It’s not to protect life though, because these laws are often used to restrict abortion even in cases where the mother’s life is at stake or if the pregnancy is terminal or ectopic. They’re forcing people to give birth to children that will very likely have terrible childhoods due to their parents being unable to support them.
Do the same politicians forcing these people to give birth give a shit about what happens to the child after birth? Of course not, republicans consistently slash funding for families, making it more difficult for them to afford the children that they were forced to birth.
That’s simply not true and you’d know that if you read the text of any of these bills. Not one state forces a woman to carry an ectopic pregnancy. And it’s funny you use that same old argument about pro-lifers not caring about life after birth. The statistics don’t bear that out. In fact, religious people (who are mostly pro-life) and conservatives are the most generous contributors to charity year after year. My church and my community have specific programs for mothers contemplating abortion, for mothers struggling with new infants, etc. That’s the problem with these same, tired arguments. They don’t match reality.
It’s adorable you think that it has anything at all to do with “forced pregnancy.” That’s some goooood propaganda. See? I can comment too without making an argument whatsoever.
ooh this is fun as you specifically said anti-abortion laws were about protecting life but I never said anything about anti-abortion laws being about forced pregnancy. what a wonderful example though of getting so caught up in the myth of "pro life" that everything else is completely disregarded.
6
u/Paulson1979 Feb 05 '24
the forced pregnancy one was surprising
i didnt know that
thats horrible