I think it's reasonable for a woman to be outraged due to the fear of potentially being forced to term unwillingly. No I don't think the women of Afghanistan have it better. But you have an issue trying to step into a woman's shoes here.
No moderate should ever side against those opposing this law, regardless of argument made. This law reflects an extremist activist court overturning precedence via shadow docket. The law also calls for bounties paid to citizens spying on and then suing individuals for a litany of different reasons, none of which they are an injured party. And this law sets up a litany of similar laws from other states. And it tees up a number of other laws from states to get rid other existing laws (of course, by the time Democrats attempt this the current Supreme Court will suddenly establish how wrong such laws are). Unfortunately, "winning the argument" against bad laws will be extremely difficult since it is apparent the three trump placements on the court (joined by Alito and Thomas) have no concern about established law and will allow any partisan gimmick to get conservative laws in place. Short of expanding the number of justices, these extremist laws will be the norm...
The answer to this question is, for many folks, that none of these reasons entitle a person to rob an unborn person of their life. And those reasons you described seem, well, pretty selfish for the most part (career, body changes, travel). To me, the moment that baby is formed, it's not about you, it's about protecting this baby's life. Look, I know you disagree with that stance, I'm just addressing your question. A person that does not agree that a fetus has reached "life" will of course think all of this is ridiculous. But if you believe that fetus has indeed reached life, the thought of killing that baby so the mom and go travel like she always dreamed, seems selfish as heck. I will agree to disagree and move on.
"Life" isn't the key distinguishing factor here. My poop has bacteria in it that is full of life. The distinguishing factor should be sentience.
we all have things we get mad about. When we resort to personal attacks and hyperbole we get called out on it. I like malakas. Her being a woman doesn’t mean she has a free pass on that. Also, i think it was a dude who posted the Taliban thing.
It's not about a free pass. It's about understanding that she is in a position that you aren't where she can experience that fear of dredd being forced into carrying a fetus to term unwillingly. And the significant part of my disagreement with you is when you label a woman carrying a fetus unwillingly a "inconvenience".
Most people in this country don’t understand anything in your post nor details of most issues. Rhetoric is important
We are entitled to be selfish as humans. Even those that have kids make selfish choices. Like I said, your opinion is rigid, it's based on one things only, on a "potential" life. Why shouldn't a women be selfish about her body, about her career, about her goals, about her mental health, about her physical health? This is where we get into the whole philosophy of actual life. If a fetus does not feel, are we really causing it any harm? We have a life, a human being that's actually alive and has many factors to consider when they have an unplanned pregnancy on their hands. On the other hand, we have a potential "life", an embryo, that doesn't have anything to consider, anything to be afraid off, it's empty (I guess if you believe in souls, it isn't empty), but regardless, what are you so worried about this embryo, yet you don't care for the woman. It's a one sided argument and you have zero empathy for the woman. And yes, she does deserve to be selfish.
lets not make this about malakas. In general, I think someone who thinks Texas women are no better than cows now or worse off than on Afghanistan have less empathy for the people they are taking about than than I do. You think I can’t imagine being a woman who is tortured because she can’t have an abortion and I think someone who thinks that woman is worse off than on Afghanistan is the one who lacks contextual understanding
You literally loled at the concept of forcing a woman to carry to term unwillingly is torture so yes you are telling me that you think it's a laughable concept.
Most people in this country understand this as a Roe vs Wade for or against argument. That's why (1) the state used such a dishonest approach to this law (since they knew RvW was established law supported by most Americans) and (2) the Supreme Court members that you can expect to rule against RvW allowed this law to slide past without signing their names to their action.
Dude, get out of here with this. Yes a 3 year old can sustain life. If you are talking about something stupid like can they go get groceries, cook for themselves, financially support themselves, etc, that's not what that poster was talking about, so stop asking stupid questions. Geez lol.
malakas said we are standing by and watching our wives and daughters be tortured because weren’t protesting in the streets. That is a laughable statement to me yes. It is ridiculous. that is the context of my lol comment. I have since stipulated that under certain circumstances it would be torture.
At 6 weeks it is not even a fetus... but an embryo. The embryo doesn't even become a fetus until 8 weeks.
These discussions always swing between the when of an abortion. Most moderates are likely fine with people taking a pill during the first semester. I'd honestly question the mental capacity of someone who needs 6+ months to finally decide or change their minds on a whim. Then again, I'm not a woman and wouldn't understand the changes going through a mother's body at that time.
I'd be willing to be that most of the 6+ months decisions are based on medical issues, considering that less than 1% of abortions happen at this stage. I think the number is like 90%+ happening in the first 13 weeks or something to that effect (last time I read up on the statistics).
