top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 137 points 5 months ago (3 children)

She doesn't even need to be pregnant, you just have to claim to believe she was about to commit an abortion. Free women murders for everyone!

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    It's worse when you realize the bill isn't about the woman, but her doctor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Well that explains why it's ok to kill a woman and therefore her fetus to prevent her from killing her fetus. It's not, but you can keep every abortion doctor in the area to prevent them from performing the procedure.

    Do you have to have "standing"? Like do you actually have to even know the woman or is this just an open bounty on doctors?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 110 points 5 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 66 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    It's only pro life as long as the child is being carried.

    Once the kids out, they don't give a fuck about the woman or her child. They could both die, and they'd have no issue with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    they don't actually care about the child, or its mother, before it's born, either. if they did, our health care system wouldn't be a for-profit scam.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago*

    A lot of the lobbying money for anti healthcare stuff comes from woowoo supplement companies etc. Imo we should be regulating the shit out of those companies at every level of government. Ban advertising for the products to prevent false claims, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 61 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Lemme get this right...

    If you see someone trying to kill a woman while claiming she's trying to get an abortion, you can kill this attacker without issue under the legal classification of acting to protect two people, including a soon-born. Is this what Republicans want? To facilitate the legal argument to kill right-wingers? Because I'd be totally fine with that.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    By similar logic, couldn't one kill the legislators who passed this bill? They are clearly inviting violence upon pregnant women, so it should theoretically be legal to kill them in defense of those women if this bill passes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    you'd be legally right but the cops will still squeal up in their full military gear and shoot you all the same. Although to be fair they were probably going to do that anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 60 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Wouldn't the use of deadly force to prevent the abortion actually aid the abortion?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I mean Republicans are stupid and all but I think they're intending for this to be a deterrent. It's a stupid and cruel deterrent, but it's probably not meant to somehow kill the woman without killing the baby.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    it might not be meant for that, but it will be used to excuse that

    essentially through the entire pregnancy people will get to be terrified as all it'd take to legally murder them would be making them look like they wanted an abortion

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 44 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Doesn’t using deadly force on a pregnant woman defeat the purpose entirely?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Not if you're using deadly force against a doctor willing to perform an abortion, which is the more likely intent of the law.

    Or the driver taking her somewhere. Or the person who called the driver.

    And so on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 39 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    From a practical standpoint how does one prevent the death of an unborn child via the use of deadly force against its mother?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    I think its more about legalizing shooting doctors. What a healthy country we live in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Why stop there? They can't work if their equipment and ward isn't clean... kill the cleaners!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Is this just a way to shoot your pregnant mistress for free?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Only if she's trying to get an abortion

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    What's she going to do? Testify she wasn't?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    It's basically an excuse to shoot any woman, anytime, so long as you can conceive of a way to claim that you thought she was seeking an abortion. It would be a prosecutorial nightmare, at best, and open season on women at worst.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    No, because that will terminate the pregnancy too. But since people are stupid, that's how they will read it (as the upvotes prove).

    It's about shooting the doctor performing it and arresting women wanting it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    "Republicans hate women"

    I think even republicans know that republicans hate women at this point

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 5 months ago
    [–] 22 points 5 months ago

    Republicans hate everything. They're a brainless death cult only outclassed by Christians as a whole.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    As long as you say “he’s abortioning right at me!” you can kill em and ain’t nothing Johnny Law can do about it

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    On the flip side, it says that a person can use force, including deadly force, to prevent death or harm to themselves or another person.

    So hypothetically, your doctor, is using lethal force, to prevent the person inside you from harming you.

    Totally legal as the law is written.

    IANAL ; best option is to move out of regressive states, and set the place on fire before you leave.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago*

    the law is a tool wielded against the working class by the ruling class, it will never protect you from them

    to defeat fascism, you must organize. running away and random acts of violence accomplish nothing.

    it is coming for you, wherever you run to.

    join the IWW and get involved in local activist groups

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Fortunately, the thing says it's a bill, and not that it's been passed into law.

    If a state does pass a law like that, it's hard to see why any sane woman would want to remain in that state.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 5 months ago

    it’s hard to see why any sane woman would want to remain in that state

    Plenty of people don't want to stay in a place they are oppressed, but the thing about being oppressed is that it often also makes it hard to leave that place.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago* (7 children)

    It doesn't sound like Hate, it sounds like Slavery.

    Hate would be activelly going out and trying to kill women, whilst punishing them for not letting their bodies be used by others as objects is, IMHO, much more a Slaver's take on other human beings.

    A Slaver's motivation would also be pretty in tune with Tradition for Republican members of the power elites in North Carolina.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Removing the remnants of a miscarriage is also coded as an abortion. So theres still plenty of hate in this bill as well.

    Hopefully they won't pass a law requiring shotgun weddings in the case of pregnancy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Abortions are actually very common due to miscarriages. I was personally affected by this and was present for a 9 month old abortion of a stillbirth. Even though my wife gave birth it was classified as an abortion because the baby had passed. We even have a abortion certificate.

    So, according to proposed law a gunman could enter the hospital and kill the doctors, nurses, my wife and me in order to stop an abortion of a dead baby.

    Makes perfect sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    It's a different and more complicated kind of hate. I find it useful to split bigotry into bigotry to dominate and bigotry to exterminate. American racism towards black people is the former, while American racism towards indigenous people is the latter.

    Misogyny is almost always about domination, but it's a unique kind because they can't switch to extermination or even bluff it. They can't hide women away to exist quietly in the background. They're fully dependent on women to reproduce, and for most misogynistic men, for sexual pleasure. Many of them resent that they're dependent on those they see as inferior for such things and that they can be leveraged.

    So yeah, this is hate, just a hate that they can deny because they don't want to think that they hate women, just women's independence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    Well, I suppose the broader point I'm making is that it's Sociopathy/Psychopathy.

    The most harm done to people (I would even say, the most Evil) comes from people who couldn't care less for how other people feel because they have no Empathy with other people's suffering, and thus when they can will do whatever to others for their own personal upsides, even if those "upsides" are only satisfying their own personal petty psychological desires such as those you point out.

    Hate actually involves some element of thinking of and caring about the other person (though a negative "caring", of the "I want to make them suffer"), a kind of Evil which is very rare in real life even if it's the most common in the movie "evil guy" stereotype.

    As I've learned (from amongst other things working in the Finance Industry), the most common Evil is people knowingly doing things harmful to others to make money for themselves, get (more) power and influence or simply satisfy petty internal desires such as wanting to feel dominance over others (this later being, IMHO, the core of Moralism).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    That's fair, but we also don't know that he doesn't actively hate women. Just because you don't want someone dead doesn't mean you don't have active hatred for them.

    Most evil is banal, but quite a few people move to hating groups that they initially were hurting out of self interested gain. I've seen plenty of hate and it's often a means of bypassing empathy for some reason or another

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago

    More accurately: someone raped a 14 year old girl, the pregnancy has become ectopic. The punishment for trying to save her life is worse than the person who raped a 14 year old.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Is it normal in the USA to allow the general population to use deadly force? That's fucked up.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    How'd the USA get to be a nation in the first place?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Lots of ifs/ands/ors/ and buts. Varies by state and generally only under legally defined self defense situations with some judicial discrepancy, mind you it varies by state and some regions are so loose with it that you can just get murdered by going on someone's property. Which may make sense if you live in the middle of fucking nowhere and give warnings and are a thirty minute drive from another person but there have been cases where shit like that happens in suburbs,.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    I swear to god they’re trying to legislate a civil war. They preach us vs them political rhetoric and want everyone running around with a gun. What a shit time to call yourself an American, but then again I’m not sure there ever was a good time.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago*

    I swear to god they’re trying to legislate a civil war.

    Yes. Thats what they want. They want a mass uprising that they can use to suspend rule of law, elections, etc, so trump can become el' presidente' for life and commence to doing whatever the republicans want to do, free from oversight of law, courts, etc.

    I suddenly want to play Tropico.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    I think its also them seeing vigilantism as a way to get around constitutional requirements like due process and the 8th amendment. This is the kind of law people created by people who see the constitution as an obstacle.

    It is somewhat comforting that they still see the constitution as a barrier to the hellscape they envision for society.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Here is the proposed text of the NC state constitutional amendment affirming personhood at conception, then including:

    Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.

    Here is the NC Dept. of Health and Human Service’s required abortion information describing the state’s abortion laws. They ban after 12 weeks, with exceptions for rape and incest before 20 weeks, and life-threatening anomalies before 24 weeks.

    Here from the Raleigh Observer quoting state democratic lawmaker Rep. Julie von Haefen:

    Von Haefen said the bill is a distraction from other bills being voted on and passed, including multiple constitutional amendments concerning unions and taxes, at least some of which will be on the ballot for North Carolinians to weigh. She said the amendments “are being used to drive conservative voter turnout.”

    And here is my take: NC state republicans use women’s healthcare as a political pawn for pushing anti-worker and anti-tax interests, which neatly encapsulates the US culture war for the past 60 years. This bill will not pass, because it is insane, but it may succeed in its intent: looting the pockets of the people of NC.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    This bill will not pass, because it is insane, but it may succeed in its intent: looting the pockets of the people of NC.

    how many times have we said "It wont happen, it cant happen, its too insane" in the past 10 years? only for it to very much happen?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Killing live people - women, children, POCs, poor, other countries, etc - has always been acceptable and even promoted by Republicans. It's only ending potential pregnancies when they "care" about lives. Except of course when it's their wife, mistress, daughter who wants an abortion, then it's ok.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    If I were to summarize how this fits into long term republican vision of society it would be the following.

    "Abortion, like healthcare, home ownership, and free speech is a thing we should reserve solely to for the wealthy and anybody making less than 2 million a year should not have access to any of these things"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    2 million a year is a close to perfect way to divide the owning class for the rest of us. A surgeon has more in common with a grocery store clerk than a CEO and people really don't understand that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Honestly in some ways the actual number doesn't matter, if you earn your living by selling your labor for a salary or wages you aren't the problem

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    This could be a completely serious Orphan Crushing Machine solution in the minds of conservative basic dickheads.

    "If somebody is already gonna go out in a blaze of glory, why not point them towards doctors and women's healthcare rather than schools? Nailed it."

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›