Not The Onion

12350 readers

409 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

283

MAGA Candidate Says He’s Worried About Babies Who Might Get an Abortion (newrepublic.com)

submitted 9 months ago by tree@lemmy.zip to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Bill Eigel, a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Missouri, may not realize, but this is physically impossible.

A gubernatorial candidate in Missouri is arguing against abortion access for rape victims on the basis that it would technically allow babies to gain access to the medical procedure.

Republican Missouri State Senator Bill Eigel took the draconian (and idiotic) stance during a debate last week, over an amendment to the state’s already restrictive abortion ban. Missouri has only allowed abortions in the event of medical emergencies since shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022. The new amendment, proposed by Democratic state Senator Doug Beck, would permit abortions for children aged 12 and under if they are victims of rape or incest, raising health concerns for child rape victims if their pregnancies were carried to term.

“You want to bring back the institution of abortion so that kids can get abortions in the state of Missouri. A 1-year-old could get an abortion under this,” Eigel said, according to the St Louis Post-Dispatch.

The uneducated response immediately called for a fact-check from Beck.

“I don’t know that a 1-year-old could get pregnant, Senator,” he retorted, before asking if Eigel was “OK” with the “forced birth of a child being raped.”

“I don’t support the institutions of rape or of incest. But your amendment doesn’t address those,” Eigel replied.

archive: https://archive.ph/u3Pvw

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 40 points 9 months ago (2 children)

My experience tells me that the average voter has no idea how to discuss abortion. What the controversy is about, how scientific arguments are made, how medical experts make arguments.

And they still vote, without furthering their understanding whatsoever.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The narrative is just broken.

Pro-abortion folk like to focus on medically necessary abortions, but they shy away from the myriad of valid reasons to get an abortion.

For example, A mother of 3 that can't afford a 4th child. You can't expect someone in that situation to put the 4th child up for adoption.

And when later term abortions happen, pro abortion folks need to be ready with the why. The why is simple, abortion access. How is someone supposed to get an early term abortion when there's only one clinic in the state, constantly under protest, that's booked solid for the next 3 months?

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But for the abortion enemys would have to reflect why they have this fundamentalist stance on abortion in the first place.

And they won't. Because then they would have to realize, that it is neither about the life of the child nor the life of the mother, but to punish women for being women and to punish them, for not fitting in the sexual morals that on the one hand are overly prude to the outside, but highly perverted on the inside.

It is to punish other women for their own moral shortcomings. Of course they are not open to a rational discussion. Because at the end of the discussion looms the realisation, that they need to reconcile with themselves.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Not all will, but that's why expanding the narrative to these tricky situations and making it a talking point is so important.

When the only discussion is only around rape and medical problems, it creates people that think "ok, we added a rape/medical exclusion in the law, that's good enough".

The goal, IMO, is to force pro-abortionists to admit the real reason they hate abortion is it let's women escape godly punishment. They'll admit it privately but we need to make their politicians say it publicly. Calling fetuses babies is a soft selling way to make things more palatable to constituents that never think about the why.

Abortion is popular and should be the thing Democrats run on more than anything else. But then, having a devout Catholic president as leader of the party really sucks at this moment. Pretty much any other dem would be willing to hit the abortion note harder.

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

They further their understanding by whatever the algorithm shows them. And for whatever rea$on certain stuff will be added to that algorithm very quickly with just one or a few watches of similar content. Conservative politics seems to be a really big one.