this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
422 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19080 readers
4120 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I know I'm coming at this from something resembling "rationality," so I could never pose the following question in a real debate with a "pro-lifer," but the "leave it up to the states" argument absolutely infuriates me with how stupid it is on its face.

The supposed pro-life argument is that life is precious/sacred and must be protected even if a fetus isn't [yet] viable. Why the FUCK would that be allowed to be defined differently by state!? Either all life is precious and must be protected nationwide (or worldwide) or their supposed reasoning is bullshit.

Because of course it's bullshit, just like the SCOTUS ruling. We either have a national definition of a person and citizen, or we have none. The current system doesn't make a person until birth when the birth certificate is filled out. States should have absolutely no right to determine differing periods of time to determine whether or not something is a viable, legal "person."

If abortion is banned as per evangelical wackos screeching "life begins at conception," then logically the state has to force itself into every bedroom, issue "life certificates" and apply for social security numbers for every single damn blastocyst, then arrest every parent that miscarries for involuntary manslaughter at least, otherwise the entire argument of life is bullshit.

But then the entire pro-life argument from any legislator is inherently hypocritical bullshit because it's nothing other than class warfare.

/bullshitrant

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're right, but you can make the point even shorter than that:

If life begins at conception, why are any Republicans suggesting anything less than a total ban on abortions? Does God suddenly start caring about "babies" sixteen weeks after conception, but doesn't give a fuck before that? Or does his "unconditional" love start at six weeks?

And why make exceptions for rape? The brand new "baby" that came into existence against the will of its mother is innocent, so why should it be allowed to be aborted?

I think those are literally their talking points in many cases though. I don't think that would work like you think it would.

[–] lemmefixdat4u@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The Republican stance on abortion would not be so popular among its female supporters if they realize that they could be charged with child endangerment for not getting prenatal care, not eating or sleeping well, or engaging in any risky behaviors - from the moment of conception.