r/worldnews 15d ago

Western Australia has made it illegal to protest outside abortion clinics *Within 150 meters

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/western-australia-has-made-it-illegal-to-protest-outside-abortion-clinics
79k Upvotes

View all comments

6k

u/slugsliveinmymouth 15d ago

I’ll never forget the time my girlfriend came back from a planned parenthood in tears because 50 or so women were shouting baby killer and whore at her. The best part is she wasn’t even getting an abortion. She was getting prenatal vitamins for a healthier pregnancy.

241

u/Albatrossosaurus 15d ago

Some people are just wayyy to passionate about unborn fetuses. Aren’t there like 50000 kids in foster care or something?

311

u/djehutythecutie 15d ago

They only care about babies when they're attached to the mothers. It's more about controlling what women can do for many of them rather than it being about the fetus. People have gotten very angry with me for saying this but in my experience these exact same people are vehemently against social safety nets that would help families with small children so they can go fuck themselves.

206

u/Bladelink 15d ago

They're also against birth control, which is the real tell. It's not about reducing the number of abortions, it's about the punishing of women for sex.

68

u/FishUK_Harp 15d ago

If they really wanted to actually reduce the number of abortions, they'd spend their time funding or delivery good quality sex education to teenagers and throwing condoms and contraceptive pills at anyone and everyone by the ton.

But noooooo, they're not doing that, are they? As that's not what they really want.

24

u/Bladelink 15d ago

This has been my takeaway as well. They don't want to hear any shit on all of the many ways to address abortions as a problem. Their one and only answer is "stop having sex whore".

15

u/ZeikCallaway 15d ago

Right because it's not about the abortions themselves it's about them wanting everyone to subscribe to their exact brand of their "faith".

-1

u/KnightTemplar777 15d ago edited 15d ago

You realize we live in the Information Age and kids have a phone early as people use to get bikes? They know what safe sex is. I don’t know why boomers and millennials think kids don’t know about condoms and pulling out, with plan B as a possible quick store grab. Condoms are cheap by the way, you don’t need to by the 20 dollar lifestyle flavored condoms to have sex. The reason why so many kids have kids today is because of bad parenting and a reversal in culture and morals. Rap music is all younger generations listen to and what do they talk about and show? WAP. Even pop music is getting more detailed and it’s not teaching safe sex when in reality entertainment and social media is the new school education.

5

u/FishUK_Harp 14d ago

Holy shit, a genuine full-blown idiot.

1

u/KnightTemplar777 14d ago

Good response 🤙🏼

4

u/jammerjoint 15d ago

The vast majority of abortions are actually for medical reasons, not unwanted pregnancies.

6

u/valiumandcherrywine 15d ago

Absolutely 100 % this.

There are effective ways to reduce abortion numbers, most of which revolve around sex ed, increased welfare payments, better access to health care and better access to birth control. These fucks aren't out there protesting for universal basic income to lift women out of grinding poverty, or for better birth control, education and health care. They aren't at the other end, working to improve the foster system and state care. They just hate that women might be outside of the control of a man and / or might be having sex, those brazen hussies.

These are the fuckers that think The Handmaid's Tale is aspirational.

8

u/egaeus22 15d ago

It is also in a big way about reducing the number of white abortions. It is sustained pressure to keep the white majority.

3

u/hrrm 15d ago

Look, im pro birth control and pro abortions, but lets not pretend that the people you refer too are anything but bible thumpers that believe both using birth control and abortions are “altering gods plan,” which is the reason they protest both. You can’t convince me the people out there are doing it to try and punish women for having sex.

15

u/norealmx 15d ago

Those people you just described. It goes hand to hand.

3

u/jasmine-blossom 15d ago

They are trying to punish women for having recreational sex. If you talk to them and ask the right questions they’ll admit that they believe that because women biologically gestate, that we don’t deserve equal rights over our bodies and women who don’t accept their role as gestator are evil witches.

1

u/Few_Paleontologist75 13d ago

What if god's plan is that some people will get a safe abortion and some of his followers are shown to be 'dicks'?
Apparently an abortion remedy is in the Bible, right?

-2

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[deleted]

4

u/ThatDudeShadowK 15d ago

Being against expanding abortions past where they're allowed now isn't the same as being anti choice in general, let alone being the type of psychos actively protesting outside clinics

-3

u/realmastodon2 15d ago

They want women to carry their spawn.

-13

u/121_Jiggawatts 15d ago

Not all Pro-Lifers are anti birth control.

12

u/KeeblerAndBits 15d ago

If you're screaming outside a planned parenthood clinic, yes you are.

0

u/121_Jiggawatts 15d ago

Proof? That’s a pretty big claim

-31

u/Salty-Performer-8607 15d ago

Sex is for the person you care about. Emotionally and physically. Not just to have a good time. If you have sex just make sure it’s the one you want to be with the rest of your life. If not then take responsibility for your actions.

17

u/fotumsch 15d ago

That's a rather puritanical point of view. Sex can be just for fun but please use birth control.

19

u/KeeblerAndBits 15d ago

I have sex for fun all the time. It just happens to be with my husband.

Guess what? My husband and I have had an "oopsie" and had an abortion

I don't lose a minute of sleep and neither does he.

Fuck off

13

u/logicWarez 15d ago

Says who? That's just your opinion and one that is most definitely in the minority. Why can't you care about more than one person in your life. Sex with one person is fun. Sex with a different person is usually quite different and also fun. Hell sex with multiple people at one time can be loads of fun. What if you don't want to be with someone the rest of your life? It's perfectly reasonable but no reason to not experience the joy of sex. Having an abortion is taking responsibility for your actions. Using birth control and condoms is taking responsiblity for your actions. Leaving a relationship that you thought would be for life but turns out you want something different in life is taking responsiblity for your actions. Sex is fun, sex is loving. Have as much as you desire whether you want kids or not. Take responsibility and have an abortion if need be. Sounds like a lot better outlook on life to me.

9

u/_____jamil_____ 15d ago

Sex is for the person you care about. Emotionally and physically. Not just to have a good time

fuck off with that bullshit

-1

u/Salty-Performer-8607 14d ago

I guess you don’t care. What’s so funny is that the Reddit says watch how you talk to others. But I guess some people have internal problems 🤔

2

u/_____jamil_____ 14d ago

Do you have a script that provides you with the stupidest shit to say? Cause it's hard to believe someone as dumb as you is even literate

0

u/Salty-Performer-8607 14d ago

Thank you for the nice compliment. Another lost person 🤗

2

u/jasmine-blossom 15d ago

That’s a really fucking stupid response for anyone who doesn’t want to or can’t carry a child. The partner in that scenario is pretty fucking irrelevant if you can’t care for a child anyway.

3

u/JustABizzle 14d ago

Betcha Salty Performer can’t perform at all.

4

u/Niku-Man 15d ago

If there's one thing I've learned in politics it's that you shouldn't depend on people that disagree with a position to tell you why people hold that position. When you do that, you're painting a picture of a person that isn't a normal person, and they might not even exist

-12

u/NewAcctCuzIWasDoxxed 15d ago

It's more about controlling what women can do

This is the narrative that the hard-Left has ingrained into your head. It's actually impossible to think that some people see unborn children as actual humans, huh?

14

u/djehutythecutie 15d ago edited 15d ago

It's actually impossible to think that some people see unborn children as actual humans, huh?

Yeah you people say this and then peddle shit about how birth control is immoral or straight up lie and tell people it doesn't work, and the excuse is always that people shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage because of, vestigial or genuine, religious reasons. No social safety nets, no family planning, no sex ed beyond "don't do it," not even assistance with prenatal care which is something you'd think you people would give half a shit about considering how say you care about "unborn babies."

You might fool sheltered morons on the internet by pretending none of this reflects the average pro-life person, but anyone who lives in a heavily conservative area knows better. No need to make anything up when they tell you outright what they believe and why when you ask them about it, which I have and I do. If you want people to think you actually care about fetuses and babies, maybe your actions and policy objectives should reflect that because frankly it's insanely obvious it was all bullshit the second its born. If men could get abortions then you'd be able to get one at a fucking gas station because god forbid you tell a god fearing american man what he can and can't do to his body or even just ask him to do in the case of vaccinations.

If you want to save fetuses, maybe you should be working on inventing artificial wombs where fetuses can develop without being attached to the body of someone who wants nothing to do with it. I'm looking forward to the dipshit arguments from pro-lifers about why that's immoral too. I know it's fun to be able to tell people what to do without actually having to pay a couple bucks more on your taxes, but nobody is going to believe you when you say it's because you care. I have lost count at how many times I've heard pro-life people actually say that part of why they are against abortion is because there should be consequences for having sex. Consequences. Like it's a fucking crime. Saddest thing is that you see that sentiment most often from pro-life women, but maybe that's because the men realize it's not politically savvy to say that out loud themselves.

-3

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[deleted]

19

u/rulerguy6 15d ago

While I agree banning protesting in general would be considered bad, what they're doing isn't protesting. It's harassment. They're just trying to intimidate and shame people who are accessing a service that's completely legal.

If they wanted to protest, they would do so to in a way to get the attention of lawmakers.

14

u/CaptainCAAAVEMAAAAAN 15d ago

They don't give a shit about babies. The GOP has voted time and time again to take away healthcare, and the social safety net. It's one of their favorite culture war issues.

16

u/isuckatpiano 15d ago

There are 400,000 children currently in foster care in the US alone.

Side note there are 380,000 churches in the US. All they have to do is adopt one child per church with the mega churches adopting 2-3 and this problem is solved. Hmm I wonder why they don’t do that…

Ps I do not wish religion forced on any child, I was merely pointing out that the church has a solution but chooses hatred and violence instead.

2

u/ManyIdeasNoProgress 15d ago

That's one per, what, 800 people or so? That's a lot considering the sizeable portion that don't attend service for whatever reason.

Not that I doubt you, it just baffled me a bit.

2

u/isuckatpiano 15d ago

Lots of places to get the numbers, but here’s a good site for reference on Foster care statistics

https://www.ifoster.org/blogs/6-quick-statistics-on-the-current-state-of-foster-care/

1

u/Few_Paleontologist75 13d ago

Another great link, here:
There are over 420,000 children in foster care in the United States. Over 110,000 need adoptive homes right now.

https://adoptuskids.org/

2

u/LilMissLexie 14d ago

Unfortunately some of them already “have.” One of the adoption centers in my city is Christian an’ I’m all but certain they got a church on their grounds.

By no means am I anti-religion, even if I do have very valid beefs with this faith in particular, but that place just smells like sugarcoated colonialism.

0

u/rex_lauandi 15d ago

It should be pointed out that Christians are more likely to adopt. adoption.org/who-adopts-the-most/

5 percent of practicing Christians in the United States have adopted, which is more than twice the number of all adults who have adopted. In addition, a survey showed that 38 percent of practicing Christians had seriously considered adoption, while only 26 percent of all adults had.

So say what you will, but a bigger portion of them are putting their money where their mouth is.

3

u/isuckatpiano 15d ago

If the church wants to take up this mantle, they need to train their congregation on how to do it and actively provide support for it. By intimidating women at PP they are doing the exact opposite of the teaching of Christ. (How did Jesus treat the woman at the well?)

I was a Christian for 35 years. I’ve had 4 foster kids. I have 4 of my own. It’s fucking hard and they don’t want to do it. I have tried to get more Christians to foster / adopt for many years.

Pregnant teens also don’t want to be incubators for sterile evangelicals.

Adopting a kid because your imaginary friend tells you to is not a recipe for success. /rant

2

u/rex_lauandi 15d ago

I feel like these people are “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” by you. If they believe it’s murder, and protest, you say “Why aren’t they fostering and adopting?!!!”

Then when the numbers reflect that, clearly they are, you say, “Yeah, but not the right way or for the right reasons.”

This seems personal for you, which is understandable, but know that your emotions may be clouding your logic.

3

u/isuckatpiano 15d ago

Let me try again without the emotional charge, I apologize for that.

Point 1) Christians could solve this crisis in America by having someone who is most qualified in each church step in and take in and adopt one child. The job of the church would be to support that family in every way possible. Not just “praying for them”.

Point 2) 5% of Christians have adopted in the US? That seems like a hard statistic to prove but nonetheless Christians are by far the largest religion and demographic in the country. So it’s not surprising, but personally it’s hard to believe that 1 in 20 Christians have adopted a child.

Point 3) a much larger percentage of Christians are more vocal about abortion and taking women’s rights than 5%.

Point 4) this is right wing politics capturing the Christian voting bloc. Protesting at PP is done to make the base angry and totalitarian. Where is the Love your neighbor as yourself bit playing in? It’s not…

2

u/rex_lauandi 15d ago

To point 1) Yes, that’s true, but my point is that they seem to be more mobilized than the rest of the demographics on this effort. So you could presume, just on this data alone, they’re on their way to this.

To point 2) That data is on a percent basis, so the size is irrelevant. They are more likely to consider and to adopt that non-Christians.

To point 3) This seems to be true, and there may be plenty of hypocrites, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that, statistically, if Christians are most likely to view abortion as murder, than they’re also most likely to adopt and foster. So there are plenty of voices who are not hypocrites.

To point 4) I agree with this. My reconciliation on this point stems from the fact that if I walked into a random Christian (or even evangelical) church on a given Sunday, the likelihood that there would be someone who was shouting curses at someone walking into PP earlier that week is very low. What we hear about is a very vocal, very minority. That’s why the adoption statistic eases my anxiety on this topic. The other thing I have to remember is that these people believe it’s murder. Whether I agree with them or not, if I believed the state was sanctioning or even funding murder of innocents, I’d be extreme about it too.

I definitely understand where you’re coming from. It’s helpful for me to understand where the other side is coming from so that I can remember that even if we fundamentally disagree, even if the outcome seems outrageous (taking away women’s rights seems outrageous to the left, while murdering innocent babies seems outrageous to the right), and even if it seems like there’s nothing but hate, there are plenty of people on both sides genuinely trying to do good the best they can. I want to prop those people up instead of assuming the horrific, vocal minority as the image of what that side looks like.

3

u/isuckatpiano 14d ago

You were down voted so I upvoted you. I think civil disagreement is a good thing and I wish you well. Have a great weekend fellow redditor!

1

u/rex_lauandi 14d ago

I love that point, and I couldn’t agree more!

-2

u/FapplePie85 15d ago

You weren't being emotional. Saying you were is just a common gaslighting tactic people like this use to try and denigrate you and invalidate your opinion.

2

u/isuckatpiano 14d ago

Maybe look up what gas lighting means.

2

u/FapplePie85 14d ago edited 14d ago

I mean, that person said you were emotional without any indication that you were being emotional other than maybe using a cuss word. They were doing that to invalidate your argument. Take up for them if you want, but they were being intentionally manipulative to trivialize your points. 🤷🏼‍♀️

→ More replies

1

u/FapplePie85 15d ago edited 15d ago

Gee, I wonder if that's because Christians comprise such a large group of people and "the rest of adults" is the vaguest goddamn thing I've ever heard.

Nah, must be because they're better than everyone. That's how statistics work.

1

u/rex_lauandi 15d ago

The data provided was on a percent basis, which means that group size was accounted for. That’s how statistics work.

3

u/FapplePie85 15d ago edited 15d ago

I imagine that you didn't actually go down the rabbit hole of the various reroutings to Christian websites your link set forth for barfing out that number. After clicking through 4 different links, there's absolutely no actual study provided to check these numbers. Who is "the rest of adults?" Did they just poll poor people to get that number? Did they just poll young people? Elderly people? What question did they specifically ask? What location did they poll people? How many people did the study encompass? Who is this "the rest of adults?" The link also says more men adopt than women (probably because when gay male couples adopt, theres no women, duh). So now that means men are better than women because they adopt more?

Forgive me for thinking this is laughable.

1

u/rex_lauandi 15d ago

Maybe I’m geographically biased, but I work within foster care system as an advocate for children, and when I go into a foster home in my area the family is likely Christians (specifically practicing evangelicals) or gay. On more rare occasions I find a more secular couple who is infertile. (I ask a specific series of questions about “Why are you considering adoption?” of foster parents.)

The only people that I find who are adopting because “the system is broken” or because “there are a lot of kids who need adopting” seem to be those practicing evangelicals.

Again, I could absolutely be geographically biased, and I’m not substituting my experience for data, I only point this out because I didn’t have a hard time believing that statistic.

2

u/FapplePie85 15d ago

Because there are a lot of Christians....

And you don't know if they "practice" or not. Everyone says they practice. No one says, "Yeah I'm a Christian but I don't do shit" because of the guilt/shame inflicted by other Christians. They mark "Christian" on their applications thinking it helps them get a baby. How many atheists/Muslims/agnostics are telling the truth and mark that on their application and getting denied for "not being a good fit" I wonder.

1

u/rex_lauandi 15d ago

According to this research:

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

I should expect a little under 15% to be practicing evangelicals (attending religious services once a week). My experience is WAY higher than that.

According to this: www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1240340

I should expect 1-2% of the couples to be gay, and again it’s A LOT more than that in my experience.

Again, I’m not saying my experience is representative of the whole; I’m just saying the data believable through my lens.

0

u/KnightTemplar777 15d ago

Damned if you do damned if you don’t right? Stats here: oh where did you get that a Christian website. Okay I work here and I see this:oh there are many Christians are you sure they even are one? Oh they are just doing that because god told them to. Any more throwaways you gonna bring?

→ More replies

4

u/gelinrefira 15d ago

"If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, youre fucked."

7

u/spaceaustralia 15d ago

Some people are just wayyy to passionate about unborn fetuses

Best argument I've heard is this:

You're in a fertility clinic. It doesn't matter why. A fire breaks out. To your right, you hear a crying baby. To your left, you see a table full of IVF embryos, ready to be implanted and carried to a full term. The fire is raging and you have no time. Do you save the crying baby, leaving multiple embryos to be consumed in the fire or do you grab as many culture media as possible at the expense of a single child?

-5

u/kankurou1010 15d ago

The argument is incomplete though. If you choose to save the crying baby that only shows that you think a crying baby has more moral value. It doesn’t show that it is permissible to kill an embryo or fetus in the womb.

This should illustrate that:

Suppose you’re in a hospital and a huge fire breaks out. In the room you’re in there is an 8 year old child and a 80 year old man with onset dementia. You only have time to save one. Who do you save?

If you choose to save the child (or whoever) that doesn’t mean it’s justified for you to kill 80 year old men with onset dementia. It just means in this special case you’ve determined the best choice you have is to save the child.

10

u/spaceaustralia 15d ago edited 15d ago

It doesn’t show that it is permissible to kill an embryo or fetus in the womb

It's not about permissibility of abortion. It's about the value life and whether someone could truly maintain that life begins at conception when facing an ethic dilemma.

The usual answer to "would you save one or many?" is that you'd save as many lives as possible but nobody in their sane mind would walk out with an armful of embryos at the detriment of a post-natal life.

Edit: The point I'm trying to make here is just that no one truly feels like an embryo has full personhood. Anti-abortion advocates might say life begins at conception but there exists a point long after that in which a foetus starts being recognizably a person equal to any other.

-1

u/kankurou1010 11d ago

Life does begin at conception. An embryo is alive, has it’s own unique Homo sapiens DNA, and all it needs to develop into an adult human is the proper environment and nutrients.

You can argue that it’s not a person.. but it is definitely its own unique life. You can totally support abortion, admit it is a human life, and still be consistent.

I don’t think that thought experiment proves anything. Saving one thing over another can mean you value it more, but that doesn’t mean a baby is more valuable than an embryo. A baby could be more valuable than an embryo, but that doesn’t mean life does not begin at conception.

There are countless examples of “Would you save this person or this person(s),” and no matter your answer that only shows us your intuition of who is more important to save. It is not any epistemological evidence of the nature of the things you’re (not) saving.

*Just read your edit - but I’m gonna keep what I wrote.

Yeah an embryo probably does not have personhood, but the thing is that I’m not sure personhood is what we should put all of our moral value in.

Animals are not persons, but we still think there is a correct way to treat them and most ppl give animals some moral value. Moreover, an embryo is a potential person and that might have some ramifications too.

I’m not totally sure. I don’t have very strong positive arguments against abortion; I just think most arguments for abortion aren’t very strong.

-6

u/rex_lauandi 15d ago

Moreover, if there was a fire and I was there trapped for some reason, and a crying child, if you chose the child over me, again that doesn’t mean you’re now allowed to murder me.

(I just like making things more personal.)

12

u/Few_Paleontologist75 15d ago

Of the 400,000 children in foster care in the US, approximately 120,000 are waiting to be adopted. Many of these kids will age out of the foster system without ever being adopted. Then, they're on their own.
But...these protesters don't want to help the already born, just the fetuses - they're less work!
www.adoptuskids.org

-11

u/wisdomandjustice 15d ago

And there are around 400,000 abortions in the U.S. every year (low end).

Which do u think is a bigger issue to people who care about children?

16

u/ryan22_rs 15d ago

Should be the living

-5

u/wisdomandjustice 15d ago edited 15d ago

If people already born were being killed, it would be.

And you can worry about two things at the same time.

Being in foster care is not death - it's a false equivalence.

And finally, unborn children are alive; nice try.

It's anti-science to claim otherwise.

So much bullshit in 4 words - honestly impressive.

The biggest genocide in the history of humanity has been going on for over 70 years now.

1.5+ billion killed, dehumanized by people like you.

It's pretty terrible.

3

u/ryan22_rs 12d ago

I'd love to see an unborn child try to survive on their own. It's almost like they need a host to keep them alive... a host whose life is more valuable than any unborn cells.

-1

u/wisdomandjustice 12d ago

unborn cells like it's some kind of slur.

Pretty sad tbh.

That's how justifying genocide has always been done: dehumanize those you are killing.

5

u/Few_Paleontologist75 15d ago

You are right, it's definitely higher, and the numbers have been dropping for years.
Having access to a family doctor, (Note: PP acts as a family doctor in many locations) getting comprehensive sex education and proper birth control - especially the Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) which are the most effective methods of birth control also lowers unwanted/unintended pregnancies.

LARCs include the copper Paragard IUD, the hormonal (progesterone) Mirena IUD, and the hormonal contraceptive implant (effective for 10, 5 and 3 years, respectively.) Then there's emergency birth control, often used in rape/incest cases.
All birth control methods have a failure rate, btw.
"Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs. In addition, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and private insurance coverage under the ACA, the proportion of women aged 15–44 nationwide who were uninsured dropped more than 40% between 2013 and 2017.21 There is evidence that use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods—specifically IUDs and implants—increased through at least 2014, especially among women in their early 20s, a population that accounts for a significant proportion of all abortions.22 Another study suggests that the use of IUDs might have increased in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, spurred by fears that such methods could become more expensive to access in the future.23 Notably, contraceptive use has driven the long-term decline in adolescent pregnancies and births, which continued through the 2011–2017 period.24,25"
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2019/09/us-abortion-rate-continues-drop-once-again-state-abortion-restrictions-are-not-main

"The US is not a safe place for women to give birth! Among 11 developed countries, the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate, a relative undersupply of maternity care providers, and no guaranteed access to provider home visits or paid parental leave in the postpartum period, a recent report from The Commonwealth Fund concluded.
"Maternal deaths have been increasing in the United States since 2000, and although 700 pregnancy-related deaths occur each year, two-thirds of these deaths are considered to be preventable."
https://www.ajmc.com/view/us-ranks-worst-in-maternal-care-mortality-compared-with-10-other-developed-nations

If caring about children was the driving force for pro-lifers, there'd be no kids waiting to be adopted from the foster system. If caring about children was really important to pro-lifers, free daycare would be available to everyone. If children were truly valued - safe, affordable housing would be available to every working parent that needed it. If caring about 'unwanted' children was important - everyone would support free afterschool activities for young people in every corner of the US. People of color could kiss their kids goodbye when they went to school and feel confident their children would be home safe for supper, right? Other minorities would know their kids wouldn't be hassled/or killed at school or any time they were out in public, because of their race, religion, gender, sexuality, creed, etc. right?
If all American parents could earn a living wage...well, that's just a dream...never mind.

AND - the US isn't safe for babies for a terrible reason, but not the one you think!
At 5.8 deaths per 1,000 live births, the United States ranks No. 33 out of 36 OECD countries for infant mortality.
The U.S. infant mortality rate has been consistently higher than other developed countries, and 1.5 times higher than the average (3.8 deaths per 1,000 live births) among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

-5

u/wisdomandjustice 15d ago

All I see is a bunch of whataboutism.

I think murder is bad, but I'm not working as a doctor in a hospital; or a police officer.

Does that mean I don't really care about murder?

Because if I REALLY CARED I'd be on the front-lines shooting at criminals or saving their victims?

Of course not.

3

u/Few_Paleontologist75 15d ago edited 15d ago

Removing a non viable fetus is NOT murder! As many as half of all pregnancies may end in miscarriage. Some of these miscarriages are incomplete. DYK, there have been several cases in which women were arrested for miscarriage or stillbirth in the US? In 2018, 77.7% of abortions were performed at 9 weeks or less gestation, and 92.2% of abortions were performed at 13 weeks or less gestation.

Major fetal anomalies can be reliably detected at 10-11 weeks of gestation. Other fetal anomalies can't be detected before 13 weeks. Many couples choose not to continue a pregnancy that will result in permanent pain for their child. You probably know at least one couple who chose to end a pregnancy because of this. They likely will NEVER tell YOU because of your attitude. If they did tell you, you'd probably be alright with it because your know this couple to be good 'moral' citizens that 'did everything right but this bad thing happened'.

DYK that incomplete miscarriages (aka spontaneous abortions) are possible? DYK that medical or medication intervention is sometimes required to complete the expulsion of the fetus? DYK that medical or medication intervention would be an abortion? Or would you call this murder, also?

To consider the removal of a fetus murder suggests you consider actual citizens irrelevant and think they have NO rights in this equation. A citizen or resident of a country has legal rights. A potential life does not have legal rights over actual citizens, nor should they. Diminishing the rights of actual citizens over non viable fetuses is a slippery slope that can have many unacceptable consequences. You seem like the sort of person who unless and until this scenario affected you personally, or someone in you loved, would enrage you with the injustice.

I also suspect you're one of the people who think (primarily white) women should just be brood mares for the infertile! I say, the infertile should look at adopting from the foster system and stop harassing women who want/need an abortion.
Of the 400,000 children in foster care, approximately 120,000 are waiting to be adopted. Most will age out of the system without ever knowing the love of a family. Why haven't YOU adopted one or more of these kids? There are siblings hoping to be adopted together. Why not put your time and energy into promoting www.adoptuskids.org ? There are more than 5,000 children currently photolisted on their website. That would be a 'pro-life' action I would respect.

Be honest, you really don't know why anyone has any legal medical procedure - and to be honest, it's NEVER ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS!

2

u/FunctionalRcvryNetwk 15d ago

That’s just 50,000 people that’ll prop up the capitalist machine in one way or another:

If not legalized slavery in jail, then “slave” wages at McDonald’s.

Probably why capitalists fund “pro-life” so often.

1

u/KnightTemplar777 15d ago

You ever wondered why a place like chic fil a has higher wages than McDonald’s Burger King Wendy’s and the rest of the food chains? Notice who those corporations donate and support to? McDonald’s can snap their fingers right now to 15 dollars and hour, it has nothing to do with the argument you are making.

4

u/Tensuke 15d ago

If they think it's murder, it's not really the same, because people aren't murdering foster children.

0

u/kankurou1010 15d ago

They view abortion as tantamount to murder. What can you expect? Of course there’s a huge difference between 73,800 legal murders of innocents a year and 50,000 children in foster care. I don’t see how you can honestly say they’re comparable under that pretext.

-10

u/641232 15d ago edited 15d ago

50,000 kids in foster care vs. 50,000+ abortions annually.

edited because I forgot this was about australia.

10

u/Few_Paleontologist75 15d ago

In the US, there are 400,000 in the US, at the moment, in foster care.
Of that number, there are approximately 120,000 kids in the system that are waiting to be adopted. Most will age out of the system without being adopted.

In 2018, 619,591 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas.
NOTE: I couldn't find more recent stats.

1

u/KnightTemplar777 15d ago

I forgot what’s bad about being in foster care? No real parents? Poverty? I mean humans have been around a long time I’m very certain all of our ancestors have gone through some type of abandonment or lack of biological parents. Better to die than live and have a chance? It’s easy to say yes when your alive typing Reddit with WiFi probably drinking an ice coffee. We are animals to the core, if we didn’t have abortions I’d see sticks getting shoved up cuters.

3

u/Few_Paleontologist75 14d ago

Being in foster care for short term reasons that are being addressed, is perfectly fine and would have been fully explained (in an age appropriate way) to the children who are currently in foster care.
Being in foster care when you know it's not a temporary arrangement leaves young people feeling vulnerable and unsettled.

Wanting a permanent home, where they are wanted, loved and cared for - even if it means getting new parents - is a goal for many of these children, especially if they have siblings they want to live with in a permanent setting.

BTW, No legal medical procedure is any of your business, actually.
Not wanting to be pregnant is a perfectly legit reason to end a pregnancy. Fetal abnormalities are a legit reason to end a pregnancy.
A fetus has no concept of anything.

0

u/KnightTemplar777 14d ago

You are right. My body my choice, my mouth my voice.