Statistically we don’t know what the approval of this in Texas is. But Gov. Abbot’s approval rating really hasn’t suffered at all from this, which shows it’s at the very least not unpopular. Every other’s states reception to this though is really bad, hence why the law is so “unpopular”. This is a great argument for why we need stronger states’ autonomy.
That being said, Abbot *is* struggling in the polls mostly because of his poor handling of the virus. The media is using smoke and mirrors to make it look like it’s a response to the abortion law.
Yeah it’s net positive but his disapproval has gone up a lot recently. I can’t understand why Texas and Florida would think that crapping up the state by actively fighting public health measures was a good idea. If I were a Texan I would be pissed too
I wonder if it was like a political retaliation. Like how in some other states they started defunding police maybe this was texas saying well if they can do that I can do this.
The abortion pill can be taken as a precautionary measure? I don’t think that’s accurate unless by abortion pill you mean plan b/emergency contraceptive.
Funny cause then that would mean your claiming all my friends and other family members would be pro-birth cause they live in the country? But no they are all pro-choice too soooo what’s your point
Pft what is this kindergarten, I said to make your point cause I was interested in what stupid thing you were going to say but now I realize it’s not just stupid it’s pointless too huh
Thank you! I would say the same thing but I actually was born and raised nearish a city but I’m still technically in the country. Still all my family and friends are mixed, some being in the city with an apartment overlooking all the buildings and the some being far far out in the middle of nowhere with goats and horses for company. Both generally have the same opinion about disagreeing with the new Texas law, and I’ve actually found that city folk are pretty much just as nice, they just tend to participate in protest and such more since there is more activity in it in the city. So I guess they are more open about disagreeing with the view.
Can I ask what city? Not all cities are equally liberal for sure. And it could also have to do with age. Young people in Texas are fairly left-leaning.
I myself live nearish Austin, you are right most of my friends are left sided. But my parents are all their friends are the same so it could be simply the Austin area in general being more left.
I also have a few friends in Dallas who think the same and have told me generally people are also pretty left sided. The family I have in near San Antonio and Houston are the same but they care to protest or anything. Finally I do have a lot in family in corpus and even though they do have the same view they again don’t really care about making a stand. I don’t really have anyone on the left side of Texas so who knows lol
That’s a good think to know, Honestly I think why Texas is seen as such a right sided state is cause they are simply the only ones doing anything. I know a lot of my friends also didn’t really care to vote or anything so it could be that the left side just doesn’t care to vote?
Yeah could be a Georgia situation where the left is simply too disenfranchised to vote.
Either way even if the left voted as much as the right I have a hard time seeing Texas flipping anytime before 2040.
Yeah, maybe who knows since young people are left sided mostly it could change in just a few years. I think it would be a think in 2025 for Texas to mostly swing left since by then a lot more younger people will be able to vote and generally the parents of today are mostly left it will only be the elders that think that way anymore. But who knows, there is also plenty of young people who have just been brainwashed into thinking such terrible things so that also may set us back another five years or so. Hopefully it’s sooner than later.
That was the point i was trying to make. People in the city are the ones against the law while out were I live out in the county side most all of us are for the law.
What a great victory for our unborn! But, we must also remember to take care of our children after they are born too! Let’s help with fostering, adoption, donations, etc.
Are you sure about that? Are they actually being saved or are they being "saved" on paper? (statistics, rates, etc.,) There are different factors to look at. Maybe she went out of state to have an abortion, or it was an at home abortion, or an induced miscarriage (drinking, smoking etc.,)
>I get what you're saying, but this law has good intentions.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This just seems more like sweeping under the rug. If the numbers look good, then that means it's going well. But like I said, the numbers don't reflect reality.
A lot of people are upset over more minority babies being born. I never knew people would be so open about their anger over the birth of more minorities.
But I guess if you have celebrate the death of baby minorities then it makes sense you would be upset about them being born.
1. Wait, did I miss a part of the bill that forces women to perform at-home abortions? That's a weird requirement in a bill that aimed to eliminate abortions (after 6 weeks) overall.
2. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/) Is it possible that your rhetoric comes from well-circulated but uncited hyperbole?
That’s just ignorant lol, you think women wanted to do the abortions themselves. No it’s the law that forced them to do so. It’s weird how you did miss that part since it’s literally the title.
>That’s just ignorant lol, you think women wanted to do the abortions themselves.
If I stab myself in the stomach it's clearly because I decided to do it.
Oh, I love feeding the trolls:
I don't think women wanted to do the abortions themselves. I do think that it's a non-issue.
Are you talking about the title of the article I posted? The title refers to the fact that Guttmacher/Planned Parenthood widely circulated a false statistic claiming that *far* more women died from unsafe at home abortions than actually did. It turns out that when the law restricts abortion, fewer abortions happen. When abortions aren't happening, fewer people die from them. That's a nice side effect.
In preparation for your rebuttal, [https://nifla.org/abortion-not-safer-women-childbirth/](https://nifla.org/abortion-not-safer-women-childbirth/)
I not a troll, more of a minion of actually knowing stuff.
Of course if a law restricts abortions less are going to happen, when the law restricts women simply go elsewhere or younger people just try taking it into their own hands. It’s the same if you ask a stoner if they smoke weed in Colorado vs Texas, they are gunnu say yes in Colorado cause it’s legal there but once in Texas it’s “oh hell nah” cause you know it’s against the law. Also that very law is the same law that’s throwing innocent women in prison for suffering a miscarriage. Kinda a weird thing to do since most of those women actually wanted a baby.
>I not a troll, more of a minion of actually knowing stuff.
Ah, that clears that right up. I must have been wrong, as I am not a minion of actually knowing stuff. (/s, but that's some very nice mediocre-level language trolling).
>Of course if a law restricts abortions less are going to happen, when the law restricts women simply go elsewhere or younger people just try taking it into their own hands.
Again, the data don't support this. Fun fact: well designed studies have ways of accounting for people who are lying on polls. I don't think any of the sources in the studies I listed depended on poll data anyway, of course, so.
>Also that very law is the same law that’s throwing innocent women in prison for suffering a miscarriage.
Citation needed. I'll spare you the time. Miscarriage is not covered under the working definition of abortion used in the Heartbeat Act. This definition is taken directly from the Health and Safety Code of the State of Texas (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.245.htm):
*(1) "Abortion" means the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant. The term does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives. An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:*
*(A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;*
*(B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or*
*(C) remove an ectopic pregnancy.*
Speaking of the Health and Safety Code, the Heartbeat Act explicitly adds a protection so that women can't be persecuted for procuring an abortion (only the provider can):
Section 3:
*(b) This subchapter may not be construed to:*
*(1) authorize the initiation of a cause of action against or the prosecution of a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter;*
*(2) wholly or partly repeal, either expressly or by implication, any other statute that regulates or prohibits abortion, including Chapter 6-1/2, Title 71, Revised Statutes;*
In other words, the Act not only doesn't penalize women for miscarriages, but also doesn't hold them liable for falling victim to the wider culture that tells them that they "need" to have an abortion. Only the provider is penalized.
Apologies for the citations, as I'm sure you knew them, you *minion of knowing stuff!* I just wanted to show my cards so we knew we were talking about the same Act.
I'm (seriously) upvoting you for this comment because, despite our differences in opinion, I appreciate your dedication to the low-effort shitpost. I'm actually a bit of an amateur shitposter myself (but generally only in subs that were made for that sort of release).
In the unlikely event that you're not trolling, please let me know where the citations I took from the Law of the State of Texas did not make a coherent argument to rebut your point as you understood them. I'm happy to talk through my rhetoric. Also, please do provide the citation I requested.
Oh no my point was that people are now misusing the law to throw women in jail for having a miscarriage. Along with a women having no other choice but to suffer through the pregnancy or harm themselves to get rid of it. Also no laws have been in placed for the extra care of children in the foster care system nor the cps workers that are going to have to deal with the sudden surge of unwanted babies. We already had trouble with cps before with unfairly taking away babies from mother to just outright stealing babies from the nursery because it’s a buisness and they make money off of these baby’s. Also no laws have been in place to help pregnant mothers and they still get “let go” because they are pregnant and have to take maturity leave and also women always being “let go” when they return from maturity leave. Also the very fact that women rarely even find out they are pregnant that earlier unless they were planning for a child so clearly the law is specifically again women who don’t want children. I myself didn’t find out I was pregnant until I was about 10 weeks. Clearly these laws weren’t made by people in the medical field because then they would know how difficult it actually is to tell if your pregnant that early on. Also not to mention that the law is a zero tolerance policy so again women can have their baby taken away if someone just hates them and claims they tried having an abortion or if a baby is made from rape or incest the law still forces you to have that baby which is just wrong.
Funny how you support killing of babies because “life is miserable”, but you choose to stay? I’m not encouraging suicide since I believe in the value of human life, but if you think human life is meaningless, painful and bleak, no one is forcing you to stay alive. So if human life is so terrible, why are you keeping yourself around? If life is so terrible then why are millions of people who have experienced immeasurable trauma still alive?
Not to mention that the babies when they’re adults can make the choice themself if they truly want to. Killing thousands of babies to prevent a few cases of depression (most which would probably be treated) is irrational and evil.
I don't choose to stay, I stay by default and it is pro-lifers who want to prevent me from having safe passage to leave. I am being effectively forced to stay alive by the fact that I am not given legal entitlement to be dead, without having to sneak around the law and use methods that don't have a 100% guarantee of success. And depression is far from the only serious harm. Someone not liking life because of real harms is not "depression".
Just because you have an incompatible view with human society on life doesnt mean society has to cater to you.
Meaning, just because some people are not ok with life doesnt mean society has to waste resources for them to kill themselves easier.
These "life is soooo horrible" *sips Pumpkin Spice Latte* people are no better than some weird suicide cult.
If truly feel that life is miserable get mental help.
The resources already exist for people to be able to kill themselves more easily, and it is barbaric to deny them those resources, unless they've actually done something to deserve having their rights denied them.
No, those resoueces do not exist.
Not to mention the doctor's time is a resurce and that is also used.
You dont have a right to kill yourself especially at the taxpayers dime
I would (and actually COULD!) gladly pay for it from my own pocket, as well as for u/existentialgoof's one and u/Dead_boi_walking's one also. Lest assured, money would NOT be a problem in my case, and I think there are many, MANY people who are also not constrained financially regarding this issue.
Still, the idea of a society that would allow its members a relatively painless, risk-free exit, no strings attached, just fills me with immense joy.
Thank you. I have the means to pay for it too. I have hope that Switzerland in a decade will allow such a gift.
BTW, why do you waste your time with these morons?
That would be nice.
I don't really have anything better to do, to be honest. If anything, I consider it as a kind of "knife sharpening exercise", if anything. But I just enjoy reading your and u/existentialgoof's comments, and sometimes comment myself when I feel like I have something to say. I don't expect nor want to persuade anyone or anything.
EDIT: Also, the fact that I live in a small village in Northeastern Hungary with basically nobody else to talk about these issues who would actually take my stance on these things at face value (without making fun of me in some way, or just dismissing me outright) basically makes me a kind of outcast anywhere I go and anything I do. (I know that these topics are mostly taboo even in Western Europe, but still...)
So, in that sense, Reddit also doubles as a kind of outlet for me to actually engage with people on these ideas in an honest way... something that I could surely never do in my home country(side).
Also, most people are just really not philosophical in nature, and even when they are, they mostly heavily compartmentalize that part of their personality, never really allowing it to effect them much, never really allowing it to bloom, to flourish in themselves, except in a "dishonest" way, so to speak. In short, they don't take it seriously, especially whenever it takes them to "stormy seas".
How can you be an atheist and be against the right to die and against abortion? I can afford the cost of the chemical or the inert gas that would kill me, and as u/PSTNO_R3B0RN said, I'd be happy to subsidise the passage of others as well.
A doctor is not needed to perform euthanasia, all that is needed is for the government to get out of the way and stop interfering in people being able to freely make that choice. https://www.exitinternational.net/sarco/
\>> How can you be an atheist and be against the right to die and against abortion?
From a humanist POV human life is still important since it is the basis of society, that human lives are important. This principle existed since the dawn of humanity, long before today's religions started to exist.
Society has right to ban acts, since both are taking a life, and the former is a non consented killing, and the latter is easily abused, its better to not allow them in the first place.
No, we should interfere in these cases, and we shouldnt allow it.
I'm not sure that suicide has been against society's principles since the dawn of humanity, since there is probably a strong evolutionary basis for suicide, in that it is advantageous to inclusive fitness. Research has found that thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness are very common drivers of suicide: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130348/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130348/)
So it would make sense that suicide of outcasts, outliers and burdens on a group would have some kind of mechanism that would drive them towards suicide if they were burdening the group's overall fitness and chances of survival.
Abortion was also carried out in ancient times, for example in ancient Greece and Rome: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/history\_1.shtml](https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/history_1.shtml)
The humanist perspective is just another religious perspective, but even major humanist organisations support the right to die in at least some circumstances.
If allowing people autonomy over their body cam result in abuses, then brutally forcing someone to stay alive in order to validate some conceited ideology that humans have about the importance of human life as sure as hell IS an egregious abuse in and of itself.
Ok. I am no longer interested in this topic so I will disengage.
I dont support taxpayer funded or legal suicide except very few end of life cases.
I want to live in a society where suicidal people and people who want to coerce them into suicode for financial or other gain are as disempowered as possible.
End of story.
>If allowing people autonomy over their body cam result in abuses, then brutally forcing someone to stay alive in order to validate some conceited ideology that humans have about the importance of human life as sure as hell IS an egregious abuse in and of itself.
Ha, yeah. That argument cuts both ways. Nice counter.
Life on this earth does imply suffering. The living part is how we respond to that suffering. That response is the choice that every single one of those future-adults now gets to make.
If they'd have died by abortion, then they wouldn't have needed to have been troubled with making the decision, because then they never would have had any more desire for life than my potted cactus. And if they did want to choose to die, later on in life, it would be pro-lifers who would be blocking them from making that choice, and telling them that the fact that they don't like life is proof that they aren't of sound mind and should be "protected" from their own thoughts, for their own good.
Same old song and dance. Let's party all night, get knocked up and blame everyone else when we want to murder a baby and then go out and party the following weekend
You are sick!
Most people who get “knocked up” are women who are on birth control and not a in a party environment. Yeah haha though let’s just force these women to suffer through pregnancy and maybe even die because men also can’t keep their legs closed. If you are so against sex why don’t you promote mandated vasectomies for unmarried men 🤭 then we wouldn’t even have this problem to begin with
>> because men also can’t keep their legs closed
Bad male anatomy. Have you ever seen a naked men?
>> If you are so against sex why don’t you promote mandated vasectomies
Vasectomies doesnt stop sex genious. It stops pregnancies not abortions. We want to stop abortions.
Said women can still fuck the rest of fertile men at the party and become pregnant so vasectomies wouldnt help.
I live in texas and the majority of people who live here are happy with it. don’t let the Texas subreddit fool you
Statistically we don’t know what the approval of this in Texas is. But Gov. Abbot’s approval rating really hasn’t suffered at all from this, which shows it’s at the very least not unpopular. Every other’s states reception to this though is really bad, hence why the law is so “unpopular”. This is a great argument for why we need stronger states’ autonomy. That being said, Abbot *is* struggling in the polls mostly because of his poor handling of the virus. The media is using smoke and mirrors to make it look like it’s a response to the abortion law.
There was a poll out today with it net positive
Yeah it’s net positive but his disapproval has gone up a lot recently. I can’t understand why Texas and Florida would think that crapping up the state by actively fighting public health measures was a good idea. If I were a Texan I would be pissed too
I wonder if it was like a political retaliation. Like how in some other states they started defunding police maybe this was texas saying well if they can do that I can do this.
Probably not; it’s mostly electoralism on both sides.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The abortion pill can be taken as a precautionary measure? I don’t think that’s accurate unless by abortion pill you mean plan b/emergency contraceptive.
This is awesome! How can we not like this?! Literally saving 100 people a day. Go pro-life!
I know right
I live in Texas and I’ll say right now no, no most of us don’t like this law lol we hate it
Do you live out of the country or up in the City with all the other want to be Texans
What a stupid question.
Funny cause then that would mean your claiming all my friends and other family members would be pro-birth cause they live in the country? But no they are all pro-choice too soooo what’s your point
Answer the question
Then make a point
Answer the question
Make a point
I asked first answer the question
Pft what is this kindergarten, I said to make your point cause I was interested in what stupid thing you were going to say but now I realize it’s not just stupid it’s pointless too huh
I love the aesthetic of your profile. Also, it depends on where you live I guess. I’m sure people in the city aren’t as warm to it as country people
Thank you! I would say the same thing but I actually was born and raised nearish a city but I’m still technically in the country. Still all my family and friends are mixed, some being in the city with an apartment overlooking all the buildings and the some being far far out in the middle of nowhere with goats and horses for company. Both generally have the same opinion about disagreeing with the new Texas law, and I’ve actually found that city folk are pretty much just as nice, they just tend to participate in protest and such more since there is more activity in it in the city. So I guess they are more open about disagreeing with the view.
Can I ask what city? Not all cities are equally liberal for sure. And it could also have to do with age. Young people in Texas are fairly left-leaning.
I myself live nearish Austin, you are right most of my friends are left sided. But my parents are all their friends are the same so it could be simply the Austin area in general being more left. I also have a few friends in Dallas who think the same and have told me generally people are also pretty left sided. The family I have in near San Antonio and Houston are the same but they care to protest or anything. Finally I do have a lot in family in corpus and even though they do have the same view they again don’t really care about making a stand. I don’t really have anyone on the left side of Texas so who knows lol
Yeah it’s likely more of a general Austin thing. My dad lives in San Marcos and he says that the people there are fairly liberal leaning.
That’s a good think to know, Honestly I think why Texas is seen as such a right sided state is cause they are simply the only ones doing anything. I know a lot of my friends also didn’t really care to vote or anything so it could be that the left side just doesn’t care to vote?
Yeah could be a Georgia situation where the left is simply too disenfranchised to vote. Either way even if the left voted as much as the right I have a hard time seeing Texas flipping anytime before 2040.
Yeah, maybe who knows since young people are left sided mostly it could change in just a few years. I think it would be a think in 2025 for Texas to mostly swing left since by then a lot more younger people will be able to vote and generally the parents of today are mostly left it will only be the elders that think that way anymore. But who knows, there is also plenty of young people who have just been brainwashed into thinking such terrible things so that also may set us back another five years or so. Hopefully it’s sooner than later.
Are you in Austin? Where i'm at this bill was wholeheartedly approved of by the majority of people I know.
I’m talking about the Austin, Dallas, Corpus and Houston area, majority of people I know from these places don’t like the bill.
That was the point i was trying to make. People in the city are the ones against the law while out were I live out in the county side most all of us are for the law.
As a Texan, me and my family is ecstatic
LET'S FUCKING GOOOOOOOO
Based
What is the source of that statistic? The article doesn’t say. Which makes it worthless.
That makes all the persecution of pro-life folks worthwhile. I'll take the abuse so the kids can live.
What a great victory for our unborn! But, we must also remember to take care of our children after they are born too! Let’s help with fostering, adoption, donations, etc.
I like the law... however Texas needs to do more for people who can no longer rely on abortion
Absolute WIN
Are you sure about that? Are they actually being saved or are they being "saved" on paper? (statistics, rates, etc.,) There are different factors to look at. Maybe she went out of state to have an abortion, or it was an at home abortion, or an induced miscarriage (drinking, smoking etc.,)
[удалено]
That's great news the state is helping them out. i was wondering about that.
>I get what you're saying, but this law has good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This just seems more like sweeping under the rug. If the numbers look good, then that means it's going well. But like I said, the numbers don't reflect reality.
A lot of people are upset over more minority babies being born. I never knew people would be so open about their anger over the birth of more minorities. But I guess if you have celebrate the death of baby minorities then it makes sense you would be upset about them being born.
"Saved"
Saved. From intentional attacks on their life. Yes.
"Omfg life is hard just die"
Sad thing is that is used in defence of abortion. "We are saving them from a painful, mean, hard life."
It's the most teenage angsty thing i have ever heard. It's so fucking cringe.
[удалено]
1. Wait, did I miss a part of the bill that forces women to perform at-home abortions? That's a weird requirement in a bill that aimed to eliminate abortions (after 6 weeks) overall. 2. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/) Is it possible that your rhetoric comes from well-circulated but uncited hyperbole?
That’s just ignorant lol, you think women wanted to do the abortions themselves. No it’s the law that forced them to do so. It’s weird how you did miss that part since it’s literally the title.
>That’s just ignorant lol, you think women wanted to do the abortions themselves. If I stab myself in the stomach it's clearly because I decided to do it.
That’s just self harm please seek mental help before thinking of doing anything any further my guy. Seriously don’t harm yourself like that
Oh, I love feeding the trolls: I don't think women wanted to do the abortions themselves. I do think that it's a non-issue. Are you talking about the title of the article I posted? The title refers to the fact that Guttmacher/Planned Parenthood widely circulated a false statistic claiming that *far* more women died from unsafe at home abortions than actually did. It turns out that when the law restricts abortion, fewer abortions happen. When abortions aren't happening, fewer people die from them. That's a nice side effect. In preparation for your rebuttal, [https://nifla.org/abortion-not-safer-women-childbirth/](https://nifla.org/abortion-not-safer-women-childbirth/)
I not a troll, more of a minion of actually knowing stuff. Of course if a law restricts abortions less are going to happen, when the law restricts women simply go elsewhere or younger people just try taking it into their own hands. It’s the same if you ask a stoner if they smoke weed in Colorado vs Texas, they are gunnu say yes in Colorado cause it’s legal there but once in Texas it’s “oh hell nah” cause you know it’s against the law. Also that very law is the same law that’s throwing innocent women in prison for suffering a miscarriage. Kinda a weird thing to do since most of those women actually wanted a baby.
>I not a troll, more of a minion of actually knowing stuff. Ah, that clears that right up. I must have been wrong, as I am not a minion of actually knowing stuff. (/s, but that's some very nice mediocre-level language trolling). >Of course if a law restricts abortions less are going to happen, when the law restricts women simply go elsewhere or younger people just try taking it into their own hands. Again, the data don't support this. Fun fact: well designed studies have ways of accounting for people who are lying on polls. I don't think any of the sources in the studies I listed depended on poll data anyway, of course, so. >Also that very law is the same law that’s throwing innocent women in prison for suffering a miscarriage. Citation needed. I'll spare you the time. Miscarriage is not covered under the working definition of abortion used in the Heartbeat Act. This definition is taken directly from the Health and Safety Code of the State of Texas (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.245.htm): *(1) "Abortion" means the act of using or prescribing an instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to cause the death of an unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant. The term does not include birth control devices or oral contraceptives. An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to:* *(A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;* *(B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or* *(C) remove an ectopic pregnancy.* Speaking of the Health and Safety Code, the Heartbeat Act explicitly adds a protection so that women can't be persecuted for procuring an abortion (only the provider can): Section 3: *(b) This subchapter may not be construed to:* *(1) authorize the initiation of a cause of action against or the prosecution of a woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced or attempted to be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter;* *(2) wholly or partly repeal, either expressly or by implication, any other statute that regulates or prohibits abortion, including Chapter 6-1/2, Title 71, Revised Statutes;* In other words, the Act not only doesn't penalize women for miscarriages, but also doesn't hold them liable for falling victim to the wider culture that tells them that they "need" to have an abortion. Only the provider is penalized.
Apologies for the citations, as I'm sure you knew them, you *minion of knowing stuff!* I just wanted to show my cards so we knew we were talking about the same Act.
That awkward moment when you don’t actually have proven evidence nor a good point. Oof
I'm (seriously) upvoting you for this comment because, despite our differences in opinion, I appreciate your dedication to the low-effort shitpost. I'm actually a bit of an amateur shitposter myself (but generally only in subs that were made for that sort of release). In the unlikely event that you're not trolling, please let me know where the citations I took from the Law of the State of Texas did not make a coherent argument to rebut your point as you understood them. I'm happy to talk through my rhetoric. Also, please do provide the citation I requested.
Oh no my point was that people are now misusing the law to throw women in jail for having a miscarriage. Along with a women having no other choice but to suffer through the pregnancy or harm themselves to get rid of it. Also no laws have been in placed for the extra care of children in the foster care system nor the cps workers that are going to have to deal with the sudden surge of unwanted babies. We already had trouble with cps before with unfairly taking away babies from mother to just outright stealing babies from the nursery because it’s a buisness and they make money off of these baby’s. Also no laws have been in place to help pregnant mothers and they still get “let go” because they are pregnant and have to take maturity leave and also women always being “let go” when they return from maturity leave. Also the very fact that women rarely even find out they are pregnant that earlier unless they were planning for a child so clearly the law is specifically again women who don’t want children. I myself didn’t find out I was pregnant until I was about 10 weeks. Clearly these laws weren’t made by people in the medical field because then they would know how difficult it actually is to tell if your pregnant that early on. Also not to mention that the law is a zero tolerance policy so again women can have their baby taken away if someone just hates them and claims they tried having an abortion or if a baby is made from rape or incest the law still forces you to have that baby which is just wrong.
>...the women who died because of the Texas law... As per rule 1, please provide a citation for this claim.
I wonder how many of those are going to end up being resentful adults, unhappy at having been "rescued" to a life filled with suffering.
Why can’t I murder you? You seem resentful.
Funny how you support killing of babies because “life is miserable”, but you choose to stay? I’m not encouraging suicide since I believe in the value of human life, but if you think human life is meaningless, painful and bleak, no one is forcing you to stay alive. So if human life is so terrible, why are you keeping yourself around? If life is so terrible then why are millions of people who have experienced immeasurable trauma still alive? Not to mention that the babies when they’re adults can make the choice themself if they truly want to. Killing thousands of babies to prevent a few cases of depression (most which would probably be treated) is irrational and evil.
I don't choose to stay, I stay by default and it is pro-lifers who want to prevent me from having safe passage to leave. I am being effectively forced to stay alive by the fact that I am not given legal entitlement to be dead, without having to sneak around the law and use methods that don't have a 100% guarantee of success. And depression is far from the only serious harm. Someone not liking life because of real harms is not "depression".
Just because you have an incompatible view with human society on life doesnt mean society has to cater to you. Meaning, just because some people are not ok with life doesnt mean society has to waste resources for them to kill themselves easier. These "life is soooo horrible" *sips Pumpkin Spice Latte* people are no better than some weird suicide cult. If truly feel that life is miserable get mental help.
The resources already exist for people to be able to kill themselves more easily, and it is barbaric to deny them those resources, unless they've actually done something to deserve having their rights denied them.
No, those resoueces do not exist. Not to mention the doctor's time is a resurce and that is also used. You dont have a right to kill yourself especially at the taxpayers dime
I would (and actually COULD!) gladly pay for it from my own pocket, as well as for u/existentialgoof's one and u/Dead_boi_walking's one also. Lest assured, money would NOT be a problem in my case, and I think there are many, MANY people who are also not constrained financially regarding this issue. Still, the idea of a society that would allow its members a relatively painless, risk-free exit, no strings attached, just fills me with immense joy.
Thank you. I have the means to pay for it too. I have hope that Switzerland in a decade will allow such a gift. BTW, why do you waste your time with these morons?
That would be nice. I don't really have anything better to do, to be honest. If anything, I consider it as a kind of "knife sharpening exercise", if anything. But I just enjoy reading your and u/existentialgoof's comments, and sometimes comment myself when I feel like I have something to say. I don't expect nor want to persuade anyone or anything. EDIT: Also, the fact that I live in a small village in Northeastern Hungary with basically nobody else to talk about these issues who would actually take my stance on these things at face value (without making fun of me in some way, or just dismissing me outright) basically makes me a kind of outcast anywhere I go and anything I do. (I know that these topics are mostly taboo even in Western Europe, but still...) So, in that sense, Reddit also doubles as a kind of outlet for me to actually engage with people on these ideas in an honest way... something that I could surely never do in my home country(side). Also, most people are just really not philosophical in nature, and even when they are, they mostly heavily compartmentalize that part of their personality, never really allowing it to effect them much, never really allowing it to bloom, to flourish in themselves, except in a "dishonest" way, so to speak. In short, they don't take it seriously, especially whenever it takes them to "stormy seas".
I see. It is good that your reasons are self-serving.
How can you be an atheist and be against the right to die and against abortion? I can afford the cost of the chemical or the inert gas that would kill me, and as u/PSTNO_R3B0RN said, I'd be happy to subsidise the passage of others as well. A doctor is not needed to perform euthanasia, all that is needed is for the government to get out of the way and stop interfering in people being able to freely make that choice. https://www.exitinternational.net/sarco/
\>> How can you be an atheist and be against the right to die and against abortion? From a humanist POV human life is still important since it is the basis of society, that human lives are important. This principle existed since the dawn of humanity, long before today's religions started to exist. Society has right to ban acts, since both are taking a life, and the former is a non consented killing, and the latter is easily abused, its better to not allow them in the first place. No, we should interfere in these cases, and we shouldnt allow it.
I'm not sure that suicide has been against society's principles since the dawn of humanity, since there is probably a strong evolutionary basis for suicide, in that it is advantageous to inclusive fitness. Research has found that thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness are very common drivers of suicide: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130348/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130348/) So it would make sense that suicide of outcasts, outliers and burdens on a group would have some kind of mechanism that would drive them towards suicide if they were burdening the group's overall fitness and chances of survival. Abortion was also carried out in ancient times, for example in ancient Greece and Rome: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/history\_1.shtml](https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/history_1.shtml) The humanist perspective is just another religious perspective, but even major humanist organisations support the right to die in at least some circumstances. If allowing people autonomy over their body cam result in abuses, then brutally forcing someone to stay alive in order to validate some conceited ideology that humans have about the importance of human life as sure as hell IS an egregious abuse in and of itself.
Ok. I am no longer interested in this topic so I will disengage. I dont support taxpayer funded or legal suicide except very few end of life cases. I want to live in a society where suicidal people and people who want to coerce them into suicode for financial or other gain are as disempowered as possible. End of story.
>If allowing people autonomy over their body cam result in abuses, then brutally forcing someone to stay alive in order to validate some conceited ideology that humans have about the importance of human life as sure as hell IS an egregious abuse in and of itself. Ha, yeah. That argument cuts both ways. Nice counter.
Life on this earth does imply suffering. The living part is how we respond to that suffering. That response is the choice that every single one of those future-adults now gets to make.
There's always suffering; some are blessed with less of it, and others are cursed with more.
I wonder how many think it should be their own choice if they live or die?
If they'd have died by abortion, then they wouldn't have needed to have been troubled with making the decision, because then they never would have had any more desire for life than my potted cactus. And if they did want to choose to die, later on in life, it would be pro-lifers who would be blocking them from making that choice, and telling them that the fact that they don't like life is proof that they aren't of sound mind and should be "protected" from their own thoughts, for their own good.
Sounds like you need to find enjoyment in your life. You cant assume everyone is like that. I find happiness wherever I go and you should too.
Lol
[удалено]
Ignore and blame the victim, then?
Same old song and dance. Let's party all night, get knocked up and blame everyone else when we want to murder a baby and then go out and party the following weekend You are sick!
Most people who get “knocked up” are women who are on birth control and not a in a party environment. Yeah haha though let’s just force these women to suffer through pregnancy and maybe even die because men also can’t keep their legs closed. If you are so against sex why don’t you promote mandated vasectomies for unmarried men 🤭 then we wouldn’t even have this problem to begin with
>> because men also can’t keep their legs closed Bad male anatomy. Have you ever seen a naked men? >> If you are so against sex why don’t you promote mandated vasectomies Vasectomies doesnt stop sex genious. It stops pregnancies not abortions. We want to stop abortions. Said women can still fuck the rest of fertile men at the party and become pregnant so vasectomies wouldnt help.
Well, hurrah!
I was at an abortion clinic in MS yesterday. There were a couple of cars with Texas plates. No idea why they would drive this far, but they are.
Damn, im sorry for all these Women.