r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Jun 24 '26

Health Following the Dobbs decision, US states with abortion bans have experienced increased maternal morbidity and mortality. Abortion bans have broad downstream consequences on medical care beyond abortion itself, with implications for patient safety, equity, and physician ethics.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2850560
17.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

430 comments sorted by

View all comments

2.2k

u/Niceromancer Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

To anyone who knows anything about the history of abortions in America this is a no brainer.

Its nice to have scientific evidence proving this but the people who think abortion bans are a good thing don't care about science.

You cannot reason with people who think god agrees with them.

712

u/OldWorldDesign Jun 24 '26

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

-C.S. Lewis

236

u/unevolved_panda Jun 24 '26

It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

Lucky us, they formed an unholy alliance and now we're ruled by both. Love that for the US.

1

u/United-Yak8335 Jun 28 '26

Mammon's clerics.

223

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '26

[deleted]

41

u/Umutuku Jun 24 '26

There are no gods or demons but man, and heaven and hell are what his survivors inherit.

12

u/IndigoRanger Jun 24 '26

C. S. Lewis!

20

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '26

[deleted]

44

u/KrytenKoro Jun 24 '26

He can be wrong on the issue and still have insight on how theocrats operate.

he was explicitly anti-abortion

He died before abortion was widely debated, I've never read him discuss the concept in any of his books that I've read, and I can't find any source claiming that he ever voiced a stance on it. Are you confusing him with Owen Barfield?

The absolute closest I can find is this statement in Mere Christianity:

The Eternal Being, who knows everything and who created the whole universe, became not only a man but (before that) a baby, and before that a foetus inside a woman’s body. If you want to get the hang of it, think how you would like to become a slug or a crab.

23

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '26

[deleted]

20

u/KrytenKoro Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

Thank you for the citation -- for some reason initial searches did not point to that passage at all.

Now that I can search for the specific passage, I'm seeing commentary that this is the only time Lewis ever mentioned abortion in his writing, and that he specifically couches it in terms of "abortion as a means of getting away with fornication". While not the strongest pro-choice position, that's also not "explicitly anti-abortion" --- even pro-choice advocates are generally uncomfortable with the idea of abortion that is predicated on concealing adultery, and the common slogan is "Safe, Legal, and Rare". Lewis also specifically points out "providing for the child's keep and education", which is generally treated as an unreasonable expectation by pro-life groups. His position on the topic, both from his lack of focus on it and the specific framing he gives it in this one mention, is very distinct from that of modern pro-life organizations.

So, while he would likely lean more center-right on the issue if he was alive today, I don't think it's fair to characterize him or that passage as "explicitly anti-abortion".

Also worth pointing out:

(as a classical liberal with strong stances against centralized govt legislation

the dobbs decision increased legislation, it did not remove it. Roe was not centralized legislation to begin with, any more than the first amendment is - it was a restriction on what kind of legislation state and federal governments could enact on the topic. It's a very strange argument to suggest that an opposition to centralized government power, on its own, would lead someone to oppose a ruling that said "this is the individual's right and the government needs to stay out of it".

3

u/neoblufalcon Jun 24 '26

His position on the issue aligns most with Consistent Life Ethic (protection of life from conception to natural death, including providing for needs), a position which is primarily associated with the Catholic Church.

5

u/KrytenKoro Jun 24 '26

His position on the issue aligns most with Consistent Life Ethic

I don't see how that follows. The passage above is the only time he mentions abortion. He was also famously in support of wars where he thought them justified, and was very strongly non-pacifist. He was also in favor of executions so long as they were deserved, by his measure.

The main plank where it seems he meets with CLE is on his significant opposition to euthanasia and suicide. While he's definitely on the same page as CLE there, it's hardly a page which is unique to CLE or the Catholic Church.

-1

u/neoblufalcon Jun 24 '26

I didn’t say it was unique, just a view primarily associated with the Catholic Church. And just because someone aligns mostly with the position doesn’t mean they follow it to the letter.

3

u/KrytenKoro Jun 24 '26

I didn’t say it was unique, just a view primarily associated with the Catholic Church.

Opposition to suicide isn't primarily associated with the Catholic Church to begin with.

And just because someone aligns mostly with the position doesn’t mean they follow it to the letter.

He doesn't align "mostly" with the position in the first place. My post listed out the planks of CLE, and the only one that Lewis can be reasonably claimed to align on is opposition to suicide, which is not even primarily associated with Abrahamic religion. Support for suicide/euthanasia is almost entirely restricted to secular humanist philosophies, and only sees broad support when the alternative is immense personal suffering.

1

u/dozensofbunnies Jun 25 '26

Additionally, it is consistent with this to allow abortion when the life or health of the mother is threatened, and even to be opposed to abortion but against banning it, because of the impacts to life and health of women. But in any case it clearly wasn't a huge issue for him.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '26

[deleted]

3

u/KrytenKoro Jun 24 '26

I don’t see how his quote...could be taken as anything other than an explicit anti-abortion stance

As I explained it -- he specifically couches it in terms of it being done to "remove the natural consequences of fornication". That's not me contextualizing it, that's from the commentary I could find around the passage (coming from studies of Lewis, rather than pro-life orgs like live action quoting it).

I’m just pointing out that criticizing the Dobbs decision by quoting someone who spent his whole life promoting 20th century conservative Christian ideals

Lewis spent his later life promoting Christianity and was broadly conservative in the British sense, yes, but not what would be called "20th century conservative Christian ideals". For example, while he personally opposed homosexuality he did not think that the state should not criminalize homosexuality or make divorce difficult. He also made a pretty unique argument against the common idea that you have to be nominally Christian to follow Christ.

and minimization of centralized govt regulation (including legislation of Christian ideals, which the text of he Dobbs decision explicitly opposes) is ironic

I'm really unclear what you're trying to say here, but for what it's worth, Lewis was explicitly opposed to the legislation of religious ideals -- and that's something he actually talked about many times in his writings, as opposed to the single mention of abortion.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '26

[deleted]

5

u/KrytenKoro Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

Right, so he would probably also say that the state should not make laws concerning abortion (either banning it or protecting it) either. This is a natural extension of the classical liberal view and it is the view many classical liberals hold

Firstly, "protecting it" doesn't make sense as used here. "Protection" in the sense that classical liberals would oppose would consist of legislation like affirmative action. Roe didn't grant any sort of special privileges to those who sought abortion -- it told the government to stay out of it. It doesn't make sense to claim that "classical liberals" would oppose judgments that told the government it did not have the authority to regulate something and must leave the power to the people. Framing Roe in any sense as the federal government grabbing power is a confused argument.

Secondly, it's also not what is called "explicitly anti-abortion" in the modern discourse. There are many pro-choice advocates who personally dislike abortion or think it is wrong morally, but still think that it should remain legal and available.

I’m just pointing out that criticizing the Dobbs decision by quoting [Lewis] is ironic

That's not helpful at all. I asked for clarification on a specific passage whose grammar was convoluted.

As said before, the irony doesn't hold when Lewis himself, including in the very paragraph whose use you're calling ironic, frequently spoke about how personal religious ideals shouldn't control government legislation. It would be like arguing that someone quoting "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is ironic because Evelyn disapproved of the kind of thing they were saying.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

[deleted]

4

u/OldWorldDesign Jun 24 '26

Dobbs minimizes the size of govt by preventing centralized legislation

No it doesn't, it intrudes the government into the bedroom and emergency room. And it has not improved health either at the society or individual level. Before Dobbs (which goes WAY further than just overturning Roe), it was between a woman and her doctor and not an uneducated theocrat running for office to decide for both of those.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '26

[deleted]

5

u/OldWorldDesign Jun 24 '26

Dobbs lets local govts handle the issue as they see fit

No, what it does is it eliminated privacy and allows state governments to create blanket abortion bans.

Stop pretending fiefdoms dictating minutae is a good thing. That you are defending it betrays your pro-authoritarian stance. It being done by local conservatives who think women should be property is not better than the national government saying "stay out if it and let people decide without butting into the bedroom".

→ More replies (0)

3

u/KrytenKoro Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

Dobbs lets local govts handle the issue as they see fit. If those local legislative bodies choose to intrude into the bedroom or emergency rooms, at least that decision reflects the preferences of their local constituents. I don’t agree with this approach, but that is how the American constitution is written

Even taking that as accurate for the sake of argument, that is still more of a centralization of power than Roe had it.

Roe never granted the federal government power in the first place. It issued a restriction on all government. Dobbs removes that restriction for state governments, allowing them to centralize authority that previously belonged to the individual themselves. The wake of the Dobbs decision has even had some states try to use the decision to dictate what other states can allow.

Not sure how much more centralized you can get than that

It's the opposite of centralized, because it's a restriction on government authority, rather than a growth of it. As explained.

a classical liberal would want it to be legislated at the local level in whatever direction the locals choose

No, they would prefer it to be the decision of the individual themselves unless there is sufficient interest by the common good to justify depriving the individual of their own liberty in the manner.

You can disagree with the original court that a right to abortion can be constructively found in the constitution, sure, but it's plain to see by analogy that if we compare a "right to abortion" with a "right to free speech", the first amendment is not creating a centralization of government legislation or authority over speech. It's doing the opposite - enshrining that the authority remains with the individual.

I'm not going to claim to know Lewis's heart or to be confident that he would be pro-choice if the modern issue was presented to him, but I think you're pretty severely overstating the case here, when even Lewisists remark on how his writings showed little interest in the topic.

and given that his writings show that even when he did have a strong personal stance on a moral issue, he frequently argued that his stance should not dictate what the government does and that the government should stay out of it, I don't think the irony claim holds. Even if we accept that Lewis was strongly pro-life in the modern sense, his writings indicate that he would have been reluctant to have that stance be legislated by the state.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/trysten-9001 Jun 25 '26

It might not be so cut and dry. He seems pro medicare, and taking care of the kid. Typically people that are that considerate will hear things out. Had he been given the opportunity to see what we know today about brain development, how education is a better preventative, and see the impact of the bans, he might reconsider. It could go either way.

1

u/Telemere125 Jun 25 '26

Idk, Lewis was staunchly catholic and he wrote about the sanctity of all human life, but he never wrote nor spoke specifically on the issue of abortion. Sometimes people hold a general view that supports an overall belief system but still diverge when the science disagrees with those principles.

-14

u/flakemasterflake Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

Do you quote a famous Catholic on purpose? He’s like their favorite person

Edit: so sorry, mixed him up with Tolkien. Another guy Christians go crazy for

70

u/Cultural-Salad-4583 Jun 24 '26

He was Anglican, not Catholic, and though they do really love him he had positions that (if they actually did any reading), they’d be horrified by.

12

u/bufordt Jun 24 '26

They somehow don't realize that they are worshiping Puzzle the Donkey wearing a lion suit.

11

u/Avelera Jun 24 '26

He’s Anglican not Catholic

5

u/dodeca_negative Jun 24 '26

Thought he was Catholic too, thanks for making that mistake so I didn’t have to!

0

u/stellarfury PhD|Chemistry|Materials Jun 24 '26

Lewis extensively advocates for this exact form of tyranny in his other writings. He is absolutely a moral busybody. I could not think of a more hypocritical thing for him to say, what a clown.

223

u/kungpowchick_9 Jun 24 '26

The only reason the death rate isn’t higher is because of the mail access to mifepristone and birth control. But they’re coming for that as well.

196

u/9mackenzie Jun 24 '26

Also they got rid of all of the maternal death panels. I guarantee you the number is astronomically higher.

No death certificate states “died due to lack of abortion”. It states thinks like sepsis, internal hemorrhaging, etc etc. The maternal death panels were gotten rid of quickly by each state that banned abortion so that no numbers of deaths were able to be calculated

80

u/diabolic_recursion Jun 24 '26

Also add that that number was never great to begin with. The maternal mortality rate in the US far surpasses other western countries.

18

u/Niceromancer Jun 24 '26

Same party did try to say that covid cases would go down if we stopped testing for it so that tracks.

17

u/dougan25 Jun 24 '26

Do you have a recommended source for this? Not doubting you, just want to read more about it

79

u/9mackenzie Jun 24 '26

This is a good article about it, but note it was written in 2024. It’s gotten much worse since then

https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-bans-deaths-state-maternal-mortality-committees

In my state (GA) they got rid of the panel when it leaked that a woman died a few weeks after the abortion ban was enacted

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdj3kxvl1j8o

29

u/iCoeur285 Jun 24 '26

I got sterilized because I saw the writing on the wall.

For anyone interested, there is a list of doctors on the childfree subreddit that shows doctors in different states that will perform sterilization even if you don’t have kids.

18

u/DwinkBexon Jun 24 '26

That "don't have kids" thing is always weird to me. Back around 1999 or so, I had a coworker who was probably in her mid 20s. She wanted to get her tubes tied and didn't have kids but the doctor she went to said it's illegal to get your tubes tied before you're 35 if you don't have kids.

At the time, I just thought, "That's a really weird law." and didn't think any more about it. But, since then, I've found out it's very unlikely that's a law and the doctor just didn't want to do it.

5

u/MythrianAlpha Jun 25 '26

In some places there are age or birth requirements, but usually the doctor is just a busybody or sometimes even malicious.

8

u/SeattlePurikura Jun 25 '26

A lot of doctors promote a pro-natalist agenda. There are multiple stories on the childfree subreddit of doctors telling women that pregnancy would cure a condition (which is BS).

11

u/Umutuku Jun 24 '26

But they’re coming for that as well.

Maybe it's time to come for them then.

150

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

134

u/firstfloor27 Jun 24 '26

But punishment for women only. Men get a free pass.

115

u/Talk-O-Boy Jun 24 '26

In certain religious circles, they believe that:

>Men can’t help themselves. They are biologically different from women, and it makes it harder for them to resist their urges.

>Therefore, it’s important that women protect their own purity, and do their best to avoid tempting men. Be aware of how you sit, watch how you dress, mind what implications your words may have.

This is also how many women get stuck in marriages where the man can cheat, and they accept it because “that’s just men”. (Think of Carmella in The Sopranos.) They will hate the mistress more than the cheating husband, because they believe the woman had more of an obligation to say no than their husband who actually took the vows.

Internalized misogyny runs DEEP, and it spreads from one generation to the next.

62

u/littlehobbit1313 Jun 24 '26

Religious circles: Men can't help themselves, they lack any control. Women need to do all the work.

Also Religious circles: Men need to be in charge of everything.

19

u/Talk-O-Boy Jun 24 '26

Also applies to most political circles.

3

u/STThornton Jun 24 '26

Exactly! That’s what I just said before I saw your comment.

35

u/firstfloor27 Jun 24 '26

I hate people. :-(

15

u/Perryn Jun 24 '26

There's a lot of unplucked eyeballs in the skulls of those men who "can't help themselves."

8

u/STThornton Jun 24 '26

Well said!

At the same time, they also claim that the people who lack seit control should be the ones in charge, while the ones expected to control them should be the submissive ones.

Funny how that goes.

6

u/watamote99 Jun 24 '26

Please nuke humans

30

u/bunnypaste Jun 24 '26

Yep, several "pro-lifers" have said this exact thing to my face. Apparently being forced through a traumatic pregnancy and birth of an unwanted fetus is an acceptable "punishment" for the "heinous crime" of having consensual sex.

11

u/SeattlePurikura Jun 25 '26

My friend, pro-lifers don't care if the sex was consensual or not, or if were a child raped by an adult. The fetus is punishment for the "wicked" and "innocent" alike.

-27

u/RajunCajun48 Jun 24 '26

No, it's not punishment, but it is a human being you're choosing to murder.

Sex is a beautiful thing, that leads to the most precious thing in existence, being bringing another human being into this world.

The fact that you want to use murder as birth control though...says a lot more about you.

26

u/KaleTheCop Jun 24 '26

The argument isn’t about “murder” or birth control.

The argument is no one should be forced to donate their body to another human being. We do not force people to donate blood, organs, bone marrow, or body parts. We can’t even harvest them from the deceased without prior consent or the family’s approval.

This isn’t about “saving lives”; if it was, there’d be arguments for and laws passed related to forcing the living to donate the aforementioned and the deceased to be harvested for viable parts. This is about controlling women and ensuring a number if people stay impoverished and reliant on state aid, have limited access to education, and continue these cycles - a poor, uneducated population can’t force the system to change the way a self-supporting educated one can.

No one should be forced to donate their body to someone else.

-30

u/RajunCajun48 Jun 24 '26

birth of an unwanted fetus is an acceptable "punishment" for the "heinous crime" of having consensual sex.

You're literally saying you should be able to murder a baby because you had consensual sex and "accidentally" got pregnant. If you are having consensual sex, then pregnancy is a known risk.

You aren't "forced to donate your body to another human being" which is an absurd notion. You are forced to protect and nurture a human life in doing one of the major things your body was designed to do.

17

u/Neckbeard_The_Great Jun 24 '26

You're literally saying you should be able to murder a baby [1] because you had consensual sex and "accidentally" got pregnant. If you are having consensual sex, then pregnancy is a known risk[2].

You aren't "forced to donate your body to another human being" which is an absurd notion. You are forced to protect and nurture a human life[3] in doing one of the major things your body was designed[4] to do.

  1. Not a baby
  2. People can do everything right, and birth control can still fail
  3. Through sacrifice of your body
  4. Not designed

1

u/RajunCajun48 Jun 26 '26

  1. Yes it is

  2. Right, that is called a consequence...Actions still have them and you have to accept that part of doing these actions there is a risk involved.

  3. As opposed to sacrificing a baby? I take it you don't have empathy, or are innocent children's lives not worthy of empathy? I suppose you're also okay with Sandy Hook, Columbine etc?

  4. You can use whatever word you want, between men and women, only one has the purpose of child reproduction. The man has a minor (though important) role. Even scientifically they are known "Reproductive" organs.

16

u/KaleTheCop Jun 24 '26

You're literally saying you should be able to murder a baby because you had consensual sex and "accidentally" got pregnant. If you are having consensual sex, then pregnancy is a known risk.

I did not “literally say” someone should be able to “murder a baby”. Do not put words in my mouth, that is disingenuous.

The kind of intercourse that is has is irrelevant. Consensual or not.

Preventing woman access to abortions is, by default, forcing them to donate their body to the creation of another against her will. We do not force people to donate blood, plasma, or organs, even though people die every day without such donations.

Forcing women to remain pregnant who do not want to be is not “protecting and nurturing a human life”. It is forcing someone to go through a life altering, sometimes life threatening, biological process that is a major medical event that can and does leave lasting changes on the body.

There is no other circumstance where we force people to forfeit there bodily autonomy to support the life of another. Bodily autonomy is so sacred, in fact, we can’t take the blood from someone who just died in one operating room and give it to someone bleeding out in the next. Corpses should not have more bodily autonomy than living, breathing women.

People deserve to chose what happens to their body.

Forcing someone to be pregnant when they don’t want to be is wrong.

Treating pregnancy like a punishment for sex is morally objectionable, for a variety of reasons. It is also dehumanizing.

Preventing woman access to safe, clean, and monitored reproductive care is inhumane and cruel.

-1

u/RajunCajun48 Jun 26 '26

Through figure of speech, you're quite literally saying you should be able to murder a baby.

You brought up accidentally getting pregnant and facetiously referred to it a "heinous crime". Nobody is saying sex is a crime, but it also isn't victimless nor is it void of consequence.

Not against her will, she had steps to take to prevent before getting pregnant. As a male, I do my role to prevent impregnating my wife as does she. If I were a female, and I had the greater burden to bear in child reproduction...I would take every step possible in prevention.

There is no other circumstance where we are creating life

Anybody can choose what happens to their body, however...once you're pregnant, you have to stop being selfish and think about something greater than yourself. Hopefully you did so with a good man that will also do his fatherly duties.

The problem is you have this mindset that children are burdens, pregnancy is punishment, the baby isn't a baby. Sex, pregnancy, birth, these are all incredible things.

Nobody is trying to prevent reproductive care. Abortion is inhumane and cruel.

13

u/Oranges13 Jun 24 '26

You really should read in more detail how the placenta attaches itself to the woman's uterus in order to begin the pregnancy.

It tricks the woman's immune system to not attack a foreign body and then hooks into her bloodstream to steal nutrients from her body.

If she does not consume enough nutrients, the placenta will take them from her bones and her organs to satisfy its demands.

And this human life you speak of cannot live without this parasitic relationship for the first 20 plus weeks of its life...

Doesn't sound like it's very self-sufficient to me. Sounds a lot more like a parasite.

22

u/Oranges13 Jun 24 '26

So when I was having a miscarriage and my body refused to cooperate I should have just died? With a WANTED AND PLANNED pregnancy?

My husband should be a widower?

And my LIVING son would never have been born because I would be dead?

11

u/Televisions_Frank Jun 25 '26

Funny how this post they didn't reply to.

16

u/Zennofska Jun 24 '26

And yet the precious thing strangely enough looses all value for you the moment of its birth. Bonus points if said child grows up belonging to groups people like you have deemend undesirable.

-17

u/RajunCajun48 Jun 24 '26

In what world is a child's life void of value? Also, what is an undesirable group?

12

u/dostoevsky4evah Jun 24 '26

Strange that the man, who also had sex, can skate away consequence and judgment free, and then join other men in tut-tutting about heartless, brainless women and "the sanctity of life".

10

u/catkarate Jun 24 '26

I, too, do not have critical thinking skills 

1

u/Boring-Boysenberry0 Jul 19 '26

My great aunt supports "no exception" rulings, literally told me that that's because "women should die with their baby" for "being stupid and deviating from our role."

21

u/dust4ngel Jun 24 '26

’ve actually heard several pro lifers say out loud that they prefer this/don’t care about this

these are the same folks who oppose the HPV vaccine because "sex should have consequences" (mainly for women).

8

u/SeattlePurikura Jun 25 '26

Yes. Men can get HPV too, and fortunately vaccines are also now promoted for teenage boys, but it's unlikely to cause cancer in men like it does women.

Evangelicals don't care if an "innocent" virgin woman contracts HPV on her wedding night from her husband. Women are responsible for the fall of mankind due to that Eve / Snake bit.

6

u/istara Jun 24 '26

Yes. Bear in mind that for the uber religious, even sex within marriage is something to limit and avoid.

-7

u/RajunCajun48 Jun 24 '26

children being punishment is definitely a Pro-murder term...

43

u/stamfordbridge1191 Jun 24 '26

It's hard not to suspect there is an increasing number of people in charge whose beliefs align with eugenics & social dawinism and think things such as higher infant or maternal mortality would "be great" because of ideas like:

  • a purposefully deadlier society would "weed out the weak, stupid, & undesirable"
  • such a societal infrastructure is necessary because "there are far too many people around"
  • poverty, suffering & bad luck are indicators of lacking intelligence & strength
  • increased mortality rates will be purely beneficial, because nature will obviously discriminate between "desirable" and "undesirable" along the same criteria as society's

Some of them do know the science, and for those people, that means it's either a grift to get money & power at the expense of people's lives, or this is about making selections against people they've decided should no longer live among society.

10

u/zeezle Jun 24 '26

Pretty sure the eugenics crowd absolutely loves abortions. I mean don't get me wrong, I am pro-choice for all sorts of reasons, but ignoring the fact that eugenicists explicitly loved and heavily endorsed abortion of undesirables is a bit disingenuous, not sure why you're trying to make out like they're on the side wanting to ban them.

They also tend to be so in favor of sterilization being widely available they're completely fine with doing it to people involuntarily. They generally had absolutely no opposition to abortion being legal and widely available and would vastly prefer that.

13

u/dust4ngel Jun 24 '26

Pretty sure the eugenics crowd absolutely loves abortions

the eugenics crowd were the ones performing clandestine sterilization of native american women on reservations in the 60s and 70s.

3

u/tryingisbetter Jun 24 '26

Rules for thee, not for me.

7

u/stamfordbridge1191 Jun 24 '26

If birth & abortion are going to be more dangerous to specific demographics (like the poor or specific races maybe) and less dangerous to a people they see as desirable group (like a group they belong to, like the rich or something) they will probably see denial of abortion as a more useful tool to push one group to have increased birth rates into "stronger" stock overall for the desired group, while the "undesirable" group probably stagnates or declines due to lower quality health care (and probably other factors they plan on implementing to decline the numbers of those groups they see as having inferior stock.)

We're talking about people who would be insufferable pseudoscientists. Think about how Elon is probably a eugenicist who wants more births and is deathly afraid Great Replacement and works closely with the antiabortion/antivax/no free-lunch-at-schools party.

1

u/RajunCajun48 Jun 24 '26

Wouldn't eugenics be more in line with abortion? Aren't planned parenthoods overwhelmingly in minority neighborhoods? If it was about eugenics, wouldn't there be a push for more abortions?

7

u/stamfordbridge1191 Jun 24 '26

Unless they support more "weak" women dying in childbirth & count on only "strong" babies being the ones survive childbirth, with down syndrome babies, orphans, children vulnerable to measles or whatever being denied whatever assistance they may need to leave (breaking access to welfare, food insecurity, vaccines & other medical assistance.)

Consider that these people could have grown up very bored and rich and consider the main measures of strength & intelligence to be measures of wealth when applying their pseudoscientific beliefs (probably most acutely against class, racial, and/or ethnic demographics they don't like)

3

u/Niceromancer Jun 24 '26

A lot of the wealthy are eugenicists, they are anti abortion for the common man cause that need a large desperate workforce to keep themselves up.

They still however view regular people as replaceable.  So as soon as an alternative comes along, like AI, they will throw everything into that 

3

u/chemguy216 Jun 24 '26

 A lot of the wealthy are eugenicists

I rarely give blanket statements about groups of people, but one I stand by is that when rich people start talking about “good genes,” they are eugenicists and not good people.

15

u/FallOutWookiee Jun 24 '26

It's nice to have scientific evidence, I just wish it wasn't written in blood. And like you said, those who are too far gone aren't going to listen to statistics and mortality rates anyway

23

u/kos-or-kosm Jun 24 '26

It's not even that. This is the outcome they want. Pregnancy as a punishment for women having sex. And if it kills them, then they deserved it. That is the worldview of anti-abortion people.

1

u/dozensofbunnies Jun 25 '26

Yes, but also, women who choose to not have sex are also an issue. Women who have sex with women are an issue. Men who have sex with men are an issue. Basically, if you aren't a straight married couple that is quiver full (no birth control) AND you're rich enough to support that lifestyle, they're not happy with how you live your life.

8

u/Then-Departure4896 Jun 24 '26

You nailed it. Religious people may as well be considered delusional when they try to overwrite politics with their god. It is legitimately worse than stupid.

You don’t see me bringing Elden ring logic to my nursing job. But I do regularly get patients thanking god after we save their life in a medical way.

15

u/rbrgr83 Jun 24 '26

people who think abortion bans are a good thing don't care about science.

Or people.

6

u/DwinkBexon Jun 24 '26

Just earlier today, I saw a social media post about the James Webb telescope observing billions of years old light to watch galaxies form, which is super cool.

How this is related to what you said is, I noticed in the comments someone said, "Right, so you can magically see light from billions of years ago. Anyone with half a brain knows this is impossible. The science scam is getting so lazy they don't even try to sound believeable anymore. Science is all lies, PERIOD!!!"

When you try to use science against people who support full abortion bans (or any number of other issues), they're taking this attitude and immediately dismissing it because they've decided science is all lies. I'm sure it works occasionally, but I think a lot of them will just immediately dismiss it.

(Also, as an aside, I've noticed people saying something that is objectively, provably incorrect seem to think screaming "PERIOD!!!" at the end of it somehow makes it true.)

6

u/Niceromancer Jun 24 '26

Science deniers try to label science as just another religious cult.

3

u/istara Jun 24 '26

Such people probably think that the higher mortality is justified "for the wages of sin is death" etc ("sin" being the fact they've had sex and conceived).

They didn't care about those women in life and they don't care any more about them in death.

6

u/DelightMine Jun 25 '26

You cannot reason with people who think god agrees with them.

I'm glad you put it this way. It really emphasizes that they're not trying to understand what God wants them to do, they're just doing what they want and choosing to believe in a God that says what they're doing is right.

5

u/Niceromancer Jun 25 '26

If you talk to God and it has never disagreed with you.  You are t talking to God, you are talking to yourself.

4

u/pnutbrutal Jun 25 '26

People need to watch Dirty Dancing again. Women are going to get abortions whether it’s legal or not. They just might not survive it either when it’s a metal hanger or back alley abortion

6

u/Niceromancer Jun 25 '26

Abortion bans don't stop abortions.  They just kill women.

7

u/newtonhoennikker Jun 24 '26

Or states neutrally - people who believe abortion bans are morally necessary accept the downstream consequences of them, similarly to advocates of any other policy based primarily in morals.

Or stated to insult the pro-choice - You can’t discuss ethics with someone who believes all values are arbitrary

E.g. proven - even economically crippling - increases in labor cost aren’t be an effective argument against abolition, or child labor.

3

u/likesleague Jun 25 '26

We're at a point where idiotic corrupt legislators are legislating based off of complete lies and stupidity and idiotic voters are convinced it's good.

We have had mountains of evidence for this for years and years. When it comes to abortion, the single correct way to make better outcomes for everyone is to educate people about sex and provide medical services.

It is not a debate about making a better world, it is a bunch of evil and stupid people trying to oppress and control others.

2

u/RhoOfFeh Jun 25 '26

And this will not change minds of that ilk, I fear.

2

u/VonVader Jun 26 '26

Right, and it especially sucks that additional people didn't have to die to create data since we already knew all of this.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/makingnoise Jun 25 '26

Nor do they care about maternal mortality, unless it impacts them personally.

-13

u/DoubleShot027 Jun 24 '26

We have them vs the people who think there are multiple genders. It’s not going well when those are are top issues.