Abortion deserts: America’s new geography of access to care – mapped
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Also, the map of states that ban abortion also includes states that have only proposed late-term bans. So it's doubly not representative of the a typical procedure.
Every argument used to justify slavery is being used to justify abortion. "It's my property; they're not human; they're inferior;" etc etc.
I've mentioned before that I opted for a vasectomy after my spouse and I had enough children (one, in our case, is enough). It's a relative luxury to have access to that surgery, and I'm thankful it is an option. How would it feel if it were an illegal procedure? Or if it were mandated?
Whether or not I ejaculate sperm is nowhere close to the risk of dying in childbirth, or carrying to term a child of a rapist, or giving birth to a child the parent(s) will not be able to properly care for, for whatever reason. I write this to suggest you let go of attempts to control what is reasonably beyond your control. That may be uncomfortable, and that's okay.
When I was in Japan someone told me about the Shinto perspective of souls, something like "if it's not time for that particular soul to inhabit a body, it just gets back in line for another opportunity." This perspective helps me relax a bit about abortion and thinking I should do anything other than promote public money go to organizations like Planned Parenthood (which does far more for people's health than carry out abortions) and keep abortion legal (where to draw the line on how many weeks is not for me to decide).
If you find death and killing an interesting and thrilling topic, I suggest reading On killing : the psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society, by Lt Col Dave Grossman [0]. Fighting and killing each other and other animals is something we all (generally speaking) have access to and can reasonably weigh in on. It is uncomfortable to me how much money and resources we (I'm in the USA) spend on the military (and I served awhile, honorably discharged, blah blah), and I accept we'll keep fighting wars for a long time. Per Gandalf's admonition to Frodo about wishing Bilbo had killed Gollum in the tunnels when he'd had the chance, I don't like the death penalty. I like the banishment option that the Lakota (I think? And likely many other cultures) used, though now we can find belonging online. In some ways I miss the pre-internet days where it was important to get to know one's physical neighbors, regardless of their politics (I make a point to talk with all my neighbors, and sometimes this means we just talk about the weather, and that's fine).
[0] https://www.worldcat.org/title/on-killing-the-psychological-...
Are you implying that fetuses don't exist, aren't physical, or that they just aren't human? Or alive?
The care argument is orthogonal to the topic of not killing fetuses. It's like saying we should all pitch in to help execute x minority of people because their families don't also have y and z benefits from the government. Would you say we can spend the public's money to end human life on grounds that we're not also giving enough money to mothers who by and large chose to create the child (you know, by being sexually irresponsible)?
I also feel sorry for those women who did try to do the right thing but nonetheless got pregnant, who will now be forced to take massive bills on because the states forcing them to give birth fail to provide the most basic care.
The before you get to the women who get pregnancy that puts the mother's life at risk, or who gets a cancer diagnosis and now can't get treated because it would cause an abortion, and of course the children raped by priests.
In terms of being "sexually irresponsible", the states that a pro-controlling-women generally provide at best inaccurate safe sex information. It's been well established in numerous countries at this point that stop abortion is achieved by comprehensive sex ed (which also cuts STDs/STIs, a variety of cancers, ..) and easy access to birth control.
But again, these states have all declared that they care mostly about forcing women to have babies, and not at all about reducing abortion.
Of course the changes these states are planning on will increase the number of people who die during abortions, increase the amount of poverty, and won't stop abortions among the rich in those states because they can always easily fly a neighboring state that respects women's rights.
While the conservative states still let women travel without chaperones of course.
Science (and God) would disagree with you there, but I suppose you're entitled to your own opinion – wrong and barbaric as it may be.
Don't have to. He's been pretty clear about it already (bible, modern prophets, etc).
If faith isn't your thing, science confirms the living humanity of the human fetus. Most of us also have an innate sense that killing one of our own is wrong, full stop. No amount of social or political rhetoric added to the conversation ("but health care...", "my rights...", etc) will change the fact that it's wrong.
No amount of your nonsense will make forcing a medical procedure on someone, for profit no less, is wrong. I could also save peoples lives by harvesting organs from people, why should I not be able to require that life saving operation?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference...
Yeah, think I'll pass on that one.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205%3A1...
HN is a sausage fest, which is why you get these male insular views here, but the majority of university graduates are now women. Your attitude is an impediment to recruiting them.
If you doubt that this guy is harmful to the workplace environment, keep reading down this thread.
EDIT: I'm out of quota, here's my reply: We're disagreeing on the interpretation of human rights. You can't just assert that your interpretation is axiomatically right and the opposition can't possibly disagree with you, that's not how any of this works. We're arguing that you want to make murder legal, you can't just assert that it's not murder axiomatically. That's not a reasonable argument. Furthermore sodomy and immigration aren't enumerated in the Bill of Rights, I'm not sure where you got the idea that they were. This isn't a subversion of the Supreme court, this is it doing its job.
The fact that conservative states have a stated goal of removing rights from women, PoC, LGBTQ, and immigrants in the US is what makes their intentional subversion of the Supreme Court so horrific.
I’m no great fan of conservative politics, but this has no basis in fact.
The conservative states have spent the last 50+ years trying to remove women's rights, they've repeatedly created "voter id" laws designed to prevent PoC from being able to vote, they're already - today - passing laws to allow schools to discriminate against and even bully LGBT kids, and they have aggressively restricted freedom of immigrants whenever they are given the opportunity.
Holding up the occasional example of a minority who's actually done well, doesn't somehow undo the intentional assault on rights of people.
The intentional subversion of the Supreme Court is also very clear. They deliberately blocked confirmation hearings for almost a year, and then replaced 3 justices, including a liberal one in what 2 weeks? just before the election, with extremely conservative ones.
The Supreme Court now consists of an array of extremely conservative justices who were chosen for the primary purpose of revoking Roe v Wade, and from the draft it appears also the marriage equality rulings too as well. We know that they were selected for these specific purposes, because they lied under oath during their confirmations.
^"Delegation" isn't really the right word since all of the Federal Government's power is delegated from the states to begin with. The point is that SCOTUS has (rightly) pointed out that regulating abortion is not among the powers delegated to the Federal Government. I feel like that bit of nuance might be lost on many of the people I'm arguing with here though.
Are companies going to release any product that might cause anything to happen to said non viable fetus? That rules out alcohol, smoking, various drugs, …. No sports, violent rides, preggers are going to be damned near cocooned. And does this liability end at the instant of birth or does it carry on once birth has occurred? If you permit malnutrition, is this a legal risk?