This was the logical and inevitable consequence of conservative attacks on female autonomy. And most people either don't care, or actively support it.
this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
363 points (98.4% liked)
News
32569 readers
2976 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Even if we all suddenly decided, on a philosophical basis, that life begins at conception, Fetal Personhood laws are still a bad idea. Because as the article notes, 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, naturally. Fetal Personhood laws force governments to treat each one of those as a possible crime, seeking to assign blame, when in reality it is just nature working the way it does.
And, like quite a few laws put in place by fascists, they are unequally applied. There will be certain demographics who are more likely to be investigated for this than others.
I don't see how life at conception, or fetal personhood leads to this. If another person attached themselves to you and said "if you detach me I'll die, I need to stay connected to you for months before I can detach from you in a traumatic way that damages your body" it's not a crime to detach them. No one has a right to your body. But somehow when a baby does that they have a direct right to your body? When did you agree to this arrangement? When did you lose your right to change your mind?
I'm very upset that leftists have to cede the scientific fact that life begins at conception to the right. Just because a fetus is alive doesn't mean it owns your body.
I'm not disagreeing with anything I'm just mad that we have to take such precarious positions to defend things that I don't think should need defending.
Your argument is exactly why I think forced birth should be illegal under the amendment that outlaws forced labor and indentured servitude.
This philosophy starts with the Catholics. Not only do they believe that life begins at conception, but they believe that there is no circumstance where it is ethical to terminate a pregnancy prematurely, even if it's to save the life of the mother. Which is fine for Catholics to believe, but they need to acknowledge that this view is an extreme view. Other faiths (and those with no faith) do not view things this strictly.
I find it interesting, though, how evangelicals in the US (many of whom don't even consider Catholics to be Christian in the first place) have seized on this concept also. But as far as I can tell, it's for purely political reasons. They realize they can build up political capital by pushing to outlaw abortion. (Of course, they can do this because laws are mainly for the poors -- they know that no matter how illegal they make it, they still know how to get access if their mistress needs one, so that's all that matters to them.)
But a lot of Catholics are also immigrants in the US, and in the process of becoming single-issue voters on Abortion, they created the scenarios where many Catholic families are being torn apart in immigration raids. Was it worth it?
We'll see what happens to Catholics if an Evangelical theocratic government really does entrench itself here. They might regret leaning into anti-abortion politics so heavily. All American Bishops had to do instead was to tell their congregations is "we don't care if it's legal, just don't get one" and so much of this could have been avoided.
Run your logic again, but this time, the only factor is "women's bodies should be controlled by men, and used mainly for breeding."
I am not too familiar with NA law, however there's a thing called ommission as in the opposite of action. Now you can obviously commit a crime by performing an action, but the same is true by not doing anything when you're supposed to act. Those that are by law expected to act ar guarantors, for example emergency service people, doctors and parents. This would fall under such a category
I don't really see that. People are generally paid to take on that responsibility or have otherwise agreed to it. They can generally end that responsibility when they want to. If anything what you said is a pro abortion argument. I don't think there is any framework where sex is an agreement to raise a baby, nor do I think anyone is committing any crime taking any action to terminate a pregnancy. Forced birth is the crime.
And, like quite a few laws put in place by fascists, they are unequally applied.
Laws are -- with some extremely rare exceptions -- always unequally applied.
And they call it "being christian". It would be a joke if it wasn't so heartbreaking. But then again, that joke started soon after Jesus died. But then again, I thought we left all that behind us when we separated state and religion.
You know what they say: "No hate like Christian love".
It's not a Christian take, at least not if they actually read the Bible. A fetus is treated as property, miscarriages due to violence is fined.
Children are also treated as property though, so that does not really prove any distinction.
The distinction is they can't use the Bible as grounds for abortion arguments. If they want to use science to argue that a fetus is a person equal to any other person they may try.
Bold of you to expect the actual content of the Bible to matter to people who call themselves Christian
I read miscarriages become cringe and felt like grampa simpsons
MAGAts will soon lock all women up that become pregnant.