HOME | DD
timsplosion — The Required Test
#abortion #alabama #anatomy #comic #congressman #death #faith #femaleanatomy #feminism #feminist #funny #gop #grimreaper #healthcare #nervous #political #politics #prochoice #republicans #senator #sexeducation #sexualhealth #sweat #sweating #womensrights #reproductiverights #uspolitics #reproductivehealth #healthcareisaright
Published: 2019-05-17 23:25:12 +0000 UTC; Views: 7349; Favourites: 50; Downloads: 4
Redirect to original
Description
There would be a lot fewer attempts to legislate women's bodies if you had to know anything about them before you could do so.Related content
Comments: 69
I have a doubt. If democrats opposed to the idea that a group of politicians make decisions for the whole society. Why are they against the idea of a small government?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are in favour of "small government". They both want to wield government power, just in different ways. Democrats (generally, mileage may vary) want to use government power to provide healthcare, to ensure an adequate social safety net, and do something about climate change. Republicans (again, generally speaking) want to use government power to put up border walls, put migrants into camps, legislate on what women can/can't do, and ensure that people are free to discriminate against LGBT people. A massive military is big government, a border wall is big government, militarised policing is big government, telling women that their bodies are no longer theirs is big government. All 4 of those things are things that mainstream Republicanism either supports or sees no problem with.
Big gov vs small gov is a false narrative, and framing it that way leads to irreconcilable contradictions.
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
Another thing that seems strange to me is that the so-called liberal be in favor of provide healthcare, free education, gun control, company and private property regulations. Liberals weren't supposed to be the doctrine of Frederick Hayek? You know, those who insist on defending individual freedom and equality before the law through a reduction of state power. I would have thought that these people be more aligned with the tea party.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Liberalism, like all ideologies, has nuances, variations and caveats. Because you're right - from certain perspectives gun rights, privatised healthcare and deregulation are all liberal ideas. That's why there's so many Dems that support those things to varying degrees.
There are also liberal arguments to be made in favour of gun control, universal healthcare, and building regulations, which is why you also see a large portion of Dems back those to varying extents.
Where you stand on the spectrum between nationalism, conservatism, liberalism, and social democracy depends on your opinions and values for a multitude of things. But regardless of where on that spectrum you lie, the "big Gov vs small Gov" dichotomy is an accurate portrayal of absolutely shit-all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Pfft. If we did this with politicians on basically all the major topics and then some, then we might actually get some smart people in office for a change.
Honestly, with every passing year, the more I think there really needs to be a standardized test you have to pass before you can be elected into at least any federal-level position.
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
It does feel like some aspect of "knowing what the fuck you're on about" should be a requirement for public office. We'd have probably avoided both Brexit and Trump with that standard.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The picture you've replied on isn't about Brexit, and I don't have the time or energy to dissect that wall of text. Have a nice day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you for proving all of our points, then. Ciao!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think abortion is wrong yeah I said it let me explain.
If you get pregnant with your partner and you're considering abortion you should've used a condom.
If you have been raped don't let an unborn baby pay the price for what some asshole did to you.
If incest you should'nt have had sex in the first place.
Also think of what your baby can become in the future, maybe he/she is the next Einstein, the next Mary Shelly, or the curer of cancer. You never know
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Birth control can fail
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
1) Two can play at that game - how many forced-to-be mothers could have gone on to be the next JK Rowling, the next Marie Curie, but couldn't because they had to drop out of school as a teenager to look after a baby?
2) If a woman's life is threatened by complications in their pregnancy, even if that pregnancy was initially planned, do you think she should be allowed the abortion then? Or would you rather bury both mother and foetus than just the foetus?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1) adoption, yes I realise it takes 9 moths to have a baby but think of all the time you get sparred because you adopted the baby to a loving family
2) what are the chances that the mothers life will be threatened by a pregnancy. I'm not saying I'm an expert on pregnancies but in that argument you are trading lives (Avengers: Infinity War) and that's not ok especially when the foetus never got the chance to say hi to the world. It is sad, nothing about letting a young or old mother die is ok, but so is not letting a life live.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1) If Republicans were also making it easier to adopt, then this might come across as a genuine response. As the system currently stands, I don't have trust in it to place the kid in a good long term home.
2) I could start with the story of Savita Halappanavar who was denied an abortion because her partially miscarried foetus still had a faint heartbeat, but you might point out that that's one case, so let's look at some numbers. Maternal mortality in the US is the highest in the developed world, with 23.8 deaths per 100,000. Not many but still significant when compared to countries with similar economies. The World Health Organisation, looking at the global picture, estimates somewhere around 330,000 deaths worldwide during pregnancy or childbirth, with the overwhelming majority being complications during the pregnancy. WHO gives these as the top-listed reasons; "haemorrhage, infection, unsafe abortion, and eclampsia (very high blood pressure leading to seizures), or from health complications worsened in pregnancy". So there will be women whose pregnancies cause fatal complications. If you ban abortion outright, there will be more women who die from those complications, and many more who will still seek abortion - it just won't be safe anymore and so we'll see deaths from unsafe abortions making a comeback in the US.
Also, as an irrelevant side note, you seem to be forgetting how Infinity War ended, and what it cost them to win in Endgame. Steve was honourable in Infinity War, but he was wrong.
I could list out a thousand scenarios, have you tell me "what are the odds" only for me to then point to the real world example. Life is complicated. Pregnancy is complicated. I cannot look a living person in the face and condemn them to death on the "maybes" of an undeveloped zygote. You mourn for the lost potential, and it is sad, I'm sure most women who have to get an abortion will also feel that way, but I mourn for the women with lives, families, other children, plans for the future, who will end up on a slab in the morgue because devout pro-birthers can't see the forest for the fucking trees. You imagine you're not trading lives, but you don't even realise that that is exactly what you are already doing. What's a few dead mothers if it means more kids growing up with parents who didn't want them? The potential! Good for you bud. I'll let you know when my eyes stop rolling.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Alright so I've given it a lot of thought and there is a way to solve this
Embryonic transfer
By transferring the foetus into another mother we have saved both lives. It's called IVF and through this 5 million babies have been saved from death. Louise Brown is an example of IVF
But if the baby dies in pregnancy we can CLONE it, yep you heard me we can clone it. Now you might be saying: this is real life not Jurassic Park, we have succesfully cloned a sheep and her name was Dolly. (we also de-extintion-ized a goat for 10 min but that's beside the point). We can clone the baby if there is a pregnancy complication and either store the baby in a lab or we can put the baby in another womans uterus, if wanted
Also unsafe abortions are abortions gone wrong and can be prevented because there are people who know the procedures.
Also as a final note, shouldn't we seek towards how we can cure hemorrphage infections, eclampsia etc. and help women rather than just killing the baby? Think about it
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Embryos and foetuses aren't the same. Once a fertilized embryo attaches to the uterus wall and produces a placenta you can't detach it without inducing a potentially fatal amount of bleeding. Placentas can't be transplanted with current medical technology.
Surrogate mothers and using frozen embryos to begin pregnancy are already established practices. IVF and surrogates are about producing pregnancies in cases where it might be difficult but it's desired by the parents.
And of course we should be working to cure those things. That's why medical research exists - to seek to solve the medical problems humans face, and why universal healthcare exists (outside the US) - to get those medical solutions to the people who need them. But until we can eliminate complications in pregnancy like we eradicated smallpox, there will be situations where termination is the least worst option.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
Plus I came to this platform to have fun not to debate all day
Sorry if I spent some of your time
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's fair. Honestly I was probably getting too riled from the other comment thread on here and came on a bit strong. XP
Still, neither of us is likely to be in a position to be the ones who have to actually make these decisions in the real world, so I'm fine to leave it here if you're done.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Sounds good man, peace!👌
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I might look like a coward for not coninuing to defend my opinion but I could go all day talking about this subject but I feel like we have better things to do no? You can have your opinion and I can have mine ok?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"If you get pregnant with your partner and you're considering abortion you should've used a condom."
- condoms break. Also, most southern states teach "abstinence" only, as opposed to "safe sex". Kids aren't taught about condoms or other contraceptives, when they should be. Lack of education means higher teen pregnancy rate. Basically, if you want to stop unwanted pregnancies AND stop abortions, advocate harder for better sex education in schools.
"If you have been raped don't let an unborn baby pay the price for what some asshole did to you."
- It's not really a baby until it's viable outside the womb... That aside, "baby pay the price" could be used as an argument against putting it up for adoption, too. So that woman has to have a constant, living reminder of something awful that happened to her. Not that I'd want a viable baby put into the adoption system. It's better than it used to be, but it's no picnic.
"If incest you should'nt have had sex in the first place."
- Incest is usually rape or an accident (such as "didn't know they were related, because they didn't grow up together") Those babies have a much higher chance of defects. That's not a very nice life to live for them.
"Also think of what your baby can become in the future, maybe he/she is the next Einstein, the next Mary Shelly, or the curer of cancer. You never know"
- Or a drug addict, or the next Hitler. You truly DO never know, until it's happened. I don't think this is a very good argument. We have plenty of people on the planet, and plenty of people willing to give birth already. We're not going to kill off the human race if a very small percentage get abortions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok I see where you're coming from but if condoms break maybe companies should make them out of a stronger material. Kids in schools must learn about safe sex at one point in their life in sex-ed, otherwise they will get unwanted pregnancies,. And the schools who don't teach kids about safe sex are just asking for unwanted pregnancies.
"-It's not really a baby until it's viable outside the womb" if so then what is it? It still has human genes, human cells, and will have a human body. Maybe not a functional one but it's human from beginning to end. Also why is it A-ok to kill a baby inside the womb but not when its outside the womb? Search unborn baby and find the difference between a live one vs an unborn one?
Also about that rape scenario, is it not better to have the child put up for adoption rather than keeping it? There will be a family that will gladly take care of it and this way the woman won't have to be a hard working single mother taking care of "a constant living reminder of something awful that happened to her"
Now incest. Incest is a pretty hard subject to tackle and yes it will most likely have a defect. But so does a down syndrome person have, should we just have had aborted them? Or how about paraplegics people, should we have aborted them?
Finally my last argument may not have been great, but you cannot act that all babies that are in the womb are gonna become "the next Hitler or a drug addict". I acknowledge that rape and incest is wrong but that won't define a humans character and personality.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
With just a quick google search, condoms are 98% effective. That's pretty effective! But even so, with all the millions of people having sex and using condoms, 2% can result in an unwanted pregnancy they very much tried to prevent. It's not about the strength of the material (it MUST stretch), it's partially about using it properly (education), and partially that pretty much everything has a margin of error. How would we determine what a better material even is?
That's part of the problem with those abortion laws in the areas where they're becoming stricter, they really DON'T give proper education on safe sex. So they're not only NOT educating people, they also don't like the idea of contraceptives, and they use pregnancy as a PUNISHMENT. That's not right for ANYBODY.
It's a fetus if it's not viable outside of the womb.
A fertilized egg won't always attach to the womb. An attached, fertilized egg doesn't always become a fetus. Even wanted pregnancies can and often DO result in miscarriages.
Just as condoms break because there's a margin for error, wanted pregnancies don't always result in a baby.
If it's not viable outside of the womb, keeping it alive is impossible if you take it from the womb, even if you keep the fetus whole. THAT is why it's not a baby yet. Its brain isn't developed enough to keep its own systems running.
Putting up a child for adoption is more of a last resort.
Besides, then you're telling a woman to carry something inside her, a reminder, for 9 months.
9 months is a very long time, it's psychologically damaging.
If she can have a morning after pill, or if she neglects it because she didn't think a pregnancy would happen (as many people argue "the body shuts down in the case of rape, and can't concieve a child", and they actually BELIEVE that. It's inaccurate, to say the least), and then aborts it before it's viable outside the womb, before it has nerve endings to feel pain, isn't that a psychologically better option for the woman?
"What about this" or "what about that" doesn't make incest MORE OKAY.
In all likelihood, if the fetus becomes viable and is born, it will just be a normal person.
No one special like Einstein, no one awful like Hitler.
But nurture plays a role, too. Tons of unwanted pregnancies turn into wanted children (I myself became a wanted child after I was born). But many unwanted pregnancies turn into very abused children (many of which I've known).
I could see a more anti-abortion perspective if the resulting born child were actually taken care of properly. Not just the parents/mother, but if anti-abortion proponants wanted to help the new mother financially, or at least with food and childcare. Children are EXPENSIVE both upfront and in the long run.
As it stands, what the politicians are saying are that "No, you can't abort" and "Now that child is a punishment for having sex before you were ready to have a child". It's not pro-LIFE, it's anti-abortion, pro-woman-punishment. It's not a good environment. In the stricter laws, the fetus isn't even viable yet. Some women may not even know they're pregnant yet.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
I also came to this app to have fun not year long debates. Sorry if I spent some of your time
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I might look like a coward for not coninuing to defend my opinion but I could go all day talking about this subject but I feel like we have better things to do no? I just had a debate with someone else and I've gotten tired of this
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
By that logic, no one should make laws about other states ability to do things unless they're from that state, not allowed to change military spending unless they've served, make gun legislation unless they're an expert, etc. etc
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
He said "... if you had to know anything about them before you could do so." he did NOT say "... if you had to be a woman to do so." So what is the logic in between "you need to know about it" and "you need to be wholly associated with it"?
His logic seems pretty sound, and using it in the situations you have listed:
- "no one should make laws about other states ability to do things unless [they know about that state and the problems that state has to deal with, the geography and resources of that state, etc.]"
- "... not allowed to change military spending unless [they know what the military needs on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis in order to function, and how much those things cost, etc]"
- "... make gun legislation unless [they know how guns work, criminal mentality, what actually qualifies someone to use a gun safely, as opposed to what is generally correlated with gun safety, etc]"
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"You should understand the issue you're legislating" is a pretty simple principle, I'd have thought.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Is this saying how you believe that men shouldn't have an opinion on abortion. This comic interprets it clearly. Nice idea.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's more about the idea that there should be a barrier between ignorance and these kinds of decisions. Just so happens with abortion that men tend to be far less informed on how women's bodies work.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey Dude I have a few ideal, for a compromise to abortion with R.I.B.P
.If you're wondering what R.I.B.P . It's just ideal of my, where a women
is justified to having a abortion within-
-Rape.
-Incest
-Birth_defects or,
-Psychological_trauma
P.S- If you want to know more, other my ideals let me know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
My ideal is that until the fetus can survive independently of the parent, it's up to the woman what she chooses to do with her body, and people who aren't qualified to make that choice for them shouldn't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There's no compromise to be made, the government has no place interfering in such personal matters. Not to mention that women who chose abortion are put at greater risk with the legislation because they have to resort more dangerous methods such as coat hangers because they can't have contraceptives or professional aid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
They must do the same kind of test with ecology...
Because i still can't believe the "wind turbines gives cancer".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ugh. The well from which Republicans draw their stupidity is bottomless. I'm amazed people vote for them.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Humanity is exploring space and depths, working an artificial intelligence and genetic, built a tool, Internet, to help both technology and culture to grow up faster...
But we still have people like that. And they're sufficient in number to slow - and even, regress - society.
Some people said "hunger for power" is human curse. But the true curse is "stupidity".
That or the undead curse, i'm not sure...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Law provide solution to this. We define death when hearth suddenly stops beating. So to be recognized as living person fetus must have beating hearth. So abortion should be legal for example before 3-4 week of pregnacy. Before 3-4 week it is abortion of fetus, after is murder of baby. It is nonemotional argument provided by law.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
We define death when hearth suddenly stops beating.Not always, and not necessarily. In many cases, death is defined as the irreversible loss of brain activity -- brain death -- rather than the cessation of cardiac activity. For instance -- during heart surgery, which can and does last for hours, the heart is artificially stopped and the blood rerouted through a machine, but brain activity isn't lost and the person is thus obviously alive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then it should be: "Abortion is legal until the time, when there is a proces, that when it stops, we recognize it as death".
That was a point of my argument.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The issue is that for the longest time, the fetal heartbeat that's detected is pumping along with the mother - it is not pumping on it's own, it's simply reacting to the nervous system of the parent and is not self-supporting. Can that really be considered to be the same as having it's own heartbeat?
Plus, if you say "3-4 weeks pregnant", you're putting it at a point where most women will not realise they are even pregnant yet. If a woman finishes her period, and then ovulates and conceives 2 weeks later, she won't know she's pregnant until she misses her period in a further two weeks, and even then, most women have natural variation anyway so they might not even realise they've missed their period for a further week. Pregnancy is legally counted from the end of the last period, meaning that by the time the woman even realises she's pregnant, she's legally 5 weeks deep.
Your nonemotional argument ignores the lived reality of pregnancy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am arguing from practical, present situation. If I could change law, I would change it, so there would be no regulation regulating abortion. Of course it would also change welfare system. But lets leave it, because if we argue from our utopia standpoint, then we would go nowhere. That is why I am arguing from present standpoint.
I am arguing having present law in mind. The moment we recognize death is when hearth stops beating. So we should recognize life when hearth starts beating. Period. That is a solution that can be done right now. Other solutions needs changing of law
I gave 2-3 weeks as an example. I checked now that hearthbeat of fetus is recognized around 17-20 week. So abortion should be legal for first 17-20 weeks of pregnacy. Definite date should be choosen by doctors, women or taxpayers, depending who pays for it. It can be done with current system.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In the event that after that 17-20 week mark, the pregnancy develops a complication that threatens the life of the mother - a situation that WILL happen because it already does - will that mother be allowed a third trimester abortion, or be forced to either die from those complications or face excruciatingly expensive and painful treatment to survive? The mother has a heartbeat too, and isn't leeching off another humans body to stay alive.
If we allow up to the 20 week mark for abortion for any reason, there MUST be an allowance for medically necessary abortions after that point. To say otherwise is a mandatory death sentence for a scenario that rarely results in a surviving child.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"(...) to survive?"
"Definite date should be choosen by doctors, women or taxpayers, depending who pays for it."
"(...) there MUST be allowance(...)"
Why?
"(...) is a mandatory death sentence for a scenario that rarely results in a surviving child."
We are discussing abortion aka killing babies. Surviving child is not target of abortion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Why?"
Because the woman's life matters. Why is she expendable to you? Why does her life matter so little to you?
"Surviving child is not a target of abortion"
Either you've misread point or you're being deliberaltey facetious. I was saying that the kinds of third trimester complications that would kill the mother usually kill the foetus too, so you end up losing both. Why is it better to bury both woman and foetus rather than just the foetus?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Because (...)"
Why my and other human being life does not matter? Why my, other women, other men time, health, sweat and life are expendale?
"Why is she expendable to you? Why does her life matter so little to you?"
I disagree with the statements above.
"Either you've misread (...)"
I have misread. Then, after clarification, my answer is:
"Definite date should be choosen by doctors, women or taxpayers, depending who pays for it."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What the actual fuck are you on about. So, in the event that a pregnant woman's life is threatened by continuing a pregnancy, she should go ahead and let the pregnancy kill her because you think YOU'RE the victim? How does that make any God damn sense (spoiler alert: it doesn't). What exactly are men risking when they get their partner pregnant? It's not their body. Fuck your entire entitled attitude - you have no claim over women and their bodies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In your comic, and in my first comment there was nothing about extreme case when women is threated by pregancy. My comment, and your comic, were about common abortion procedures, which are done because of "socioeconomic concerns or limiting childbearing" (US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic…) And that is the case that I am discussing.
By taking extreme case of life threatening abortion and inflating it so you can use it for all abortions is missleading. You are doing exaggeration fallacy and strawmaning my position. Please don't do that.
Now that we clarified that (that we are discusing general abortion, not extreme case), please give me answer for my earlier question: "Why my and other human being life does not matter? Why my, other women, other men time, health, sweat and life are expendale?"
I am happy to discuss extreme cases, but let's focus one case at a time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>