Barrett Garese

Gun Violence and Mental Health

To everyone trying to avoid having the adult conversation about guns and instead reframe it as a “conversation about mental health” - we couldn’t even have a conversation about more health insurance without it delving into ignorant narratives about “creeping socialism” and “death panels.” But since you want to talk mental health, fine - let’s talk mental health.

Here’s how you mitigate mental health issues: single-payer healthcare for all citizens. You listening NRA members? Universal access to mental health care is the most effective way to remove “mental health” from the list of causes of gun violence.

You want to keep guns available without requiring training, licensing, and screenings - I want to keep them from being in the hands of crazy people who shoot up kindergarden classrooms. You can accomplish this by either reducing the availability of guns to the existing number of crazy people, or by reducing the number of crazy people with access to the existing number of guns. This is a binary proposition.

Since you won’t reduce the access to or number of guns, we’ll have to reduce the number of crazies. And since the “rights” to those guns is so fundamentally important, I expect the “right” to that mental health care (as part of a larger universal health care initiative) should be just as fundamentally important, correct?

After all, the only other option is admitting that ease of access to guns is the problem.

I don’t see anything wrong with making women look at a sonogram before an abortion.

stfuconservatives:

supersoygrrrl:

nanner:

lepus:

shieldmaidenred:

lepus:

shieldmaidenred:

lepus:

shieldmaidenred:

If we throw something away, we at least have to look at it first.

And we’re not dealing with old comic books here. I think we can all at least agree that we cannot equate an embryo or a fetus with trash. After all, last time I checked, my bag of trash didn’t have a heartbeat.

I mean what, are you going to pry a woman’s eyes open?  You can’t make her do anything.

STARE AT THE SCREEN WHORE STARE AT IT

No.

No, but she’s at least going to hear the heartbeat. Even if she covers her ears, she’ll probably hear it. Sonograms are really loud! If we want women to make an “informed” decision, shouldn’t they be perfectly informed of exactly what is in their body? We don’t want women making such serious decisions blindly, do we?

Blindly?  She is in a clinic to have an abortion.  She has had tests and has talked to nurses and they have explained what is about to happen.  Seriously, what about a forced sonogram is going to change her mind?  Because that is the whole point, right.  You WANT her to change her mind.  If it was me, I’d be all “Naw, skip that step, I know EXACTLY what is inside my uterus.  That is why I am here in the first place”.

Many women go in feeling hopeless and in fear. Many of them have not thoroughly explored their options. You’re assuming completely that someone has completely explored all avenues, talked to people, and researched. Some have, and since it’s currently legal, it’s their decision. If they’re really as resolute as they think they are, they will not mind seeing a sonogram. If they TRULY know the gravity and the consequences of what they are doing, a sonogram will not change their mind, as they do not see it as a human life, or at least a life worth saving. If they are truly resolute, a sonogram shouldn’t make them feel guilty.

 But many people do not have the knowledge and resources and make decisions clearly off of emotion. It’s a very sad reality. But what does society push? Abortion. Many times, they are on the brink of keeping the pregnancy but don’t out of fear. Society just pushes abortions when there are so many other resources for adoptions etc. that are not presented as they should be. 

If making a woman look at a sonogram will save those “on the brink” of going through with the pregnancy (which it will), it certainly is the right thing to do. How many lives would we save? We, as a society that considers ourselves to be morally upright, should push the preservation of the pregnancies over termination.

I can only speak for myself in this situation, so bring on the sonograms.

I’m sorry, but is there any other medical procedure that we require the patient to think about the GRAVITY of their decision? Like, I didn’t have to look at an ultrasound of my gall bladder before they removed it. I didn’t have to think about all the my wisdom teeth could have been before those came out.

The attempt to apply a certain brand of morality (fun fact: Jews are A-OK with abortion and don’t believe life begins until you draw your first breath) is a heaping load of bullshit.

What if it’s a wanted pregnancy but somethings gone wrong and you’re making a person stare and listen arbitrarily to the heartbeat (or absence of one) of the child they’ll never have? You’ll make them think about the name they picked out, the nursery they set up, the life they planned, how happy they were when they got the news only to find out their baby is dead, their baby is dying, their baby won’t live long past birth, their baby will put their own life in danger and will be born motherless all for your own moral agenda that not everyone subscribes to.

What about if it’s a pregnancy to another child? Could they comprehend hearing a heartbeat and seeing a picture on a screen when they can barely comprehend the changes that are happening to their own body and the horrific circumstances that brought them there? 

What about if it’s a pregnancy to a person who does want children, has children of their own but knows they can’t possibly take on another one at this moment? Would seeing a picture on a screen and hearing a heartbeat help them afford the medical bills of carrying a child to term or losing the time off from work should complications arise or possibly risk losing their job if their boss finds out and fires them because they worry they’ll take maternity leave? Would seeing that picture and hearing that noise help them afford taking on another child to care for and not take away scarce resources from the other children? Would it help the thousands of other children already in the foster care system get adopted first particularly if they’re older, POC, or disabled so they’d know their child would have a chance and would not languish in a broken system only to be kicked out into the world at eighteen without a support system of family? 

What about if it’s a pregnancy to a rape victim and hearing that heartbeat and seeing that picture makes the person relieve the entire assault? 

If you can’t comprehend how forcing your own beliefs on someone else in a situation in which you are the one who obviously hasn’t thought long and hard about, haven’t researched into so you’ll be informed, and are making judgments blindly based purely on emotion then you are the one who is cruel and doesn’t care about life. These situations happen every day. The type of people who have to go through this are already alive. You are concerned with pushing your own agenda and ignoring their lives in favor of something that simply has the possibility of life. You are not pro-life, you are pro-possibility, pro-hypocrisy, and pro-faux morality. If you’re against this procedure, fine. If you have your own beliefs, fine. But you cannot and should not try or be allowed to push those feelings onto others and take advantage of people in vulnerable situations. That’s absolutely disgusting of you and manipulative and if you have to resort to manipulation to bring people to your side then your point must not be that valid or that righteous. 

All of this. Pregnant people know there’s a fetus/embryo in there. Mandatory sonograms are cruel and a needless medical procedure, especially since a significant portion of people seeking abortions are economically disadvantaged. There are a million scenarios - as outlined above - in which forcing the pregnant person to look at a sonogram is just downright inhumane. But in every case, it’s unnecessary. Funny how conservatives are all about “small government” until it’s forcing you to get an unwanted and unneeded medical procedure!

Just to be crystal clear: once a woman gets pregnant you’re worried that “Many of them have not thoroughly explored their options” - but you also want to legally ensure that BEFORE they get pregnant they’ll never be able able to thoroughly explore their options (sex education, access to birth control, etc.) and thus avoid the situation in the first place?

I just want to make sure that you’re able to fully explore your argument before you have to abort it for something that’s actually logical.