Cute. These states don't provide health care to the mother pre-delivery, the mother/child post-delivery or any post-natal care. It's great to care for things that are not physical, but pretty sad not caring about anything once it actually exists.
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.