Banning the Abortion Pill
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 кві 2023
- A rant about the state of women's healthcare and how banning the abortion pill would affect millions of women in the country.
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=3308388
Follow me on Twitter: / stickprofessor
Become a Member: / @professorstick
Check out my merch: teespring.com/stores/professo...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
What really got me was the fact they argued "safety concerns" over the FDA's approval. It wasn't about safety concerns. People who are anti-abortion clearly don't care about safety.
How do you mean? Back up your hypocritical claim. I'm anti-abortion. It kills innocent babies. Fact. I do agree in extenuating circumstances like rape and the lives of the mother or baby are in danger but those are not normal circumstances. Adults need to take adult responsibilities when playing adult games. All abortion does is absolve women from responsibility even tho they allowed themselves to get pregnant. No pregnancy is being forced on anyone. Their actions CAUSED them to get pregnant. "My body, my choice" doesn't exist. It's a twisting of the facts to male it seem like they're losing rights. No one has a right to kill an innocent person. Plus you can't have a Dr remove a healthy kidney and have it discarded just because. So there goes "my body, my choice" right out the window
Yep, for some reason, they really care about an abortion pill that's practically safe than other drugs with much higher death rates e.i. aspirin.
They don’t care about the baby once it is born either if the mother does something bad to the baby or the father does something then these people don’t give a fuck
"Safety concerns" for a drug that's been used safely for decades. Right, I definitely believe that.
The only way a judge should be able to render an order affecting FDA approval is if the case revolves around some misapplication of the Agency's own standards set out for the approval process. In this case, the Texas judge tried to attack the scientific results using false statements and junk 'science'. A Trumpian judge decided that he knew more about approving a drug and interpreting scientific results than the scientific agency tasked with the decision. There is no suggestion of scientific fraud, or bribery, or anything else illegal, although the reasons the judge cited included plenty of fraudulent 'science' provided by anti-choice 'thinktanks'. The decision was based on the emotional childhood the judge appears to be living in.
one mistake I want to point out: these lawmakers understand. the cruelty was always the point.
The spiteful is a frighteningly large demographic and they manage to get some of their own elected.
Let's add to this issue the fact that obstetricians were already changing specialties due to malpractice insurance premiums going through the roof. NOW many are leaving the states where politicians have decided they want to doctor over their shoulders.
I don't understand the legal basis that allowed legilatures baning a FDA approved drug.
Their stated argument is not that the FDA approved the drug. Rather, their argument is that the FDA used improper process to approve the drug. The reason many on the Right are making this argument now is because it is the same argument they are making about the process to approve the mRNA CoVID-19 vaccine.
It might very well be the case that Mifepristone is fully efficacious and safe. But, so the argument goes, if that was demonstrated by accident, rather than through rigorous, peer-reviewed study, then Mifepristone should be removed from the market unless/until it can be demonstrated to be efficacious and safe in a controlled Phase III trial.
Thanks for discussing a valid and important subject, which borders on medicine, science, and politics, all of which affect the way we deal with the world.
The lawmakers banning mifepristone were informed about the consequences, they just don't care
Oh no, they care.
They _want_ the consequences.
The consequence they care about is that the religious nuts who put them in power will kick them right back out of power.
Remember: The cruelty ist the point.
Politicians also make decisions about education which they know nothing about, scientific research which they know nothing about, internet technology that they know nothing about.
The truth is, politicians worth their salt, will have one of their staffers research subjects like these, and others, and at least aren't completely ignorant (or, at least, they shouldn't be). I'm convinced that many politicians actually do know enough about these subjects to sieve that knowledge through their own ideology. What results is an ideologically based argument against legislation that mostly makes sense.
"Internet technology that they know nothing about"
Careful now, you don't wanna clog up your series of internet tubes with all of these words you're writin' Jimþo.
@@weatherman1504 🤣🤣👍
Politicians know very well what they're doing about education. They WANT to make their population dumb because educated people are impossibly hard to manipulate.
I was kind of hoping you would talk about the judge's logic behind banning it. From what I've heard he said some women have discomfort after taking it. He didn't seem to consider the possibility that other medical interventions also cause discomfort and giving birth causes discomfort.
The judge didn't care, and didn't use any real logic. He's a political hack.
You mean the thing where women daily scream their lungs out from the pain, not to mention the whole backpain and throwing up, might be uncomfortable for them?
Nah, i don‘t buy it 😂
It is not just politicians making this happen. I believe that sense the political right religious cults can tell Women how to accept their Rights, then Women can tell the political right religious when they get paid, what privileges the get and what they can think.
Peace
I'm waiting for them to take away my birth control pill.
Dont give them more ideas. Politicians can barely manage one idea.
They will go after condoms once that’s done.
@@zackwerth77 Yeah no. We have every right to worry. I don't live in America but even I can see the bs. A collection of cells doesn't have priority over my health.
@@zackwerth77 I'll agree with you in that preventative actions is usually better. The more people who know how to have safe s3x the better as it does reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. But I can't agree with you in that a fetus counts as a human life (early term that is. Late term is something else and entirely different ball game). As we all know things beyond our control happen. So safe abortions should remain as a *choice* to all, even in late term! I don't expect anyone to carry a still born to term and risk their life over it.
@@zackwerth77We can argue about the "already existing human life". Whats your definition for that?
During the 1858 Abraham Lincoln- Stephen Douglas debates, Douglas said he did not support outlawing slavery, saying, “I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people favoring slavery, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people who favor slavery are civilized, that they bear consciences, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity and not to us. It is for them to decide therefore the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits.”
... and for the sake of the many friends I never would have met for the lack of their freedom, I am glad that Stephen Douglas never became President. The amendments have always addressed moral rights, addressing, in their way, freedom of expression, the quartering of soldiers, and appropriate limits to search and seizure. They address the nature of 'right' and 'wrong' on a national level. Then again, slavery fails as an analog for abortion in that those kept as slaves were living, autonomous beings surviving outside others' bodies.
I worry about the future of healthcare in the USA
One system for millionaires, no other system for the other 99.5% of the population.
I'm worried about the future of the USA in general. It seems determined to drive for some mutant future between The Handmaid's Tale and Cyberpunk.
BREAKING NEWS: local clothes stores go out of business after mass theft of clothes hangers.
Yep making abortion illegal is only going to prevent safe abortions and many women are going to have problems with not being able to do the safe method
Is the U.S.A.’s population so low that we have to resort to this?…..Are we needing to populate the desert now???
They're merely the 3rd most populous country in the world... Maybe they just want to reach the 1-billion milestone before the climate goes _too_ rowdy. :-|
@@irrelevant_noob I could really see that cutting hard into the national I.Q. average……..
They'll ban healthcare but not carcinogens, especially in food marketed towards kids.
Also corn syrup
@@PokemonRules333high fructose corn syrup* corn syrup is actually a very good source of energy
Love how yt has a little thing sourcing the NHS for me about abortion and what it is. It's stupid that some states or countries would want to remove a life saving drug.
When you think about it from the other pov, it's a life-ending drug. If you think that the foetus is a human being from the moment it's a single cell to the moment it leaves the woman's body, then birth control and abortion pills are murder drugs.
The courts should never ever weigh in on FDA approval. Their job is to interpret THE LAW.
its not that people forgot about it, its just that we learnt that it factually doesnt matter what we find good or not.
Sadly, before our advances in science and healthcare, the two biggest killers of humans were issues with childbirth and oral infections.
🤯
This video has truly highlighted EXACTLY what has gone wrong in the United States. It's not just about the right to a basic medical need should that situation arise, but also about the systematic removal of basic human rights. What does that line in the DOI say, again? Oh, right: "LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." Those are all unalienable rights to the citizens of the U.S, and I see no attempt to maintain them, those rights that have been with us since the inception of the United States. If these are not being upheld, then we must all do our civic duty and stand up for those rights in whatever way we can, or else who knows what will be seen fit to be removed?
This entire debate stands on the point that the fetus is a human or a risk to health depending on what the mother decides.
Also these examples are exceptions. There is no ban on abortion if it is to save the womans health. It is not even called abortion
Woman shouldn’t be forced to go into septic shock when their water broke 18 weeks and there’s nothing that can be done. If you get cancer, it’s still a serious medical problem. Yet, it’s still an elective procedure because you get it scheduled to be removed. You shouldn’t have to wait until you’re in the emergency room on deaths door. That’s what an emergent procedure means.
But with these laws banning abortion, the doctors are afraid of giving this care to the women's health . They fear going to prison for helping.
Many laws are even wanting to go after people who drive a woman to get an abortion. Many laws are even preventing women to travel to states where abortion is legal.
They don't care about the possibility of death for these women. Misogyny is real, and an issue within the GOP.
Thanks for the video
2:41 that said, everyone suddenly have access to that kind of health care (i.e. instant surgery they can afford and have the ability to take time off work for) does sound nice.
As a brit it still baffles me that surgery is not free. Why does the right to life have to depend on your bank balance?
Love your content
My question is: What stops a pharma company buying a corrupt judge to get fda approval overturned on a competitor's product?
By banning a competitor's product, people would be pushed to use their own product.
Shamefull. An abortion should just be between a doctor and the pregnant woman
I’ve for the most part of my life been in favor of abortion, however I have always believed there should be some regulations because I think to be allowed to abort a 9 month baby is just as ridiculous as not allowing a woman to abort a 3 month clump of cells with no brain function whatsoever.
But what you said about how restrictions are always more restrictive than it seems on the surface has made me think. I still think regulations should be in place, but that new perspective is something I will consider in the future.
Politicians legislating medicine they don't understand would be like legislating a tax code such that 2+2=3
That's not how it works in theory, and that's not how it works in practice, and the legislation isn't going to fundamentally change the basic principals involved, no matter how much they would like it to.
Anyone who still registers republican in America at this point should be ashamed of themselves. There is simply no excuse for supporting that group at this point.
It's not all about political party. I could easily say we support drone striking children, oh how dare we register as democrats, it's so barbaric!
Unless your a billionaire or mega-corporation
we just don't like baby murderers. is that a hard concept to understand? We think life starts at conception, and so ending the conception intentionally is murder in our eyes.
@@nuc2726 The problem is that many of your crowd don't care about who gets harmed to get your way, e.g. the subject of this video.
@@nuc2726 It's cute you people pretend to care about life.
Since I'm not from America, can someone explain what you mean by under review. I'm expecting that a group of specialists looked things over to see if the drug is safe enough
"Under review" typically means that a drug is going through controlled trials. The trials are different depending on the drug, but broadly speaking, the FDA has a fixed process for demonstrating the efficacy and safety of a drug. These trials usually occur in three different phases and a drug must successfully complete each phase before moving on to the next one. Here's a link, if you're really interested in the process:
www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs
The trail "phases" I've mentioned are discussed in other terms in this article, which states:
"Before a drug can be tested in people, the drug company or sponsor performs laboratory and animal tests to discover how the drug works and whether it's likely to be safe and work well in humans. Next, a series of tests in people is begun to determine whether the drug is safe when used to treat a disease and whether it provides a real health benefit."
Phase I trials are typically the laboratory tests. Phase II trials are typically on animals (e.g., rats, etc.) that have similar biological mechanisms to humans. Finally, Phase III trials involve a controlled cohort of humans who volunteer to be part of the experiment for a particular drug.
@@glennpearson9348 one slight nitpick about the "must successfully complete each phase before moving on to the next one": that's not really a requirement, merely a consequence of not wanting to waste resources on later-phase trials before being sure that the earlier ones cleared out okay. When the need is great enough (like it was about 2 years ago), the trials can be performed simultaneously.
@@irrelevant_noob Agreed. I was describing the "usual" way most drugs get approved. I realize there is a waiver process to expedite review in emergency situations, but it appears the waiver process is what got the FDA in this jam in the first place.
Lawmakers don't understand science. I'm mad at this mess.
Oh, many of them do. They just also have voters who will vote them out if they don't push this.
Some are trying to think that the mother wants to abortion for a prefect body. And I hate hearing this. I mean there are people like that. Yes but is it really a major thing I feel like they're want believe this as the only thing woman think about. The idea of giving birth is a sacrifice to one's body but it's one thing to sacrifice beauty but some people wouldn't to sacrifice when they aren't ready for it. I'm not for forced births. And this is what feel disgusting to me but yes if the child heart is weak I can't see a reason make the woman suffer after a miscarriage if the abortion pills are meant to get killed without doing harm to the mother then that's fine. I'm just one that wishes they could see more reason to understand why some abortions have to happen instead of forcing the mother to suffer consequence that never should have been given when its not their fault that a baby is in her. This in the case of rape. But those who are against abortion think that it's punishment for a child that never asked to be conceived. I don't think the mother would be think let's punish the child for no reason. I think it's more so this child feels like a punishment for me for being r*ped. Why should I try to keep it for it own sake. This being more or less the idea I'm thinking cuz why be force to endure more pain and suffering after dealing with pain and suffering from being r*ped. Sure some mothers are like to just think about putting it up for adoption. But that doesn't mean you have to make them do it. Encouraging the mother to give it up for adoption is fine. But never force someone to do it. If someone wants to abort a child for unreasonable reasons then there a reason to talk them out of it. But some of the stories I've heard on certain women get an abortion that they did it to punish the partner. I don't know how much of this is true but I really don't see a reason in that to just get rid of it like that. And the whole keeping there body beautiful seems unreasonable. I just don't think this is the majority of women. Celebrities have children all the time and they still look beautiful. So if these women who think it ruins their body then you don't understand how to deal with it and you just need to suckitup and just put it up for adoption and get a tummy tuck later. If you can't afford that then you should have used protection. But you can't keep the baby if it going to be that way. Just a thought for those kind of women. But a lot of others are if the man wants the child but the woman does that should have been one of your thoughts before committing to a relationship. It should be if you guys want children if no or not yet then use protection and you can stop when you do want children. But of course these only what I've heard about on what people think is happening and why they are against it. That and cuz the fetus is a life. And I get that but it takes those are really ready to make a sacrifice to saving that life. You can just save just because it is one. It should be if you the one who really be that one. And sometimes you can just give it up for adoption if you don't think it's the right thing to do to just getting rid of it. What I think. It's a choice to abort and it a choice to put it up for adoption. And you're right thinking that this whole trying to ban abortion is basically trying to put out your medical care for everyone to see and tell you what to do with your own body. That seems like something between you and your doctor. No one else.
Wall of Text; DR
@@JohnDlugosz sorry if I over do it with my comments some time. Doing this stuff in smaller sections are kinda annoying for me. But I get some people need smaller parts. Sorry about that.
Your lover, family members, friend, or siblings if your really going to go through something important at the hospital.
The only congressman who should have had any input on women's reproductive health, was Dr. Ron Paul, gynecologist.
Leave the rest up to the congresswomen.
They arent incompetent, they know what they're doing. Dont you see? Their GOAL is to maximize human suffering.
Out here droppin knowledge and this guy professes to be a stick... psh.
Pro choice over pro life, change my mind.
Just a small correction, this wouldn't only affect women, but trans men and afab nonbinaries also!
They talk about "big pharma" with transition of kids (and i somewhat agree there is a problem), but this does heavy complicate and increase the cost of healthcare for a ton of women.
Transition of Kids?
Wanna eleborate?
@@Lamster66 gender transition.
In some places, meds or even surgeries are legal for young minors.
@@hexa1905 where exactly?
@@hexa1905
That's what I thought!
The question here isn't about the drugs, surgery or the transitioning. Its about helping those that genuinely have Gender dysphoria and singling out those that don't. Like being Gay or Straight its not a life choice you are what you are.
So is the feeling that you are in the wrong body. It's curious that we don't all have the same view over cosmetic surgery.
No this is not just like being gay or straight, it imply a medical treatment.
Surgeries as the effects of hormones therapy are not reversible.
But gender and sexuality are things more fluid that most would admit and usualy change a bit of time
Kids can not concent to anything serious.
What minimum age would you suggest for breast implant ? For a vaginoplasty ?
In my opinion around 18-21.
It’s like banning chef’s knives for their stabbing capabilities
Banning appendicectomies because they leave scars?
congratulation on your point missing abilities.
It is like banning cooking wares for their ingredients ''natural form'' altering effect.
@@charlesbernier990 fair
@@CommanderCodyCc--gh8zh 👍we cool
@Imran Zakhaev you misspelled life-saving there...
When you see the scan of your child at 5 weeks old with a little beating hesrt, it challenges your perspective on things
If I see a scan of a 5-week-old child with a beating heart, I wonder what condition necessitated putting a child into an MRI scanner five weeks *after that child was born,* because 5 weeks after fertilisation an embryo doesn't have a beating heart. Stop spreading theocratic fascist misinformation, you misogynistic liar.
If you see a 5 week old zygote with a beating heart, something would be very wrong with that pregnancy.
Stop lying. At 5 weeks of pregnancy there is no "heartbeat" yet.
And even when it comes in. Impressive if you saw a heart.. as the actual structure besides electrical activity is not there yet.
@Imran Zakhaev
The heart hasn't even truly begun to form at 5 weeks during pregnancy. It isn't fully formed until 12-16 weeks. It can't "beat" because it isn't there. Anyone who says it is... is lying to you.
You numpty.
@@Diviance ... or it's a ferret. They have 6-week gestation periods.
Is that the issue?
Did these "6 week" laws come in because the politicians think we're all ferrets?
Defenders of slavery also used this same strategy.
Your point is?
What strategy?
@@darthmaul216he bot believes there is a moral equivalence between slavery and abortion because certain arguments for slavery have a superficial resemblance to arguments for abortion. Specifically the idea it is up to the mothers/slave owners to decide for themselves if abortion/slavery is a moral good.
What our bot doesn't consider is that the two things are different: one is a medical procedure that has saved lives and relates to a mass of cells incapable of living on its own. The other refers to actual humans with actual natural rights being forced into labor under the racist delusion they couldn't live on their own. While I used similar words to describe the two that was purposeful. Anyone should be able to see the two are fundamentally different.
To imply that the issue is not abortion, but choice, is to say that what’s being chosen is irrelevant. That is clearly illogical given that all choices are not equal. Choosing whether to buy a new car is vastly different than choosing whether to produce child pornography, and the morality of those choices is not affected by the eventual decision. However, the pro-choice position is that abortion becomes acceptable simply by the act of choosing to do it.
So you choose to ignore the health and life concern of women?
Do they not count?
abortion becomes acceptable when the person carrying the child chooses of their own will to abort. congratulations on figuring it out
The thing here is consent. Child pornography really fucks up a child. If you want to compare it to porn, see it as someone starting an only fans.
Sure you may not agree with it. But it is not harming anyone.
A fetus is not yet able to be harmed when abortions are done.. ESPECIALLY not with the abortion pill (as this can be done relatively fast and thus early. More invasive procedures take planning. The pill is only used at the very beginning) .
As for harm to be done. There has to be like the ability to feel pain. When the pill is used. The nerves are not even yet connected to the brain. Thus cannot feel yet. That's how pain works.
@@edh1970 Defenders of slavery also used this same strategy.
@@MeghanBrowning-cy3tm what strategy? abortion and enslaving a human being are not equivalent.
Beep
Stick you do forget those who push the law believe that if a mother dies as a result of childbearing, that she had died doing the lord's work.
Even if the fetus died as well? 🤔
make a religion that requires its members to have a ceremony sustaining or terminating a pregnancy for each one that occurs. oh, and it requires its members to prominently say "issue of skill" whenever someone tries to stop it but can't because it would violate religious freedom. ez clap.
The question is, do you support abortion, my friend?
*context needed. At what point in the pregnancy and in what circumstances?
I support not sticking my nose with what others do with their bodies, too bad conservatives don't care about personal freedom
i support government's absence in the decision.
Clarify what you mean by support?
Looking at some people i'd advocate abortion upto 2600 weeks
Yes, we do, as any sane person with a modicum of empathy should.
I was at the internet and realized RoVWadeDramaImma1st on this video
Ya yes dumbness of both parties.
My favorite murder supporting stick
I like how you guys don't have a rational reason to ban abortion, so you just pretend it is murder and consider the argument won... when everyone with a brain is laughing at you.
What now?
that pill is administered withing a certain timeline. that timeline is ther because within that timeline the fetus not advanced enough to be a thinking feeling being yet.
Stuck to debunking flat Earthers
I think you meant "stick"
I hate that I have to say this but not all republicans are against abortion. Everyone in my family is republican and is for abortion and women’s rights and civil rights. I hate that me and my family are demonized for choosing one of the only two viable parties in the us.
There are zero viable parties in the US.
You should be demonized, considering you're still choosing to stand by the same side as rapists, gromers, and literal psycopathic fascist.
Anyone still willing to bear the republican moniker derserves nothing more than complete and public humiliation.
I can see how that would bother you and I can definitely understand it. But voting the Republican Party into power will result in support for the anti abortion movement. Personally, I’m thinking the political system needs an overhaul.
Buddy, if you personally support something but actively vote for the people who are banning it... then your preferences don't matter, your actions do.
@@angrydoggy9170 exactly this. the two party system has failed and has been failing for a very long time. as long as we continue to be restricted to two dumbass groups full of moronic clowns things will only ever get worse.
It is amusing how no one seems to take notice that both sides are arguing for the same thing: life and liberty
No, one side is argueing for potential life at the cost of others....
I don't see how forcing a 10-year-old girl to die in childbirth or a married 30-year-old woman to die due to an ectopic pregnancy or a 20-year-old to drop out of university and become a stay-at-home mother to the children of some jackass on a sportsball scholarship who spiked her drink or a woman who's had a miscarriage to carry the corpse inside her until it rots and destroys her womb is "arguing for life and liberty."
@@Sableagle that is understandable seeing how ideologically political the argument has become (antithetically to real truth seeking). Do you think that your understanding of life and liberty is perfectly grounded to claim in absolute certainty that the offense is on the "other side", or is it possible that you are missing something to enable you to understand with depth the points you bring up?
I want to see the other side of the discussion. Where do they put life and liberty in banning healthcare ?
one is for and the other is CLEARLY against
Weren't you advocating the forced vaccinations and medical discrimination through covid mandates?
Abortion doesn't endanger the lives of everyone around you.
Having an abortion is and always shoukd be a personal choice.
Getting vaccinated for a highly contagious and deadly disease shouldn't, since there's no logical reason not to and not doing so make you a literal walking public health risk.
I’m pro abortion but anti roe v. wade
That literaly doesn't make any sense
Why?
Homicide (killing of the fetus) vs. Assault (nonconsensual application of force to the mother)
This is the uncomfortable debate that we need to resolve first.
Why not lock up all pregnant women to make sure they get a healthy diet and prevent them from doing things that might harm the foetus? After all some sports and an unhealthy diet can be detrimental.
“Killing” a fetus is not homicide. There i resolved the debate
@@darthmaul216 Yeah, but the bible thumpers want to make it "homicide"
@@angrydoggy9170 Next step: re-impregnation to prevent menstruation. After all, menstruation can be detrimental.
Wait, what was killed? A zygote? An embryo? A fetus? A baby? We need to be clear about this, and THAT is the uncomfortable debate.
I like how he just argued against universal Healthcare. Part of the argument against universal Healthcare is keeping the government out of your health decisions.
I don't think you really understand what he is talking about. When he says that he wants universal healthcare he is talking about funding for it so it's affordable to everyone I don't see why that stance would have them in your business since they would just be the ones paying the doctors.
There is a large difference between funding, and guidance/regulations/treatment itself, silly comment to make
@dranyam00mada it doesn't matter if that was his intent but the fact that he laid out part of the argument is all I was pointing out. All I was doing was pointing out that he was making the same argument for pro abortion that others make against universal Healthcare. So yes I did understand his point, but I can also use my brain to see how that argument could also be used for other things.
@Pachimaniac in universal Healthcare your treatment can be denied and other treatments recommended that aren't what you and your doctor think is best. That treatment is decided by the government, whether or not it's a board of doctors working for the government doesn't matter, what does matter is that the government decides your treatment, not you and your doctor. Kinda like what prof stick was saying about politicians staying out of healthcare.
imagine having such late stage brain rot to the point where you can't understand that just because there is universal healthcare it doesn't mean you can't go to a private hospital if you so choose to do, or have private health insurance, but hey completely ignore this fact like every other fact imbeciles like you ignore. Don't answer with the stupid response of "wElL iF i'M noT GoiNG To Use IT ThEn WhY woUlD mY TaxEs PaY foR iT". I could make the same stupid argument regarding Military spending, Services for disabled people, public schools. but do you see me complaining about them? no because they're a public service just as much as universal health care is.
I am 100% on board with ending human life when they are inconvenient. You’re just not going to like my definition of inconvenient….
We might, who did you have in mind?
I don’t agree that abortion should be allowed for any woman who wants one. Population sustainability is already in a negative situation and allowing women to have an abortion just because they wanted to have fun and didn’t intend to get pregnant should not be a valid reason to have an abortion. If it is we need to be prepared to increase immigration to make up for the below sustainability threshold with regard to the birth rate…
We have billions of people in this world the human race isn’t going to die out any time soon
Bro. You do realize that the population is growing extremely fast... We'll be fine
Why? 1) Accidents happen, and since the same politicians pushing these bans are also pushing to restrict birth control, you can’t just chock it up to irresponsibility. 2) the same politicians are also actively resisting or working to roll back any support or aid for children and families - people can’t AFFORD to have kids, and 3) this is all academic anyway since you can actually put a stop to abortions, you can only put a stop to SAFE abortions. The only result of these policies will be that now, instead of only losing a viable fetus, we’ll just have a lot more cases where we lose the mom too, or totally destroy her ability to have a child in the future when she’s able to actually care for a child. If your worry is population decline, this will only make it much worse
Forcing people to have children is not a viable solution.
Increase immigration then.
Politics is not your thing man. Or else you would have realized roe v wade was unconstitutional.
Roe v. Wade was completely constitutional.
Taking away rights is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's decision took away women's rights.
@@Diviance what a great argument. Well let me get down to your level.
You cant kill babies anymore.... nana nana boo boo
@@thehabit5904 It was a better argument than yours, buddy.
It was never unconstitutional bud. Facts don’t care about your feelings
Oh no. You can't kill babies. Such a tragedy.
You know how ppl say "the world isint ready for communism" as an exuse to not establish communism? Let me flip this... I dont care if you think it's murder, it dosent matter... the world is WAY to fucked up to ban abortions...
Did you even watch the video?
Haha, your comments here are hilarious, no new fox videos out to watch, had to come to sticks channel for human interaction because you can't get any IRL?
Ah yes, glen quagmire with a Minecraft Glen Quagmire profile picture. The pinnacle of political awareness making only the most cutting edge arguments for his case. Oh here he comes, arguing about how we should let women die because we're "killing babies."
@Carolinus TG nah he hasn't been able to stomach how much less crazy right Fox News has gotten since Tucker Carlson was forced to resign.