Those are only the ones that could afford to get there; rafts of those who can’t, are being forced to give birth in a state that won’t support them.
But, but think about the clump of cells!!
I don’t think anyone that’s being honest thought anything different was going to happen.
But, but think about the clump of cells!!
I am going to probably regret this, but this kind of reductionist summary of the very real conflict of priorities does not help the situation. First let’s get my conclusion out of the way, I’m pro-choice. I am also an atheist-- I will immediately disregard any argument that invokes a magic spirit living inside a meat suit. However, even with “MaGiC” off the board, there is some argument to be made about doing harm to future people (and a zygote is a future person) and deserves a real discussion.
We already do things that restrict what people can do based on harm it might do in the future-- to people that aren’t even born yet. If being unborn really counted for nothing, we wouldn’t have any laws that restricted action based on long-term effect. (For example: laws to prevent climate change, to prevent cluster bombing, etc) So clearly, whether or not a person has been born yet doesn’t immediately disqualify them from protection under the law.
The abortion debate is one of those uncommon instances where two conflicting rights meet. The proverbial “your right to swing your arm stops at my nose” situation. We have done this every time there is such a conflict. Your right to life ends when you attempt to end the life of someone else (self defense), for example. We, as a society, get to must decide whose rights are more important in the abortion scenario, but at no point are we saying that both parties don’t have rights. One just necessarily must supersede the other.
I personally believe that there is far more risk with giving the government the power to force a pregnant person to undergo a risky medical procedure against their will than in ending the life of a person who has not been born yet. There are some powers I think we would be foolish to grant the government, and “forced birth” is definitely one of them. However, it’s important to keep in mind that this decision isn’t a law of nature-- no more than “killing in self defense is allowed” is a law of nature; these are societal judgments. It’s plausible that a society could make a different judgement; one where even killing someone in self-defense was viewed as a criminal act. In fact, you probably believe this to a degree when it comes to “stand your ground” laws, as implementing in places like Florida or Texas.
It’s important to keep in mind that there is no objectively right or wrong answer; if there were, it wouldn’t be a conflict point. It necessitates a dialog to convince people to agree with you, and dismissing the argument as foolish doesn’t do that, which means it will remain an “undecided” conflict point for longer than it needs to.
Sorry about the unsolicited rant. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk?
There is certainly a right answer, my body, my choice. Get out of here trying to reason with the pro life side. There is no discussion. There is no compromise, there is no trying to understand those fools. My body, my choice no more discussion. That’s all the discussion we need
I agree with the result of your conclusion but I disagree with your central premise. We do have laws to protect rights in the future. Those laws, though, don’t protect individual rights, they protect the rights of the society as a whole.
I the case of the fetus, it is arguable as to when the fetus gains rights of its own, but I don’t think that a newly fertilized egg immediately gains rights. Something like the morning after pill, abortion at 6 weeks, or even abortion at 12 or 20 weeks doesn’t constitute “murder in self defense” in my mind. I think there is a line to be drawn somewhere before that even becomes a consideration.
Once you do cross that line, though, we do get to your argument and your logic holds I think.
There’s no real conflict of rights, unless you believe that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors. That “future person” has no more rights to a woman’s uterus than I do as an adult to my mother’s blood & organs if I get into a car accident.
It’s not a Ted Talk, it’s a forced birth argument churlishly hiding under a false cloak of “pro-choice atheist.”
It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or not, or in souls, there’s no actual valid argument for the “rights” of a zygote.
And you’re incredibly dismissive of the rights of the person hosting that zygote and having it feed off their life-force.
At least 1 in 4 of pregnancies abort all on their own. Until recently we didn’t attack people when they failed to prevent that. But now hospitals are telling women they have to wait until they’re dying of sepsis to end a pregnancy with a fetus that’s dying all on its own. That’s where your argument leads and we’re seeing it in real deaths.
You’re trying to get the camel’s nose under the tent of women’s bodily autonomy, and I’m calling you out on it.
Same Old Bullshit. Same Old Misogyny.
I respectfully disagree
this kind of reductionist summary of the very real conflict of priorities does not help the situation.
scientifically speaking, it’s 100% accurate. Just because imaginary sky daddy tells some people that it’s already a thinking, breathing, living person doesn’t matter.
If being unborn really counted for nothing, we wouldn’t have any laws that restricted action based on long-term effect. (For example: laws to prevent climate change, to prevent cluster bombing, etc)
We don’t really though. There are no real punishments for any of those actions, or anything to actually stop people from doing them. Yes, we do have laws saying you can go to jail if you do drugs while pregnant, BUT that’s because there is an INTENTION to carry to term, and have an actual human happen, that will be great affected by those drinking/drug uses during pregnancy. If you are so early on that you can/are aborting, SCIENTIFICALLY it’s a clump of cells, with no chance of being a human at that time.
The abortion debate is one of those uncommon instances where two conflicting rights meet.
yeah… not really. If I’m forced to carry the parasite, I have the only say in what happens to it. I’m a living breathing already existing human being. The cells are not, and they cannot live outside of my body, so please take them out, and let them do their thing. Please let’s see what happens.
However, it’s important to keep in mind that this decision isn’t a law of nature-- no more than “killing in self defense is allowed” is a law of nature; these are societal judgments.
nature is pretty indiscriminate in what it kills, but humans have added their own beliefs, which vary wildly from location to location. Regardless, the government and especially religion should have zero say. Abortion is a medical procedure, whether you, imaginary sky daddy, or some religious zealot thinks otherwise, and should be treated as such.
In fact, you probably believe this to a degree when it comes to “stand your ground” laws, as implementing in places like Florida or Texas.
Not related, so not really relevant to this topic, but generally, as far as I can tell, those laws are simply and excuse to kill for the sake of killing, and because the person already WANTED to.
It’s important to keep in mind that there is no objectively right or wrong answer; if there were, it wouldn’t be a conflict point.
Except scientifically, and objectively, there is a right answer. Certain people just don’t like it, but it doesn’t change the reality of it. That’s like saying I don’t like religion so no one can practice it. Doesn’t work, does it?
It necessitates a dialog to convince people to agree with you, and dismissing the argument as foolish doesn’t do that, which means it will remain an “undecided” conflict point for longer than it needs to.
I’m pretty sure, based on historical data, and observation, we all know that a respectful discourse isn’t going to happen, and if it did, it wouldn’t sway the party in the wrong. Also, at this point, I do not believe there are any “undecided” people left. Either you follow reality and science, or imaginary sky daddy. Those seem to be the only two options left in US society. Other countries see the value, and necessity, and treat abortion as such, but we aren’t one of those countries.
Don’t think about it as doing harm to a future person. Think about it as doing harm to a future dead corpse. Both have the exact same logical reasoning.
So having an abortion is just getting them to the corpse stage faster. And really what’s the harm in that? Certainly it’s much less harm than forcing someone to do something with their body that they don’t want to.
I just hate the “a zygote is a future person” argument, because by that logic my jizz is a future person and every time I jizz that doesn’t result in a pregnancy has the same weight an abortion carry’s. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why we stop the abortion claim at when the jizz enters the uterus. I think there’s something to be said at making it illegal after a certain trimester, but I don’t know where I’d even put that line.
I think it prudent to examine the risks associated with being born to a person who would have chosen abortion had it been safe, free, and legal. The kids one chose to have deserve to grow up surrounded by wanted and cared for peers as much as the kids one would not choose to have deserve to be born into a loving and prepared family.
No one chooses to be born. It’s literally impossible to determine whether an unborn human would prefer to be born without knowing anything about the existence that awaits them. That is why we put the focus on the person who is already in this world, and their choice about their body.
Unfortunately, this is the fundamental “weakness” of the pro choice side of the argument: it’s nuanced. And apparently ain’t nobody got time for nuance. The anti-choice argument is quick and easy and requires no time to process, discuss, or work through. “Abortion == baby murder == bad.”
It’s not a surprise that the only voices you hear from the religious circles, at least the Christian ones, are Catholics and Evangelicals. Those groups often tend to deal with nuance by ignoring it altogether. Mainline Protestants, not so much. We – and I’m saying this as a Mainline Protestant – live and breathe nuance. Sometimes to the point where we seem to be drowning in it. There isn’t an army of Presbyterians, Lutherans, or Episcopalians taking to the streets in support of abortion rights because… Well, it’s complicated.
Obviously I can’t speak for everyone in those circles but the fact is that probably most Christians, even “liberal” (and I dislike that term for it’s inaccuracy) ones don’t love abortion. From my perspective it’s perceived as a medical procedure that is sometimes necessary even if it has potential for abuse. I would expect a lot of Mainline Protestants are pro-choice but the thoughts on abortion are probably so diverse and nuanced that it’s hard to distill down to a coherent message.
Thank you for speaking your truth. We need more of this and less careless disregard for the beliefs of others. Understanding is the only way to grow as a species. Calling a life a clump of cells may be true in some senses but not in all. If you think we’re all just clumps of cells that’s fine, but that’s not what the pro lifers see. Disregarding that fact only weakens your position and strengthens your “opposition’s”.
Colorado has the Cobalt Abortion Fund which will provide logistics within the region for those that require it.
It is one of the non-profits we donate to every year.
Wait until president DeathSantis sends FBI to Colorado and demands names and addresses of these women so they can be properly prosecuted
Not DeSantis, but red states are really getting records for out of state care their people seek.
I know it’s a whataboutism, but I really can’t stand that we can’t have something like a gun registry because “MuH gUnz!?!!” and the government might take them or whatever, but we can’t buy or borrow books without government agencies being able to secretly procure that information. Now private medical records from the doctor’s office, not just like a person googling around, are being hoovered up for overtly political reasons against vulnerable people. Why are guns so much more sacred than people being able to live?
I wouldn’t put it past them to make it illegal to travel to another US state to get an abortion.
That’s in violation of the commerce clause of the constitution
That’s why you can buy weed in Colorado and not be prosecuted in Texas, as an example.
We are going to see the Return of Dred Scott as the fascist states go to the fascist supreme court and demand the right to enforce their fascist laws on their residents regardless of where the ‘crime’ occurred.
The “slave catchers” going into free states to abduct their citizens were a big part of the reason the Civil War started.
At this point I’m wishing for a civil war impacting the entire economy and to see capitalism collapse… it would be the moment to kill all billionaires bastards
I’m not. Poor people always suffer the most in violent revolutions no matter what.
Those billionaires will flee until its safe to come back, don’t be naive. We will suffer the most. Civil War is what the rich would benefit from.
I’m really wondering these days if abortion could be the next slavery in terms of constitutional crisis or civil war etc.
I don’t like states I dont live in having free access to all my medical records but here we are.
Do they have access though? I’m not sure if that is true without a court subpoena. That’s what a hypothetical supreme court case in the near future might decide, but we are not there yet to my knowledge.
I’m not a lawyer or a doctor.
It’s almost like who need abortions are going to get them regardless of how legal they are.
Amazing.
You mean it’s almost like RICH people who need abortions are going to get them. Crucial distinction. It takes resources to get yourself to another state and a lot of people can’t even afford to take time off work let alone pay for gas/bus ticket/plane ticket/hotel etc.
In the end it’s the arrogance that’s going to get them.
Theyve got too much faith in gerrymandering, but Texas just flipped to a majority non-white Hispanic. And I doubt that next generation is going to vote R
You’d maybe be surprised at how conservative the Hispanic population can be. Just look at Florida, for example.
Also, don’t understand the right’s ability to convince people to vote against their best interests.
The fucked up thing is that the MAJORITY of Texans aren’t rich yet they keep voting for the party that let’s their kids get slaughtered in schools and their mothers die on the birthing bed.
I blame the 2 party system. The democrats could do us on this but the whole culture war thing is really a huge distraction. Democrats seem willing to lose out on everything they proclaim to care about to make everything qia+ their main focus. And they should probably not try to take texan guns on the same platform as anything else.
A don’t mess with texan women campaign by a pro gun democrat that is quiet and center on other social issues, along with generic “economic growth” talk might actually do well.
“The cruelty is the point” etc
These women now have to struggle for what was once readily available, even if they still can, theoretically, access family planning in another state. A lot of them are going to try an unsafe method, or won’t be able to make the trip happen, or fall through the cracks another way.
A visit to Colorado really brings out the kid in you
We got ours at Mr Pickle’s Funtime Abortion Clinic
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/ILFBqwK5tt4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Proof that one atheist is worth 100 Christians when it comes to the scales of morality
More simply, atheists don’t require the threat of eternal damnation to simply be a good person.
