazi. It’s 100% about race for a lot of people.
Note that I didn’t say racism didn’t exist anymore. I said it wasn’t the driving principle behind their position on abortion. And that hyper fixation on race does a disservice to them and others by often missing the point.
I would also say “color blindness” isn’t racism, if that’s what you meant. Maybe I misunderstood you?
I largely agree with Coleman Hughes on this point but I frankly don’t expect anyone here to honestly engage with his position.
Well, I’ve already explained exactly why it’s a continuation of native American genocide and how race is 100% a driver for these organizations en masse, even though other races are also affected.
It’s not a hyperfixation on race to acknowledge racial issues and address them.
I guessed you were from an area with colorblindness as it’s main racism, I am as well. That’s because you’re in an area that is still colonizing land from Natives, so it’s important to reduce their claims. One way to do this is to erase their heritage and ethnicity by forcing language, names, holidays, foods, etc that aren’t part of their history. Suppressing claims of racism automatically is colorblindness and part of how colorblindness is racist.
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Native-Indian-Culture-Color-Blind-Racism-F3YRAC73VU5YW
Another form of racism placed onto Native Indian people is color-blind racism. This form of racism rationalizes “racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics” (Robertson 120). Color-blind racism takes the standards created by the dominant discourse and applies them to all ethnic groups, putting them on an even level plain field without recognizing historical or social context of each group. Therefore, according to color blind racism, the effects of casualties and stereotypical of Native Indians such as alcoholism, poverty, etc. is essentially their fault and they should be the ones to start change. However, these the casualties of Native Indian culture was changed by racial oppression implemented by the dominant discourse. Therefore, Native Indians cannot be the ones to change of societal perception when they were not the ones to implement it.
https://www.pbs.org/education/blog/unlearning-kindness-color-blindness-and-racism
The pressure to assimilate and narrow the gaps in our proximity to Whiteness goes hand and hand with so-called “color blindness,” or claiming not to see race. At best, this ideology is misguided because it’s predicated on the false assumption that if we do not talk about or acknowledge race and racism, then these issues will go away. It should go without saying that this is asinine, yet so many well-meaning White people wear their alleged color blindness as a badge of honor.
At worst, it is a White supremacist tool used to intentionally gaslight BIPOC and give White people a justification for turning away from the experiences and voices of BIPOC. Color blindness requires BIPOC to “grin and bear” everyday instances of racism. We are expected to do this all in the name of making White people more comfortable with benefitting from their ancestors’ ill-gotten gains, as well as current inequalities. This is the “polite” brand of racism that prioritizes White supremacist notions of decorum, comfort, and acceptable forms of social expression over dismantling racism and alleviating the suffering that it causes.
No, you’re missing pieces of the puzzle. Modern day abortion bans are a piece of legal child trafficking via adoptions.
Latina girl tries to get an abortion. She shows up at a fake abortion clinic because she’s ESL and those clinics are deceitful. She gets guilt tripped into giving her baby up for adoption.
The fake abortion clinic just so conveniently works with an adoption center that only adopts out to Christian families that can pay them about $20k-$40k for a kid. This money doesn’t go to the birth mother. Most of these adopting families are white.
Then these Christian organizations go on to lobby for less social safety nets, less abortion access, less birth control access and education, thus driving more desperate girls to their clinics.
Race plays a part - this is continued genocide happening primarily against Native American Latinos who lack the same legal protections as Native Americans from here in the US, even though those borders didn’t exist before we put them there. Those are very similar groups of people who share some ancestry and used to trade with each other.
Yes other races are damaged by this too. It’s just not in the same way. It’s okay to be intersectional instead of just giving up thinking about race altogether.
Here’s an example of one of these adoption agencies: https://christianhomes.com/
Almost everyone supports abortion in rapes cases and risk to life cases - it is very rare that someone literally thinks it’s the same as murdering a toddler if you actually ask them about those “fringe” cases.
It’s more that people are reactionary and don’t want to actually think and so they just parrot whatever is comfortable to them.
this was predicted. this is probably how the people who made this happen intended it to be.
I feel like it’s not a prediction when it’s a known guaranteed fact.
I predict 1 + 1 = 2!
We have decades of science and knowledge already proving this.
#unexpectedfactorial Luckily 2 = 2!
Thank you for the lighthearted chuckle in such a serious topic, my brain did the same when I read the comment, immediately read it as a factorial.
🤣😅
What is 2.5!
What is Pi !
If someone says, “I support this because I am conservative,” you actually mean, “I support this because I am a cock.”
It’s pathetic these clowns call themselves pro-life without vomiting. Their platform is based entirely around murdering pregnant women. They don’t care how many times you explain this is essential healthcare, they are happy to let these women die because in their mind they deserve it for daring to try and save their own life with an abortion. It will be so sad and predictable when they find out the women in their life get ectopic pregnancies too, I wonder how much their lives are worth to these dishonest ghouls.
To them, hypocrisy is a virtue. This is all about power and has nothing to do with integrity.
Less than 1% of abortions are due to it being a risk to the woman’s life. Catch a grip.
You catch a grip and stay the fuck out of women’s business, creep.
Thats not the fucking point. The point is if you pass a law saying its illegal unless the mother is dying, you cant be fucking surprised when mothers die. You are so selfish, you can’t even picture how this might impact someone else. You just repeat your rhetoric, and pat yourself on the back even though your response has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Tell me, how many lives does your belief cost? How much needless death is acceptable for you? You are talking about killing thousands and thousands of women, thats why you are hiding behind percentages, because it lets you mask the raw number of deaths. Will your opinion completely change when someone you love is killed or put at risk? Dont answer any of those, just tell what 1% of these supposed abortion numbers happens to be. Tell me exactly how many women you think deserve to die you fucking coward.
Just checked my numbers. It’s less than 1% for rape, and 4% for health reasons. But my point still stands that this is a fringe case.
It is worth noting though that the health reasons given are quite broad and do not all necessarily mean the mother was going to die if she gave birth.
Concerns about personal health included chron- ic and life-threatening conditions such as depression, advanced maternal age and toxemia. More commonly, how- ever, women cited feeling too ill during the pregnancy to work or take care of their children.
Source:
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/3711005.pdf
“Edge case”
Jesus fucking christ. It’s truly insane how opinionated and ignorant you are. You live in a fantasy world powered by confirmation bias. This is a very common problem and it’s genuinely pathetic how bad your attempt to lie about that. You can’t even find a real medical academic source to lie about. It breaks my God damn heart to see how little propaganda it took to make you incapable of introspection. I’m sorry I grossly over estimated your character and respect for human life. Please go celebrate your totally justified murders in private.
I literally showed you a source showing that it was at 4% and most of them weren’t even in life and death scenarios. And I’m the one living in a fantasy world?. If this was actually purely about Human life, then we’d have a significant drop in abortions.
Charge them with murder
This is the only logical answer for this. Otherwise- their deaths mean nothing.
That’s not logical? It doesn’t even have a legal basis.
The real logical answer to bad government management is the French one - protest
And if protests dont work as they often dont, then what? The guillotine. Thats a french thing nest pas?
The collective can decide :) Very French
Let me know how that goes.
We might be headed toward the same conditions that spawned the French revolution. I’m not in favor of that but once the wealth transfer gets to a certain point there’s historical president to draw upon.
That isn’t going to happen. And in the very off chance that it does- the government is guaranteed the win, and the people will suffer.
Greatly.
The government is made of people. Those people might refuse to do their jobs too.
A protest is SUBSTANTIALLY more likely to happen than the original suggestion of charging state lawmakers with murder. There’s no murder charge that would qualify.
Reckless endangerment and manslaughter.
They were warned that women would die due these laws and they didn’t listen. They recklessly put those laws there and people died… resulting in manslaughter.
I’d prefer homicide too, but I feel like manslaughter charges would stick better because you don’t have to prove intent, just that someone died because of their actions.
Riiiiight. Well, have fun storming the castle. Just don’t make a mess on my street, okay? I don’t want to have to clean that shit up.
the logical answer is something else entirely. definitely don’t hold your breath for the state to make them accountable.
I I’m not. Because the american government follows no logic whatsoever.
Who? And on what legal grounds?
The state government. Legislature that drew up and ratified the murderous writs
Okay, so is staff included in that? And what’s the legal basis? What law could they be charged under for this?
Depends on how involved they were in the laws creation. Probably not enough to matter though. Their bosses could be charged with involuntary manslaughter on an individual basis, conspiracy to commit murder as a group or individual.
Involuntary manslaughter would probably not stick as a charge
Involuntary manslaughter refers to the unintentional killing of another person, usually through reckless behavior or negligence. It’s different from other homicide offenses because it doesn’t require intent, deliberation, or premeditation.
The following factors influence criminal liability:
- Actus reus (guilty action or conduct): evidence that the accused committed an unlawful act that directly led to a person’s death or acted in a way that demonstrated criminal negligence or recklessness.
- Mens rea (intention or knowledge): while intent to kill is not required for Involuntary Manslaughter, there must be evidence of negligence or recklessness. For this, the accused should have been aware, or at least reasonably should have been aware, of the risk or danger their action (or inaction) would create.
- Causation: There must be no doubt that the accused’s reckless or negligent behavior led to the victim’s death. In other words, the victim’s death would not have occurred without the reckless or negligent behavior of the accused.
It’s the actus reus part that I don’t think checks out with this charge. They weren’t acting unlawfully. They weren’t acting criminally. They were doing their jobs within the law.
https://www.dwilawyerstexas.com/tx-penal-code-15-02-criminal-conspiracy/
Texas law prohibits criminal conspiracy, which is the agreement to commit a crime. If two or more people devise a plan to commit a felony, and at least one of them acts in furtherance of the plan, each person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit the object of the conspiracy.
Again, they weren’t acting unlawfully.
It’s actually legal for legislatures to pass legislation that kills us “passively.” Otherwise, if it wasn’t legal, homeless people could sue for their conditions and win. People who die from lack of medical care could sue and win. People who die in car accidents could sue because we dont have public transportation due to oil industry. We could sue due to climate change effects and government policies that worsened that. They currently cannot sue lawmakers and win those cases.
I am 100% for having laws in place that charge lawmakers with crimes for policies like this. But they currently don’t exist how we want them to.
You’d think this would give republicans pause, or make them reconsider.
Young women dying in dramatically increasing numbers.
But it won’t.
All these young women left to die on the altar of their misinterpretation of their religion and their uncaring principles.
But no, it was a policy born in hate and the tragic imposed deaths of women are not an unfortunate side effect, they’re just misogyny in action. Working itself out.
If they cared about babies, there would be more support for women, for early years interventions, and maybe they might also care about children dying in schools on the altar of their misunderstanding of their 2nd amendment and their uncaring principles.
But no, they don’t care about children dying in schools either, and do you know why? Because caring about children dying in schools doesn’t involve telling women what they have to do and ruling their lives with oppressive freedom-denying laws.
Caring about children dying in schools would involve some infringement on their UNDENYABLE RIGHT TO FEEL IMPORTANT with a gun and caring about women dying in childbirth would interfere with their UNDENYABLE RIGHT TO FEEL IMPORTANT with a rule about what women can and can’t do.
Are you implying being against abortion is a misinterpretation of the Bible? How?
Edit: I think that’s a genuine question from someone who is surprised by me calling it misinterpretation and has engaged with another perspective politely and unlike many people, is listening as well as expressing their point of view. I wish more people responded like that with a request for information and respectful discussion afterwards. Evidence shows that the “How?” was genuine. Hence my upvote.
I don’t know any religious people who think abortion is great, but I don’t know any pro-choice folk who think it’s great either, they just think it shouldn’t land a woman or a health professional in jail and they don’t like that the maternal death rate is climbing so fast in Texas which had the first five-week abortion limit in the states.
Before the republicans figured they could be really judgemental and condemnatory about it (what does your Bible say about that kind of behavior?) and use it as a wedge issue to drive religious folks away from the democrats, it was originally a catholic-only thing to be absolutely opposed to abortion for a long time, justified by a misinterpretation of the sin of Onan, which the catholics somehow took to be a lesson about semen not being allowed on the floor, when it’s quite clearly about family duty and not help to provide a kid for his brother’s young widow who would otherwise be childless - held to be shameful for her. He wasn’t kind. I think you could boldly interpret that story to be pro IVF but I don’t think you can interpret it to be anti-abortion and anti women’s choice unless you’re really baked-in misogynistic before you think about it.
Yeah I know it says “do not murder” but the abortion bans are literally killing women with already dead foetuses because no health professional can afford to risk their career and freedom to take any step whatsoever to save their lives until it’s obvious enough that they’re at death’s door that the court couldn’t conclude otherwise. “She might have died later” isn’t compelling enough - “she was coding” is.
I challenge you to find a bible passage explicitly condemning abortion. I can find you at least ten explicitly condemning judgementalism, but also condemning not caring for the poor, not caring for foreigners, walking by when others are suffering, not healing someone when you can. The modern republican party is so far from “What Would Jesus Do?” and worships the liar in chief, Donald J Trump.
So yes, somehow a bunch of big american corporate churchgoers got convinced that being rich is a sign you are a good person, that stopping abortion is the main lesson from the scriptures and that caring about black people, foreigners, poor people etc is evil. Somehow “let the person who did nothing wrong cast the first stone… go, I don’t condemn you either” became “lock her up”. If you don’t think that’s a misinterpretation of your Bible, yours is different to the ones I’ve seen.
think that’s a genuine question from someone
Flax is rather well-known for being an entrenched-in-their-thoughts religious zealot, that’s why the downvotes, it’s not genuine
So much so that I’m rather convinced they’re some weirdo pretending to be an insane person for the lols
I actually agree with a good chunk of what you said. I thank you for not strawmanning me or making presumptions of being like how you described. The Bible advocates for caring for the poor, not judging hypocritically, for caring for the suffering and sick, and that I believe Trump is an antichrist and not Christian at all.
I’d also like to note that I agree with Abortion if it’s simply removing a dead foetus. I see that as less of an abortion and more of removing a dead foetus that’s already dead.
As for abortions in case of the pregnancy might kill the woman, those are exceedingly rare as is, but should still be allowed.
Anyway, for the question at hand:
I’ll skip out in the commandment showing murder is bad, but of course murder being bad is a necessary principle.
We see a few instances in the Bible of unborn children being human lives. A notable example recorded by St Luke is John the Baptist. He leapt in the womb when Mary appeared carrying Jesus in her womb
Luke 1:41-42 ESV
And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
Jacob and Esau fought each other in the womb, so were clearly conscious
Genesis 25:21-23 ESV
And Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren. And the Lord granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived. The children struggled together within her, and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.”
Instances of this are even recorded scientifically
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/video-shows-twins-fighting-womb/story?id=17848740
King David writes about children even being made by God in the poetry of the 139th Psalm
Psalm 139:13-14 ESV
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
So as the Bible doesn’t say “thou shalt not kill a foetus”, it is implying that foetus are human life. Worth noting that the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention the Triune nature of God as we define, but the nature comes from reading the Bible and revealed through them and what it shows about each Person of God. It also doesn’t explicitly condemn slavery but it’s frequently protrayed in a bad light. Jesus doesn’t demand worship, but is shown being God and receiving it. So it doesn’t have to be explicitly said. The Bible as a whole isn’t a book of laws or a legal code.
I’d also like to note that I agree with Abortion if it’s simply removing a dead foetus. I see that as less of an abortion and more of removing a dead foetus that’s already dead.
Yes, that’s not abortion, that’s just D&C after the foetus died.
As for abortions in case of the pregnancy might kill the woman, those are exceedingly rare as is, but should still be allowed.
But it’s the same D&C procedure whether the foetus was deliberately terminated or it died of natural causes, and a doctor performing a D&C is at real and genuine risk of losing their career and going to prison, and a woman in need of D&C is at risk of losing her fertility or her life from sepsis or other complications. Criminalizing healthcare kills women. Doctors need a lot of good luck keeping their job in a red state if they agree to perform a D&C. Don’t rely on facts winning a case when anti-abortion rhetoric is one of the two main ways republicans have got and kept power.
It’s clear that you think God loves unborn children. Do you think God loves women who stillbirth? They are at genuine risk of jail time because their baby died. Do you think God loves children who were raped? Do you think God wants rape victims to bear their rapists children? Do you believe that God always chooses the baby over the mother, no matter the cost or the consequences? Do you think God doesn’t like it when we intervene in matters of life and death?
Do you, and this is the central question, and the only one that matters really, believe that God wants the government to put doctors and women in prison whenever an abortion is performed, and do you think God wants the increased maternal death rates amongst otherwise healthy women who have miscarried that these new policies are creating? Before you answer, please realise that early miscarriage is far, far more common and far far less admitted in public than people who have never admitted to having a miscarriage with other women in a safe environment realise. Are miscarriages hateful to God too? Is it the woman’s fault, and should she go to prison if she can’t prove her miscarriage was natural?
The second question is this: does God care more about putting women and doctors in prison after a foetus dies more than God cares about feeding the poor and the homeless? More than looking after foreigners? More than loving your neighbour and your enemy? Is it more important to love God or to love money?
Because what I see in america is a lot of people justifying being super condemnatory about women and immigrants and hating on helping, all in the name of religion, and I just don’t see much of “love God and love your neighbour”. No wonder young people are leaving the american church in droves. What’s all that hate got that might draw them in? Maybe if it had more for them than the promise of jailing women and doctors, they might see the point, but a lot of church folks can’t get past the jailing of women and doctors and the condemnation of sinners they judge to be particularly scandalously sinful, unless of course they’re republicans or church leaders, in which case denial that anything went wrong. Not forgiveness, that would require an admission of guilt. Just minimisation and cover up.
I remember stories about Jesus getting cross with the temple being full of money and the religious leaders acting pious while making up hard and harsh rules for everyone else to follow (not so much themselves). Is it a relevant story for today? Isn’t it really sad and far from following commandments if the church gets into the judging others and condemnation business? I don’t think it was ever supposed to be about big theatres, big money, politics, professional music and plenty of prison time for plenty of sinners. Hadn’t it better get back very urgently to what Jesus actually said to do?
It’s clear that you think God loves unborn children. Do you think God loves women who stillbirth?
Yes. I never advocated jailing women who stillbirth
Do you think God loves children who were raped? Do you think God wants rape victims to bear their rapists children?
If someone is raped and gets pregnant and seeks an abortion, then it’s the rapist who committed murder.
Do you believe that God always chooses the baby over the mother, no matter the cost or the consequences? Do you think God doesn’t like it when we intervene in matters of life and death?
Again, this is exceedingly rare. But in such cases denying abortions would he wrong as you’d kill both the woman and child.
Do you, and this is the central question, and the only one that matters really, believe that God wants the government to put doctors and women in prison whenever an abortion is performed, and do you think God wants the increased maternal death rates amongst otherwise healthy women who have miscarried that these new policies are creating? Before you answer, please realise that early miscarriage is far, far more common and far far less admitted in public than people who have never admitted to having a miscarriage with other women in a safe environment realise. Are miscarriages hateful to God too? Is it the woman’s fault, and should she go to prison if she can’t prove her miscarriage was natural?
I don’t think we should investigate women who have miscarriages. It’s between them and God if they intentionally caused it.
The second question is this: does God care more about putting women and doctors in prison after a foetus dies more than God cares about feeding the poor and the homeless? More than looking after foreigners? More than loving your neighbour and your enemy? ls it more important to love God or to love money?
God doesn’t care more or less about things. Every sin we commit on this earth is another bang of the hammer on His hands, the sin that we committed and killed Him.
Because what see in america is a lot of people justifying being super condemnatory about women and immigrants and hating on helping, all in the name of religion, and just don’t see much of “love God and love your neighbour”. No wonder young people are leaving the american church in droves. VWhat’s all that hate got that might draw them in? Maybe if it had more for them than the promise of jailing women and doctors, they might see the point, but a lot of church folks can’t get past the jailing of women and doctors and the condemnation of sinners they judge to be particularly scandalously sinful, unless of course they’re republicans or church leaders, in which case denial that anything went wrong. Not forgiveness, that would require an admission of guilt. Just minimisation and cover up.
Matthew 7:21-23 ESV [21] “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ [23] And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
What Christians do doesn’t define Christianity. But we also must realise that we cannot bend the word of God to say whatever we want it to say. This goes both ways, I think. Like people trying to bend the verse about it easier for a camel to get through an eye of a needle than a rich man getting into heaven.
I remember stories about Jesus getting cross with the temple being full of money and the religious leaders acting pious while making up hard and harsh rules for everyone else to follow (not so much themselves). Is it a relevant story for today? lsn’t it really sad and far from following commandments if the church gets into the judging others and condemnation business? don’t think it was ever supposed to be about big theatres, big money, politics, professional music and plenty of prison time for plenty of sinners. Hadn’t it better get back very urgently to what Jesus actually said to do?
Yes, that story is still relevant. But the Church must stand up for all injustice. Including if it means that children are being killed. In the same way we should stand against the destruction of the earth through climate change, black people being unjustly killed by American police, dying due to lack of healthcare, etc
The Bible literally gives instructions for abortions. Numbers 5:11-31. It has no moral issues with terminating a fetus, doesn’t call a fetus a person, doesn’t call it murder.
None of your quoted examples negate the Bible’s explicit support of abortion in this passage.
Even if the Bible did think fetuses were live humans, it also explicitly supports parents murdering their kids. Including the story of Abraham, and God killing Jesus. It’s totally cool with the Bible to kill kids, if the kid belongs to you and you get the vibe “God” wants it. God does it a LOT. Sacrificing your kid for war is considered pretty standard in the Bible as well.
I’m sorry but… what?
Numbers 5:11-31 ESV
[11] And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, [12] “Speak to the people of Israel, If any man’s wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, [13] if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her, since she was not taken in the act, [14] and if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife who has defiled herself, or if the spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife, though she has not defiled herself, [15] then the man shall bring his wife to the priest and bring the offering required of her, a tenth of an ephah of barley flour. He shall pour no oil on it and put no frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of remembrance, bringing iniquity to remembrance. [16] “And the priest shall bring her near and set her before the Lord. [17] And the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. [18] And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord and unbind the hair of the woman’s head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. [19] Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband’s authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse. [20] But if you have gone astray, though you are under your husband’s authority, and if you have defiled yourself, and some man other than your husband has lain with you, [21] then’ (let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse, and say to the woman) ‘the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell. [22] May this water that brings the curse pass into your bowels and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.’ And the woman shall say, ‘Amen, Amen.’ [23] “Then the priest shall write these curses in a book and wash them off into the water of bitterness. [24] And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain. [25] And the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand and shall wave the grain offering before the Lord and bring it to the altar. [26] And the priest shall take a handful of the grain offering, as its memorial portion, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. [27] And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people. [28] But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children. [29] “This is the law in cases of jealousy, when a wife, though under her husband’s authority, goes astray and defiles herself, [30] or when the spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife. Then he shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall carry out for her all this law. [31] The man shall be free from iniquity, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.”
There’s absolutely no mention of abortion here- in fact, verse 28 makes it clear that she “shall be free to conceive”, so it shows that she wasn’t even pregnant to begin with. It’s clearly talking about a woman becoming infertile if she cheats on her husband, and nothing to do with an abortion or terminating a pregnancy. I don’t know what conclusions you jumped to in order to even think this was about abortion
Also - parents murdering their kids - you realised that God explicitly stopped Abraham from murdering Isaac? It was about if he’d remain faithful to God even after his prayer is answered. God did NOT want Isaac to die, thus he provided a sacrificial ram.
With Jesus - Jesus wasn’t merely a human kid - Jesus is God himself. Jesus is the same God who created the earth and everything in it. Jesus is the same God that we betrayed. Yet He died for us. What Abraham sacrificed was merely a ram, while God sacrificed Himself for us. Because God is perfectly merciful. He made the perfect sacrifice for what WE did. He lived the life we should have lived and died the death that we deserved. You cannot see this story and sum it up in “god supports us killing our kids”
What a bad translation, almost like it was deliberately translated badly. “Thigh fall away,” lmfao what nonsense. Btw in the quoted text below, when they say “impure,” “impurity,” they mean pregnancy.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers 5%3A11-31&version=NIV
‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest.
Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.
22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
For the last 2 points - so you admit killing your own kid for God is seen as a virtue in the Bible, so much so that the 2 most important sons, Abraham and Jesus, both go through an event involving a parent killing them. And then there’s literally dozens of events in tbe Bible of God killing kids. God loves child murder.
I’m sorry… Am I reading this correctly?
Did you just say the ESV was a bad translation and just cite the… NIV???
Either you are really stupid or you HAVE to be a troll. If it’s the former, the NIV is notoriously a bad translation, with it’s main aim being to simplify the text with the translator’s own interpretation. The benefit is that it’s easier to read, but that’s it. The NIV is the only translation which uses the term miscarry. Even the NRSV, a secular translation, says
Let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman—“the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge;
“thigh” is a euphemism for womb. That’s well known. So “womb” is a valid translation even though literally it says “thigh”. But it’s still clearly talking about a non pregnant woman becoming infertile. And the fact that the only thing you can use to justify your point is the NIV translation of it which shows you have no point at all
[21] וְהִשְׁבִּ֨יעַ הַכֹּהֵ֥ן אֶֽת־הָֽאִשָּׁה֮ בִּשְׁבֻעַ֣ת הָאָלָה֒ וְאָמַ֤ר הַכֹּהֵן֙ לָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה יִתֵּ֨ן יְהוָ֥ה אוֹתָ֛ךְ לְאָלָ֥ה וְלִשְׁבֻעָ֖ה בְּת֣וֹךְ עַמֵּ֑ךְ בְּתֵ֨ת יְהוָ֤ה אֶת־יְרֵכֵךְ֙ נֹפֶ֔לֶת וְאֶת־בִּטְנֵ֖ךְ צָבָֽה׃
Still nothing here implying the miscarriage, and this is the Westminster Leningrad Codex. Is the Hebrew a bad translation, too? 🤣
For your last “rebuttal”, you forgot again that Jesus is God - He sacrificed Himself for all of humanity. Abraham was following God and didn’t sacrifice his son. The point was his loyalty- not the child sacrifice. Nothing’s virtuous about it.
For the party of “small government”, they sure like getting in people’s business.
So small of government that it fits right in your uterus.
What is going on here? The laws came into place in September 2021, but mortality was already climbing from 2019-2021. What was going on those years to cause this? Then a sharp decline in mortality between 2021 and 2022 for two of the three groups.
Lockdown - domestic violence peaked during those years as well. Abusive men often use birth/pregnancy to abuse their partners, because they feel like their partner is obligated to be with them now that they share a child. There can also be some jealousy issues from the man towards the baby or the wife, since they get special treatment especially during pregnancy and right after.
So you’ll see more stuff like deliberate poisoning (including sneakily feeding foods unsafe for pregnant women), beatings, rape. They will also delay or deny medical treatment.
Oh actually, that’s probably a big reason too - people stopped going to the doctor during those years because we were told not to. It was too busy and overwhelmed. We were told you’d get covid and miscarry if you went in to the doctor also. Prenatal care is HUGE for preventing deaths during birth. My guess is a combo of factors.
Removed by mod
You’d be delusional to think there wasn’t. Everybody was cooped up and stir crazy. Nobody was seeing friends, coworkers, teachers etc face-to-face. Ya know. People who would notice a black eye or a bruised arm. Possibly even mandatory reporters.
Not to mention that one of the first things most prenatal care centers will do (at least any decent one) is take the woman into another room, without her partner, and ask if they are safe. That doesn’t work so well over a telehealth appointment.
Abuse absolutely went up. The lowest estimates I’d seen were like 8%. Pregnant women can only fall down so many flights of stairs before fetuses start dying.
It’s well known, like really widely reported and known, that abuse towards children and partners went up during the pandemic. It’s also well documented that abusers use pregnancy to amp up their abuse. But you know, if you had done the basics to look this up before you commented, you wouldn’t have been able to call me delusional (misogynistic insult). Here, my girl brain did it for you, since it was too hard for you:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11345045/
Covid-19 created circumstances and measures that increased the risk and incidence of DV/IPV in pregnant women, which led to a higher prevalence of the phenomenon.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9582712/
Incidents of domestic violence increased in response to stay-at-home/lockdown orders, a finding that is based on several studies from different cities, states, and several countries around the world.
Since the outbreak of COVID-19, emerging data and reports from those on the front lines, have shown that all types of violence against women and girls, particularly domestic violence, has intensified.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_on_domestic_violence
Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries reported an increase in domestic violence and intimate partner violence.[1] United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, noting the “horrifying global surge”, called for a domestic violence “ceasefire”.[2][3] UN Women stated that COVID-19 created “conditions for abuse that are ideal for abusers because it forced people into lockdown” thus causing a “shadow pandemic” that exacerbated preexisting issues with domestic violence globally.
The researchers noted the decrease in reported domestic violence contrasted with increases in reported firearm domestic violence.
They point out that the results may reflect a decrease in reporting due to barriers from the pandemic rather than an actual decrease in domestic violence. For example, during the lockdown, it may have been harder for those experiencing domestic violence to report to law enforcement because they were confined with a perpetrator who was monitoring their communications.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10378456/
The increase in cases of IVP against pregnant women during the pandemic was striking, according to the current study
20/21 was also peak Covid, so could be connected.
I really wish the article talked about those years rather than just comparing 2019 to 2022, given that 2022 is a drop compared to 2021. Or if the article had showed the same chart with national data of those same years 2019-2022 for a good compare and contrast visual to show the national mortality rate climb and then post-Covid drop. As it is, the law goes into place and then mortality rate drops, which could easily be a talking point in its favor, even if it may be a deceptive point. By not addressing that, and instead glossing over the article seems incomplete.
Defunding of women’s health programs such as planned parenthood started long before the actual ban
But then overall mortality went down in 2022 compared to 2021?
Covid was going down by then I think.
The comment I replied to said the spike was due to woman’s programs being defunded. I don’t know if it was that, or covid, or something else. Right now it appears everyone is speculating the reason. Some detail, specifically some from the article would have been helpful. In its face, the article is blaming a 2021 law for a rise in mortality between 2019-2022, despite the mortality rate declining overall after the law went into effect. I don’t think that’s the whole story, but the article seems to gloss over it.
According to the cdc website pretty much everywhere in the u.s. went up during 2020-2021 and things started coming down 2022-2023. In fact it looks like the average across the u.s. was pretty much back to “normal” by 2023. But what we see here is that while things declined again for TX in 2022, they still remain quite elevated above 2019 while the u.s. average went back to pre-pandemic average, which would tell me that something else is going on in TX unrelated to the pandemic.
For a more interesting question, why did it go down for everyone except white women, and increased for white women? That’s weird enough that it feels like there’s a reason, but I have no clue what it might be.
Because it’s got nothing to do with abortion.
Elaborate.
This graph is useless without a source. We don’t know how the data was collected or how many data points are included (or discarded). This is probably just lying with statistics 101.
Lolll read the article
Oh I didn’t realize it was from the article because there is no source!
I mean most people are guilty of trying to discuss a topic based on the post title. But if you want to throw shade you should check your work.
“Well then I guess you shuttle have learned to keep your legs shut!”
- my most angry and outspoken conservative relatives and acquaintances, always bringing the subtlety and shades of grey.
Saving the Life of Mothers is NOT Pro Life LIBTARDS!
I’ve literally heard religious people say that women are supposed to be willing to die for their babies. If a woman wants to live and aborts a septic pregnancy she’s a bad, immoral person.
It’s super fucked up how much conviction they have when they say it too. Women are basically just a disposable womb to them. I always feel gross when I’m near someone saying that kind of shit.
