I'm so sad to see that such posts need to exist. It's always shocking for me to see how people fight to treat the "symptoms" not the root of the "symptoms". You want to stop the abortions? Then go to deal with the reasons why women want/need the abortions in the first place. Is birth control readily available/affordable? Is the father taking the responsibility? Is it a seed of the rape? Was a teenager too ashamed to buy birth control/unable to ask parents for it? Was a teenager denied the sex education? Etc. Pro-life people have tons of energy and a great ambition. I just really wished they used it in a right manner.

Oh my word I'm reading the comments on here and people are wilfully ignoring her point and getting hung up on the details such as the word "fetus". Others are just so entrenched in their "but it's murder !!!" stance that they can't see the wood for the trees. Let me spell it out. She is pointing out the hypocrisy of the "a fetus is a baby" argument IN THE EYES OF THE LAW" Forget the moral and emotional side of it for a second. The reason put forward for the abortion ban is that a fetus is a baby and therefore has a right to life. Whether you agree with that or not, in all other legal aspects it is not viewed as a baby. Women do not get bereavement leave for a miscarriage. Men are not required to pay maintenence from the moment of conception. A fetus cannot be covered be life insurance in the event of a miscarriage. These are the examples she uses to point out the double standard that is occurring. So which is it? If a pregnancy cannot legally be terminated because it is a baby with rights, why do those rights not extend to all other legal and monetary aspects of being a living person? Why only this? She isn't advocating for all the examples to happen she is pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the supreme court and law makers. Let's be honest, pro life isn't a thing. Call it what it is, it's pro birth.

If abortion is so morally wrong, we should have required vasectomy for teen boys. Vasectomies are 100% effective at preventing pregnancies and is easily reversed. To prevent even the slightest possibly of error, sperm could be frozen before the procedure. When a couple is ready mentally, physically and financially they can get it reversed and have their children. That means there will be no unloved, unwanted children. The reason this option isn't part of the conversation is because this is about controlling women not safety nets. Male pro lifers would be like "it's my body you have no right." Hypocrites.

What Texas did is despicable. I was asked to relocate to US operation a couple of years ago before COVID but I turned it down. I have quite a few American friends and I understood why they chose to work overseas at the first opportunity they had. With racism, gun problem, antivaxxers, gender discrimination and the list goes on, I'm better off elsewhere

No because you wouldnt have enough time to pay into the life insurance to get a bunch of money. The Koreans seem to think theyre 1 years old at birth

An argument "there is a reason why it is called featus and not a baby" is so vague. The line between these two terms is artificial and made up by a man. The nature doesn't care how we decide to call it - a featus, a baby, a chocoball... once there is an fertelizied egg, it has the potential to become a human begin. Right from that one cell. And I am not saying, that woman don't have right to decide if they want a baby or not. But playing with terms and arguing that "it is not a human begin yet" is just trivializing the whole issue. And that is alwys bad.

why is it considered a double homicide when a pregnant woman is murdered then huh?

I love how she states that if she'd had six miscarriages, she'd be a millionaire. You can tell how much she values life with that statement.

Well, She doesn’t prove that a fetus is not a baby. She shows the inconsistency among pro life supporters.( I’m pro choice, a MD and have assisted in some abortions. But fortunately I live in Scandinavia. )

This is spot on!!!

1. Preposterous. There's no such thing as a "right" to an insurance policy. No insurer is going to underwrite that, so there's no issue in the first place. But if you can find one, go ahead and take out the policy. 2. Utter nonsense. If things are going correctly, the woman is MARRIED and the husband is already contributing to the welfare of the baby. This pile of c**p is so narcissistic she didn't even mention that possibility. 3. Agree with both. But that doesn't make a fetus "not a baby". It just means Congress hasn't taken up the issue. Write to your representative and get a bill introduced. DON'T try to rationalize murder. 4. B******t. Again, not receiving a stimulus check doesn't make a fetus "not a baby". It just means Congress didn't consider it. The whole story is b******t.

She's not wrong.

This comment has been deleted.

F**k anyone who is against abortions. Stop trying to control other people's lives you're pathetic!

She’s going around looking like an idiot . There are more places on Earth other than the US . Don’t tar every country with the same single minded idiocy that they do.

The argument about life insurance and miscarriages is outright nonsense. What an insurance company has to pay depends on the terms of conditions of that life insurance. If the insurance includes miscarriages the terms and the insurance premium would be different. I'm pretty certain you can buy insurance against miscarriages.

WONDERFUL!

This comment has been deleted.

There are some huge caveats in her reasoning though. The moment you force the alleged father to start paying child support from conception, as a women, you are also giving away your monopoly to chose to have an abortion, since now both parents are responsible for this fetus. Having to fight the father instead of the government might be better, but still you will lose the right to make that decision on your own. A life insurance will not get you rich, given that insurance policy is based on a persons economic value, and a fetus has none. Claiming tax and stimulus benefits would also mean that you, the parent, recognize your fetus as an actual baby/person, thereby forfeiting your right to an abortion since from that point onwards it would be considered murder. If her suggestion would ever actually become law, I'm convinced they would achieve the opposite of what she envisioned .