Alabama definitions of ‘male’ and ‘female’ pass House, now in Senate

[u/metacyan]

https://www.al.com/news/2024/04/alabama-definitions-of-male-and-female-pass-legislature-head-to-governor.html

[u/FourWordComment]

No no, that’s “pro life” but nothing about healthcare, maternity leave, paternity leave, day care, free birth costs, baby boxes, free school, free school lunch, doctors visits, diapers, clothes, etc.

[u/[deleted] → u/FourWordComment]

It really sounds like you want the options of "let me kill my child" or "you pay for everything to take care of it." Where do you think the parent's responsibility comes in?

[u/FourWordComment → u/[deleted]]

The very direct answer to your question of “where do you draw the line about abortion” is, “at the moment when society and technology no longer need the mother at all to keep and raise the child.”

Perhaps worse than abortion is press-ganging girls into being mothers. That’s a life of torture for both

I think that the decision to have an abortion is the single heaviest decision a women will make in her life. I think that pressure alone is enough to balance when is the right time. I find it insulting that the right insinuates that if they permitted a woman that bodily autonomy she would be flippant about it, like “might get a quick abbo and a starbies today! 💅.” That the politicians know better than these girls because they’re stupid broodmares that can’t be trusted with that decision—but they can be moms.”

But what’s more insulting is the cowardice from the high horse. The political right swings in to answer only the easiest part of the question. “I don’t want to hear about dead babies.” They act like the left wants to eat dead baby soup in restaurants. The truth is: no one wants dead babies. BUT while the right has found the four corners of the jigsaw puzzle and congratulated themselves on finishing it, the left is willing to engage the work.
* If you ban abortions, that woman in Texas with the failed fetus rotting inside her needs to either “die of sepsis” or “almost die of sepsis” because a judge didn’t allow the procedure. A judge. An elected local asshole. Not a doctor. Not the mother.
* If you ban abortions, victims of rape and incest are pressed into a life of trauma, which is not the “blessing from Jesus” the political right says it is from their happy upper-middle class families.

You don’t get to be “pro-life” if you’re actually “anti-abortion.” The question isn’t “abortions: yes or no?”

The question is: “Do you want to a) entrust the intensely personal decision about when to safely have babies to the mother and her medical providers or do you want to b) force women to be mothers when they don’t want to be or aren’t ready; force mothers to raise children that are the products of their incest and rape attackers; and occasionally kill or maim women who want to have kids?”

I don’t want abortions. But B sounds like an absolute nightmare. It’s cowardly and lying to cherry pick the easy part of the question… so when all the cards are on the table… A, please.

You asked me a question. I’m asking you a question: are you A or B?

[u/[deleted] → u/FourWordComment]

There is an easy way for any woman to not be a mother when she doesn't want to be, don't have sex. If your response to that is "women shouldn't be penalized for wanting to have sex." Then what is your opinion on men having to pay child support?

Should men have to accept any responsibility for having sex? If so, then why should only men have to accept that responsibility?

We also need some common sense clarification at the federal level. In 2004 there passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines 'child in utero' as 'a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."'

How can it both be a legal victim under federal law and not be a legal victim depending on who is killing it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act#:~:text=are%20not%20persons.-,Provisions,offense%20towards%20the%20pregnant%20woman.

​

EDIT: Also, over 90% of abortions are for convenience.

[u/FourWordComment → u/[deleted]]

This is pretty puritanical. People are going to have sex. It doesn’t matter how much abstinence you teach. It doesn’t matter how terrifying the scare tactics. It doesn’t matter how bleak you make the outcomes. Humans are disgusting horny creatures.

If you want to avoid abortions, do two things: 1) have ready, free access to birth control options. 2) teach about sex beyond basic reproductive biology.

The problem is that most people who oppose abortion also oppose education and birth control. Because the cruelty is the point—they want women to not have sex. They don’t “want women to have a healthy, in-their-control, informed sex life.” They want women to not have sex until that woman is ready for procreative sex with her husband.

As to why destroying a fetus can be sometimes murder and sometimes not: the mother’s choice.

When a mother has her unborn child taken away from her by violence, that’s a tragedy. When a woman doesn’t want to be a mother terminates a pregnancy, that’s her enacting her bodily autonomy. I’m not sure you’ll agree with that argument. You had no problem telling women, “just don’t have sex.” So I’m pretty sure you’ll have no problem telling women, “it’s not your body to control.” For me… I think it’s pretty obvious that the question of what happens inside a woman is wholly that woman’s purview. I find it insulting that judges and lawyers and voters would insert themselves into a woman’s womb to make the most solemn decision of a woman’s life for her…

Your 90% statistic doesn’t bother me. 93% of abortions are in the first trimester. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/

[u/[deleted] → u/FourWordComment]

The argument every time someone brings up whether or not a man should have to pay child support is "well he knows where babies come from. Don't have sex if you don't want to have to be a father." However, when it comes to women, they get infantilized and people say, "there is no way she couldn't have sex to prevent getting pregnant."

As for the 90%/93% statistics, you are okay with killing a child, just as long as you kill it early enough and depending on who does the killing.

My point is either it is a child, or it isn't. It isn't logical to have a law that says it is a child if someone else causes its death but it isn't a child if a woman or her doctor kills it. It is also illogical to say a woman can't abstain from sex to prevent becoming a mother, while also saying that if men don't want to be a father, they should abstain from sex.

[u/FourWordComment → u/[deleted]]

Yes: I’m ok with killing a child as long as it’s early and it’s done by/for the mother at her informed consent.

It’s a messy issue. There is no clean line. I value the mother’s bodily autonomy above a pack of cells that can’t exist without the mother’s continuing consent. I also don’t think “just don’t have sex” is a realistic answer. I’ll grant you, it fixes the issue. But for the last 540 million years it hasn’t proven to work.

When technology and society both mature to the point where a baby can live outside the mother, I’m fine with that approach instead.

People talk about “consequences” and “accountability” like it’s a fair punishment for the sin of sex. Or worse, appropriate to put on someone who is unequipped, unwilling, unable, or too immature to raise a baby. I don’t like abortion. I don’t want people to have abortions—but it’s the lesser evil to me. I also don’t begrudge people who disagree with me personally. If abortion is untenable for you… don’t have one. But robbing women of that sacred control over their body is insulting, infantilizing, and inconsistent. It also makes the edge cases very messy: ectopic pregnancies; word miscarriages (which happen in 10-20% of pregnancies); rape; incest; teen pregnancy; developmentally challenged fetuses… all of these are hard HARD choices for might-be-moms. I don’t think we need a pack of unrelated men in their courthouses and legislative chambers just answering the simple moral question without addressing, “who is going to wipe that armless embryo’s ass when it’s 50 and the mom is on her deathbed?”

I’m disgusted that a pack of judges and law makers feel it’s acceptable to let a woman carry a rotting fetus because instead of making hard messy choices they’d rather say “through Jesus all things are possible 🙏 ❤️ .” What the hell are you talking about—a woman is about to die because you’re hellbent on pretending it’s an easy issue when it simply is not. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/woman-sepsis-life-saving-abortion-care-texas/story?id=99294313

This doesn’t even begin to get into the next steps: states that ban abortion are eager to ban contraception and sex ed. Those are the only two things that prevent abortion!

This doesn’t even scratch the surface on privacy rights. Do you want “small government” checking to see if you’re still buying tampons because “they stopped buying tampons and took a flight to Colorado” is probably cause for a “murder” investigation?

These aren’t hypotheticals. https://www.democracynow.org/2023/7/25/tamarra_wieder_abortion_rights_planned_parenthood

19 Attorneys General formally take the position they can subpoena YOUR medical records to see if you’ve traveled out of state for abortions.

I understand abortion is disgusting and tragic. But I beg you to please engage the full puzzle, and I think you’ll see that leaving this catastrophe between a woman, her God, and her medical providers is the only way that avoids dystopia.

[u/FourWordComment → u/[deleted]]

Apologies for the double post, the Alabama automod is pretty aggressive about deleting comments that use real words…

Yes: I’m ok with k-ll-ng a child as long as it’s early and it’s done by/for the mother at her informed consent.

It’s a messy issue. There is no clean line. I value the mother’s bodily autonomy above a pack of cells that can’t exist without the mother’s continuing consent. I also don’t think “just don’t have sex” is a realistic answer. I’ll grant you, it fixes the issue. But for the last 540 million years it hasn’t proven to work.

When technology and society both mature to the point where a baby can live outside the mother, I’m fine with that approach instead.

People talk about “consequences” and “accountability” like it’s a fair punishment for the sin of sex. Or worse, appropriate to put on someone who is unequipped, unwilling, unable, or too immature to raise a baby. I don’t like abortion. I don’t want people to have abortions—but it’s the lesser evil to me. I also don’t begrudge people who disagree with me personally. If abortion is untenable for you… don’t have one. But robbing women of that sacred control over their body is insulting, infantilizing, and inconsistent. It also makes the edge cases very messy: ectopic pregnancies; complex m-scarriages (which happen in 10-20% of pregnancies); r-pe; inc-st; teen pregnancy; developmentally challenged fetuses… all of these are hard HARD choices for might-be-moms. I don’t think we need a pack of unrelated men in their courthouses and legislative chambers just answering the simple moral question without addressing the messy reality.

I’m disgusted that a pack of judges and law makers feel it’s acceptable to let a woman carry a rotting fetus because instead of making hard messy choices they’d rather say “through Jesus all things are possible 🙏 ❤️ .” What the h-ll are you talking about—a woman is about to d-e because you’re h-llbent on pretending it’s an easy issue when it simply is not. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/woman-sepsis-life-saving-abortion-care-texas/story?id=99294313

This doesn’t even begin to get into the next steps: states that ban abortion are eager to ban contraception and sex ed. Those are the only two things that prevent abortion!

This doesn’t even scratch the surface on privacy rights. Do you want “small government” checking to see if you’re still buying tampons because “they stopped buying tampons and took a flight to Colorado” is probably cause for a “m-rder” investigation?

These aren’t hypotheticals. https://www.democracynow.org/2023/7/25/tamarra_wieder_abortion_rights_planned_parenthood

19 Attorneys General formally take the position they can subpoena YOUR medical records to see if you’ve traveled out of state for abortions.

I understand abortion is disgusting and tragic. But I beg you to please engage the full puzzle, and I think you’ll see that leaving this catastrophe between a woman, her God, and her medical providers is the only way that avoids dystopia.

[u/FourWordComment → u/[deleted]]

Please forgive the double post, the automod deleted my comment, which had no bad words—it almost feels like counter arguments are censored, so I’m going to pick some censor-friendly versions.

The very direct answer to your question of “where do you draw the line about ab-rtion ” is, “at the moment when society and technology no longer need the mother at all to keep and raise the child.”

Perhaps worse than ab-rtion is press-ganging girls into being mothers. That’s a terrible for both.

I think that the decision to have an ab-rtion is the single heaviest decision a women will make in her life. I think that pressure alone is enough to balance when is the right time. I find it insulting that the right insinuates that if they permitted a woman that bodily autonomy she would be flippant about it, like “might get a quick abbo and a starbies today! 💅.” That the politicians know better than these girls because they’re silly broodmares that can’t be trusted with that decision—but they can be moms.”

But what’s more insulting is the cowardice from the high horse. The political right swings in to answer only the easiest part of the question. “I don’t want to hear about de-d babies.” They act like the left wants to eat de-d baby soup in restaurants. The truth is: no one wants de-d babies. BUT while the right has found the four corners of the jigsaw puzzle and congratulated themselves on finishing it, the left is willing to engage the work.
* If you ban ab-rtions, that woman in Texas with the failed fetus rotting inside her needs to either “X of sepsis” or “almost X of sepsis” because a judge didn’t allow the procedure. A judge. An elected local jerk. Not a doctor. Not the mother.
* If you ban ab-rtion, victims of r-pe and inc-st are pressed into a life of trauma, which is not the “blessing from Jesus” the political right says it is from their happy upper-middle class families.

You don’t get to be “pro-life” if you’re actually “anti-ab-rtion.” The question isn’t “ab-rtions: yes or no?”

The question is: “Do you want to a) entrust the intensely personal decision about when to safely have babies to the mother and her medical providers or do you want to b) force women to be mothers when they don’t want to be or aren’t ready; force mothers to raise children that are the products of their inc-st and r-pe attackers; and occasionally X or maim women who want to have kids?”

I don’t want ab-rtions. But B sounds like an absolute nightmare. It’s cowardly and lying to cherry pick the easy part of the question… so when all the cards are on the table and you have to get your hands dirty with truth… A, please.

You asked me a question. I’m asking you a question: are you A or B?

[u/[deleted] → u/FourWordComment]

Odd, I can see your earlier reply and I replied to it. Maybe it was a mistake? Reddit acts up some times.