The Freedom Caucus is formally asking Biden to resign, which again will not age well when they will not hold Trump accountable for January 6th. Bad move that will only work to fire up the base, but continue to alienate them from independents who see them as just power hungry with no real character beyond that.

If it were Trump they'd be saying all the bad stuff on the news is fake because the lamestream liberals are trying to make them look bad. Hypocrisy at its finest. I would expect nothing less.

Tremendous speech by Biden today. When he said he would protect our troops, he meant it.

It's weird that it seems like half the people are pro-choice for abortions but anti-choice for vaccines, and the other half are pro-choice for vaccines but anti-choice for abortions. I guess everyone is a hypocrite.

Incomparable

Abortions are between a woman and her fetus, while vaccines effect an entire community of large groups choose not to participate

It’s less anti-choice and more choices have consequences (a concept republicans do not believe in.) If anything, refusing to get the vaccine is like giving birth instead of getting an abortion. An abortion only effects you and the child, while birth will spawn a little monster that could do any number of things to our society.

Lol

There is obviously ways to wriggle out of it on both sides. Personally I have the same view of Texas that when the fetus heart is beating it's now living.

vaccine status affects the greater good, abortion is up to individual

When did every decision have to become for the "greater good"? If people were true utilitarians they would give their paycheques to starving people, or they would harvest their baby's organs to save 8 other ones, but we don't demand that of them, because utilitarianism doesn't work. Giving money to a starving person in another country helps them for some time, but living in a culture where they are allowed to dream about having their own financial growth they wouldn't have to give away when they get it, motivates them to get out of poverty. This is obviously beside the point of abortion but it seems to me many people on the left has this sacrifice for the community type of thinking and do not consider that individualism can lead to greater net results and the results suggest it works better.

14 year old Susie shouldn't have to carry and have the child of grandpa Joe who raped her while her parents were away. He then threatened to beat her if she ever told anyone. Not only is she incapable of making such a decision at that age, but even assuming she managed to get over such a traumatic event, her life is forever going to be connected to this rape by either the family keeping the child (a visible reminder) or by them giving it up. She'd always be thinking about the child, her first child, she had to let go.

21 year old Victoria shouldn't have to carry and have the child of one of the unknown number of college men that raped her at a party while she was intoxicated or unconscious. A year or two away from graduation, she'd have to put her studies aside and potentially damage her future forever. She'd be shunned as a slut by everyone on campus. And the family she and her boyfriend were waiting to begin after marriage would be over, especially so the boyfriend placed the blame on her for being raped and began abusing her.

40 year old Mary shouldn't have to carry and have the child of the rapist that attacked her on her way home from working two shifts to support her other two children that her ex ran out on. She works two low wage jobs and barely manages to get by as is, even with the awful so-called "support' the government gives her. Having this unplanned child would mean she'd likely lose one or both of her jobs due to no/limited maternity leave time or money (assuming she wasn't already fired for not being physically capable of actually doing the jobs later in the pregnancy). She and the other two children, as well as this unplanned baby, would end up starving, probably on the street somewhere because she fled her abusive father when she turned 18 and has no family to turn to. Sure, she can let it go after she gives birth, but you don't just "let go." Such a decision isn't that simple.

Long story short... abortion needs to remain legal in most/all cases because of evil fucks in the world. Aside from a few, men and women alike, who abuse it, the vast majority of women are not considering abortion just because they "don't want it." I've hardly ever met any women who don't adore children. A woman choosing to have an abortion is going to be a devastating decision that they believe is the right choice for them and the child. They KNOW they're potentially ending a life. They KNOW they'll receive backlash among many in society who will never understand how devastating the decision was for her.

The whole question depends on when you think the baby is alive

100% of people agree 14 year old Suzie, 21 year old Victoria or 40 year old Mary isn't allowed to kill a newborn obviously. So the main difference between that scenario and aborting a fetus depends on when you think it is alive, which is nearly an impossible question to answer due to it being philosophy not science, and there are parts of the constitution that would support either argument. The court in texas determined it's alive at 6-7 weeks whereas pro choice people think it's not.

I would argue the claim that 8 month fetuses are more alive than 8 week ones because it could survive outside the womb is flawed, it would not last very much longer outside the womb without immediate help, nor would a full term newborn for that matter.

Since people are so split it seems reasonable to me that states where there are more pro life people than pro choice presumably would go with a rule like Texas, while states with more pro choice people such as California would go with that route. I favor the view that heartbeat and brainwaves are best way to determine both life and death, but if someone believes you aren't alive until your birth, or the opposite that life begins at conception, or that they can survive outside the womb, I can't say with certainty that either is wrong. There are too many pro life people in congress to pass the federal legislation banning it so to me that suggests it shouldn't be banned federally.

The Texas law goes well beyond determining when life begins. It's clearly an attack on abortion and women's rights in general.

Private citizens can legally sue anyone who assists someone in having an abortion (which is legal). Not just doctors, but even Uber drivers are subject to being sued now for simply driving a woman to an abortion clinic. I'm guessing it needs to be proved the passenger had an abortion for such a case to proceed, but Jesus Christ is this such an invasion of privacy at BEST, and a clear assault on the system.

But going back to the timeframe, 3-4 weeks is as early as most women will even begin to suspect they're pregnant, even with blood work that is rarely done at this stage. And for some, it's longer because bodies are different. (Who knew? Most men don't apparently). And you have to wait at least 6-8 weeks (the cutoff of this Texas bill) to ever get an ultrasound. They're giving the average woman maybe 1 week between knowing they're pregnant, determining the status of the pregnancy, and then deciding what to do about it. A parent has a longer time period in selecting the photo of their child they want in the yearbook.

Look, no one LIKES abortion. It's a tragic last resort option for the vast majority of people. But it's a necessary safeguard that needs to be in place because of other tragic events. Personally, I'm fine with making some restrictions (8 months, for example, is really late and the decision should have been made well before then), but it's also not my decision.

And this Texas law, in particular, is far too restricting and outright punishing.

Rape and incest aren't even exceptions. So in Texas, a father could rape his daughter, and if another family member (or anyone) assisted her in getting an abortion, the father can legally have a friend SUE them now. The rape victim and any help she receives are the ones at fault. And you know there are sickos out there who will indeed be raping their daughters, nieces or whoever now and threaten to sue them if said girl/woman and anyone who assists her in getting an abortion since it's legal for them to do so. Seriously WTF.

Did Biden get abortion? I thought at his age he cannot get pregnant...

1. Less than 1% of pregnancies are due to rape
2, Even if a pregnancy is due to rape, if you believe
a)abortion is wrong because it kills a baby
b) babies conceived in rape are still babies
it is illogical to make exceptions due to the circumstance of the pregnancy when the reason abortion is wrong is because it kills a baby.

The only argument that makes sense for "abortion" would be to save the life of the mother and even in this case, it is never necessary for the doctor to outright vaccuum up the baby, or tear it limb from limb. "Abortion" in that case should be giving the mother preference, not outright murdering the baby for the mothers sake.

And the argument that abortion is up to the individual but vaccination is not is ridiculous. Abortion affects everyone because it affects which humans are allowed to live and which are not, vaccination does make you less likely to spread the disease for sure, but if you yourself are vaccinated your chances of a severe case of covid are statistically insignificant, even if you test positive. So while it could be "for the greater good" to have less covid spread, the real way to prevent people from dying is for THEM to get vaccinated. This is coming from a very pro vaccine, vaccinated person who tells all his friends to get the vaccine

They do give a part of their paycheck to others. They can't give the whole thing to them because then they'd be homeless and unable to an earn income to contribute to anything.



Americans, 99.999999%, promotes individual. As the brilliant Adam Smith once said, "individual ambition serves the common good".

Unless its an individual ambition to commit mass murder. Or mass infection. Or an abortion when the pregnancy is absurd or dangerous, "never should have happened/won't end well" cases. Hellen Keller could maker the differentiation, so odd to see much more educated struggle with something so simple.

Whether you’re pro-choice or pro-life-until-the-child-gets-shot-in-school , this hotline thing where people are paid money to snitch on their fellow citizens is dystopian and further proves that Republicans want to make our country more like China and Russia.

Also, the only reason this is allowed to stand is because the majority Catholic (despite being a minority in the country) supreme court has refused to take it up. This is because the court in unbalanced, this is because the Republicans stole a seat. Their scummy tactics are constantly rewarded.

Let's say you were have an unplanned pregnancy, be it rape or birth control fail. You're going to decide to carry it based on your response. So answer these questions:

This isn't a post to attack or call you out or anything of the sort. I'm genuinely curious how you'd react/respond in these situations. But don't reply if you don't want to either.

Q1: What if a doctor said your life could be at risk at any point in the pregnancy? And if not your life, the life of the baby is at risk, and will likely experience complications in life that require expensive medical care, treatments, and near constant supervision throughout most of their life? Are you in a position to drop what you're doing and take care of this child? You're in college, yes? And I think you have a job. So just let me know what you'd do.

(I know a YouTuber (TheJWittz) who had a baby this past spring. Unfortunately, their newborn had to be placed in NICU for about one week I believe. The baby survived, thankfully. However, they received an $80,000 medical bill after their insurance only covered $20,000 (or 20%) of the original $100,000 bill. They already pay $1,200 a month for this insurance because America's health care system is broken. Yes, a life is priceless. Unfortunately, such a bill is crippling to the majority of Americans due to ridiculous medical costs, and it can impact their lives for a very, very long time.)

Q2: What if your employer said you couldn't have maternity leave, or if you did receive it, it was for unpaid for just 6 weeks? Can you afford to give up your job, take a break from college, if you needed to for your child? You might be lucky enough to have family to help you care for a newborn, but not everyone does. (I know a woman who is only getting 6 weeks of unpaid maternity leave in a few months. She's married and the baby was planned and everything, and her husband can take care of the baby at home. But not everyone is as prepared).

Q3: You decide that you're NOT in a position to care for this child, so you decide along the way to prepare to let it go via an adoption agency or other channel. Are you really okay with giving up your child? Would you be prepared mentally? Would you be ready for one day years down the road to be contacted by this child, perhaps as late as adulthood now? It's easier than ever for relinquished children to find and contact their birth mother/parents. Check out this reddit thread if interested in this particular question: https://www.reddit.com/r/birthparents/c ... _not_want/

Obviously this question cannot be answered by anyone but the mother of the child or those that have had similar problems. It's not a position one can simply put themselves in. Sometimes a reunion between a birth mother and their relinquished child can be a healthy enough relationship. Sometimes it causes one or both to have real mental health issues all throughout their lives that can lead down a very dark path where resentment takes control. But for the sake of this question, try if you're willing to answer.

You could argue women's lives are technically AT RISK of dying from any sort of pregnancy. I think that if a woman determines with her doctor that they must induce labor early to save the mothers life that is fine, but they should try to save the baby once its born, even if it is say only three months. I am graduated from college, I do have a job with very good health insurance where I only get $120 or so taken from my paycheck. No idea how much my insurance would cover NICU costs. Anyway I think that if medical bills are a worry for a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy she should give it up for adoption and most agencies will have the adoptive parents cover all your medical bills. If I wanted the child I would do anyhting to save it. If I did not want it I would give it up for adoption.


Again, I think if you want a child you make it work somehow. If money is that much of an issue you can give the child up for adoption.

[/quote]

Of course I would much rather my child be raised by someone who can afford to give them a good life rather than murder it. I would probably opt for an open adoption, that has worked out beautifully for my sister, her adopted daughter's birth grandparents visit all the time.

All of your questions have the premise that it is easier on the conscience to murder your baby than to allow a financially better off person to raise it. Which is a ridiculous premise, IMO.

I know impoverished people with 4 or more kids. If you want a kid you come by the finances. If you cannot, there are 32 couples waiting for every baby placed for adoption..

IMO, both Zwackerm and Corpse make valid arguments in terms of the pros and cons of abortion.

But what it comes down to for me is, why should a woman just not have the same choice on it as on other frivolous matters?

If the baby can't survive outside of the womb after 20 weeks, what's the difference in cutting of the potential life deliberately till that point or not?

Children can't survive without their parents help, should it be legal to kill children that are born because they're dependent on the parents?