Reproductive Health Equity Act: Analysis

[Alolan_Apples]

Within the last 24 hours, I created a thread on Brewster's Café about Oregon's new abortion expansion law. In case if you don't know what that does, it basically says that you can now have abortions for free. Not just that, but taxpayers have to pay for it. Pro-lifers are against abortion because they believe an unborn fetus is a human being, and terminating a pregnancy is murder. But even if people can get abortions, they have to pay for their own. But this Oregon law made it free in Oregon, which is crazy. Even worse, you don't have to be a citizen of the United States to get an abortion in Oregon. And someone has been saying that it's legalizing sex-selective abortions and late-term abortions. Basically saying, everyone in Oregon is free to have an abortion for any reason, any time in the pregnancy, and they don't have to pay for their own. And judging by this news, I can tell that neither California nor New York are the #1 most liberal state. It is Oregon. They have passed this legislation while Texas, which was trying to restrict abortion rights, has banned sanctuary cities.

I created a thread for one reason: to ask others if they actually support this law. Because it is very extreme, and I don't know if pro-choice liberals find this too extreme or not. The poll options are:

• I'm pro-life. I would never support such a thing. - this option is basically saying that you are both against abortion and Oregon's new law.
• No, but I am pro-choice. - this option means that you support abortion rights, but even you wouldn't support this law.
• Yes, but only citizens should be covered. - this option means that you agree that abortions should be free, but only to US citizens.
• Yes, I support it by all means. - this option means that you are in full support for Oregon's law, even if it means allowing illegal immigrants to have sex-selective abortions or abortions to postpone childbearing for free.

According to the results, 40 members voted. 9 of them (I included) voted the first option. 2 voted the second. 2 voted the third. And 27 of them voted the fourth option. Judging by the results, I can tell that they are in favor of this law, regardless of how extreme it is. This leads me to believe that one of the following is true:

• When a conservative comes up with an extreme right-winged belief or policy, it's so bad that even the mid-right (not just moderate-right) would be opposed to it. But when a liberal comes up with an extreme left-winged belief or policy, the mid-left would still support it unless if it goes too far.
• The above may not be true, but pro-choicers actually agree with Oregon's abortion law.
• The poll was rather skewered due to the demographics of this site, which is primarily female, teenagers or young adults, and atheist or agnostic. Typically, these kind of people are liberal, and Animal Crossing has more appeal towards teenagers/young adults and females.

If A was true, then I can actually see that the left-wing is more flawed than the right wing. Not on what they believe, but how they handle their beliefs. Here are some other details I can confirm based on the events from the last eight years:

• Liberals are more prone to boycotting states or businesses that don't agree with their political opinions than conservatives are. They are also more prone to buy-cotting (buying solely to show support) businesses and states that agree with their political opinions than conservatives are.
• On Facebook, liberals are more likely to break friends with those who disagree with them than conservatives are. But even the percentages of whether they are likely to break friends are quite low.
• Conservatives rarely practice political discrimination, but I've seen it more in liberals. Even against the mid-left and moderate-left.
• The tea party protests against Obama was a primarily conservative movement, but it was civilized, peaceful, and organized. They even cleaned up. But the Trump protests after the election (which was a primarily liberal movement), it was barbaric, violent, and unorganized, yet more crowded. They didn't have awareness of the rest of the population either.
• Liberals are more scared of facts and beliefs conservatives would present than the conservatives are of the others. The safe spaces, no-platforms, and trigger warnings on liberal campuses, all prove this point.
• And of course, liberals are more intolerant of conservatives than conservatives are of liberals. But then again, it's only small percentages of both that are intolerant, yet they have the loudest mouths.

I could also say that liberals are more forgiving of their candidates when they do something stupid, yet conservatives are ashamed at their candidates when they do the same. However, I have no evidence to prove this, so I can't confirm this. And Conclusion A adds another statistic to the list.

If B was true, then it means that maybe they aren't that extreme, but there's something else that makes them defend the extremes - ethics. On the thread, I admitted being out of touch with the rest because I appeal to morals, not ethics. I can say that Oregon's RHEA is ethically better, but morally worse than what Roe v Wade has done by now. But just letting you know, conservatives (which appeal to morals, economic rights, and traditional values) can be just as immoral as liberals are. And liberals (which appeal to ethics, individual rights, and modern values) can be just as unethical as conservatives.

If C was true, then I can conclude that both conservatives and liberals are the same kind of people with opposite beliefs. They oppose both extremes, they are equally ashamed of their candidates if they did something wrong, they are both equally flawed, and they are appalled at extreme groups on their own sides and opposite sides.

However, I do not have enough evidence to take one conclusion for granted. This is based on a fansite poll, not on actual polls like Gallup or Rasmussen. In addition, it's very early in the legislation to make enough judgements. I have to wait and see how this goes in the long run. But I can safely say that the thread was mostly civil, yet some posts were baffling to others as I had to get the thread closed since I achieved my goal here.

I may have claimed to be pro-life, but if you want to know how pro-life I actually am, here are my standings:

• I am in favor of keeeping abortions illegal, but if I can pick and choose which reasons it should be legal for, there are very few reasons I would agree to keeping legal, and to save the mother's life is one of them. I may be against abortion, but I don't want people to die from childbirth. Another reason I would keep it legal for is rape. I can also say yes if it's from incest because of problems with inbreds or if the fetal health is poor or unable to survive. Even so, I wouldn't agree with abortions being required for these reasons either.
• If the mother is not mature enough to take care of a child, is too young, financially incapable, or is in school or on the job training, then yes, I agree that it should be illegal for those reasons, but I find these excuses reasonable. So I would be okay if they are legal for these reasons, but should be limited.
• If the mother is mature enough and financially capable to take care of a child, but is responsible for the pregnancy, the fetus is healthy, and the pregnancy is safe, then she should not be getting an abortion. Reasons for this include that they don't want any kids, they had enough kids, they are ready to take care of kids but don't want kids at the minute, or they just didn't want the pregnancy regardless of reasons. Abortion should stay illegal for those reasons. Don't even get me started on sex selective abortions. Even most pro-choicers don't support this.
• If there was a time in the pregnancy that abortion should be legal, I would be against 3rd trimester abortions, or more specifically, 9th month abortions. I see no reason for it to be legal for that.

In regards to the immigration issue, I agree that if you want the same citizen services, you must be a citizen. And if you're not a citizen of the United States, you have no reason to live here. However, I am pro-amnesty for the illegal immigrants that actually benefitted our society and were escaping harsh conditions from other countries. If they here just to get government-funded programs without producing any output, to commit crimes (assuming that illegal immigration isn't a crime), or anything else that may seem harmful, then they don't deserve ammesty. In addition, if you want to live in America, you are free to keep your culture, but only if you're not going to infringe on our culture. For instance, it's okay to speak your language as your primary language, but if you want to live in America, you have to speak English. We shouldn't be forced to speak your language to cater to you.

That's enough for today, but all of this is what I actually think judging by the results of the thread.