311
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 66 points 1 month ago

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that it's way up mostly in states that border states that make it entirely illegal.

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 month ago

But it's up WAY more there than its down elsewhere.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 52 points 1 month ago

Because women are a hell of a lot less likely to carry a fetus to term if they know they might die if they do.

[-] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 12 points 1 month ago
[-] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Nobody on the other side is listening. Their response to this will be a national abortion ban and a federal database to track women's menstrual cycles. They're just trying not to talk about it during the election. People who believe they're saving children from being murdered cannot be reasoned with. They are infinitely motivated and can never be trusted.

[-] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub -1 points 1 month ago

That is the most nihilistic and ignorant statement I’ve ever heard in my life tbh

You’re generalizing hundreds of thousands of people and essentially saying “my vote doesn’t matter”

I’m saying this not to be a dick, but because I care about my species - you sound like you’re in a very negative headspace and I’m not sure that’s going to be very valuable for you for much longer. You’re generalizing hundreds of thousands of people to one stereotype and assuming that any and all labor towards educating or advocating isn’t worth it.

Fuck that. Defeatist bullshit is for the defeated, and last I checked, battle is still going. I sincerely hope you are only affected by and not perpetuating defeatist logic into the global population.

[-] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

That is the most nihilistic and ignorant statement I’ve ever heard in my life tbh

Then read better. My argument is that literally zero pro-life people will be swayed by this data. Their response will be that children are still being murdered, so they should move to for a national ban. The train you're talking your feelings about my comment rather than anything of substance is that you know I'm right. This is opposite of nihilism - these people must be beaten , conclusively, at the ballot box specifically because they cannot be convinced, and the information environment in the US is too toxic for that to substantially change. Good news - pro lifers are a minority and can be beaten this way. But winning requires actually having some understanding of reality.

[-] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 1 points 1 month ago

I guarantee if you educate their children in schools ahead of time, teenage rebellion will encourage more states to become (over time, as older generations fade) more pro-choice

Guaran-fucking-tee it. Yes that involves legislature and voting, but yes it does mean you can sway parents via education of at least their family and/or friends.

[-] sparkle@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

He said, specifically, people who already have it firmly established in their belief system that abortion is child murder will almost entirely be unswayed by data showing that the current bans aren't effective enough at preventing abortion. They only see it as meaning "the current bans aren't strict enough, and in order to prevent child murder, there needs to be a full nationwide ban".

These people aren't just uneducated on biology and human reproduction (even though that applies to most of them). They for the most part understand that a fetus isn't actually a person in the way a newborn/child is. But that doesn't affect them because the belief is entirely emotional, not scientific – people have a fundamental, irrational moral belief that an unviable fetus is worth more than a living human being. How exactly do you prove that a fetus isn't part of their vague and subjective concept of what a "person" is, if they already won't take biological and psychological evidence as proof? And, following that, do you expect to be able to convince someone that child murder (in their eyes) isn't bad?

I get your reasoning that surrounding them with people who believe actually rational things, and who refuse to tolerate irrational beliefs like "abortion is child murder", will pressure them to also start accepting those things, but that misses the point of what the person you're replying to said. He said that data like the one in the post won't change their mind – and, imo, it still applies when considering how it might affect the beliefs of others since it's not a matter of effectiveness, rather a matter of emotion; a fundamental belief that parents and doctors who go through with abortions are child murderers and bad people. Mature people are just bound to eventually realize that abortion isn't at all even close to comparable to murder, if they have basic knowledge of reproductive biology, and immature people are bound to stick with whatever beliefs they had since they were a child, most often anti-choice in a conservative society.

It's something that changes peoples' minds on drugs, but not abortion. One of the most common insane things is conservative people going to a clinic to get an abortion (or get their kid an abortion), the same people who take part in and sometimes even organize the protests against places that offer abortion services, and get the abortion all while insulting the other people in the clinic and saying how they're evil people who should be ashamed of themselves. They literally can't see the hypocrisy in it, they have an ever-present belief that they're the exception, that their abortion is the only moral abortion. Even when you confront them with the fact that many of the other people getting abortions have similar or the same reasons, they just have this innate visceral reaction to the fact that you're comparing them (or their actions) to her (or her actions). Out of the dozens of cases of this I've heard of, only like 2 of them had someone that changed their mind eventually. And this is the absolute most extreme scenario that one could see an anti-choicer being confronted with in order to change their mind.

[-] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Again, I can agree with the sentiment that it seems like most won’t change, but to give up altogether is to give up on those that would’ve changed too. In favor of what? Watching more tv? Playing more games? It costs next to nothing to be vocal and educated when using social media.

We don’t need to convince everyone of the truth and of reality and tolerance. Just one person is enough for me.

“It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness”

We have a moral imperative to enlighten those who are ignorant in direct alignment with humanities shared pursuit of truth and of happiness. We owe it to the people who inspired us to continue that tradition. In fact, we only are improving our own understanding of Truth by teaching and speaking with others and challenging those ideas. Maybe someone else will inspire us to tweak something and move our collective progress closer to enlightenment

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

This is why I've added abortion access funds to my charitable giving portfolio. Especially ones in border states like Virginia and DC.

I wish I could find a way to host travelers or forward pills but those programs are understandably kept really on the downlow.

[-] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 53 points 1 month ago

Wait a god damn minute…

You mean to tell me that taking away women’s ability to get medical attention for dangerous pregnancies results in more women opting to abort the problematic pregnancy to save both herself and/or her baby from a lifetime of disability, if not death, and other mental disorders in a country riddled with humanitarian issues???

WHO WOULDVE FUCKING THOUGHT

Sick and tired of creepy fucking weirdos trying to control women in this god damned country. FUCK OFF

[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 45 points 1 month ago

abortion should be free for whoever wants one, no questions asked. that would still cost less than the state subsidizing raising unwanted kids for 18 years. and unwanted children wouldn't have to grow up being unwanted. and before anyone talks about adoption: the absolute fucking shitshow of trying to adopt needs to be overhauled in a major way before that's even a suggestion

[-] Boinkage@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes but you see, 2,000 years ago God told some random dudes to write a book that says almost nothing about abortion, which of course means today that abortion is very very bad and we should never do it. It's important that we write our laws keeping in mind what God told these guys 2,000 years ago, even though the book they wrote doesn't actually say abortion is wrong.

[-] Icalasari@fedia.io 26 points 1 month ago

Oh, the book says things on abortions

Like God not considering babies as alive until birth, giving instructions to outright abort in some cases, and to dash baby heads against rocks if the babies are of the enemy

[-] Shou@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

The baby of my enemy is my enemy - god

[-] darkdemize@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 month ago

IIRC, the only mention of abortion in the bible is instructions on how to perform one.

[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago

abortion: eeeeeevil we must stop all abortions at all costs regardless of anything!!!

school shootings: meh. it is what it is, whattayagonnado amirite?

[-] pivot_root@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Unfortunately, it's not in the interests of those who benefit from the poor and uneducated to decrease the number of poor and uneducated.

[-] Bocky@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Adoption is a tough thing to control. If they make it easier, corporations could eventually find a way to take advantage and profit from it.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

Eh I dunno about all that. As far as I know, state-run adoption and foster programs really just need the funding to employ (and adequately pay) the right number of people to do a good job. As it sits, most caseworkers and admin staff are so overwhelmed by the kid to staff ratio that they don't have the time to ensure everything is copacetic in each individual case.

The solution to your point is to keep the private sector as far away as humanely possible.

[-] norimee@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago

You don't have the luxury to wait anymore now. Especially when you have health issues. If you wait to see if your pregnacy is viable or if your body can do it they might just let you die when urgent complications arise.

I would be scared shitless, being pregnant in one of these anti-choice states. This would probably make me work out a plan for a save termination somewhere rather sooner than later.

[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

“You know what? I’m going to start aborting even HARDER.”

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 9 points 1 month ago

Is this the Striesand effect but for abortions? Lol oof...

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

Y'all better reinstate it then so there's less abortions. Think of the children!

this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
311 points (98.4% liked)

News

22831 readers
4583 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS