• frog 🐸@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    1 year ago

    We should really get rid of the term “pro-life”, because the people with those beliefs are not pro-life. They’re pro-birth. They don’t care what happens to the children or the mothers after the birth has happened.

    • Safeguard@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s weirder then that: The reason is: “It’s god’s plan that you became pregnant, and if you do not survive, that’s god’s plan too. We just need to trust the plan”.

      It’s one of the reasons why I strongly believe religion is the source of all things evil.

        • Safeguard@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is why so many “founding fathers” around the world, including the US, did not want religion to play ANY part in politics.

          We should return to their plan on this point.

      • AnalogyAddict@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not religion. That’s abusers using religion to control people. Which unfortunately the most vocal make sound like that’s all religion.

        • Safeguard@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Islam says (for instance) that they have the final word of god. Thats pretty damning in and of itself. It leaves no room for anything else.

          Christianity had been used through the ages to commit the most heinous crimes against humanity. They still do.

          We should try a world without religion.

          • AnalogyAddict@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            And nothing heinous has ever been done without religion?

            The faithful give over three times as much in charitable donations as the secular, and volunteer three to four times as often.

            Plus, the religious have been persecuted for their beliefs as long as there had been human history, which is what you are proposing by suggesting that religion should be eliminated.

            • Safeguard@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Tell me 1 good deed done in the name of religion that could not have been done without religion.

              There are numerous heinous deeds done in the name of religion because it told them to do it…

              People are people, they will do bad and good things. But religion always makes them worse because they put themselves above others.

              The religious are only persecuted by other religions and currently religions are persecuting the non believers. (Christo fascism in the USA as a prime example)

              And lastly, if churches would start paying their fair share of tax. No one will need to donate ever again.

    • Idrunkenlysignedup@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wonder if it’s the point so much as an ‘unfortunate’ byproduct. I think it’s more of a take a win at any cost because “fuck the libs”

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Abortion has never been a form of birth control. It has always been a fail-safe for when birth control fails (e.g. a condom breaks) or could not be used (e.g. because a woman was raped). Please do not repeat right-wing misinformation.

        • Aneesh@mastodon.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          @argv_minus_one making abortions completely legal and encouraging them would lead to that right? statistics all seem to support abortions being used as a form of birth control. this is not right wing misinformation, studies by the NAF states that 48% of women who have had an abortion have had two or more. which is quite high considering 48% of women do not have those abortions as a medical procedure.

          • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            making abortions completely legal and encouraging them would lead to that right?

            No, because they’re more expensive, more time-consuming, and more dangerous than birth control.

            studies by the NAF states that 48% of women who have had an abortion have had two or more.

            Which does not demonstrate that they are using abortion as birth control. That would be demonstrated by hundreds of abortions, not merely two, and virtually no one can even afford hundreds of abortions.

            Once again, please stop repeating right-wing misinformation.

          • Didros@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m sorry, why can’t it be used as birth control? Why can’t a medical procedure between a doctor and patient be done to better the life of the patient?

            This whole anti abortion thing started with one guy in America forever ago and has spread from there. But before his crusade against abortions not many people felt one way or another about them. This seems to me like a group of people advocating making any cancer removal illegal.

            • Aneesh@mastodon.online
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              @Didros personally I believe that life begins at conception. I don’t find myself agreeing with the argument of “oh it’s not a living being yet, so it’s okay to kill”. I believe that even though it’s a clump of cells, eliminating it would take away the potential of life from it. In the same sense, destroying a TV remote is fine because it has zero potential for life. However this does not make me Pro life, because I do acknowledge the hardships of life ; abortions are okay as a medical procedure.

              • Didros@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, but cancer is a litteral lump of living cells. It’s an apt comparison.

                And a sperm meeting an egg suddenly meaning life potential which is worth intervening in another’s medical decision is such a weird line. Especially in this county obsessed with freedoms.

                It feels like such an arbitrary line to draw and agree with. When did you start this belief?

                • Aneesh@mastodon.online
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  @Didros cancer is a clump of living cells that does not have the potential to turn into a living human being.
                  I’m quite young and I’m still yet to form opinions that are set in stone, I’d say I started believing in my arbitrary line about a month ago. It was influenced by emotions along with statistics about abortions in the US.

  • Hot Saucerman
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The cruelty is the point. They want people women to suffer so they are easier to control.

    It’s absolutely using suffering to produce a coercive control effect. They want you to feel broken and lost and like no one is coming to help, because it means you’re more likely to give up and follow their rules to survive… even when that doesn’t guarantee your survival.

    When are people going to stop being shocked by this?

    This is authoritarianism and fascism and it’s sad but unsurprising.

    • PostmodernPythia@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Specifically in this case, they want people they perceive as women (any human with a working uterus) to suffer so they are easier to control. I worry that your phrasing erases the sex-based violence part of this. Fascists are coming for most of us in one way or another, but this particular front is about controlling people they see as women. My husband (a cis dude) didn’t have to get parts of his body removed to have full citizenship rights; I did.

      • Hot Saucerman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Forgive me, it was not my intent to diminish how this impacts people who have a uterus. This is absolutely about controlling women as well as what the definition of a woman is. I have edited the original comment slightly to acknowledge this.

          • Hot Saucerman
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            No apologies necessary, because it’s totally understandable that this stuff would fuck you up.

        • pbjamm@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I read the edit as you making a point about the fascists not seeing women as people.

    • StringTheory@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      For me to be powerful, someone else must be powerless.

      For me to be strong, someone else must be weak.

      For me to be smart, someone else must be stupid.

      For me to be clean, someone else must be dirty.

      For me to be right, someone else must be wrong.

  • StringTheory@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Maternal mortality rates in the US were already abysmal. And the difference between red and blue states is appalling.

    Louisiana: 58.1 per 100k

    California: 4 per 100k

    What are the red states doing with all the federal tax money donated to them by the blue states? How could they remain this horrific when they receive so much aid? How can they look at their maternal mortality rates and unabashedly proclaim their states to be “pro life”?

    (Stats from World Population Review)

    Edit: and let us not forget that the #1 cause of death for pregnant women in the US is murder by their husband or boyfriend. That statistic is going to get worse now, too.

    • lagomorphlecture@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Idk if you ever read various subreddits or forums about relationships etc but it seems very common now for really nice guys to just out of the blue turn into a woman hating monster and their partners are shocked and appalled because it seems out of character for that person. Social media is really pushing that red pill stuff, and coupled with these types of legal changes, it creates a very dangerous environment for a lot of people to be in.

      • StringTheory@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Imagine what would happen if instead of all these laws and punishments being aimed at women, someone proposed forcing men to accept some responsibility. Even just making them pay child support for 18 years, let alone personally caring for their children.

        We all know women would be dying like flies if any of this “pro-life” legislation had any impact on men.

        So it gets glossed over and pushed under the rug “it’s all the woman’s fault, she’s a slut.”

        Until your mind cracks open upon seeing the bumper sticker that says: 100% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by men.

  • xuxebiko@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why would they care? They don’t care for any one’s life, they only care about punishing women and denying them their human right to agency.

    Anti-choice work to deny women the human right to decide what happens to their own bodies which is dehumanising. When women are stripped of their right to agency, then men will have the power to control women’s bodies. Men will get to decide what women do, what they wear, who they meet, where they go, when & how often they get pregnant. Much like what happens to domesticated animals and slaves.

    Life without liberty is slavery, and turning women into slaves is the anti-choice goal. so why they care about maternal mortaity?

  • Dethedrus@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Pro forced birthers don’t care.

    Not even in a ‘the cruelty IS the point’ way, though obviously sex is bad and suffering must happen to women (in their world view).

    They don’t care because it’s a numbers game. Some women will die. Some will be maimed to the point where they can no longer conceive.

    Those women don’t matter. Only the endless brood mares who are pumping out kids. Sure a few will suffer, and ‘blah blah gods plan’, but they aren’t part of the equation. The mass of humans being pumped out who will fodder for the corporate grist mill, or failing that filling the ranks of military or prisons.

    • Nechesh@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t think it’s about corporatism. For a lot of them it’s about religion. They want more babies for Jesus. From a more cynical point of view, the earlier a woman has children, the more damaging it is to her future economic and educational prospects. Poor uneducated people are more likely to be religious and conservative. It’s a culture war.

      • Dethedrus@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The true believers are absolutely part of it.

        And as we enter the third wave of the Tea Party (MAGA chuds and now the Freedom Caucus), the cynical despots at the reins have been replaced by a LOT of true believers who are both dumb as a post and have drunk all of the Flavor Aid.

        But there are still plenty of Phyllis Schlafly types in the party. Hardened opportunists with nothing more than a deep hunger for power, and no moral compass.

    • Radiant_sir_radiant@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I came here to write this. “Pro-life” is a cynical bastard of a euphemism. All that these people are in support of is destroying the life (and potentially health) of pregnant women. If anything, that’s anti-life.

  • Uniquitous@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    It was never about life. It’s about punishing women for taking ownership of their sexuality.

  • Auzy@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    The people voting republican know the only chance they will ever have kids is if their partner is forced to. Nobody would willingly do so otherwise

    It’s an act of desperation imho

  • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s because to them, those women brought it upon themselves by having sex before they’re ready to have kids, and they just don’t understand the very real consequences of what they’re asking for. They just parrot these talking points without thinking about what they really mean in the real world.