Far as I can find, those barricades have been up for a week, ever since a climate activist self immolated on the supreme court steps and just didn't get much coverage
...just sayin'.
--Patrick
Didn't y'alls Supreme Court decide, like a decade ago that 'safety zones' around clinics infringed on the rights of protesters? Or something like that?The "leak" was very clearly planned.
I don't feel like that changes the message it is sending, though.Far as I can find, those barricades have been up for a week, ever since a climate activist self immolated on the supreme court steps and just didn't get much coverage
Sheesh, and here I was trying to choose my words carefully since this isn't the Politics subforum :-PNext up, same sex marriage, contraception, and even interracial marriage - which have been cited as falling under the same category as RvW.
Republicans wanted a theocratic rule with white nationalist underpinnings and the democrats are too stupid and milquetoast to put up any fight. As long as their corporate overlords are happy what do they care.
A lot of them think they have the right to rule."their right to govern"?
I can imagine quite a few men having the idea that they have the right to govern, but it's not a right guarantee in any ancient document written by a bunch of middle aged and elderly white men.
I'm sure a woman was already arrested for a miscarriage after a nurse informed the police."But surely they'll only use this law to charge women who did it on purpose". Yeah, we all know that's bullshit. They'll use it to charge any woman they want to punish. They'll use it to threaten women into complying with whatever else they want.
Not just arrested, but convicted and sentenced to four years in prison. From the BBC: US women are being jailed for having miscarriagesI'm sure a woman was already arrested for a miscarriage after a nurse informed the police.
This is not a goal. They will tell you that you can have all the sex you want, so long as it is procreative sex.How long until they outlaw sex and you need a licence to have a child?
No, this is the goal. They would love to outlaw sex without a license & then the license would be awarded only for procreative sex and only to white couples.This is not a goal. They will tell you that you can have all the sex you want, so long as it is procreative sex.
--Patrick
Hey now, hey now. I think they'd also be willing to give out training certificates for girls who may be too young for procreation. Some of them, certainly.No, this is the goal. They would love to outlaw sex without a license & then the license would be awarded only for procreative sex and only to white couples.
...that's not necessarily a bad thing.How long until they outlaw sex and you need a licence to have a child?
Also taking people who are pro abortion out of the voting pool by charging them with a felony if they have one.No, this is the goal. They would love to outlaw sex without a license & then the license would be awarded only for procreative sex and only to white couples.
Remind that bot that, under the law the anti-abortion crowd wants, she'd be sent to prison for that miscarriage.I absolutely hate the fucking bonkers takes that conservatives are pulling out right now to try to slander pro-choice:
View attachment 41435
This is a strawman. Plain and simple. Maybe there's some idiot out there who actually believes that women who miscarry are delusional, but that's NOT the stance of the majority of pro-choice people, and it is NOT the logical conclusion of believing that an embryo is not a fully fledged human being with all rights and privileges thereof. Embryos don't have to have legal rights for a miscarriage to be an emotional event. You can grieve the lost of a potential future without denying the rights of other women to control their own lives.
I have no idea if this is a fake account spreading propaganda, or a real person who is severely lacking in logical reasoning skills, or someone who is just caught up in grief and is not thinking about the consequences of her words. Whatever the case, I really hate that there are going to be people who get sucked in by emotional arguments like this, and think we have to define a fertilized egg as a human being, just because some pregnancies are wanted.
What a stupid question. Obviously the answer is “no, unless he’s not white. And then yes, definitely.”If a women is guilty of murder for miscarrying, is the man guilty of manslaughter.
Really? You can't see a giant pharmaceutical company getting sole supplier rights to the American Incarceration Industry?Well that's where ya lost me.
"Mental health services" is code for "reeducation camp", which is code for "abusive prison for political opponents"Well that's where ya lost me.
The woman will be charged with resisting arrest by throwing her baby at him in an attempt to get away. You know, like a quokka.Soon the only legal way to have an abortion will be when a cop beats a woman and causes her to lose it cause you know they aren't getting charged with murder under these rules in that case.
Since we're throwing Separation of Church & State out the window, then it's time for churches to pay taxes. If they actually do charitable work rather than just fleecing elderly people out of money to pay for private jets, they can file for 501(3)(c) status and be treated like any other tax-exempt charitable organization (and be held accountable to the rules).Supreme Court rules that it's perfectly fine to give public money to private (i.e., religious) schools.
View attachment 41872
--Patrick
I guarantee this Supreme Court would support taxing synagogues, temples, and mosques while continuing to give Christian churches a pass.Since we're throwing Separation of Church & State out the window, then it's time for churches to pay taxes. If they actually do charitable work rather than just fleecing elderly people out of money to pay for private jets, they can file for 501(3)(c) status and be treated like any other tax-exempt charitable organization (and be held accountable to the rules).
Well, that's it, then. There is no turning this back any longer, it has gained too much momentum.Just heartbreaking watching the country destroy itself.
Here's hoping that many of the newly-packing experience premature emasculation due to an unexpected discharge.Your gun is federally protected, but your sex life is up to the states.
Seems like it's only a matter of time until an American version of Kristallnacht.Just heartbreaking watching the country destroy itself.
Seems like it's only a matter of time until an American version of Kristallnacht.
They've got the Kinder, Küche, Kirche in place now. Intimidation and de-humanizing of LGBT people has had a few hiccups, but they're working on it. Looks like they're mostly on schedule.Seems like it's only a matter of time until an American version of Kristallnacht.
Looks like the Suprime Court is turning your country step by step into a fascist police state.
I said elsewhere that, up ‘til now, they’ve wanted to get that ball rolling, but they were just preparing the ball, lining up the ball, making sure it was all ready to go. Now, however, they have started pushing the ball. They have started trying to make it roll.
—Patrick
Surveys say that a lot people basically think, “Yeah, women should be able to get abortions, but… it doesn’t directly affect ME. And I don’t like the current inflation, so I’m voting out Democrats because it’s all their fault.”The saddest thing about this is that despite the majority of Americans being in favor of the right to abortion (depending on terms and regulations etc you get different numbers but the majority opinion is clear), the democrats will still lose the midterms badly.
Spoiler: nothing is going to work.And the left is already infighting and blaming it on RGB for not retiring, Clinton being force in as an u populair candidate, anti Clinton protest votes, Obama,... FFS.
All true in some ways but holy crap that's nog going to help anyone.
This makes me wonder exactly what the legal distinction might be between "abortion" and "cesarean."in very specific cases even after
One has the intention to have both involved survive, the other not so muchThis makes me wonder exactly what the legal distinction might be between "abortion" and "cesarean."
--Patrick
This was a concerted effort by Republicans that took 50 years of gerrymandering, psyops, and targeted election wins. It can be overturned in precisely the same way, and possibly faster since public opinion and old farts dying off is on the Dems side. It will take a level of cohesion and organization that the Dems are not well known for, though.I hate to say it, but I think Pat is right. This was the Rubicon being crossed. There's no way out that doesn't involve violence at this point.
I said elsewhere that, up ‘til now, they’ve wanted to get that ball rolling, but they were just preparing the ball, lining up the ball, making sure it was all ready to go. Now, however, they have started pushing the ball. They have started trying to make it roll.
—Patrick
The fascists will not give up their gains without resorting to violence. Your scenario assumes two sides playing by the same rules, with good faith. The GOP is already making sure democracy is no longer a factor, and plenty of young people are being indoctrinated into hate.This was a concerted effort by Republicans that took 50 years of gerrymandering, psyops, and targeted election wins. It can be overturned in precisely the same way, and possibly faster since public opinion and old farts dying off is on the Dems side. It will take a level of cohesion and organization that the Dems are not well known for, though.
I guess I'm not convinced that is certain at this point.The fascists will not give up their gains without resorting to violence. Your scenario assumes two sides playing by the same rules, with good faith. The GOP is already making sure democracy is no longer a factor, and plenty of young people are being indoctrinated into hate.
The literal attempted coup wasn't evidence enough for you?I guess I'm not convinced that is certain at this point.
It was pretty pathetic as far as coups go. It was also not about abortion or SC decisions. But no, I don't think if the SC reversed direction again it would result in violence. That's not to say I would be surprised if violence came to pass.The literal attempted coup wasn't evidence enough for you?
It's all about White Nationalism. The coup, abortion restrictions, the current state of SCOTUS, anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda, they're all done with the same end goal.It was also not about abortion or SC decisions.
Hey now, her campaign just says she “misspoke” while reading off a written speech.It's all about White Nationalism. The coup, abortion restrictions, the current state of SCOTUS, anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda, they're all done with the same end goal.
They're literally saying it out loud:
"The victory of white life in the Supreme Court"
This is about racist, rich, white assholes who want to stay in power, and they absolutely will incite violence in order to keep that power. They will do anything and everything they can to achieve their goals.
EDIT: And, in case you were tempted to think "oh, she just misspoke", here is Mary Miller, on January 5th, praising Hitler for being right about the need to control the youth of a country in order to control it's future.
It's White Nationalism. ALL of it. Everything the Republican party is doing right now is because of White Nationalism. They're modern-day Nazis who idolize Hitler and want to create a fascist state so that (specific) white people can stay in power.
The entire party doesn't need to be willing to resort to violence. If even a fairly small group - say 5% of Republican voters - are willing to take up arms to "defend" their rights, that is more than enough to set off chain reactions. And a far, far greater group would be willing to stand by and allow it, because they genuinely believe these are freedom fighters.I don't disagree. But I don't believe that means certainty of violence. A 50 year plan to get here was done strategically, politically. Trump brought out the blatant white supremacists, to be certain. But I don't think the entire party seeks to defend their beliefs with violence because they chose a different path to get here than that.
...what diners are you going into, Dave? More importantly, what diners aren't you going into?“You go to any diner in America, and nobody’s talking about this,” said Dave Carney, a national Republican strategist based in New Hampshire. “That’s not what’s driving the conversation. Real people, working people, people who vote, are talking about the incompetence of the president, and then they go down the list of six or seven things,” including the rising price of goods and the recent baby formula shortage.
I'm currently on vacation in very Catholic and rural Tenerife and people here are talking about it.‘The dog that caught the car’: Republicans brace for the impact of reversing Roe
Everything was going right for Republicans in the midterm campaign. Then the Supreme Court decision came down.www.politico.com
...what diners are you going into, Dave? More importantly, what diners aren't you going into?
Because it doesn't matter where _I_ go...diner, store, gas station, work, even the parking lot, you name it--you better believe people are talking about it.
--Patrick
A slippery slope argument is not going to convince me that violence is a certainty.The entire party doesn't need to be willing to resort to violence. If even a fairly small group - say 5% of Republican voters - are willing to take up arms to "defend" their rights, that is more than enough to set off chain reactions. And a far, far greater group would be willing to stand by and allow it, because they genuinely believe these are freedom fighters.
See: literally every other militant terrorist group or fascist/nationalist coup, from Hitler through Erdogan over the Taliban to the Sovjets in 1917.
I already said I wouldn't be surprised too.I'm not the one saying is a certainty.
But I would be absolutely unsurprised if the US has a Kristallnacht-like moment between now and 2025, with gay/trans/etc people's houses and shops getting destroyed in some areas.
They didn't choose a different path. The plan includes violence. Just like the Nazis' plans included violence. They know that to achieve a fascist state that they will have to become violent, and they are fully prepared for that violence. They are doing pretty much all the same things that the Nazis did in the past. How do you think this is going to play out if it doesn't result in christofascists trying to gain power by violent force? They've been grooming angry young men specifically for the purpose of having a gun-toting group of violent hotheads who believe that they have to use violence to save the nation.I don't disagree. But I don't believe that means certainty of violence. A 50 year plan to get here was done strategically, politically. Trump brought out the blatant white supremacists, to be certain. But I don't think the entire party seeks to defend their beliefs with violence because they chose a different path to get here than that.
I'm not the one saying is a certainty.
But I would be absolutely unsurprised if the US has a Kristallnacht-like moment between now and 2025, with gay/trans/etc people's houses and shops getting destroyed in some areas.
Which is a reason why there's been a rise in membership of organizations like the Pink Pistols, groups like Liberal Gun Owners, and minority groups owning guns. I came out as bi on Facebook 7 years ago. Even though things were looking decent for acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community at the time, history has shown that things can sometimes turn on a dime. I was aware of the risk at the time I did it. Anyone wanting to raid my home in the middle of the night better hope they're a better shot than I am, because I absolutely will thin that crowd before I'm taken out.I already said I wouldn't be surprised too.
I sincerely hope you will never have to.Which is a reason why there's been a rise in membership of organizations like the Pink Pistols, groups like Liberal Gun Owners, and minority groups owning guns. I came out as bi on Facebook 7 years ago. Even though things were looking decent for acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community at the time, history has shown that things can sometimes turn on a dime. I was aware of the risk at the time I did it. Anyone wanting to raid my home in the middle of the night better hope they're a better shot than I am, because I absolutely will thin that crowd before I'm taken out.
For years now, they have been like a dog in an unfenced yard which strains at the limit of its leash to bark aggressively at everyone who passes by, and which has already bitten a few who did not know how far the leash would reach. Saying that "violence is not a certainty" is like saying, "That leash looks sturdy enough."A slippery slope argument is not going to convince me that violence is a certainty.
Don't worry, I've already started putting signs up along the border that say Welcome to Mexico. That's keep em out for a few more hundred years or spiraling public education.I hope I'm already dead before the death throes of your country tears mine apart too.
That is certainly the reality now. I definitely do not agree that this was the plan through the 80s, the 90s, and the 2000s.^ This. I think about this all the time, as I meet people in my line of work (some are clients, or work for clients, or work for the same company I do) that are not the least bit ashamed to say things unprompted like:
"I was in the marines but I got out because it didn't look like they were going to have a war for me to fight in." This mid-20s guy's primary reason for leaving the marines was because it did not satisfy his professional need to kill people.
"I'm tired of the barrage of trans/gay stuff in every form of media I consume. You just can't get away from it. It's exhausting. Can't we just go back to being normal again? I'm tired of humoring the mentally ill. My 11 year old daughter has decided she's a lesbian because it's what the cool kids at school have decided is cool."
"Trump had some issues, sure, but he was the only thing stopping the democrats from completely ruining the country. We need him back pronto."
In their mind, violence was always an option, and not even of last resort. We only begrudgingly failed to stomp out the "domestic enemies of America" because we didn't want to put up with the hassle of being cancelled on twitter. Furthermore, trans and gay people don't deserve protection. In fact, we should beat the shit out of them until they're normal again. If they die during that, well, not like anything of value was lost. We've just tolerated them because we're nice, but that patience is about worn out. Can't say it out loud, but man, wouldn't everything just be better if all these LGBTQ people just went away? The Leopards-eating-faces party needs to hurry up and eat faces faster. Naturally, not OUR faces.
No amount of facts or reason sways them from this (they may even agree to your points and then promptly forget them overnight). They have a narrative in their head and it's what they stick with. It's kind of a political corollary to Planck's Principle: Nobody above a certain age actually changes their mind. They just die out and are replaced by younger people who may (or may not, in our case) have already decided something else is what's normal.
Nah, this was always the plan, because the actual reason why the pro-life movement got started was because it was a more palpable rallying cry then the losing fight against desegregation: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/I definitely do not agree that this was the plan through the 80s, the 90s, and the 2000s.
Believe it or not, one argument from conservatives is that abortions constitute a genocide against black people. I don't agree but it is not an attitude of violence those particular conservatives are espousing.Nah, this was always the plan, because the actual reason why the pro-life movement got started was because it was a more palpable rallying cry then the losing fight against desegregation: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/
And those people had resorting to violence as their 1st response (which is what eventually turned the public against them, which is also why they're downplaying it nowadays... lone wolves and antifa false flags etc).
As always, their accusations say more about their own beliefs than their opponent's. Do you remember hearing the term "domestic supply of infants" recently? Republicans are decrying the lack of babies for good Christian couples to adopt. What they really want is white babies to adopt, and they're bothered because white people have abortions at higher rates than minorities. This is a two-fold fear for them. First, because they're afraid that white people will decline into being a numerical minority because of population decline, but also because adoption is a very lucrative industry, and they want to secure a "domestic supply of infants" to keep the adoption industry alive.Believe it or not, one argument from conservatives is that abortions constitute a genocide against black people. I don't agree but it is not an attitude of violence those particular conservatives are espousing.
Are you really going to go ahead with that bullshit? Just going to ignore "the big switch"? And that the Democratic party of a century ago is not the same party as the one called Democrats today?And if we are sticking parties with their historical policies, Democrats are as, if not more, racist than Republicans. So that doesn't seem like a fruitful path of discussion.
That is entirely my point. The republican party of today is not the same as the one of 50 years ago either. If you say otherwise, then ignoring the sins of the democrats is just hypocritical.Are you really going to go ahead with that bullshit? Just going to ignore "the big switch"? And that the Democratic party of a century ago is not the same party as the one called Democrats today?
As for this part, you are giving people like my cousin in law far too much credit in his deviousness on this issue.As always, their accusations say more about their own beliefs than their opponent's. Do you remember hearing the term "domestic supply of infants" recently? Republicans are decrying the lack of babies for good Christian couples to adopt. What they really want is white babies to adopt, and they're bothered because white people have abortions at higher rates than minorities. This is a two-fold fear for them. First, because they're afraid that white people will decline into being a numerical minority because of population decline, but also because adoption is a very lucrative industry, and they want to secure a "domestic supply of infants" to keep the adoption industry alive.
They jump on the "abortion is genocide" argument because they think their opponents will be as afraid of the idea as they are.
It ALL goes back to White Nationalism with Republicans, and a fascist belief system like that inevitably leads to violence.
I haven't said shit about the Republican party of 50 years ago. I am solely talking about the present Republican party.That is entirely my point. The republican party of today is not the same as the one of 50 years ago either. If you say otherwise, then ignoring the sins of the democrats is just hypocritical.
Wow, you mean a dumb-ass Republican is just repeating talking points he heard from propaganda? That never happens. *eyeroll* </MASSIVE SARCASM>As for this part, you are giving people like my cousin in law far too much credit in his deviousness on this issue.
Edit to clarify:I think he genuinely believes it is a crime against black people and not some way of tricking white people into having more babies.
I have. Because my point hinges on the fight for overturning Roe being a 50-year concerted effort that was not first planned with violence in mind. It was a purely political and strategic one. It was NOT the "plan all along".I haven't said shit about the Republican party of 50 years ago. I am solely talking about the present Republican party.
Those...are the people in the Republican party. And they have beliefs...just as you do.Wow, you mean a dumb-ass Republican is just repeating talking points he heard from propaganda? That never happens. *eyeroll* </MASSIVE SARCASM>
You can't have it both ways. Either there was a 50-year concerted effort by a continuous leadership, and the party is the same party. Or there was no 50-year plan, what's going on now is without a plan stretching back that far, and the party is not the same.I have. Because my point hinges on the fight for overturning Roe being a 50-year concerted effort that was not first planned with violence in mind. It was a purely political and strategic one. It was NOT the "plan all along".
Parroting propaganda isn't the same as having an informed opinion.Those...are the people in the Republican party. And they have beliefs...just as you do.
It is actually the first, although there has obviously been retirements and deaths and replacements in the party in that time. But what I don't believe is that the entire party had been replaced and that there are genuine ties to the original plans put forth 50 years ago within the party. Basically, I see fractures within the GOP.You can't have it both ways. Either there was a 50-year concerted effort by a continuous leadership, and the party is the same party. Or there was no 50-year plan, what's going on now is without a plan stretching back that far, and the party is not the same.
Which is it? Is what's going on now the result of the same Republican party that was around 50 years ago? Or is there a different Republican party in control, and the plan is irrelevant?
No, but I think there are some mentees of that generation still. I've heard there are some people VERY uncomfortable with the direction the party has turned.I don't think there's any pre-Southern Strategy republicans left.
Not uncomfortable enough to do anything about it.No, but I think there are some mentees of that generation still. I've heard there are some people VERY uncomfortable with the direction the party has turned.
Not publicly, at least. I'm not sure you or I would know about such things being handled privately. I see Pence as coming from the old school GOP, for example. My understanding is that Pence is no fan of Trump at all.Not uncomfortable enough to do anything about it.
I don't think any of them are a fan of Trump, honestly. They only see him as a biddable figurehead, an easily manipulated stooge. A corpulent man-child who can be distracted with boobies and golf and told to sign ze papers or else the boobies and golf will all go away and wouldn't that be a shame? Here's a pen.My understanding is that Pence is no fan of Trump at all.
I swear, i posted this image here dozens of times:Believe it or not, one argument from conservatives is that abortions constitute a genocide against black people.
Already answered on the sincerity bit.I swear, i posted this image here dozens of times:
But i'm sure this time they totally mean it, you guys.
By saying some actually do drink the kool-aid?Already answered on the sincerity bit.
He genuinely believes abortion is murder. With that as a given, killing people 100% of the time with an abortion is worse than some people dying less than 100% of the time without. The math is simple for him (and many like him). It is easy to call the opposition sheep but they really aren't an "other", nor are they (all) prone to violence. It is why I don't see violence as a certainty. Because the followers of the faith, of the GOP in particular, are not necessarily prone to using that tactic.By saying some actually do drink the kool-aid?
Yeah, i'm sure some slave owners though that black people where better off being "directed" by the "superior" race. Do you think many of them stopped any lynchings?
Show your cousin the data about maternal mortality difference between races, and i'm sure he'll then totally support more maternal care for them, right?
I sometimes wonder how people with this stance wrap their brains around IVF. Because more than double the amount of embryos are disposed of than embryos/fetuses removed by abortion. If "life begins at conception", are we removing IVF services as well? I find myself thinking about this more often than I'd like because the Catholic church next to our house has been flying a "pray for the 63 million aborted babies" banner for some time (which makes me wretch for a number of reasons), and according to the church, IVF is "against God's will". But I know for a fact* that a significant amount of the kids enrolled in both their school and their CCD program are children conceived through IVF treatments. So, are these parishners sinners? Murderers? Are their children unnatural? Or, as usual, if the money comes in, the church will ignore it's own dogma?He genuinely believes abortion is murder. With that as a given, killing people 100% of the time with an abortion is worse than some people dying less than 100% of the time without. The math is simple for him (and many like him). It is easy to call the opposition sheep but they really aren't an "other", nor are they (all) prone to violence. It is why I don't see violence as a certainty. Because the followers of the faith, of the GOP in particular, are not necessarily prone to using that tactic.
I wasn't talking about ppl dying without it, but just that he's consistent about preventing deaths through gov action, just with helping pregnant women of colour so that they don't die more often from complications then white women (or, you know, other women on colour in developed places outside the US).He genuinely believes abortion is murder.
Yeah, that is incredibly stupid. If he's against abortion in all cases, then 100% of the time people will die when there's no chance for the foetus to live.With that as a given, killing people 100% of the time with an abortion is worse than some people dying less than 100% of the time without. The math is simple for him (and many like him).
Don't worry, i'm sure they'll just say it's only God's will if the embryo get implanted... while also trying to ban Plan B.according to the church, IVF is "against God's will". But I know for a fact* that a significant amount of the kids enrolled in both their school and their CCD program are children conceived through IVF treatments. So, are these parishners sinners? Murderers? Are their children unnatural? Or, as usual, if the money comes in, the church will ignore it's own dogma?
(*We live in an area with a lot of fairly well-off Catholics, and through school/sports/etc. I've met a lot of parents who use that church, and a good amount of those parents used IVF.)
If you're really curious, I would bet that in general it isn't known to the church who was conceived and how, but a) all Catholics are sinners, so the idea that these parishioners are sinners is a given b) yes, IVF causes deaths the same way abortion does, so they should repent of the sin. Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. As we can see with Pelosi, Biden, and PM Trudeau, many Catholics do not adhere to the doctrine of the Church and consider themselves faithful Catholics. They sort of pick-and-choose what parts to follow and what not to, often in line with cultural norms and values. As for the teaching of the Church on the children, there is nothing unnatural about the children, they are not illegitimate (I know you didn't say this but it is sometimes brought up. The Church believes illegitimacy is a legal construction, not spiritual. No children are illegitimate spiritually, that is matter for the laws of the land), and they are made in the image of God and inherently valuable human beings who are loved, whose sins are paid for with Christ's death and resurrection, just like all of us. If the parents did tell the church that they conceived via IVF, that wouldn't impede the child's baptism, admission into schools, etc. The parents have sinned, but not the child. The Church's dogma is not to reject children born of IVF, or any method. If we one day grow a child in a vat, it will be as human as we are now, with all the attendant divine image.I sometimes wonder how people with this stance wrap their brains around IVF. Because more than double the amount of embryos are disposed of than embryos/fetuses removed by abortion. If "life begins at conception", are we removing IVF services as well? I find myself thinking about this more often than I'd like because the Catholic church next to our house has been flying a "pray for the 63 million aborted babies" banner for some time (which makes me wretch for a number of reasons), and according to the church, IVF is "against God's will". But I know for a fact* that a significant amount of the kids enrolled in both their school and their CCD program are children conceived through IVF treatments. So, are these parishners sinners? Murderers? Are their children unnatural? Or, as usual, if the money comes in, the church will ignore it's own dogma?
(*We live in an area with a lot of fairly well-off Catholics, and through school/sports/etc. I've met a lot of parents who use that church, and a good amount of those parents used IVF.)
Jesus didn't die for your sins. He died for mine.It's like I told my gramma, if Jesus died for our sins, we gotta sin or he died for nothing. We can always ask forgiveness later, and as long as we really really mean it, it doesn't matter what we did.
Let's be real... he was dead, what, three days? Jesus gave up his weekend for your sins.Jesus didn't die for your sins. He died for mine.
Man, tell that to Adam and Eve's children. They fucked up so bad a guy had to get nailed to a cross several thousand years laterThe parents have sinned, but not the child.
I know you're being sarcastic, but we draw a distinction between Original Sin and particular sin (the sins we commit as individuals). However, if there's one thing I definitely flirt with heresy on, it's whether I accept the Church's full teaching on Original Sin, so I sympathize with your point to an extent.Man, tell that to Adam and Eve's children. They fucked up so bad a guy had to get nailed to a cross several thousand years later
So, I'm not religious, so obviously I also don't believe in original sin, but I do like the stories and myths of religions (note: it's organized religion I don't like, and to be honest human organized anything I'm pretty skeptical of).I know you're being sarcastic, but we draw a distinction between Original Sin and particular sin (the sins we commit as individuals). However, if there's one thing I definitely flirt with heresy on, it's whether I accept the Church's full teaching on Original Sin, so I sympathize with your point to an extent.
(note: I don't know anything about the chabad movement, this isn't an endorsement, they're just the first website that came up when googling for Torah chapters)Deuteronomy 30:11-14 said:For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.
It is not in heaven that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?
Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?
Rather, [this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.
Or maybe even with a guy named "Lucifer."So if you take this story, and replace Prometheus with a serpent
I mean, this is basically exactly where my 'heretical' thoughts on Original Sin as Christian/Church doctrine come from. If we affirm that the Tanakh is true, which we do, then how can we leave out not just the verse you quoted from Deuteronomy which says the law is close and not hard to fulfill (Paul arguably misquotes/misuses this passage in one of his letters), but other passages where God says all that is necessary for repentance is to turn to Him and repent, or Ezekiel where God says he wishes for the wicked to repent. I tend to read Jonah too as a lesson about how non-believers can be more 'righteous' in their lives and repentance than believers, which is basically anathema to Christian doctrine.So, I'm not religious, so obviously I also don't believe in original sin, but I do like the stories and myths of religions (note: it's organized religion I don't like, and to be honest human organized anything I'm pretty skeptical of).
And one such story is the story of Prometheus. In Greek myth (or at least one of them, there's multiple variations) Prometheus is a titan and a bit of a trouble maker among the gods. All of these different animals had been created, but among them were humans, who didn't have fur to protect them from cold or claws to fend off predators. So Prometheus decides he's going to steal fire from Mt Olympus and give it to the humans. But much more than fire, he gifts them the knowledge of the forge and metalworking, the gift of technology. Through this, humans expand their knowledge and start to grow more powerful, of which Zeus is upset, fearful that man may become as the gods, and so punishes Prometheus by chaining him to a rock and having an eagle eat his liver every day.
Obviously this story is good for humans, the trickster Prometheus is a hero to mankind, and in the Greek tradition was revered as an advocate for mankind's independence.
So if you take this story, and replace Prometheus with a serpent, and the knowledge of fire to the fruit of knowledge of good and evil... all I'm saying is in Greece they would have built statues to snakes.
While, as said before, I'm not religious, I am a Jew, both ethnically and once in spiritual practice, and in most Jewish doctrine the idea of original sin is kinda bonkers. (Most) Christian belief is that mankind is completely lost and held captive in sin, and completely powerless to change from that on their own. -Only- through the belief in Christ and acceptance of him as a savior can any individual person overcome this. Mankind is totally and wholly depraved and unable to enact any kind of salvation from this, or any hope of free will, without Jesus. And frankly, to a Jew, that's nuts. The Torah teaches the exact opposite, that man is responsible for his own salvation. In Deuteronomy, Moses holds a sermon for his people who are claiming that salvation is too difficult on their own.
(note: I don't know anything about the chabad movement, this isn't an endorsement, they're just the first website that came up when googling for Torah chapters)
Sorry, this is all a tangent, and in the end I don't believe any of it anyway so I really have no horse in this race, I just find the concept of original sin kinda insulting. To me, it reads as a form of control, like when the church doctrine was being formed they had a sudden realization that if people could reach salvation on their own, then why would they need the church? And so they quickly had to solve that problem and force people into dependency on them.
For me, it's more the idea that, on a scale from -100 to 100, "Original Sin" says my initial starting condition MUST be the -100, NO EXCEPTIONS. Personally, this strikes me as conflicting directly with the idea of "free will." The idea that every human is born burdened with an entire lifetime's worth of what amounts to spiritual student loans constitutes anathema, for then what would be the point of living? And I know the usual answer is something along the lines of, "To allow sufficient time to grow closer to God and allow yourself to be saved by accepting Him into your heart," but to me that just sounds like a glorified version of, "It's Yahweh or the highway."I can certainly agree with the sentiment of Original Sin as insulting.
Were you not criticising the likes of Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau for being pro choice and still calling themselves Catholic? Is this not also picking and choosing? Or did I misread your intent in that statement?I mean, this is basically exactly where my 'heretical' thoughts on Original Sin as Christian/Church doctrine come from. If we affirm that the Tanakh is true, which we do, then how can we leave out not just the verse you quoted from Deuteronomy which says the law is close and not hard to fulfill (Paul arguably misquotes/misuses this passage in one of his letters), but other passages where God says all that is necessary for repentance is to turn to Him and repent, or Ezekiel where God says he wishes for the wicked to repent. I tend to read Jonah too as a lesson about how non-believers can be more 'righteous' in their lives and repentance than believers, which is basically anathema to Christian doctrine.
I think Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular has done a disservice to itself with its zeal to distance itself from Judaism. I feel that we (Christians) owe a special duty to listen to Jewish people and their criticisms of Christianity, and answer them, in a way that we maybe don't owe to atheists or other religions (not that we shouldn't answer those criticisms too), but instead it's been persecution at the worst of times and dismissal at the best. And the Jewish criticism I truly cannot answer is Original Sin. It isn't a Jewish idea, and obviously Christians believe in doctrinal development, it doesn't seem to be sustained by the Bible.
There are things I love about the Church, and I don't see it as a form of control, of course, I wouldn't have re-converted if I did, but I can certainly agree with the sentiment of Original Sin as insulting.
You know, i looked it up for Catholics just to be sure it was the same as here (i was pretty sure it was, because that's not one of the few things that have become slightly different over teh year beside the Pope's role), and, yeah, baptism is supposed to cleat up OS.For me, it's more the idea that, on a scale from -100 to 100, "Original Sin" says my initial starting condition MUST be the -100, NO EXCEPTIONS. Personally, this strikes me as conflicting directly with the idea of "free will." The idea that every human is born burdened with an entire lifetime's worth of what amounts to spiritual student loans constitutes anathema, for then what would be the point of living?
I am critical of it, but I meant to be more neutral-sounding in as much as "There are Catholics like this," which is just, well, true. I guess it came across as critical anyway.Were you not criticising the likes of Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau for being pro choice and still calling themselves Catholic? Is this not also picking and choosing? Or did I misread your intent in that statement?
I mean, obviously I struggle with the doctrine, so I am not a great person to defend it, but the numbers thing/loan analogy is not quite right. It's more like, "Given the ability to pursue the good or wicked ends, you will naturally incline yourself to wickedness." To what degree this is the case varies on denomination. Calvinists believe in something called Total Depravity - 'no good without God,' or the idea that Original Sin has made it impossible for humans to choose good other than what God allows them to choose. This is very antithetical to free will.For me, it's more the idea that, on a scale from -100 to 100, "Original Sin" says my initial starting condition MUST be the -100, NO EXCEPTIONS. Personally, this strikes me as conflicting directly with the idea of "free will." The idea that every human is born burdened with an entire lifetime's worth of what amounts to spiritual student loans constitutes anathema, for then what would be the point of living? And I know the usual answer is something along the lines of, "To allow sufficient time to grow closer to God and allow yourself to be saved by accepting Him into your heart," but to me that just sounds like a glorified version of, "It's Yahweh or the highway."
--Patrick
Well yeah, I don't even know about this one. I think about why it's called the Sin of Adam. I suppose it's because he was made first, but the Original Sin was a joint effort. I've heard people say semi-seriously that the 'real' Original Sin wasn't eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, but Adam saying 'She made me do it!' when caught.You know, i looked it up for Catholics just to be sure it was the same as here (i was pretty sure it was, because that's not one of the few things that have become slightly different over teh year beside the Pope's role), and, yeah, baptism is supposed to cleat up OS.
But as i was looking it struck me how much the convo is about Adam's sin, and how that it's the origin of mankind's loss of innocence etc... even though he was actually the 2nd ever human to sin.
The problem is that we believe there is a human life at stake. To us there's no difference than saying "Well your religion says you can't kill people, but don't force me to not kill people."That’s all fine, but there’s a difference between having personal religious beliefs and trying to force those beliefs on others through legislation. Justify it through your beliefs all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that those religious beliefs are being forced on others.
That’s a bullshit comparison and you know it. It’s a religious belief that life begins at conception is it not?The problem is that we believe there is a human life at stake. To us there's no difference than saying "Well your religion says you can't kill people, but don't force me to not kill people."
More a philosophical one, I think, and not universal to "religion."It’s a religious belief that life begins at conception is it not?
That could be said of almost any religious belief.More a philosophical one, I think, and not universal to "religion."
--Patrick
Doesn't matter if you think a life is at stake. Do you have both kidneys? There are people on transplant lists who will die if you don't donate one. Should the government be able to force you to donate one to keep from killing someone by their inaction?The problem is that we believe there is a human life at stake. To us there's no difference than saying "Well your religion says you can't kill people, but don't force me to not kill people."
There, maybe. But here?It's established law, a fetus isn't a person until it is separated from the mother, it is simply just another part of the mother otherwise.
Even if it is, and I do think there's some scientific basis for the belief, my hypothetical isn't supposed to be a direct comparison, but rather... I can't pretend it's just an abstraction. Objectively, I think it's a human life.That’s a bullshit comparison and you know it. It’s a religious belief that life begins at conception is it not?
I'm opposed to laws that forbid treating ectopic pregnancy, as I said. There should be exemptions. I mean, the procedure is 'an abortion' but as I said, the fact of the matter is that we either jeopardize two lives, or save one, and saving the one is the right choice.Doesn't matter if you think a life is at stake. Do you have both kidneys? There are people on transplant lists who will die if you don't donate one. Should the government be able to force you to donate one to keep from killing someone by their inaction?
Bodily autonomy supersedes any considerations of if an embryo is a life. A fertilized egg, an embryo, even a fetus, none of these have the right to use someone else's body without their permission. Doesn't matter if a life is at stake, people have control over their own bodies. If you don't own your own body, you don't own anything, you don't have freedom, you don't have liberty. Bodily autonomy is a very basic right, and the only reason it's not considered fundamental to law in this country is because the US was founded by racist slave holders who thought they needed to be able own people.
You can argue about how long it takes before a woman has de facto made the decision to allow a pregnancy, and that she can't revoke use of her uterus after letting a fetus grow for 6 months or whatever, but during the early stages of pregnancy? The woman's body is hers, and the cells growing inside her have no claim over it.
Furthermore, you have got to be fucking kidding me if you think that laws that are written specifically to ban abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy are about preserving life. Because there's no medical way to make an ectopic pregnancy viable. The only reason to specifically codify against terminating an ectopic pregnancy is to have control over women, because without medical intervention to end an ectopic pregnancy, both the woman and fetus die. It's either save the life of the mother, or lose both. There is no option to save the "life" of an ectopic pregnancy. Yet I don't see any pro-life Republicans making a stand against the states that are enacting laws meant to control women to the point of sentencing them to death. That alone should be reason to denounce the SCOTUS ruling, because of the horrors it unleashed.
Also, it's really only been recently that Christians started believing that life begins at conception. There's a long history of Judeochristian belief holding that life begins at first breath. So you should really reconsider if your belief is as well founded as you think it is.
The law isn't the only thing that matters. How people want to count censuses, give tax credits, etc, is a legal construction. It's like borders. Canada and the US are legal constructions, our border isn't a real thing that exist in a vacuum, but the land is. In this case, the government may not count the unborn, but the fact is that they are human lives. And when people say we should give child tax credits to pregnant women, I am for that. It makes sense. But that's not going to tell us whether or not this is a human being. It just tells us how to govern.It's established law, a fetus isn't a person until it is separated from the mother, it is simply just another part of the mother otherwise.
Well, our government doesn’t consider them citizens until they’re born, have a birth certificate, and have an SSN right? Otherwise I should have been able to claim my unborn child as a dependent.There, maybe. But here?
--Patrick
No, as I said, I think secular democracy is a good thing.ALSO, let me note that it's never possible to satisfy every possible person's belief on medical matters. There are pacifists who think that any act of violence is unacceptable, always, yet we don't cater our entire country's laws to make killing someone in self-defense the same charge as murder. They don't get to insist that everyone else give up their lives in the face of violence, just because their pacifism says that it's better to die than use violence.
Quiverfull christians believe that any use of contraception, even the rhythm method, is against God's will. Should we force all married couples to have as many babies as they can, just because some fringe group thinks that God commands it?
Some christians believe that "spilling seed" is equivalent to murder. Should we ban masturbation because of the babies not born from jizz in a sock?
Jehovah's Witnesses don't allow blood transfusion because of their religious beliefs. If there were 6 Jehovah's Witnesses on the SCOTUS, should they be allowed to ban all blood transfusions because they think they're morally required to do so by their faith?
And why should we stop at people's physical lives? If SCOTUS can make a ruling based on Christian beliefs about when life begins, regardless of any science or objective reality, then why shouldn't they be able to make rulings based on the state of people's immortal souls? Should they be able to require everyone attend church on Sundays? Require people take communion? Can they ban witchcraft because of the harm they claim it does to a person's soul?
Again, you think. Would you really believe that without your faith? You can say it’s based on philosophy and science, but you just spent how much time explaining why your faith did not allow for abortions to be done.No, as I said, I think secular democracy is a good thing.
This is a case where I think there is both scientific and philosophical reason to regard this as a human life. A fertilize egg will implant and grow into a person, barring natural abortion like a miscarriage, or unnatural abortion. It is the latter that concerns me. Semen on its own won't do anything. When it comes to blood transfusions or gay marriage, I think the advice 'If you don't want to get gay married, don't.' works, and is a compatible way for religious and secular society to get along. The problem with applying it to abortion is I think there is a person who is being killed as a result, and that is something we should prevent.
The problem with this is that to reach your goal of protecting lives, you're sacrificing others because the people you've allied yourself with are not being in any way reasonable. They're denying abortion in cases of detached placentas, and fatal birth defects. They're denying abortion care in cases where the fetus is already dead. I know you're against those cases, but you've allied yourself with people who are willing to kill women because they get more political power for being pants-on-head stupid about the issue.The problem with applying it to abortion is I think there is a person who is being killed as a result, and that is something we should prevent.
I opposed abortion when I was an atheist, too. It seems to me that it is alive, and we shouldn't kill people.Again, you think. Would you really believe that without your faith? You can say it’s based on philosophy and science, but you just spent how much time explaining why your faith did not allow for abortions to be done.
Just because odious people agree with me on something does not mean that I support them in general. I don't. If Donald Trump loves mozza sticks, well, me too, I still think he's a jerk and I wouldn't vote for him if I were American. There are odious politicians looking for angles on all sides and about all issues.The problem with this is that to reach your goal of protecting lives, you're sacrificing others because the people you've allied yourself with are not being in any way reasonable. They're denying abortion in cases of detached placentas, and fatal birth defects. They're denying abortion care in cases where the fetus is already dead. I know you're against those cases, but you've allied yourself with people who are willing to kill women because they get more political power for being pants-on-head stupid about the issue.
No matter what you think abortion laws should be like, overruling Roe v. Wade and allowing unchecked absurdity when it comes to states making whatever crazy laws they want about the issue is horribly harmful. To the point of being unconscionable. You're not arguing in favor of saving the unborn, you're arguing in favor of punishing women.
Moreover, you're arguing in favor of ALL the losses that will will come, losing access to birth control, losing LGBTQ+ rights, losing interracial marriage, etc. etc.
This is not an issue that exists in a vaccuum. If you want to deny bodily autonomy just because you think that life begins at a fertilized egg, then you've got to accept all the bullshit that follows. Because everyone is going to lose a lot of rights if people don't have a right to their own bodies.
To take your example of 'let the fetus survive on its own if it can' - you wouldn't say this about a baby. A baby requires many people to support it in order to live. I don't think it is meaningfully different when the baby is exceptionally dependent on one person. In the case that the baby needs an organ, I agree. You can't force someone to give blood, a kidney, whatever. But if the mom vanished one night and the baby was left at a hospital, we certainly wouldn't say it's okay for staff to just go "Well I don't have to feed it, or notify anyone about this." There are certain things we would demand be done to take care of it, and we would consider it beyond negligence if they didn't.The argument "a woman growing a baby is natural" is BS.
You are not killing a person, you are allowing another person to stop doing a lot of serious harm to their own body for the sake of another's.
As you have said: after birth a mother can refuse to give blood - which is pretty uneventful and unharmful - to keep her child alive. If the fetus is a life, there's no reason why she should not have the same right before birth. Let the fetus survive on its own if it can.
A pregnancy is, in many/most/nearly all cases, NOT just nine months, fire-and-forget. It radically alters your body AND mind forever. Hormonal balance, hip and pelvis adjustments, breasts getting bigger, often spinal movement which can cause hernias, blood flow changes, etc etc.
Not just asking, but FORCING someone to accept their personality will change and their body will change for something they didn't ask for and don't want, for some tortured reasoning of "it might be a human of you really squint and look sideways at a lot of science" is just morally wrong.
Also, as has been shown a billion times, it is NOT about saving or protecting lives. Otherwise, childcare and education world be free, maternal leave would be longer and better paid, and the same damn people wouldn't be advocating for the death penalty, gun freedom, and so forth.
Trying to claim it's about preserving life is only even remotely possible if you're totally consistent about it.
As-is, it's a power play to enforce a servile role for women.
The act of killing vs. doing nothing, resulting in a death, are arguably different things. I say that while in agreement with you.The argument "a woman growing a baby is natural" is BS.
You are not killing a person, you are allowing another person to stop doing a lot of serious harm to their own body for the sake of another's.
As you have said: after birth a mother can refuse to give blood - which is pretty uneventful and unharmful - to keep her child alive. If the fetus is a life, there's no reason why she should not have the same right before birth. Let the fetus survive on its own if it can.
A pregnancy is, in many/most/nearly all cases, NOT just nine months, fire-and-forget. It radically alters your body AND mind forever. Hormonal balance, hip and pelvis adjustments, breasts getting bigger, often spinal movement which can cause hernias, blood flow changes, etc etc.
Not just asking, but FORCING someone to accept their personality will change and their body will change for something they didn't ask for and don't want, for some tortured reasoning of "it might be a human of you really squint and look sideways at a lot of science" is just morally wrong.
Also, as has been shown a billion times, it is NOT about saving or protecting lives. Otherwise, childcare and education world be free, maternal leave would be longer and better paid, and the same damn people wouldn't be advocating for the death penalty, gun freedom, and so forth.
Trying to claim it's about preserving life is only even remotely possible if you're totally consistent about it.
As-is, it's a power play to enforce a servile role for women.
No one is stopping a fetus from controlling it's own body.I believe this issue is preserving the bodily autonomy of the child. That's whose autonomy I worry about.
Augustine also thought that a fetus started out with a plant-like soul, then evolved an animal-like soul, before finally having a human soul. So I'm really disinclined to agree with him about anything on the matter of souls and abortion.Very early in our history, Augustine said that at three months an infant had a soul
So you'd be fine with an abortion caused by the pregnant woman going on a hunger strike until the foetus becomes unviable ?The act of killing vs. doing nothing, resulting in a death, are arguably different things.
But that's God... it's ok when He kills... women, children, every animal but 2 of each etc.When God designed a system where 50% of fertilized eggs die without being born, I am not at all worried about women choosing to control their own bodies.
Why would I be fine with that? What I said wasn't about me or my opinion until you made it about that. I only stated what others have argued.So you'd be fine with an abortion caused by the pregnant woman going on a hunger strike until the foetus becomes unviable ?
Questions of fœtal "life" v. "!life" aside, it does seem like being born is a requirement to decide some things, like faction. Or at least to give them a starting point. Prior to that moment, some of the baby's stats are still empty. And I don't mean "undecided" or "N/A," I mean more like "protean."Well, our government doesn’t consider them citizens until they’re born, have a birth certificate, and have an SSN right? Otherwise I should have been able to claim my unborn child as a dependent.
That's what I'm trying to get at with Augustine. I think he was wrong, too.Augustine also thought that a fetus started out with a plant-like soul, then evolved an animal-like soul, before finally having a human soul. So I'm really disinclined to agree with him about anything on the matter of souls and abortion.
Just the sheer number of fertilized eggs that end in miscarriage makes me disregard any concerns about the "babies" involved. A least 10 - 25% of all fertilized eggs end in spontaneous abortion, but that's just known pregnancies. Recent scientific studies suggest that it may be 50% or more of all fertilized, implanted eggs that end up miscarrying, with a majority of those never even recognized as a pregnancy. When God designed a system where 50% of fertilized eggs die without being born, I am not at all worried about women choosing to control their own bodies.
A case could be made for castle doctrine in that situation. If a sick person comes near me, and there would be a 50% chance of me dying because of it, they’re getting shot.That's what I'm trying to get at with Augustine. I think he was wrong, too.
As for natural miscarriages, yes, that's tragic. But if there were a disease with a 50% mortality rate, you wouldn't agree it's okay to kill anyone with the disease, just because it often ends in death.
I damn well would argue that it should be illegal to force someone to risk their own health to care for a person who had a disease with a 50% mortality rate, even if it meant that person would surely die.As for natural miscarriages, yes, that's tragic. But if there were a disease with a 50% mortality rate, you wouldn't agree it's okay to kill anyone with the disease, just because it often ends in death.
In fact, that is true. It's why organ donations are voluntary and not required, even if you are dead. Thus, the "murder" argument holds no waterI damn well would argue that it should be illegal to force someone to risk their own health to care for a person who had a disease with a 50% mortality rate, even if it meant that person would surely die.
Yes, but they are trying hard to make it look like it's the other guy's fault. They are pushing and pushing in order to make this into an "I was minding my own business when suddenly he hit me for no reason!" sort of thing.Once again: This is designed to start a war. They are aiming for violence.
I'm not the only one that thinks the plan is to cause violence:Once again: This is designed to start a war. They are aiming for violence.
No one is not more pressing and dangerous. You are advocating for women to die who didn’t need to die. Forcing women to care their pregnancies to term against their will is going to kill some because they die due to complications during childbirth. Sure you say you want an exception in case of the health of the mother but due to the fact that there will be laws against it doctors will choose to not risk their licenses over a 10% chance or a 5% chance and women will die because of it. Women are going to die because their partners. Murder is already the number one cause of deaths during pregnancy and now that women can’t terminate their pregnancies you’ve only increased the dangers of them being murdered by their partners.I am opposed to the death penalty, I believe in helping mothers, etc. But saying "People should not be killed in the womb," and "Mothers should receive mat leave" are more than just degrees of difference. One is clearly more pressing and dangerous.
We just sadly had another one of those this week. A 20-yr-old woman was shot in the face and killed while her 3-month-old baby was with her, by the baby's father. They were out to meet with the father because he said he had things to give the baby. There had previously been domestic charges filed.Women are going to die because their partners. Murder is already the number one cause of deaths during pregnancy and now that women can’t terminate their pregnancies you’ve only increased the dangers of them being murdered by their partners.
Women dying needlessly is not the only cruelty these laws cause. Miscarriages will still happen and in places which have the strictest anti-abortion laws, time and again women who are going through that will also have to deal with being investigated for murder. Some of them will be convicted and forced to go to jail.No one is not more pressing and dangerous. You are advocating for women to die who didn’t need to die. Forcing women to care their pregnancies to term against their will is going to kill some because they die due to complications during childbirth. Sure you say you want an exception in case of the health of the mother but due to the fact that there will be laws against it doctors will choose to not risk their licenses over a 10% chance or a 5% chance and women will die because of it. Women are going to die because their partners. Murder is already the number one cause of deaths during pregnancy and now that women can’t terminate their pregnancies you’ve only increased the dangers of them being murdered by their partners.
To say that supporting mother’s isn’t pressing and dangerous is utter nonsense. And let’s not forget this is America where not only will these women die because they are forced to carry their pregnancy to term but their families will have to pay thousands for the privilege.
Oh I don't think there's any bottom to the fucked up stuff that's coming down the pike because of these laws. Just found that going into more detail was just going to make my point that supporting mother’s is absolutely pressing and dangerous more bloated than I liked.Women dying needlessly is not the only cruelty these laws cause. Miscarriages will still happen and in places which have the strictest anti-abortion laws, time and again women who are going through that will also have to deal with being investigated for murder. Some of them will be convicted and forced to go to jail.
In Texas, yeah. And probably other places soon.Hold up, so with that civil forfeiture bullshit, they don't need to prove anything to take your stuff.
So with abortions being illegal, cops could suspect a woman driving a car of going somewhere to get an abortion, giving them probable cause to seize her car as an instrument of crime!?
I guess the plan is to stand behind the hospitals' lawyer and wait.
I'm too depressed to go searching for confirmation of this, but I really hope doctors have some plan to deal with ectopic pregnancies in Texas.
Exactly, they don't care about being called hypocrites. Machiavellian to the core. Their ends always justify whatever means.The hypocrisy of conservatives is annoying, as usual. "Any president who makes such unlawful executive orders should be imprisoned!" It's useless to try to call them out on it, though. They just do not care.
It's already been proven, again and again, that the constitution doesn't really matter, they're just words on paper that no one actually follows.I really do hate that executive orders are being used this way (and have been for the better part of a decade). It’s not supposed to be how the federal government is run. And I blame McConnell for being such an obstructionist piece of shit. If he actually had a shred of decency and worked with his political opponents, no one would feel the need to do an end-around the Constitution with E.O.’s like this.
Tweet blocked. Anyone capture it?
I'm too depressed to go searching for confirmation of this, but I really hope doctors have some plan to deal with ectopic pregnancies in Texas.
The tweet was, allegedly, passing on the story of a woman who had called her doctor asking about what would happen if she had an ectopic pregnancy. Her doctor assured her that she would still get treatment, but they weren't sure what that would be, since they can no longer get methotrexate.Tweet blocked. Anyone capture it?
Apparently, yes, access to methotrexate is being restricted:I took methotrexate as an anti rejection drug related to my biologic. Are they seriously going to deny a whole bunch of AS and RA patients methotrexate?!
Yes, it is used in abortions. Many things are. What the actual F.
As long as they are the right people... /sThat’s insane! They are effectively crippling these people.
Alcohol and Nicotine are also supposed to be abortifascients. But will they be restricted? Ha!Yes, [Methotrexate] is used in abortions. Many things are.
Yes, they will. Everything is up for grabs.Alcohol and Nicotine are also supposed to be abortifascients. But will they be restricted? Ha!
--Patrick
Well, for women of course. No chance of us getting our faces eaten, right folks? HahahYes, they will. Everything is up for grabs.
There is actually a case going right now in TX where a pregnant woman is fighting a ticket for being in the HOV lane, claiming the fetus counted as a second person inside the car at the time.Well, for women of course. No chance of us getting our faces eaten, right folks? Hahah
Well pregnant women have no rights but fetuses do, so looks like that baby was driving without a license.There is actually a case going right now in TX where a pregnant woman is fighting a ticket for being in the HOV lane, claiming the fetus counted as a second person inside the car at the time.
—Patrick
I'm looking forward to all the legal clusters regarding cross-state abortions, and legalities regarding a fetus having people rights in one state versus not in another state. Didn't we literally have a Civil War over similar issues regarding the rights of black people varying from state to state?
In semi-related news:I mean, that’s just going to make authorities think that any long periods of “data missing” while near any abortion clinic means you must’ve stopped there.
The Pepsi Syndrome<span>-Saturday Night Live</span>
Did you live in central Pennsylvania in the spring of 1979? To mark the 40th anniversary of the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, WITF is working on a series about the accident and its impact. That includes new documentary television programs, radio features and a range of online content.tmi.papost.org
Now that it's been proven to be 100% real, they've pivoted to trying to make it about immigration.
A 27 year-old man raped a 10 year-old girl, and not only are people debating if she should have control over her own body, but major news outlets are trying to deny that she even exists.
This country is a shithole.
It doesn’t affect them directly yet, so it’s easy to ignore.Who the fuck agrees with this shit? I'm so baffled the entire country isn't losing their fucking minds that the christo-fascists are trying to dictate laws for everyone.
Three weeks? It's only been three weeks??? It seems like it's been forever.In the three weeks since the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe...
No one takes methotrexate because they want to. My hair fell out and I spent days vomiting after my self injections weekly. We take it because we want to be able to walk. I know you all understand this, but it’s not negotiable for certain patients.“I have gotten some reports where children have been denied methotrexate for their juvenile arthritis until they’ve proven they’re not pregnant,” said Dr. Cuoghi Edens, an assistant professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at University of Chicago Medicine and a rheumatology expert who treats adults and children.
In one case, a pharmacist initially refused to dispense methotrexate to an 8-year-old girl in Texas. In a note the child’s doctor shared with Edens, the pharmacist wrote, “Females of possible child bearing potential have to have diagnosis on hard copy with state abortion laws.”
Post-Roe, many autoimmune patients lose access to ‘gold standard’ drug
Yes, but don't you see, this is a small price that white republican men are willing to pay for the greater goal of stripping all women of personhood and reducing them to chattel as G*D intended.No one takes methotrexate because they want to. My hair fell out and I spent days vomiting after my self injections weekly. We take it because we want to be able to walk. I know you all understand this, but it’s not negotiable for certain patients.
Denying the medication to an 8 year old sentences her to a lifetime of pain and mobility issues. I am having a hard time fathoming this. The way to treat these diseases is aggressively before the damage is done.
Did someone neglect to consider the future ramifications of their actions? It would appear so.‘Oh, God, no’: Republicans fear voter backlash after Indiana child rape case
The case of a 10-year-old rape victim is highlighting the election downsides of the new wave of abortion bans.www.politico.com
I'm reminded of all the times some consumer product company has proclaimed something like, "After receiving thousands of angry letters about Feature X, we've decided to change it" only to then start receiving millions of angry letters from all the people who liked Feature X exactly the way it was and question what they were thinking.
Fifty reports.An analysis this week by The Columbus Dispatch found 50 reports of rape or sexual abuse toward girls 15 years old or younger in Columbus, Ohio, since May of this year.
...won't someone think of the children???...before Friday, he received four or five vasectomy requests a day. Since the court’s decision was announced, that number has spiked to 12 to 18 requests per day.
Wait wait wait. Is the wording actually "seeking" women, not women who had an abortion? Thus killing the woman AND the baby?
So "Pro-Life" they circled around to Pro-Death.Wait wait wait. Is the wording actually "seeking" women, not women who had an abortion? Thus killing the woman AND the baby?
Jesus fucking Christ.
Well no, obviously you'll first force them into pens to whelp, and only get rid of the unwanted vessel afterwards.Wait wait wait. Is the wording actually "seeking" women, not women who had an abortion? Thus killing the woman AND the baby?
Jesus fucking Christ.
This idea was lightly touched on in John Sladek's Mechasm (aka The Reproductive System - 1968), where children are allowed to sue their parents for everything that goes wrong with their lives and/or every crime they commit because it was obviously their parents' fault that they turned out that way."The year is 2096. The nation is held in the grip of The Birthers, who believe when a child is conceived that it inherits the life of it's mother, leaving the woman nothing but a temporary vessel from which the soul resides till birth. This is the story of Margaret, trying desperately to escape the country before her due date, in which the babies "souless" vessel is discarded."
I'm a hetero, white, cis-male and I'm still wondering if I need an exit strategy because of my mental illness.I definitely recommend anybody in the bible belt who isn't white AND male AND hetero AND Cisgendered to definitely be thinking about an exit strategy.
I think under the new normal, it qualifies you for high office.I'm a hetero, white, cis-male and I'm still wondering if I need an exit strategy because of my mental illness.
Nah, I've got the wrong kind. Mine makes me emotional and physically weak. It doesn't make me aggressive and unaware of my stupidity.I think under the new normal, it qualifies you for high office.
Only certain mental conditions, like narcissism.I think under the new normal, it qualifies you for high office.
Multiple Democratic lawmakers were arrested at an abortion rights rally near the Capitol on Tuesday, less than one month after the Supreme Court issued a ruling that reversed Roe v. Wade.
Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Jackie Speier (Calif.), Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Cori Bush (Mo.), Katherine Clark (Mass.), Andy Levin (Mich.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Alma Adams (N.C.), Veronica Escobar (Texas) and Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) were among those apprehended at the demonstration, which included a march from the Capitol to the Supreme Court.
At 1:20 p.m., the U.S. Capitol Police wrote on Twitter that it began arresting activists blocking First Street NE. Authorities said they gave their traditional three warnings before taking protesters into custody.
As of 1:35 p.m. the demonstration was clear, according to Capitol Police, which reported that 17 lawmakers were arrested in total. Authorities arrested 35 people overall for crowding, obstructing or incommoding.
I'm surprised that's not all over my timeline on Twitter. This feels like it should ge bigger news?
It showed up in my sidebar as trending... because a lot of Republicans and bots were claiming that AOC "faked" being arrested.I'm surprised that's not all over my timeline on Twitter. This feels like it should ge bigger news?
Trump won Kansas by 15 points just 2 years ago. Oh how the turntables.... turn....Wait, do we have actual good news for this thread?! Kansas votes overwhelmingly to protect abortion rights.
Was Red Bull attested from Ancient Egypt onwards too?Yes I do. But I bet they’re not going to compare it to the origin of Red Bull, because Red Bull isn’t controversial..
—Patrick
Red Bull also originated via processing urine.Was Red Bull attested from Ancient Egypt onwards too?
Bile isn't urine, but i do guess they first found it in urine, right?Red Bull also originated via processing urine.
--Patrick
To be fair, as someone living in Texas, I don't think we are even really on the same level as Florida.TX and FL really are just trying to outdo each other for where the fascists can be most brazen these days, huh?
Are you sure? Because this week alone I saw:To be fair, as someone living in Texas, I don't think we are even really on the same level as Florida.
Most of the big wigs here are desperate to turn our state into the next mecca for big tech and so they ain't willing to take the risks Desantis and the Florida GOP are willing to take and possibly alienate the next Tesla or Apple-style deal. It's why most of their crap is more lukewarm like what Ted Cruz spews.
I take just a tiny, miniscule amount of solace in that.
Texas SB1443 would ban from school libraries any books that have characters who are of the same sex in a relationship. It also bans trans characters. It bans website access with the above too.
This is sounding Florida-esque to me.Texas republicans introduced a bill H. B. 2889 to give huge tax cuts to *straight* couples having children—with up to 100% cut in property taxes for TEN kids.
It's not that we're not awful, it's that Florida is doing THAT MUCH WORSE.This is sounding Florida-esque to me.
I never said we didn't do stupid stuff over here, just that compared to Florida we are barely diet crazy. Florida has been in its own realm of batshittery, like the whole thing with Desantis taking over Disney World or the attempts to abolish the Democratic party in the state.Are you sure? This is sounding Florida-esque to me.
The powers that be here in Florida know that we're all gonna be under water in 20 years so there's no reason not to be as awful as possible first.I never said we didn't do stupid stuff over here, just that compared to Florida we are barely diet crazy. Florida has been in its own realm of batshittery, like the whole thing with Desantis taking over Disney World or the attempts to abolish the Democratic party in the state.
We ain't at that level yet because we are relying on economic goals through California transplants to fill all those new tech factories. We very well may become like Florida on the next wave of this rising wave of conservative baloney, but can only barely see Florida's tail light right now.
Isn't Tesla leaving Texas to go back to Ca?To be fair, as someone living in Texas, I don't think we are even really on the same level as Florida.
Most of the big wigs here are desperate to turn our state into the next mecca for big tech and so they ain't willing to take the risks Desantis and the Florida GOP are willing to take and possibly alienate the next Tesla or Apple-style deal. It's why most of their crap is more lukewarm like what Ted Cruz spews.
I take just a tiny, miniscule amount of solace in that.
The engineering headquarters, yes, but the gigafactory they constructed here is still going to be used. It's a loss but not like Tesla is doing a complete pullout. The state is going to still want something back on all those investments.Isn't Tesla leaving Texas to go back to Ca?
That’s incredibly optimistic of you.The engineering headquarters, yes, but the gigafactory they constructed here is still going to be used. It's a loss but not like Tesla is doing a complete pullout. The state is going to still want something back on all those investments.
Honestly the only reason I think Elon decided to pull the engineering HQ back was because he bought Twitter and felt he needed to have them near him while he's dealing with that. I wouldn't put it past them to just move Twitter and the engineering back to Texas in another two years.
--PatrickRaymund Flandez, communications officer at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, recognized the poster shared on social media.
“The poster was previously for sale in the Museum Shop but was never part of an exhibition or display,” Flandez said.
Welp, here we go - the legal battle that we all knew was coming when the dumb "bounty" law went into effect is now here. Surprised it took this long, tbh. Would not be surprised if this one went all the way to the USSC and caused a constitutional crisis.Texas man sues ex-wife's friends for allegedly helping her get abortion pills
"A Texas man has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against three women for allegedly helping his then-wife obtain pills used to induce an abortion last year. The lawsuit by Marcus A. Silva of Galveston County, Texas, seeks more than $1 million from each of the three defendants and an injunction prohibiting them from 'distributing abortion pills.' "
sourceIn the Texas Penal Code, capital murder occurs when someone causes the intentional death of an individual under the age of 10. The prosecutors also describe how Texas law defines an “individual” as “a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.”
Bold of you to assume they won't charge dead people.I find this very interesting due to the following:
source
...so Texas Man may be punitively suing these three women for $1mil for wrongful death, but if they are subsequently found guilty, doesn't that mean the State of Texas MUST then step in and charge these women with capital murder and insist they be executed? If so, Texas Man will get no money from dead people. Talk about a legal quagmire.
--Patrick
Hey man, we're pro life, but life just really really sucks sometimes, but that's not our fault, okay?Texas woman forced to give birth to baby with anencephaly now can't even afford funeral
There was zero chance of this baby surviving, yet the mother was forced to go through the pregnancy, even though it drove her into depression requiring medication, and is now putting a financial hardship on the family.
As always, the cruelty is intentional. Republican lawmakers are disgusting.
Look, what's important is that she got the chance to be born... everything that happens after is the baby's personal responsibility... why didn't she just get a job to make money to pay for the funeral? It's not like she didn't know it was coming...Texas woman forced to give birth to baby with anencephaly now can't even afford funeral
There was zero chance of this baby surviving, yet the mother was forced to go through the pregnancy, even though it drove her into depression requiring medication, and is now putting a financial hardship on the family.
As always, the cruelty is intentional. Republican lawmakers are disgusting.
This is some of the best sarcasm I’ve seen all week. Thank you.Look, what's important is that she got the chance to be born... everything that happens after is the baby's personal responsibility... why didn't she just get a job to make money to pay for the funeral? It's not like she didn't know it was coming...
Foetuses are precious, but not employees babies are just lazy leeches...
Well it ain't cuz of the weather.Why would anyone choose to live in Florida?
Maybe you could simplify it so people don't have to carry their party card on them all the time. Maybe just ban them only for people who dont want them at that time.Wait, what? WHO said this? Really? Uhhh... that seems... like... not the worst idea?
#AbortionsForSomeMiniatureAmericanFlagsForOthers?
I wonder if this is some convoluted solution to the idea that conservatives are dying off so they need to have more conservative babies.Wait, what? WHO said this? Really? Uhhh... that seems... like... not the worst idea?
#AbortionsForSomeMiniatureAmericanFlagsForOthers?
Omg wow it’s like conservatives are inhuman monsters devoid of empathy for anyone who want people to suffer because they’re unambiguously evil. That’s something that hasn’t been noticed before.28 weeks is either a viable fetus well beyond almost anyone's willingness for abortion to be allowed without medical reason, or unviable/dead in the womb/dangerous to the mother, in which case an abortion should be allowed because what's the point of cruelly making her carry something that will never be able to become a human for 2 more months?
This is sorely lacking in details to make any sort of judgement.
Yeah, this took place before Roe v Wade was overturned, and 28 weeks was illegal even under Roe v Wade. (I can't find any Western country that allows elective abortion after 24 weeks). At that time, abortion was legal to 20 weeks in Nebraska (it was very recently changed to 12 weeks for elective abortions). 28-weeks is a premature infant.28 weeks is either a viable fetus well beyond almost anyone's willingness for abortion to be allowed without medical reason, or unviable/dead in the womb/dangerous to the mother, in which case an abortion should be allowed because what's the point of cruelly making her carry something that will never be able to become a human for 2 more months?
This is sorely lacking in details to make any sort of judgement.
I don’t think that the government should be in the business of forcing people to go through childbirth when they don’t want to. I also think that two years is a fucking ridiculous sentence for once again helping her daughter exercise a civil right.28 weeks is either a viable fetus well beyond almost anyone's willingness for abortion to be allowed without medical reason, or unviable/dead in the womb/dangerous to the mother, in which case an abortion should be allowed because what's the point of cruelly making her carry something that will never be able to become a human for 2 more months?
This is sorely lacking in details to make any sort of judgement.
--PatrickRepublicans remained defiant in the wake of Tuesday’s vote. Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens said Issue 1’s approval “is not the end of the conversation.”
“As a 100% pro-life conservative, I remain steadfastly committed to protecting life, and that commitment is unwavering,” Stephens said. “The Legislature has multiple paths that we will explore to continue to protect innocent life.”
Have you seen the price for horse seen of a high quality stallion?! Women are a dime a dozen after allI bet horses get better care in Texas.
Huh. Trying to threaten people into not complying with a Judge's orders - would that count as Contempt of Court? According to my googling that's up to 6 months in jail. If the right wants to play hardball on this, everyone else needs to play hardball back.Ken Paxton threatens anyone who would assist in giving emergency medical care to a woman who has had that care authorized by a judge.
He’s been under investigation for nearly a decade for past crimes. What’s one more to the pile?Huh. Trying to threaten people into not complying with a Judge's orders - would that count as Contempt of Court? According to my googling that's up to 6 months in jail. If the right wants to play hardball on this, everyone else needs to play hardball back.
- daughter of a senatorIf someone with a non-viable fetus doesn't qualify, then who the fuck does?
None of them will "need" an exception. They're all in a position to fly/be flown to another state for it without having to worry about the cost of travel or managing to get time off work.- daughter of a senator
- "babysitter" for a judge
- secretary of a rich industrialist
And some minor variations thereof.
I've always been a bit exasperated at how many people who get frothy about evolution being taught in school also chest-thumping that "survival of the fittest" is the only acceptable meterstick of what is right and good.For people who profess not to believe in evolutionary theory, they sure are pushing to speed up the process as much as possible and at any cost.
--Patrick
If a doctor can be charged for an abortion, shouldn't they be charging God for inducing this?
Just as posting a full body x-ray of a person under 18 would not count as CSAM, I don't think posting an ultrasound would either.Serious question. Yes, really.
If, within some specific region, a "child" is defined legally as being a full human being with all the rights and privileges belonging thereto from the moment of conception (embryo, blastocyst, or even fertilized zygote), could ultrasound images/3D prints/X-rays/whatever of that developing child therefore be considered CSAM since under that law they are images of a naked minor?
Would posting your "It's a boy!" pregnancy announcement on Facebook therefore draw a mandatory minimum felony prison term of 15 years?
--Patrick
Wait until you see what republicans have said about birthright citizenship.Or if a child is alive at conception, then isn't it also a citizen at conception? Making tourism babies almost impossible to stop?
It doesn't count unless they are rich and white?Wait until you see what republicans have said about birthright citizenship.
No, that's all citizens to the Republicans.It doesn't count unless they are rich and white?
While this is worth mockery, it's worth pointing out this story is from 2015 and that bill has long since gone.Idaho Lawmaker Asks If Swallowing Small Camera Could Allow Remote Gynecological Exams
He later backtracked, trying to claim he was asking a rhetorical question, to prove the difference between a colonoscopy and a gynecological exam.
This comes amidst discussion of a bill that would bar doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication via telemedicine.
...since fetal endangerment would probably end up classed as "child abuse/neglect."Covered entities may disclose protected health information to: (1) public health authorities authorized by law to collect or receive such information for preventing or controlling disease, injury, or disability and to public health or other government authorities authorized to receive reports of child abuse and neglect
But what about the sharing it with other non-governmental agencies?Probably not, since it would be a governmental agency.
...since fetal endangerment would probably end up classed as "child abuse/neglect."
--Patrick
I think this has something to do with an intersection between white nationalism / eugenics, and evangelical theology / prosperity gospel. IVF does make more babies, but it's making the wrong kind of babies. It's giving babies to people who, in their eyes, God / natural selection has chosen to reject. From their viewpoint IVF is unnatural and allows weak genes and sinners to procreate, in defiance of the "natural order".The IVF thing is weird because it’s a logical consistency that conservatives don’t usually care about. You’d think the more babies thing would be popular regardless of internal logic but they actually think it through.
Which is where my mind went to at first, BUT... and I am but a sample on this... the amount of well-off conservatives and IVF users is almost a perfect circle, at least around here, and even some other places, from my experience. Even more bizarre is the Catholic stance on this, where the church says it's a sin (I guess because of the disposal of embryos? to my knowledge?) but the majority of the ones around here have used IVF for 1 or more children. And I get that these people live for the "okay for me, but not for thee!" and "I got mine!" fallacies, but WHY, when you're rallying your party around courting the 1%, would you cut off one of the main ways they have children? A lot of these well-off families have kids later because they make their money first, so why would you stop the way they most likely have to have kids? Or, like with abortion, do they think, "as long as you have money, you can get around those pesky laws"?I think this has something to do with an intersection between white nationalism / eugenics, and evangelical theology / prosperity gospel. IVF does make more babies, but it's making the wrong kind of babies. It's giving babies to people who, in their eyes, God / natural selection has chosen to reject. From their viewpoint IVF is unnatural and allows weak genes and sinners to procreate, in defiance of the "natural order".
I find this line of thinking amusing, because if the 1% wants to ensure the survival of 1%er genes, they will only breed with other 1%ers, but European royalty has already shown how that turns out. Meanwhile the historically healthiest demographic is "mutts" with diverse gene pools, which is what you get when the multitudinous rabble doesn't use IVF and instead goes the more traditional route.IVF is unnatural and allows weak genes and sinners to procreate, in defiance of the "natural order".
Pretty much this. These are people who think The Handmaid’s Tale is an inspirational documentary.The issue becomes simplistic once you realize they view women as property not people. If the woman can't breed, you don't fix the woman, you replace them. That's the thought process, through in some religious seasoning to make it palatable, and Dave's your uncle.
I'm pretty sure he's actually my great great great great [...] grandfather, like everyone else currently alive, but okay.Dave's your uncle.
"Accidents"Another divergent cause of death pattern in Texas was infant deaths from accidents, which increased by 21 percent in Texas versus a one percent increase in the rest of the U.S. "
That was my first thought, as well, but I imagine a lot of those are not outright neglect or abuse, and are (possibly preventable) accidents, without quotes. Young, overworked, poor, etc parents are going to do a worse job of watching their children. They're going to have fewer resources to child-proof their home. They're going to get less sleep, have more tasks distracting them, have worse social support structures, and just generally have more conditions where accidents will occur."Accidents"
Less likely to be able to afford an emergency room visit when you're 99% sure they'll be fine in a day or two anyway.They're going to have fewer resources to child-proof their home. They're going to get less sleep, have more tasks distracting them, have worse social support structures, and just generally have more conditions where accidents will occur.