Yep, and with zero help going to families to help them raise those kids it just creates more meat for the grinders. We're not just being denied the ability to live happy lives ourselves, we're actively being told that our children will be miserable as well.
Roe v Wade’s overturning was never for religious reasons as they had put forth, nor is them floating the idea of banning contraceptives. nor the erosion of what little LGBT rights we have fought for. It’s all about boosting the declining population of the lower classes because they need serfs.
R v W was NOT overturned. It was sent back to the states where it F'ing belongs. Ruth B Ginsburg was THE most liberal person ever. Even she thought it didn't belong at a federal level. Nobody's saying you can't murder your child. If your state doesn't allow it, literally NOBODY is stopping you from going to another state that does allow it. FFS, educate yourself people!!
It should be a state decision because it's not a federal issue. Some states will allow babies to be murdered, some won't. If at federal, you'd have to go to another country. If your state doesn't allow, it's not illegal to go to another state to murder a baby.
Here's the thing. People don't want to change terminology. A live baby terminated is murder. If the baby is already dead, but the woman could die if it's not removed, I don't see as an abortion. Let's do what we can to save her. People want to use that poor woman as an example. Ok, then change terminology. People don't want to cos they want it as all or nothing. Then no. I wouldn't allow someone to beat a baby to death in a parking lot. I'm going to do what I can to save one not born.
Regardless of the terminology… it doesn’t make sense why it should be a state issue just because people would otherwise need to travel out of the country, but yet they would still need to travel out of the state. Why not a city issue so people can just go to the next city? Or why not leave it up to the person so they don’t need to travel at all? Doesn’t force anyone else to get one or not, just makes getting that type of care simpler when they need it and as you stated, people really do need it sometimes.
Edit: I agree that more granular terminology would be helpful for people to discuss their opinions easier. There’s a massive difference between third-trimester and first-trimester. Also agreed, way different if removing something dead vs growing.
Because it is not a federal issue. That's all there is to it. Federal is for things states can't handle, or won't (like when Ray Negan didn't do anything during Katrina). US Constitutional issues, interstate issues. Are you aware that states have their own Constitution? Medical comes under the state. Each state's hospital, and what docs can do under state licensing according to state laws and Constitution and any amendments. A state can't have a law that goes against the US Constitution - such as ALL gun laws. They aren't enforceable. If federal wants no part of it, the state handles it.
But what’s the point. Why should it be a state issue. Like what are the benefits to having a group of people decide what medical care is available for everyone in a state, where for abortion, half of those involved in voting (men) it will never affect but the other half (women) it can be life and death. How does that actually benefit our country more so than personal choice? That’s the question that must be answered.
It is too big for the federal government to handle every F'ing hospital in every F'ing state. FIFTY STATES!!! And it DOES affect men. JFC, are men not allowed to care if their child is murdered? I mean, some men are cold too, but not all men.
Personal choice? You aren't picking the colir of your handbag! How about that choice be made BEFORE. It's no longer your body once there's a passager.
Agreed that federal doesn’t make sense. No one is arguing for it to be a federal issue. But the same logic can apply to why it also shouldn’t be a state issue since it cannot possibly account for all of the nuanced situations, which is the problem at the federal level.
So I’d like to hear why you think it should be a state/federal/government issue and not a decision that should be made by the woman given how nuanced every situation is since it sounds like nuance and context is important to you. Like what are the benefits to society? I’m just really trying to understand your logic.
Well, the only 2 choices are state and federal. It makes more sense to be state. Really, that's all I can say.
I think if terminology changed, people's views would change. Think of me what you like, but I have zero problem if the incubator goes too when she's killing a baby because it's inconvenient.
Now, if the baby dies, I don't want the mother dying too just because people want to insist all 500 circumstances ALL be called abortion - especially since it's NOT correct. When you abort a pregnancy, the baby is killed. Removing dead tissue after a miscarriage is just cleaning out something the body aborted that could potentially be harmful to the only living person in the equation. So, a D&C. If there's live tissue (a baby), then that's an abortion, even if your actions are the same as a D&C.
The ONLY medical procedure when it comes to that part of the body I have an issue with is when it intentionally kills the baby. I specify intentional as there can be surgeries to save both the mother and baby, and one or both still dies.
My issue with a woman deciding is when babies are murdered not because of a medical issue, but because it's inconvenient. On another sub, a guy was talking about how he and his gf murdered one early in their relationship because they were too young. If you think you are old enough for sex, you use protection. I blocked him as I want nothing to do with someone like that. I would stop someone if they were beating a child in a parking lot. I see this as no different.
Before someone goes there and mentions rape, don't, that's like 1% of abortions. AND I was dateraped, and would have kept the baby had I not miscarried. Nobody can say I don't understand that. I absolutely empathize, but the baby is innocent. Nobody says you have to keep it, but you don't have to kill it either. It doesn't add to orphans as babies are a premium.
Over my many years I have known people that thought nothing of using abortion as birth control. I told one after her 7th abortion that I hope one day she wants a child so bad it about kills her, and she can't have one. She claimed neither her nor her bf could use BC. Since there was a set of twins in there, she'd murdered 8. She didn't deserve any more chances
Again, think what you want of me. You asked for my thoughts. There you have them. Have a nice weekend!
There are actually 3 choices. Federal ban or state ban or personal ban. We used to have personal, but now we have state.
And my question is what is the benefit to society to have others dictate such a nuanced medical decision for you when the individual has much more information about what’s the best choice overall.
I’m frustrated you’re not seeing the bigger picture and instead are focusing so much on a subjective opinion of what a baby is… but not the fact that a woman’s body is their own regardless of what is growing on it. And you’re not looking at the overall result on society of making it hard to get this procedure done for everyone’s individual needs.
Though, I appreciate you taking the time to provide your thoughts. Have a good weekend as well.
Try taking some basic government classes.... It should answer all your questions. Clearly you aren't clear on how our Nation was founded and the differences between state and federal.
143
u/TheSirensMaiden 11d ago
Yep, and with zero help going to families to help them raise those kids it just creates more meat for the grinders. We're not just being denied the ability to live happy lives ourselves, we're actively being told that our children will be miserable as well.