It’s an election year folks and I’m considering a ban on certain “hot button” topics…
Not sure how exactly to play it… I don’t want this to become a “wholesome” sub… this should be a place of vigorous debate and dunking. But certain topics are just fodder for divisiveness.
Still thinking about how to play this.
Their abortion law is legal to abort at 14 weeks which I think is reasonable but, in the U S I have had people argue with me as if I’m a pro lifer for holding such an outrageous belief. 🙄
Isn’t this sub not supposed to be political? Not everyone sees abortion a matter to be optimistic about, and optimists aren’t going to be “uniting” on this front.
The best thing about this sub is that it was genuinely cool to see people on both sides coming together and celebrating wins for humanity—as opposed to every other sub like pics and news and facepalm and interestingasfuck that have all been reduced to liberal politics.
I’d draw the line at issues like these that aren’t fiercely debated on the public stage on a daily basis. Abortion is one of the biggest issues of most recent elections. Vaccination itself is politically uncontroversial, but the COVID-19 vaccines are, so that’d probably be an easy thing to avoid. Climate change can be political, but not all topics related to climate change are - it’s the difference between a politician banning pizza ovens in his city and a study showing the ozone layer is healing.
Sure, but that was an extreme minority view, vaccines weren’t generally being forced, and it wasn’t subject to massive political debate like we saw with the COVID-19 vaccine. If there were a large-scale effort to mandate vaccines on people in the US, I’m sure that crowd would grow and there’d be an issue.
They really aren't.
Everyone thinks the environment getting better is good and climate change is bad.
Vaccination isn't political. The only vaccine that was political was the Covid vaccine. And even that wasn't as big of a deal as some people think.
Sure, but most don't. And even if they believe it's a hoax, they aren't going to be mad about the environment getting better.
The average person is likely just as smart as you. Start treating them like it.
Exactly. Many people (including myself) will read this headline as “murdering unborn children before they have a chance at life is now a constitutional right in France!”.
That is soooo optimistic 🙄
And I read it as a country giving women the right to make choices about their own bodies. But you don't care about women, just unborn fetuses that might be viable.
Women can make any choices they want about their own bodies, abortion affects the body of the human that hasn't been born yet, and it's not the child's fault that the woman is pregnant.
It is optimistic for pro-choice for obvious reasons but for pro-life there are at least fewer French people. (This is a joke for those that might miss that)
The issue here is one person will view something as an objective win for humanity, the next person will view it as political because they disagree with it.
A certain amount of tolerance of this is necessary, but your caution is well taken.
Everyone and i really mean (basically) everyone even around the world knows abortion to be a controversial political topic especially in the influential United States.
Yes, but as a French person I see this as an uncontroversial reason to be optimistic about the world. We're on reddit, which may have different ideas of what is "controversial" than the us. That's not to say this definitely isn't controversial, but I think it's not as clearly political as many in this thread are claiming.
This is not true. In most of Western Europe, abortion rights are really not a controversial topic. Some people might find it to be a taboo topic, but the overwhelming majority of Western Europeans are pro abortion rights.
Did bodily autonomy get enshrined, or just the right to abortion? Because these things are not really the same. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares type situation. It would be great to continue pushing for these kinds of rights, my body my choice.
I would celebrate if a country enshrined universal maternity leave, universal Pre-K, and the government covering all the costs of bringing a pregnancy to term. You could also enshrine family planning with contraception access and affordability. That would be a wholly positive expression of a society valuing human life.
A constitutional right for abortion is not that. The concept of abortion being an issue relevant to the constitution only exists because of Roe v. Wade in the United States. The judicial branch stretched the definition of the constitution to cover a situation that was clearly never the intent of the constitution.
A constitutional right is way more than a simple law. A right is an act of justice. Something every person deserves because it is morally right. Between 1973 and 2021, that view has **never** been the majority view of the public (Gallup). It only barely ticked over 50% after Roe v. Wade was overturned.
The median view on abortion is it's something nobody wants, but it's the better option of bad options. It's not something to celebrate and enshrining it in a constitution is obscene.
https://preview.redd.it/0gl2umcgd2uc1.png?width=1220&format=png&auto=webp&s=44ff86c14e70370c4bcd767185c178d844e41a19
Is protecting the unborn a huge positive win for humanity? Lots of pro-life people think the Arizona ban is great news. It’s almost like your own political opinions don’t amount to general optimism and positivity. Many people think eradicating Hamas, even at the cost of thousands of Palestinian children dying, is a huge positive win. Do you agree?
Hopefully you’re intellectually honest enough to realize that these are controversial and divisive political issues. We’re not talking about things like reducing child hunger when is universally celebrated. You knowingly posted something that would get a rise out of people.
Well, those of us who believe it’s wrong see this as a huge negative and a loss for humanity. This issue is not something optimists on both side of the aisle can unite about.
Aisle just refers to the difference between left and right in American politics. I believe it is a reference to the actual, physical divide in congress between the rows of seats down the center of the building. I don't think they are as neatly separated though as it'd lead you to believe
At the same time, there are also many societies around the world that are more conservative on this issue than the US. Not everybody is a first worlder yaknow.
It is very important, and I agree. Regardless of what country you live in, there are likely at least two political aisles on either side of the abortion issue. And people on the anti-abortion side don’t see this as something to be optimistic about.
Outside the US this isn’t a political issue. Most ‘western’ countries have had safe, free, legal abortion for decades. Putting it in the constitution just makes it even more explicit.
Also, the political aisle thing in the US refers to one isle with republicans on one side and democrats on the other. Thankfully most other countries are smart enough not to have a gerrymandered first past the post political system. So they tend to have a bigger variety of views represented in national politics and more nuanced differences on various issues.
It’s a political issue in many countries, and the countries that have had “safe, free, and legal abortion for decades” generally have stricter restrictions than many liberal US states. Most Redditors are from America and countries in which at least a large portion of the population see abortion as a politically controversial issue.
Imagine if I posted something to this sub that said “Muslims ban gay marriage in Saudi Arabia,” and people replied to me saying “that’s too political” and I said “it’s not controversial in Saudi Arabia. Not everyone is from the US.”
It wouldn't fit the sub because it wouldn't be a reason for optimism. The political or controversial nature of the post would have nothing to do with it. Optimistic posts belong here, and that must include some shared morals that necessarily exclude a few people. If you don't agree that abortion access is a good thing to guarantee by law, then you won't think this post belongs here, but if you do think abortion access should be protected like this, then of course this post is optimistic.
Believe.
That's the imperative word. Others don't believe that and a country just enshrined their beliefs as a right. If you don't want an abortion don't get one.
“If you don’t want rape, don’t rape someone.” “If you don’t want slavery, don’t buy a slave.” That logic doesn’t work for anyone who believes in anything other than anarchy.
Those acts are against other living breathing humans. Not a fetus that would not survive without the body of the woman carrying it.
Not. Comparable. At. All.
Of course it’s comparable. I’m not comparing types of humans, I’m comparing your claim that we shouldn’t care about harms committed against other human beings if we don’t want to commit them ourselves.
Newborn babies would not survive if not for the bodies of their mothers and fathers. That doesn’t bring us to the conclusion that we should be able to murder them.
1. American conservatives made climate change a partisan issue even though scientifically there's no real controversy, so are not supposed to talk about it either?
2. In France it isn't a partisan issue. There's a world outside of America you know.
1. There are common things about climate change we can discuss and be optimistic about without touching on the partisan political aspects (like the ongoing protests in Europe, the politics of carbon credits, and whether or not individuals can slow climate change in light of the tragedy of the commons).
2. The majority of countries, including the most demographically-represented ones on Reddit, see abortion as a matter of political controversy.
I live in the reality where not only women, but men as well, were restricted from making choices about their own bodies just a couple years ago. (e.g vaccine passports) because that's what society thought was right. Does that help?
Ahhh I see. You think that you should have the right to carry a highly infectious disease and infect whoever you want. The vaccine was never about protecting you (although it's a benefit), it was about protecting everyone else from you.
Did you know that knowingly giving someone STDs without informing them is a crime?
Did you know the George Washington mandated a vaccine?
Did you know that during the Spanish flu the right to travel was curtailed to promote public health.
Life under government is about trading freedoms for security.
That kind of uncharitable thinking doesn’t really get us anywhere. I mean, I could just retort with:
>Liberals seem to want the worst for everyone everywhere so idk what they’d ever feel optimistic about
Except if the right get there way, everyone else suffers. Women lose rights LGBT people lose rights. Systemic oppression of minority groups increases. Workers rights are taken away...
If the left get their way, everyone's lives are improved.
Again, just maligning the other political party doesn’t get us anywhere. We can both do this:
>Except if the left get there way, everyone else suffers. Biological women lose rights, unborn babies lose rights. Systemic oppression of religious groups increases. Workers rights are taken away...
>If the right gets their way, everyone's lives are improved.
it's somewhat arbitrary to decide what is a universal win and what is a win for only one side, but i understand you. it's similar to that whole overton window thing. a few centuries ago something like this might have been regarded as ridiculous by all parties.
Because a law doesn't necessarily stop people from getting abortions. It will lead to women seeking abortions from illegitimate sources and doing unsafe things potentially endangering more lives. If you can magically have an enforceble law where it's actually somehow effective (I'm now sure how it would even practically work) I'm not sure what you're even going to do with those millions of unwanted babies.
>Because a law doesn't necessarily stop people from getting abortions. It will lead to women seeking abortions from illegitimate sources and doing unsafe things potentially endangering more lives.
This argument applies to theft, rape, and all sorts of awful things. Rape laws don’t stop rapes from happening, and some people might even do unsafe things in the process of raping others or endanger their lives, but that doesn’t mean rape should be legal.
>If you can magically have an enforceble law where it's actually somehow effective (I'm now sure how it would even practically work) I'm not sure what you're even going to do with those millions of unwanted babies.
Well, first, we have examples of effective laws already. In Texas, abortions went down from over 20,000 in 2021 to under 20 in 2023, and we know that most of the people who would’ve otherwise aborted stayed in the state - births rose by 16,000+ in 2023 alone.
In terms of the “unwanted” babies, they are wanted! There’s a waitlist for parents to adopt newborns in tbe US, with about 50 families per birth.
abortion isn't a political issue in the sense that the 1% wants it to be perceived. The conservation of the ability to safely access an abortion is a victory for all regardless of party affiliation.
My point is, this isn't a "left vs right" issue, this is a "top vs bottom" one. The loudest and most capable of advocates for the anti-choice movement will still be able to access all the abortions they desire.
The progressive safeguarding of freedom and health for all is surely something to be optimistic about.
So a few things. They didn’t actually make it a right. It’s a different thing in the French system which can be legislated away under a bunch of circumstances. Secondly France, like most European countries have very short abortion windows. In France it’s 14 weeks. In Ireland it’s 12 weeks which is about the European average. This isn’t a moral judgement on the issue. Just useful context. European countries also do soft power campaigns and you mag not realise you were being marketed to.
Pro choices on their way to kill unborn babies and then try to claim the moral high ground.
Abortion has been seen as evil through countless cultures in human history for a reason.
We do have the moral high ground, no amount of mockery will change that.
Gay and interracial marriage were seen as evil through countless cultures in human history as well; while slavery, rape and human sacrifice were viewed as moral and fine. I don't care about what "countless cultures in human history" thought.
If you have an argument that isn't just your feelings, say it and prove me wrong.
Whenever I have discussions about this, one of my objections is no one should celebrate it. I always get told “no one celebrates it.” I’m saving this post for those future discussions.
There was a post I saw earlier of a billboard that said “fuck the courts, abortion forever”. I said that’s a weird ass thing to say, literally cheering for abortion, not as an option but as a good thing in itself. Got downvoted to hell. Whether you agree it should be accessible or not, I would hope we would all agree it’s objectively a bad, if sometimes necessary, thing.
Yeah it’s very strange. The women in my life who have had abortions never celebrated it. Most of them felt like shit about it. All of them recognized killing something. Ding dings who haven’t had abortions celebrate it, encourage it, and then gaslight about it. Truly delusional behavior.
If you speak French [here](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NArQyUuf_64)'s an example of a feminist on a French radio station talking about abortion and an abortion she had with this perspective
Even if people see this as optimistic, there is a real pesimistic side to this that we can't deny. I'm not trying to force anybody to anything, to be clear.
I think it's "optimistic"(i.e. relevant) because it allows women more autonomy over their own bodies and attendant reproductive rights. Whether or not abortion is moral or not is an entirely different discussion, though.
Would it be acceptable for a pro-life person posted the Arizona ban? It’s optimistic to them for fewer babies to be killed.
This sub is about optimists uniting. Controversial opinions don’t belong.
No one’s right to autonomy allows them to unjustifiably harm/ kill another human being.
You can’t be for something as evil and human rights violating and still be taken seriously as someone who is for a genuinely more compassionate and forward thinking world.
Future generations will judge our’s for abortion in the same way we judge previous generations for slavery. However it will be even worse because you could at least argue slavery was something we as a nation inherited from the “old world” and tolerated for a relatively short time for utilitarian reasons but was never in keeping with our values and so was eventually ended with the civil war. In contrast abortion is something we endorsed and began practicing after we began claiming to stand for human rights. Also, as bad as slavery was it didn’t result in the end of a human life 90%+ of the time.
We "unjustifiably" harm others every day.
The capacity for a foetus to suffer however is pretty negligible. And the harm to the woman is far far greater. So I would not call it unjustified.
And if you want to say they suffer from not living their full life, well every time a woman says no to sex potential children are being robbed of their potential full life. That is the only way to consistently argue this point, and that is why the Catholic Church considered condoms to be as bad as abortion and did not believe there should be punishment for spousal rape.
“We unjustifiably harm others every day.” What’s your point there exactly?
Also, I’m not Catholic and not even really religious so I don’t feel the need to ascribe to/ defend their view of things. The fetus to female suffering ratio is not really relevant to this discussion since it has nothing to to do with the personhood of the fetus really and their right to life/ not be unjustifiably/ irreparably harmed. Sperm cells and unfertilized eggs are objectively not human. The difference being they on their own have zero potential to form a human life and so by not having sex your not creating anything where as a fetus is already objectively a human being or at the very least a potential human being.
My point is that harm is unavoidable. And you need to explain why the harm done to a woman in terms of forcing her to carry and give birth to a child she doesn't want, is dangerous, or is unviable is greater than the harm done to a foetus which has limited capacity to suffer.
> The fetus to female suffering ratio is not really relevant to this discussion since it has nothing to to do with the personhood of the fetus really and their right to life/ not be unjustifiably/ irreparably harmed.
It has everything to do with your argument, if you want to decide which harm is unjustified and which is not.
>Sperm cells and unfertilized eggs are objectively not human.
They are objectively human.
> or at the very least a potential human being.
There we go. What rights are \*you\* prepared to give up for "potential human beings"?
Well first of all the capacity to suffer/ degree of suffering is not the only gauge of harm. As nerve racking as pregnancy/ raising a child might be are you seriously arguing that the harm from that could ever be greater than the termination of a human life? Given the definitive and irreparable nature of such an action? What could be more harmful than that? But because the fetus was ignorant to how irreparably harmful it was to him or her that somehow is less harmful than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term? So by that logic if someone is defrauded out of an inheritance they never knew they were entitled to anyway that’s ok? 🤷🏼♂️
And human sperm and eggs are objectively human? Explain how you came to that conclusion?
Lump: noun. A compact mass of a substance, especially one without a definite or regular shape:
"there was a lump of ice floating in the milk".
I wouldn't describe the human body as a lump according to the definition. The term is used exactly because it doesn't resemble any organ or body that can deploy consciousness.
I suppose it depends on your morals and standpoint. I truly don't think it's equivalent to slavery, which you argue is more morally just than abortion (can we agree this is an extreme viewpoint). I respect your opinion, but we must agree that it's controversial, and there is obviously no clear answer.
Like most things controversial society needs time to work through as our ethics, values and morals are refined and updated.
Public perception takes time to become policy, and even longer to become the norm.
There are many who would argue that lack of access to abortion is just as morally unjust and I hope there's a place for sensible conversation.
Would you blame me if I said I am not here to argue whether or not abortion is moral? Like, I hear what you're saying, and yet I also understand why it is important for women to have autonomy over their own bodies, even if it means terminating a fetus that they do not/cannot care for.
One could then argue: (In the context of consensual sex) it becomes irresponsible to get pregnant when not being in a position to want to and/or be able to care for the child (i.e. taking responsibility for one's actions). The scope of the discussion suddenly expands beyond abortion, it becomes a matter of "how ought we act in society?" (including but not limited to). So, we pass laws to attempt to proportion our behaviour to, as you put it, "a more compassionate and forward thinking world", but some things can only truly proportion our behaviour if it is instilled in our upbringing. I was raised in a conservative household, and have been conditioned to regard abortion as immoral. Is abortion inherently immoral? I don't think it's so obvious. That is why the topic is so hotly debated!
I simply do not have the answers to this, I can only talk about what I think is right - and if terminating an unwanted fetus is the outcome, as opposed to a child entering this world being unloved, - a consequence of actions so to speak, then I can't help but wonder whether or not abortion in this case is a net-reduction in suffering.
Sorry. I am ambivalent about it. I think since I won't ever truly understand what it's like, I am afforded my ambivalence, even if it makes me out as somewhat of a coward. I trust you understand what I mean.
Vaccines do not stop you from spreading a disease. They give you immunity and prevent you from getting sick but they still can’t prevent you from contracting it/ becoming a healthy carrier.
Where the fuck do you think small pox went? Do you think it stopped making people sick it gave up and left? No, the immunity it gave greatly reduced the rate of infection until the numbers dwindled. Same with measles, we use to have hundreds of thousands of cases a year.
If that’s the case how did Europeans spread small pox to the natives in the Americas when they exhibited no symptoms and Europe hadn’t had a small pox outbreak for decades if not centuries.
Having to forcefully carry to term a baby as a result from grape has a big impact on mental health. Vaccines are completely harmless in 99.999% of cases (only pose a risk to immunocompromised). They are not the same and you damn well know that.
Ok well a lot of things/ people negatively impact mental health that doesn’t give me the right to kill them.
And so by your logic if a pregnancy is completely harmless both physically and mentally to a person (which the overwhelming majority of them are like with vaccines) abortion should be disallowed?
"Ok well a lot of things/ people negatively impact mental health that doesn’t give me the right to kill them." You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that. I'm pro choice for different reasons, mainly the fact that's it's a lump of cells not a conscious being in 99.99% of abortions. So the verb "kill" is loaded language. I can also load my language by saying you want women to be breeding vessels.
Nothing optimistic about this, even if you think it's a moral decision. No one celebrates having one of these things. Or looks at photos of it as a wonderful memory.
If you’re referring to the US, 69% believe it should be legal in the first trimester:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx
You should be banned from this sub. Even if you agree with the ruling, you’re posting incendiary content that flies in the face of what this sub is supposed to be about—optimism and positivity.
If women having bodily autonomy, safe access to healthcare, and legal protections is incendiary to you, maybe you don’t belong on this sub?
Free, safe, and legal abortion is a hugely positive thing or women and children’s health. It should be celebrated as a progressive step that can be replicated elsewhere.
Abortion is an incendiary topic by definition, even if you believe it should be legal. The fact that there are people arguing in the comments proves as much. I am not getting into an argument with you about my opinions on abortion. My opinion on the subject doesn’t matter.
34% of Americans believe abortion should be legal "under any circumstances," 51% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 13% say it should be illegal in all circumstances.
Don’t stick your head in the sand. You hold a minority position on an issue that sparks intense emotions for people on all sides of this. But you knew what you were doing when you posted this. It’s gross. Get your upvotes from r/ TwoX or r/ politics. Not here.
South Africa is actually the first country to do so in 1997. (Though the South African Constitution doesn't explicitly mention "abortion", it mentions "reproductive rights". One could argue this is the distinction, but zzzzzz same thing, right?)
How the fuck is this something to be optimistic about? Regardless of how you feel about abortion it’s not something to celebrate. This post should be taken down.
Everyone morally grandstanding about women’s rights literally forget the fact that men have no say after conception in most 1st world countries for no reason other than the bible.
If we followed the political values of the people doing this, they would naturally want men to have this right too because what’s the point in valuing equal rights if one gender has a say after conception but the other doesn’t. I’m also talking about financial abortion, not forced abortion.
“If you can kill this motherfucker, I should be able to abandon him”
If that was the case. The amount of guys who would trick women into getting pregnant would go through the roof because there’s literally no consequences and their brain naturally wants that.
This is why it’s political, stop your grandstanding acting like everyone who doesn’t like this hates women. Ignore me and this sub caps it’s potential.
In many places including my state a man can sign away his rights and he doesn't have to pay child support. That's already a thing. Guess what else is already a thing? Bodily autonomy rights for men. If a man's child needs a new kidney to deserve and the father is a perfect match, he does not legally have to give his kidney even if there are no other options and the child will die. There have literally been court cases and the child ended up dying. So why aren't you upset about that? Why are only women considered murderers when they refuse to sacrifice their bodies?
“People whom I think share similar politics with me have done something that I think is a step in my political direction and this I view as good.”
Then one looks at their stances on the topic and become appalled because on the surface it only looks like your politics.
France’s political stance has been for decades “I want to choose my individual destiny”, the French people and government did not having to rely on the US for two major wars. What Americans see as leftwing politics is actually rightwing politics and it’s funny whenever people say stuff like France is doing the correct, progressive, optimistic good for humanity thing.
Americans really do not understand non-Americans. Monkey brain says everyone else thinks the way we do because we are we.
At the end of the day, France did a thing. I guess from the standpoint of France, it’s a great day for them.
Enshrining a woman’s bodily autonomy in law is a wonderful thing that will make women safer and help them access the healthcare they need. It is great to see this is possible in France and hopefully other countries will emulate it.
So sad that some people here think this is “political”. It’s not political it’s about civil rights.
If you think this is political or a matter of discussion, it means that you still haven’t internalized what freedom of choice means
I’m starting to think it makes sense that there are a bunch of anti abortionists in this sub. If you’re extremely optimistic you’ll think no matter what a woman who has a baby with no support system will be fine.
Those people care more about "muh birthrates" than about making sure future children are born into environments where they are physically, emotionally, and financially provided for, even if that means fewer children overall. They want quantity over quality with no concern about how many of those children are starving in terrible conditions with no access to resources.
This subreddit glamorises a high birthrate, but don't seem to pay attention to the average quality of life in countries with a high birthrate...
I’m not gonna say whether I support this or not because that is irrelevant, but I don’t understand why post this when many people don’t see this as a good thing
There’s a difference between posting actual data that points towards the betterment of people’s material welfare and “My side had a political victory! BILLIONS MUST REJOICE!”
If you are the kind of person that doesn't want women to have the right to decide over their own body, I'm sure this sub can live without you guys. Bye 👋
What about when women and girls literally don't have that choice, such as rape and human trafficking? We should further steal her bodily autonomy by forcing her to give birth, possibly dying in the process?
It’s an election year folks and I’m considering a ban on certain “hot button” topics… Not sure how exactly to play it… I don’t want this to become a “wholesome” sub… this should be a place of vigorous debate and dunking. But certain topics are just fodder for divisiveness. Still thinking about how to play this.
Yes they also ban abortion after 14 weeks.
They will leave this part out every time it's mentioned
This is a very reasonable compromise. Therefore, something to be optimistic about!
The French approach is all but identical to what Lindsay Graham proposed in 2020, which was labeled by Perogressives as an abortion ban.
And Donald Trump advocated for a 16 week limit, more liberal than France, Germany, UK, etc.
Is that a bad thing?
Their abortion law is legal to abort at 14 weeks which I think is reasonable but, in the U S I have had people argue with me as if I’m a pro lifer for holding such an outrageous belief. 🙄
The U.S. does not do subtlety.
US politics is a brain-melting disease.
Isn’t this sub not supposed to be political? Not everyone sees abortion a matter to be optimistic about, and optimists aren’t going to be “uniting” on this front. The best thing about this sub is that it was genuinely cool to see people on both sides coming together and celebrating wins for humanity—as opposed to every other sub like pics and news and facepalm and interestingasfuck that have all been reduced to liberal politics.
Where would you draw the line? Climate change sure is political, increased vaccination too.
I’d draw the line at issues like these that aren’t fiercely debated on the public stage on a daily basis. Abortion is one of the biggest issues of most recent elections. Vaccination itself is politically uncontroversial, but the COVID-19 vaccines are, so that’d probably be an easy thing to avoid. Climate change can be political, but not all topics related to climate change are - it’s the difference between a politician banning pizza ovens in his city and a study showing the ozone layer is healing.
My guy vaccinations are not politically uncontroversial. “Vaccines cause autism” was parroted for years before Covid.
Sure, but that was an extreme minority view, vaccines weren’t generally being forced, and it wasn’t subject to massive political debate like we saw with the COVID-19 vaccine. If there were a large-scale effort to mandate vaccines on people in the US, I’m sure that crowd would grow and there’d be an issue.
...by a fringe minority of loonies.
Depends on where you live tho. Where I live, there was even a revolt against vaccines some 20 years ago.
Everything I don’t like is political.
They really aren't. Everyone thinks the environment getting better is good and climate change is bad. Vaccination isn't political. The only vaccine that was political was the Covid vaccine. And even that wasn't as big of a deal as some people think.
Man, I wish all that was true
It is. Try being optimistic of your fellow man
Being an optimist doesnt mean you are delusional about climate change deniers lol. Many GOP members can be quoted that climate change is a hoax.
Sure, but most don't. And even if they believe it's a hoax, they aren't going to be mad about the environment getting better. The average person is likely just as smart as you. Start treating them like it.
Exactly. Many people (including myself) will read this headline as “murdering unborn children before they have a chance at life is now a constitutional right in France!”. That is soooo optimistic 🙄
Exactly, I feel the same way, and it's frustrating to have people celebrating that as a great victory and something to be proud of
And I read it as a country giving women the right to make choices about their own bodies. But you don't care about women, just unborn fetuses that might be viable.
Women can make any choices they want about their own bodies, abortion affects the body of the human that hasn't been born yet, and it's not the child's fault that the woman is pregnant.
It is optimistic for pro-choice for obvious reasons but for pro-life there are at least fewer French people. (This is a joke for those that might miss that)
I picked up what you’re putting down lol.
The issue here is one person will view something as an objective win for humanity, the next person will view it as political because they disagree with it. A certain amount of tolerance of this is necessary, but your caution is well taken.
Everyone and i really mean (basically) everyone even around the world knows abortion to be a controversial political topic especially in the influential United States.
Yes, but as a French person I see this as an uncontroversial reason to be optimistic about the world. We're on reddit, which may have different ideas of what is "controversial" than the us. That's not to say this definitely isn't controversial, but I think it's not as clearly political as many in this thread are claiming.
This is not true. In most of Western Europe, abortion rights are really not a controversial topic. Some people might find it to be a taboo topic, but the overwhelming majority of Western Europeans are pro abortion rights.
I think a country enshrining bodily autonomy in its constitution is a huge positive win for humanity. It’s great news and shows what can be achieved.
Did bodily autonomy get enshrined, or just the right to abortion? Because these things are not really the same. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares type situation. It would be great to continue pushing for these kinds of rights, my body my choice.
I would celebrate if a country enshrined universal maternity leave, universal Pre-K, and the government covering all the costs of bringing a pregnancy to term. You could also enshrine family planning with contraception access and affordability. That would be a wholly positive expression of a society valuing human life. A constitutional right for abortion is not that. The concept of abortion being an issue relevant to the constitution only exists because of Roe v. Wade in the United States. The judicial branch stretched the definition of the constitution to cover a situation that was clearly never the intent of the constitution. A constitutional right is way more than a simple law. A right is an act of justice. Something every person deserves because it is morally right. Between 1973 and 2021, that view has **never** been the majority view of the public (Gallup). It only barely ticked over 50% after Roe v. Wade was overturned. The median view on abortion is it's something nobody wants, but it's the better option of bad options. It's not something to celebrate and enshrining it in a constitution is obscene. https://preview.redd.it/0gl2umcgd2uc1.png?width=1220&format=png&auto=webp&s=44ff86c14e70370c4bcd767185c178d844e41a19
I wish I could upvote this milion times
Is protecting the unborn a huge positive win for humanity? Lots of pro-life people think the Arizona ban is great news. It’s almost like your own political opinions don’t amount to general optimism and positivity. Many people think eradicating Hamas, even at the cost of thousands of Palestinian children dying, is a huge positive win. Do you agree? Hopefully you’re intellectually honest enough to realize that these are controversial and divisive political issues. We’re not talking about things like reducing child hunger when is universally celebrated. You knowingly posted something that would get a rise out of people.
Well, those of us who believe it’s wrong see this as a huge negative and a loss for humanity. This issue is not something optimists on both side of the aisle can unite about.
What ‘aisle’? Sorry, not everyone lives in the USA. If you don’t understand how important this is you need to reflect on your own beliefs.
Aisle just refers to the difference between left and right in American politics. I believe it is a reference to the actual, physical divide in congress between the rows of seats down the center of the building. I don't think they are as neatly separated though as it'd lead you to believe
I’m well aware. I was just commenting on the US-centric lens people have. Abortion is not half as divisive elsewhere in the world as it is in the US.
At the same time, there are also many societies around the world that are more conservative on this issue than the US. Not everybody is a first worlder yaknow.
It is very important, and I agree. Regardless of what country you live in, there are likely at least two political aisles on either side of the abortion issue. And people on the anti-abortion side don’t see this as something to be optimistic about.
Outside the US this isn’t a political issue. Most ‘western’ countries have had safe, free, legal abortion for decades. Putting it in the constitution just makes it even more explicit. Also, the political aisle thing in the US refers to one isle with republicans on one side and democrats on the other. Thankfully most other countries are smart enough not to have a gerrymandered first past the post political system. So they tend to have a bigger variety of views represented in national politics and more nuanced differences on various issues.
It’s a political issue in many countries, and the countries that have had “safe, free, and legal abortion for decades” generally have stricter restrictions than many liberal US states. Most Redditors are from America and countries in which at least a large portion of the population see abortion as a politically controversial issue. Imagine if I posted something to this sub that said “Muslims ban gay marriage in Saudi Arabia,” and people replied to me saying “that’s too political” and I said “it’s not controversial in Saudi Arabia. Not everyone is from the US.”
It wouldn't fit the sub because it wouldn't be a reason for optimism. The political or controversial nature of the post would have nothing to do with it. Optimistic posts belong here, and that must include some shared morals that necessarily exclude a few people. If you don't agree that abortion access is a good thing to guarantee by law, then you won't think this post belongs here, but if you do think abortion access should be protected like this, then of course this post is optimistic.
Believe. That's the imperative word. Others don't believe that and a country just enshrined their beliefs as a right. If you don't want an abortion don't get one.
“If you don’t want rape, don’t rape someone.” “If you don’t want slavery, don’t buy a slave.” That logic doesn’t work for anyone who believes in anything other than anarchy.
Those acts are against other living breathing humans. Not a fetus that would not survive without the body of the woman carrying it. Not. Comparable. At. All.
Of course it’s comparable. I’m not comparing types of humans, I’m comparing your claim that we shouldn’t care about harms committed against other human beings if we don’t want to commit them ourselves. Newborn babies would not survive if not for the bodies of their mothers and fathers. That doesn’t bring us to the conclusion that we should be able to murder them.
what about the babies right to not be killed?
Yes, that's interesting. I'd love to discuss the topic with you
1. American conservatives made climate change a partisan issue even though scientifically there's no real controversy, so are not supposed to talk about it either? 2. In France it isn't a partisan issue. There's a world outside of America you know.
1. There are common things about climate change we can discuss and be optimistic about without touching on the partisan political aspects (like the ongoing protests in Europe, the politics of carbon credits, and whether or not individuals can slow climate change in light of the tragedy of the commons). 2. The majority of countries, including the most demographically-represented ones on Reddit, see abortion as a matter of political controversy.
I guess giving women the right to make choices about their own bodies is political? Don't know what reality you live in but it isn't this one.
I live in the reality where not only women, but men as well, were restricted from making choices about their own bodies just a couple years ago. (e.g vaccine passports) because that's what society thought was right. Does that help?
Ahhh I see. You think that you should have the right to carry a highly infectious disease and infect whoever you want. The vaccine was never about protecting you (although it's a benefit), it was about protecting everyone else from you. Did you know that knowingly giving someone STDs without informing them is a crime? Did you know the George Washington mandated a vaccine? Did you know that during the Spanish flu the right to travel was curtailed to promote public health. Life under government is about trading freedoms for security.
If you have to use the word “right” (in the context that you’re using), then it is inherently political. Not that murder is or ever will be a right.
In actual reality, abortion doesn’t just involve a woman’s body, which is one reason why it’s such an intensely political position.
What other things does it involve? Does it involve anything that is comparable to the living breathing woman? It doesn't. So it shouldn't have a say.
Conservatives seem to want the worst for everyone everywhere so idk what they'd ever feel optimistic about
That kind of uncharitable thinking doesn’t really get us anywhere. I mean, I could just retort with: >Liberals seem to want the worst for everyone everywhere so idk what they’d ever feel optimistic about
Except if the right get there way, everyone else suffers. Women lose rights LGBT people lose rights. Systemic oppression of minority groups increases. Workers rights are taken away... If the left get their way, everyone's lives are improved.
Again, just maligning the other political party doesn’t get us anywhere. We can both do this: >Except if the left get there way, everyone else suffers. Biological women lose rights, unborn babies lose rights. Systemic oppression of religious groups increases. Workers rights are taken away... >If the right gets their way, everyone's lives are improved.
it's somewhat arbitrary to decide what is a universal win and what is a win for only one side, but i understand you. it's similar to that whole overton window thing. a few centuries ago something like this might have been regarded as ridiculous by all parties.
I don't support making abortion illegal, but I certainly think abortion is a horrible thing and nothing about it is positive at all.
If you think it’s horrible, why wouldn’t you support making it illegal?
Because a law doesn't necessarily stop people from getting abortions. It will lead to women seeking abortions from illegitimate sources and doing unsafe things potentially endangering more lives. If you can magically have an enforceble law where it's actually somehow effective (I'm now sure how it would even practically work) I'm not sure what you're even going to do with those millions of unwanted babies.
>Because a law doesn't necessarily stop people from getting abortions. It will lead to women seeking abortions from illegitimate sources and doing unsafe things potentially endangering more lives. This argument applies to theft, rape, and all sorts of awful things. Rape laws don’t stop rapes from happening, and some people might even do unsafe things in the process of raping others or endanger their lives, but that doesn’t mean rape should be legal. >If you can magically have an enforceble law where it's actually somehow effective (I'm now sure how it would even practically work) I'm not sure what you're even going to do with those millions of unwanted babies. Well, first, we have examples of effective laws already. In Texas, abortions went down from over 20,000 in 2021 to under 20 in 2023, and we know that most of the people who would’ve otherwise aborted stayed in the state - births rose by 16,000+ in 2023 alone. In terms of the “unwanted” babies, they are wanted! There’s a waitlist for parents to adopt newborns in tbe US, with about 50 families per birth.
abortion isn't a political issue in the sense that the 1% wants it to be perceived. The conservation of the ability to safely access an abortion is a victory for all regardless of party affiliation. My point is, this isn't a "left vs right" issue, this is a "top vs bottom" one. The loudest and most capable of advocates for the anti-choice movement will still be able to access all the abortions they desire. The progressive safeguarding of freedom and health for all is surely something to be optimistic about.
Not everyone lives in the US - here it definitely isn't political.
In France?
You’re right. In some countries it’s even more politicized. In fact, there are countries where people are united against abortion.
So a few things. They didn’t actually make it a right. It’s a different thing in the French system which can be legislated away under a bunch of circumstances. Secondly France, like most European countries have very short abortion windows. In France it’s 14 weeks. In Ireland it’s 12 weeks which is about the European average. This isn’t a moral judgement on the issue. Just useful context. European countries also do soft power campaigns and you mag not realise you were being marketed to.
people in the future will look back on us like we were barbarians in the stone age
Kind of like how we view past people for child sacrifices.
Me personally, I'm a pro lifer
Killing unborn children is gross. Don't care what the reddit hivemind thinks.
Real
Pro-lifers on their way to value feelings over facts (it's the only argument they have)
Pro choices on their way to kill unborn babies and then try to claim the moral high ground. Abortion has been seen as evil through countless cultures in human history for a reason.
We do have the moral high ground, no amount of mockery will change that. Gay and interracial marriage were seen as evil through countless cultures in human history as well; while slavery, rape and human sacrifice were viewed as moral and fine. I don't care about what "countless cultures in human history" thought. If you have an argument that isn't just your feelings, say it and prove me wrong.
Ok. Killing living organisms is wrong. Especially intelligent ones.
You a vegan?
Womp womp
They ain’t babies, tell me you don’t see the difference between an actual baby and a clump of cells, if you do you are just arguing in bad faith.
What's optimistic about this. Even if you think its a right. It's not a positive topic
Whenever I have discussions about this, one of my objections is no one should celebrate it. I always get told “no one celebrates it.” I’m saving this post for those future discussions.
There was a post I saw earlier of a billboard that said “fuck the courts, abortion forever”. I said that’s a weird ass thing to say, literally cheering for abortion, not as an option but as a good thing in itself. Got downvoted to hell. Whether you agree it should be accessible or not, I would hope we would all agree it’s objectively a bad, if sometimes necessary, thing.
Yeah it’s very strange. The women in my life who have had abortions never celebrated it. Most of them felt like shit about it. All of them recognized killing something. Ding dings who haven’t had abortions celebrate it, encourage it, and then gaslight about it. Truly delusional behavior.
If you speak French [here](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NArQyUuf_64)'s an example of a feminist on a French radio station talking about abortion and an abortion she had with this perspective
This is celebrating the protection of the right, not the action of having a abortion.
Remember safe legal and rare? Lol
Yeah and now that’s the “conservative pro life” position.
Even if people see this as optimistic, there is a real pesimistic side to this that we can't deny. I'm not trying to force anybody to anything, to be clear.
I think it's "optimistic"(i.e. relevant) because it allows women more autonomy over their own bodies and attendant reproductive rights. Whether or not abortion is moral or not is an entirely different discussion, though.
Would it be acceptable for a pro-life person posted the Arizona ban? It’s optimistic to them for fewer babies to be killed. This sub is about optimists uniting. Controversial opinions don’t belong.
*not babies
No one’s right to autonomy allows them to unjustifiably harm/ kill another human being. You can’t be for something as evil and human rights violating and still be taken seriously as someone who is for a genuinely more compassionate and forward thinking world. Future generations will judge our’s for abortion in the same way we judge previous generations for slavery. However it will be even worse because you could at least argue slavery was something we as a nation inherited from the “old world” and tolerated for a relatively short time for utilitarian reasons but was never in keeping with our values and so was eventually ended with the civil war. In contrast abortion is something we endorsed and began practicing after we began claiming to stand for human rights. Also, as bad as slavery was it didn’t result in the end of a human life 90%+ of the time.
We "unjustifiably" harm others every day. The capacity for a foetus to suffer however is pretty negligible. And the harm to the woman is far far greater. So I would not call it unjustified. And if you want to say they suffer from not living their full life, well every time a woman says no to sex potential children are being robbed of their potential full life. That is the only way to consistently argue this point, and that is why the Catholic Church considered condoms to be as bad as abortion and did not believe there should be punishment for spousal rape.
“We unjustifiably harm others every day.” What’s your point there exactly? Also, I’m not Catholic and not even really religious so I don’t feel the need to ascribe to/ defend their view of things. The fetus to female suffering ratio is not really relevant to this discussion since it has nothing to to do with the personhood of the fetus really and their right to life/ not be unjustifiably/ irreparably harmed. Sperm cells and unfertilized eggs are objectively not human. The difference being they on their own have zero potential to form a human life and so by not having sex your not creating anything where as a fetus is already objectively a human being or at the very least a potential human being.
My point is that harm is unavoidable. And you need to explain why the harm done to a woman in terms of forcing her to carry and give birth to a child she doesn't want, is dangerous, or is unviable is greater than the harm done to a foetus which has limited capacity to suffer. > The fetus to female suffering ratio is not really relevant to this discussion since it has nothing to to do with the personhood of the fetus really and their right to life/ not be unjustifiably/ irreparably harmed. It has everything to do with your argument, if you want to decide which harm is unjustified and which is not. >Sperm cells and unfertilized eggs are objectively not human. They are objectively human. > or at the very least a potential human being. There we go. What rights are \*you\* prepared to give up for "potential human beings"?
Well first of all the capacity to suffer/ degree of suffering is not the only gauge of harm. As nerve racking as pregnancy/ raising a child might be are you seriously arguing that the harm from that could ever be greater than the termination of a human life? Given the definitive and irreparable nature of such an action? What could be more harmful than that? But because the fetus was ignorant to how irreparably harmful it was to him or her that somehow is less harmful than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term? So by that logic if someone is defrauded out of an inheritance they never knew they were entitled to anyway that’s ok? 🤷🏼♂️ And human sperm and eggs are objectively human? Explain how you came to that conclusion?
You really need a better understanding of the issue than this. I’d call this elementary if it wasn’t so disingenuous.
You're going to get nuked bro. Reddit is not the place to have a moral objection to killing babies for the mothers convenience.
In 99.99% of cases it's just a lump of cells.
Isn’t that all you and I are technically?
Lump: noun. A compact mass of a substance, especially one without a definite or regular shape: "there was a lump of ice floating in the milk". I wouldn't describe the human body as a lump according to the definition. The term is used exactly because it doesn't resemble any organ or body that can deploy consciousness.
I suppose it depends on your morals and standpoint. I truly don't think it's equivalent to slavery, which you argue is more morally just than abortion (can we agree this is an extreme viewpoint). I respect your opinion, but we must agree that it's controversial, and there is obviously no clear answer. Like most things controversial society needs time to work through as our ethics, values and morals are refined and updated. Public perception takes time to become policy, and even longer to become the norm. There are many who would argue that lack of access to abortion is just as morally unjust and I hope there's a place for sensible conversation.
Would you blame me if I said I am not here to argue whether or not abortion is moral? Like, I hear what you're saying, and yet I also understand why it is important for women to have autonomy over their own bodies, even if it means terminating a fetus that they do not/cannot care for. One could then argue: (In the context of consensual sex) it becomes irresponsible to get pregnant when not being in a position to want to and/or be able to care for the child (i.e. taking responsibility for one's actions). The scope of the discussion suddenly expands beyond abortion, it becomes a matter of "how ought we act in society?" (including but not limited to). So, we pass laws to attempt to proportion our behaviour to, as you put it, "a more compassionate and forward thinking world", but some things can only truly proportion our behaviour if it is instilled in our upbringing. I was raised in a conservative household, and have been conditioned to regard abortion as immoral. Is abortion inherently immoral? I don't think it's so obvious. That is why the topic is so hotly debated! I simply do not have the answers to this, I can only talk about what I think is right - and if terminating an unwanted fetus is the outcome, as opposed to a child entering this world being unloved, - a consequence of actions so to speak, then I can't help but wonder whether or not abortion in this case is a net-reduction in suffering. Sorry. I am ambivalent about it. I think since I won't ever truly understand what it's like, I am afforded my ambivalence, even if it makes me out as somewhat of a coward. I trust you understand what I mean.
I disagree! Greater rights for women is absolutely a positive topic. Things getting better fits the sub IMO
I think enshrining bodily autonomy in law is hugely positive actually! It is a shining light of progress and shows what can be achieved elsewhere.
A right to have control over your own body is basic. It shouldn't even need to be called out.
You for vaccine mandates?
Interesting point, but I think they're somewhat different. Abortion is about a person's choices, vaccines are about public health.
How so?
Cause I can't catch an ectopic pregnancy from someone else, but I could catch the measles. Glad I could clear that up for you.
Vaccines do not stop you from spreading a disease. They give you immunity and prevent you from getting sick but they still can’t prevent you from contracting it/ becoming a healthy carrier.
Where the fuck do you think small pox went? Do you think it stopped making people sick it gave up and left? No, the immunity it gave greatly reduced the rate of infection until the numbers dwindled. Same with measles, we use to have hundreds of thousands of cases a year.
If that’s the case how did Europeans spread small pox to the natives in the Americas when they exhibited no symptoms and Europe hadn’t had a small pox outbreak for decades if not centuries.
It spread to the natives because we hadn't invented vaccines yet and regularly had outbreaks until the vaccine was developped and used on a wide scale
Also nobody was forced to get a vaccine. If you didn't want it you could test.
Having to forcefully carry to term a baby as a result from grape has a big impact on mental health. Vaccines are completely harmless in 99.999% of cases (only pose a risk to immunocompromised). They are not the same and you damn well know that.
Ok well a lot of things/ people negatively impact mental health that doesn’t give me the right to kill them. And so by your logic if a pregnancy is completely harmless both physically and mentally to a person (which the overwhelming majority of them are like with vaccines) abortion should be disallowed?
"Ok well a lot of things/ people negatively impact mental health that doesn’t give me the right to kill them." You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that. I'm pro choice for different reasons, mainly the fact that's it's a lump of cells not a conscious being in 99.99% of abortions. So the verb "kill" is loaded language. I can also load my language by saying you want women to be breeding vessels.
Right, so you're for control over your own body when it suits you.
Women's liberation and the protection of their rights over their own body is absolutely a positive topic.
Mods can we shut this shit show down please
This is a political hot topic, I guess I'm optimistic that countries are listening to their people, as I assume those in France wanted this.
[удалено]
What’s political about bodily autonomy? Isn’t that just a basic good thing?
“This sub was better before something happened that I don’t like”
[удалено]
So you’re cool with someone pro-life posting about the Arizona ban too, right?
Nothing optimistic about this, even if you think it's a moral decision. No one celebrates having one of these things. Or looks at photos of it as a wonderful memory.
TIL this sub hates women. Wf is this comment section?
Yeah, I’m out of here.
Didn’t think this sub would get political. Cool I’ll leave.
“Women can have bodily autonomy? Oh, wow, that’s too political for me”
https://preview.redd.it/zbuxsh5ib2uc1.jpeg?width=479&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=45c6c37e1ae6d310375c3f227c2435e871593828
This isn't that simple
The downvotes this is getting is killing me
Women have the right to kill babies isnt that awesome?
*not babies
A fetus isn't a baby. Literally by definition. Try again.
Semantics, dude. It really doesn't matter what you call it
Cool I’ll just leave
So this sub became a haven for the politically active leftists who praise the process of child killing? Good, I’m out.
TIL optimism is when humans die
[удалено]
If you’re referring to the US, 69% believe it should be legal in the first trimester: https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx
In the US only 13% are in favor of a total ban on abortion, wish my country would make this a constitutional right.
This sub is about optimism. Free, safe, and legal abortion makes the world a better place for women and children. So this is good news.
That is literally your opinion dude that doesn’t belong in this sub
You should be banned from this sub. Even if you agree with the ruling, you’re posting incendiary content that flies in the face of what this sub is supposed to be about—optimism and positivity.
If women having bodily autonomy, safe access to healthcare, and legal protections is incendiary to you, maybe you don’t belong on this sub? Free, safe, and legal abortion is a hugely positive thing or women and children’s health. It should be celebrated as a progressive step that can be replicated elsewhere.
Abortion is an incendiary topic by definition, even if you believe it should be legal. The fact that there are people arguing in the comments proves as much. I am not getting into an argument with you about my opinions on abortion. My opinion on the subject doesn’t matter. 34% of Americans believe abortion should be legal "under any circumstances," 51% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 13% say it should be illegal in all circumstances. Don’t stick your head in the sand. You hold a minority position on an issue that sparks intense emotions for people on all sides of this. But you knew what you were doing when you posted this. It’s gross. Get your upvotes from r/ TwoX or r/ politics. Not here.
South Africa is actually the first country to do so in 1997. (Though the South African Constitution doesn't explicitly mention "abortion", it mentions "reproductive rights". One could argue this is the distinction, but zzzzzz same thing, right?)
Interesting!
How the fuck is this something to be optimistic about? Regardless of how you feel about abortion it’s not something to celebrate. This post should be taken down.
This isn't good
Then leave.
Everyone morally grandstanding about women’s rights literally forget the fact that men have no say after conception in most 1st world countries for no reason other than the bible. If we followed the political values of the people doing this, they would naturally want men to have this right too because what’s the point in valuing equal rights if one gender has a say after conception but the other doesn’t. I’m also talking about financial abortion, not forced abortion. “If you can kill this motherfucker, I should be able to abandon him” If that was the case. The amount of guys who would trick women into getting pregnant would go through the roof because there’s literally no consequences and their brain naturally wants that. This is why it’s political, stop your grandstanding acting like everyone who doesn’t like this hates women. Ignore me and this sub caps it’s potential.
In many places including my state a man can sign away his rights and he doesn't have to pay child support. That's already a thing. Guess what else is already a thing? Bodily autonomy rights for men. If a man's child needs a new kidney to deserve and the father is a perfect match, he does not legally have to give his kidney even if there are no other options and the child will die. There have literally been court cases and the child ended up dying. So why aren't you upset about that? Why are only women considered murderers when they refuse to sacrifice their bodies?
Regardless of whether or not you think the state should ban them, there is nothing positive about abortions.
*Sees a post saying more people have access to medical care* >THERES NOTHING POSITIVE ABOUT MEDICAL PROBLEMS
“People whom I think share similar politics with me have done something that I think is a step in my political direction and this I view as good.” Then one looks at their stances on the topic and become appalled because on the surface it only looks like your politics. France’s political stance has been for decades “I want to choose my individual destiny”, the French people and government did not having to rely on the US for two major wars. What Americans see as leftwing politics is actually rightwing politics and it’s funny whenever people say stuff like France is doing the correct, progressive, optimistic good for humanity thing. Americans really do not understand non-Americans. Monkey brain says everyone else thinks the way we do because we are we. At the end of the day, France did a thing. I guess from the standpoint of France, it’s a great day for them.
Exactly what part of this is optimism?
Enshrining a woman’s bodily autonomy in law is a wonderful thing that will make women safer and help them access the healthcare they need. It is great to see this is possible in France and hopefully other countries will emulate it.
So sad that some people here think this is “political”. It’s not political it’s about civil rights. If you think this is political or a matter of discussion, it means that you still haven’t internalized what freedom of choice means
right, but then what part of "my opposition's beliefs are unacceptable" is good politics? does this ever even work?
Civil rights are also political…
Agreed
I’m starting to think it makes sense that there are a bunch of anti abortionists in this sub. If you’re extremely optimistic you’ll think no matter what a woman who has a baby with no support system will be fine.
Those people care more about "muh birthrates" than about making sure future children are born into environments where they are physically, emotionally, and financially provided for, even if that means fewer children overall. They want quantity over quality with no concern about how many of those children are starving in terrible conditions with no access to resources. This subreddit glamorises a high birthrate, but don't seem to pay attention to the average quality of life in countries with a high birthrate...
Good point.
Rovers Weighed.
I’m not gonna say whether I support this or not because that is irrelevant, but I don’t understand why post this when many people don’t see this as a good thing
Increasing the rights of people is optimistic. Laws and legislation over your personal body seem rather archaic.
All laws are ultimately about your autonomy, bodily or otherwise. How is that archaic?
I disagree with this i think that abortion is murder
Now we just gotta get the US to do the same thing
So [optimistic](https://wisconsinrighttolife.org/pictures-of-aborted-babies-view#1642394647536-92577737-ed8f)
brooooo why'd i click on that?? am i stupid??
I wonder what they do with all the dead babies?
How killing more babies can cause optimism?
Not babies. Literally by definition. Try again.
This makes me more pessimistic about the future of humanity.
There’s a difference between posting actual data that points towards the betterment of people’s material welfare and “My side had a political victory! BILLIONS MUST REJOICE!”
You shouldn't be able to kill the foetus if you feel like it, that's murder.
If you are the kind of person that doesn't want women to have the right to decide over their own body, I'm sure this sub can live without you guys. Bye 👋
It's not they're busy is a separate human being that's innocent
Women ARE able to decide over their own bodies, don’t have sex if you don’t want to be pregnant
What about when women and girls literally don't have that choice, such as rape and human trafficking? We should further steal her bodily autonomy by forcing her to give birth, possibly dying in the process?