- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
In all seriousness, have you ever met a woman who “just” had an abortion? Without any internal struggle? Who “just” made an appointment, walked in, walked out? Not scared of how close it was to an life altering event for the woman? With not difficult feelings to the possible child? “Just” another day in her life?
Anyone?
I just don’t believe that those women exist in large numbers but it feels like they think that is what every abortion is.
Ps: his example feels weirdly specific to me.
I have. It was a friend who already had two kids, didn’t want (or couldn’t raise) more. She arranged the procedure as soon as she found she was pregnant again. Went to the appointment, got the embryo removed and that was all.
And it was ok, it was her decision (supported by her partner by the way) and nobody should have a shit to say about that.
Remember when Republicans made up the idea of “partial birth abortion” and (rather successfully) used to to convince people that there were women out there who purposely waited until they were in fucking labor to arbitrarily decide to abort?
Pisses me off how successful that was.
The propaganda machine has always been producing.
Even if that’s the case, it’s none of their fucking business?
I am 100% with you but I just wonder wtf they think.
These people are often out of touch and think this is just contraception with murder included.
Also the 12 year old is supposed to have the child in secrecy on his cult compound or what? Is he the dad and/or grandpa what’s going on here?
In all my years I’ve only met one woman that didn’t really seem to care. It was someone I worked with at the time, early 2000s. When we were work friends she informed me she had just gotten her 6th procedure. At the time I was dating a girl who had one done as a teen and it deeply impacted her. So the idea of getting a 6th and just acting like it wasn’t a big deal really shocked me. So those people the right are talking about do exist in small quantities. It’s also none of my business what those people do with their bodies. However I can’t help but ask at what point do you seek alternative contraceptive methods? Shit even the old pull out method is highly effective if you do it right.
I’m sure after the fifth one you grow more desensitized.
Why is there a pregnant 12 year old girl where you’re standing brilyn?
You must not understand National Security.
They showed what their priorities are and it’s absolutely disgusting.
“Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Would be what they would say, and is in no way an argument that I would make.
Showed? It’s still going on.
Trump is protecting pedophiles. The same Trump that raped kids.
deleted by creator
So according to the right wing a 12 y/o should be raped and should carry & raise a baby for the rest of her life just because “AbOrTiOn Is MuRdEr”.
Anti-abortion is a position exclusively for unreasonable or irrational people.
And privileged people.
Its the privilege that makes them unreasonable and irrational.
Same as the other polar extreme dogma.
… Gotta be some remedies for that, so people are alleviated of their unreasonableness and irrationality.
… … Mattias Desmet’s book The Psychology of Totalitarianism springs to mind. Main thrust of remedy is to keep speaking sensible nuance to those in a mass formation/groupthink/totalitarianised-psyche, even though it seems risky as they increasingly see any and all atrocities as necessary virtues, and double-down all the harder the more they’re confronted with the contradictions, the self-inconsistency, … which does seem more than just dangerous, but then you’ve got to compare that risk of danger with the greater escalating harm into worsening atrocities that happens all the faster when they go unchallenged.
Ummm one extreme is doing the right thing and one extreme is doing the wrong thing so I don’t know the point you are trying to make. Yes there are some cases when Abortion can cause harm to the mother than actually giving birth. But those specific cases are for the DOCTORS AND MOTHERS TO DECIDE and not anyone else.
I think you’re another responder to this who has missed what was meant there, not letting your imagination go far enough.
The opposite of an absolute dogma of no abortions is not some abortions. It’s all abortions. … Which is the political philosophy of some misanthropes (some of whom are very rich and powerful).
That’s still not pro-choice. That is anti-life lol. There are only 2 sides to this debate (which really shouldn’t even be a debate because even third world countries like India have better abortion laws than the US).
Oh boy…
* reads the rules before responding… “Be civil”.*
… This may be challenging to respond to, as I think I’ve run out of ability to calmly and kindly clear up the miscommunication/mistake, as your not-even-wrong double-down still misses the point straight after I had clarified (~ or so I thought I had ~ but that seems completely missed), parodying Jam’s “thick people” scene. And not only making the not-even-wrong fallacy, but also completely missing the broader principle [pro nuance, not falling for the manufactured divisive psyop’d groupthinks, the variety of perspectives, the other extreme, and especially, not falling for (nor being complicit in) the mutual unwitting abuse of cunningham’s law], doubling down even on that, insisting there are only 2 sides… What hope of receiving new information and nuance with that kind of thing going on?
[Perhaps drifting off-topic] When stuff like that goes on, I wonder about chemical lobotomisation via fluoride, mercury, aluminium, aspartame/aminosweet, anti-nutrients, etc, where the fine grain neuro-connections keep getting mowed down before they can facilitate ease of conceiving of new ideas, where the entrenched ideas grow on and on strengthening the pre-existing neuro-connections. Though/And also, again, evokes thoughts of Mattias Desmet’s explorations of the psychology of totalitarianism, in the “There are only” (and even the “which really shouldn’t even be a debate”), as that speaks to the reductive certainty of the one true way. Daunting.
… And just before I posted that… Thinking about how daunting it is, how pro division, how anti-nuance, trolling by playing dumb doing the very thing just called out, etc… And then my concern about my civility (rule 1) turns to my concern about your sapience (or not, as per rule 4 and 5 (no bots, no ai generated content)), and that (as per the old advice “don’t argue with fools as onlookers may not be able to tell you apart”), perhaps I should not have succumbed to xkcd386 here. [LOL. Cue the downvotes! (Over the target when taking fire?)]
…is that first part supposed to be a serious argument? The other side would say the exact same thing. It’s also an issue that inherently will never be black and white because children don’t develop in discrete stages, you can never point to a specific time and say “until here it’s ok”. Some of the arguments for abortion even still apply post-birth, such as the parents not being capable of caring for the child properly, making everyone including the child miserable. And the child a day before birth isn’t all that different from the child the day after.
I’d choose birth as the arbitrary cutoff point just because the child stops being part of the mother at that time and we have to put a limit somewhere, but I’d probably lose a lot of people with that (and I’d also still say that’s the right thing).
When there exist people unironically making the argument that factory farming is good actually because any life is better than no life, of course there will be a lot more wanting to just defend life for the sake of it even if it just makes everyone involved more miserable.
You only need one argument pro-choice and that is “Her body, her choice”.
And wtf are you talking about post-natal abortion? Literally no sane person is calling for that.
It’s really simple: Nobody has the right to use somebody else’s body without their consent. And that goes doubly if this is about a lump of cells.
You only need one argument pro-choice and that is “Her body, her choice”.
I’ve found that a weak ineffective incendiary argument.
Alarming that you say it’s the only argument needed.
An argument I’ve seen be far more effective many times, is “if you disallow abortions, you let rapsists choose the mothers of their children”.
Or another more broad: “Prohibition does not prevent. Prohibition makes the good things bad and the bad things worse.” For the “handing it over to the black market” coat-hangers argument.
Still even while having these discussions, to whichever extent to a side or to nuance one goes, it’s worth reminding ourselves how this is one of those divisive topics used to distract us, to keep us divided and conquered, while we’re all being [pardon the expression] screwed by the man, with usury and genocide and more happening all around out there, encroaching ever more inescapably. So it’s good to take a step back and see it from the level of control or freedom (which then can reunite desperate perspectives, sharing the same principles, and with that shared awareness, can better proceed through figuring out how to better meet those principles (~ certainly better than being at each others’ throats while we’re [again] getting screwed by the man), freeing up our time, attention, energy, for more important vital concerns.
Yes, women having bodily autonomy being an “incendiary argument” is definitely one of the many problems of the patriarchy.
I feel like you’re not stating your arguement very well because I don’t actually understand the point you’re trying to make. There is the anti-abortion crowd and then that’s it, there is no other side to the arguement.
People who are pro-choice are all about enabling others to make their own determinations, people who are anti-abortion are against people being able to make their own determinations. The difference is the pro-choice crowd aren’t forcing abortions on people who don’t want them, which would be the antithesis viewpoint. You see how the are not equivalent?
This isn’t even a philosophical issue — as much as the Right wants it to be — but a legal one. The basic concept is a pregnant individual must have the right to abort the pregnancy at any moment during. Law shouldn’t say if it is feasible or moral to abort the pregnancy because there is only one legal entity here — the mother. That choice should lay with the one who is pregnant. The feasibility of the pregnancy/abortion should be determined by medical professionals because each individual case is different.
Just want to say I appreciate you having the courage to provide counterpoints in a very biased space.
They’re not providing counter viewpoints They’re just being intransitive. There is no such thing as the force everyone to have abortions viewpoint so they are arguing in bad faith.
A lot of their comments are completely nonsensical as well, e.g.
When there exist people unironically making the argument that factory farming is good actually because any life is better than no life
I mean what the hell has that got to do with anything? We’re supposed to be talking about the morality of abortions and they throw in animal cruelty in there as if that’s some kind of counterpoint. Also I don’t think literally anyone thinks that factory farming is moral because otherwise the animals would never have existed, I’ve never heard of anyone espouse that view. Not that it would matter even if they did, because it’s got literally nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Same as the other polar extreme dogma.
My friend, after reading the rest of your comment, I suspect this is just a very unfortunate choice of words. Because you go on to talk about totalitarianism and although totalitarian regimes can force people to get abortions, it’s not a commonly held political view, at least among Westerners.
I suspect you meant to say “other extreme dogma.” But your use of “the” and “polar” would make every native English speaker think you intended to say “same as the extreme polar opposite dogma,” which means you’re talking about pro-choice extremism specifically.
I can’t be sure that you didn’t intend that meaning. If you did intend to mean pro-choice extremism, then you brought the response upon yourself. But if you didn’t, may I suggest you be more careful with wording, especially in your first sentences?
which means you’re talking about pro-choice extremism specifically.
LOL! No. XD
Pro-choice sounds much more like a sane middle ground. Use your imagination, go further than the middle (~ which may or may not be a dogmatically held position), to the other polar extreme than abortions=none, to the misanthropic anthrocidal all.
There is no polar extreme opposite of the anti abortion argument. It doesn’t exist.
Nobody is happy about getting an abortion. Some people might feel relief, but it’s not something they want to go through.
There is no polar extreme opposite of the anti abortion argument. It doesn’t exist.
Bold claim. Let me introduce you to some misanthropic extremists who want all babies aborted, and all people killed.
Nobody is happy about getting an abortion.
Bold claim. Let me introduce you to some edge case exceptional ladies.
Some people might feel relief, but it’s not something they want to go through.
Some may indeed, but also, some rare few are going further. … Some of which I suspect an irrational reflexive over-“correction” to a hostile groupthink and the language used, unfortunately creating the counter-groupthink, even unto, as mentioned in my original comment there, mass formation and totalitarianised psyche, where any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues. I don’t think being arrogantly presumptive and ignorant in denial of such socio-psyche problems lends any real world help to create the nice world in your mind where such extremes do not exist, not even in your imagination. We’ve much to mend in this world.
Lol Jesus Christ dude… Talk about nonsense.
If you have a cogent refutation, I’m eager to hear it.
I’m not sure if it is possible to cogently refute meaningless word salad.
Also the equivalent extreme to the anti choice side would be “everyone is forced to have abortions” which while something close has been done (namely via population control methods and eugenics) those are widely agreed upon by the pro choice side to be similarly evil to prohibiting all abortions for the same reason (denial of bodily autonomy). In fact, in the modern day the eugenicists typically vote for the same parties as the ones wanting to prohibit abortions.
Thanks for getting it.
From a couple of the other replies here, I was starting to feel gaslight; I was starting to feel ilithiophbia.
In fact, in the modern day the eugenicists typically vote for the same parties as the ones wanting to prohibit abortions.
Yep. Same basic political philosophy of them telling others what to do, what they can do, what they can’t do, who they can be, who’s allowed to be, etc…
The 12-year-old would die in childbirth as god intended. These people don’t actually care about the baby they just care about having power over other people.
specially women, specially young women
There’s a group that see falling teenage pregnancy and say that’s the reason birth rates are falling In the west. They then equate falling birth rates with the erasure of culture. Therefore, in their head, teenage pregnancy is necessary as is carrying it to term.
A wholly messed up view.
Jesus can you imagine how messed up for the next generation would be if the vast majority of them were raised by parents who were basically kids themselves?
It’s even worst than that, yes it’s all that AND it doesn’t apply to them, namely they’ll shout that insanity to each other, and the whole World, to see but when it’s “them” then they, rationally of course, find a clinic. Absolutely garbage of human beings who are not coherent. Do as I say, not as I do.
Well of course, the divine providence of their perfect God guided the penis to this holy deed. Man is not the interfere with His will.
Why does he even pick the case of a 12-year hold pregnant person ? Isn’t that like, the case were almost everyone can agree that abortion makes even more sense than usual ? Have i missed that somehow conservatives consider it to be worse than when adult people abort ?
makes even more sense than usual
You’re talking about the all-or-nothing, absolute rule, zero-sum game gang, here. The concept of nuance is so far removed from the conservative headspace, it may as well be science fiction.
I think their idea here is that 12 year olds should be in school instead of sneaking around getting abortions. Which makes sense if you don’t care about context or lack basic humanity
12 year olds should be in school instead of sneaking around getting abortions.
Absolutely! That’s why sex education, and talking about consent and safety are ao important.
An 12 year old needing an abortion is such a tragedy, it should be prevented. But if it comes to that, if it is needed, she should have access to safe medical care.
I know when I was 12 everyone was getting abortions. It was just the cool thing to do. Some girls would get together and have sleepover abortion parties. I went and got one myself just to see what all the fuss was about. Of course as a guy I got some pushback initially, but eventually I joined the cool crowd
No. No abortion makes sense to them (except their own wives’) when they use it as justification to remove agency and bodily autonomy from women.
except their own wives’
You dispelled mistress.
Edit: dispelled should be misspelled :)
Is that was a wizard does when his wife catches him cheating?
Some of us out here just using mage hand like a respectable partner…
I was so confused by your comment lol my brain just did not see the typo
They pay their mistresses to get abortions.
Most 12 year olds would risk death to give birth, so yes, most people would agree that both on the grounds that it’s a raped child and on the grounds that the pregnancy could be fatal to the mother.
Fatal to the mother is just a perk of pregnancy according to the Christians who hold life to be sacred.
No, what you missed is that these people are all pedophiles, and part of their weird Christian nationalism is that they hate women having agency, so they need to be impregnating them before that happens.
It’s implied in their text that the 12-year old girl is the child of leftists and because of that is already sexually active. Since the left is sex positive that obviously means they’re teaching their kids to be deviants by a very young age. Obviously daughter of proper right wing Christian Americans would never do that because she blah, blah, blah.
I thought it meant that she was a child of conservative parents and sneaking out without their knowledge.
Exactly, those liberal woke parents would otherwise persuade and or force her to have an abortion just because
Even that’s dumb because I grew up hearing that the Catholic girls are the ones you want to hook up with.
At this point, I think a decent chunk of them are pedophiles with breeding fetishes who get off on the idea of impregnating children.
Maybe where they live a 12 year old girl can be expected to drive? So getting to a medical center two hours away is easy and convenient? and the nearest medical center is 2 hours away
She needs to go 2 hours away because the state she lives in has outlawed abortions.
It says “travel” which can mean by foot, bike, hitchhiking, zeppelin, the list goes on and on
Right. So it’s ok for a 12 year old pregnant girl to walk two hours to a medical center by themselves? No matter how correct and complete you try to be, there’s all kinds of wrong with this picture
there’s all kinds of wrong with this picture
True but a school girl taking the bus just isn’t that bad. I’m not justifying anything else about it.
Maybe it’s meant to be extra edgy? This isn’t the tone you use when you try to convince people who aren’t already on your side.
they care more about the abortion because if she doesn’t carry it to term, they’ll have one less child to rape.
The classic discussion
“We’re fighting for the sanctity of life”
“while grilling a piece of animal on the grill”
“Human life”
“Yet people die because of lack of healthcare or malnutrition”
“Children”
“And stil child mortality is rising”
“Unborn life”
“Yet we polute the environment and with that the unborn child”
“It has a heartbeat, okay!”
“So does a Leftist”
10-1 he’s had to drive some 12 year old across state lines to get his baby out of her.
If a 12-year-old girl got raped and became pregnant, I’d rather live in a country in which she can contact medical services on her own, receive medical care without cost, and then the medical services contact the authorities, which can then investigate how a child became pregnant. Starting with the parents. Such things are quite often caused by close relatives.
Brilyn Hollyhand is supposed to be the replacement Charlie Kirk. The same billionaires are sponsoring him, but he’s just not catching on. Face is too big.
Charlie who?
A relative of Captain Kirk … maybe.
This Captain Kirk?
“That’s Captain Kirk” – Miles Obrien.
Something cork
Mf sounds like a character from the hobbit
Wait, not to be a total asshole about someone’s name but I thought the -lyn suffix was pretty feminine? This man was set up to fail by his parents.
One of the big fads about 20 years ago or so was portmanteaus of parent’s names. So, for instance, Ashley and Richard would give birth to Richley. I have no idea how old this person is but maybe something like that happened here?
Riley
Or Asshard
Riley is an already existing name, the fad was about coming up with a new name. But I could totally see Ashard.
Yeah but what about Asshard
Maybe he’s trans?
Nah, don’t blame that shit on us.
I thought about that response, then remembered that Caitlin Jenner exists. So it is at least possible for a trans person to be a hateful MAGA bigot, even if it’s unlikely.
Trans people can be hateful all on their own, but there is a troubling tendency I’ve noticed to paint all loathsome political figures as secretly queer. By contrast it’s rare to see a queer person’s misbehavior used to insinuate they’re actually cis and straight. I think it’s important to consider the way that attitude steers people towards thinking of queer people as deceptive or more prone to criminal behavior, consciously or not.
there is a troubling tendency I’ve noticed to paint all loathsome political figures as secretly queer. By contrast it’s rare to see a queer person’s misbehavior used to insinuate they’re actually cis and straight.
I think you’re taking this differently than it’s usual intention.
Talking about how hateful conservatives are secretly queer isn’t actually about the queerness at all. It’s about them hiding that fact, often because of religious indoctrination and their specific social circle of hatred to anything non-cis. So they in turn hate themselves and feel the need to hide that and take the hatred out on others because they’re not “allowed” to be themselves, so no one else should either.
The fact that there are so many examples of this just helps reinforce the assumption that these shitty people do have an underlying social pressure causing their behavior. Sort of the exact opposite of what you describe.
At least that’s always been the way I’ve taken those discussions. Because the alternative is just they are a shitty excuse for a human being.
The people seeing queers as something like deceptive are those same pieces of shit that are hiding in the first place, the same projection they use for everything else in their life.
We can only hope he has the same commitment as Kirk and gets “acceptably” raped
Republicans when abortion: Noooo every life is sacred!!!111 ;(((((
Republicans when someone gets cancer: “Well should’ve saved 250.000 dollars just in case. Go die peasant, public healthcare is communism!!!”
Now lets spend another trillion for this year’s megadeaths.
“Pro-Life”.
You know what far-right religious nuts DO NOT like to know?
God has aborted more babies than every doctor ever born. He delights in the blood, as I understand it. Can’t get hard without it. And how is Mary going to catch a stray savior load if God can’t get his cross up?
You know what far-right religious nuts DO NOT like to know?
That Paul was doing law and order.
Do you mean when he was Saul?
SVU?
You know what far-right religious nuts DO NOT like to know?
That Paul was doing law and order.
^ Best answer to that.
I may have gone for “How old Mary [(and Joseph)] was.”
How old?
I hear apocryphal sources confirm 12 and 80.
Or what Kaneh Bosm (in the original language bible’s description of the ingredients of the holy anointing oil that makes one christ) is correctly translated as.
Logic? Coherence? What is all that? /s
Dude why are some people here so weird? There are legitimate arguments that can be made even in the context of religion that definitely don’t step down to the same level of these right-wing nuts. Imagine you turn your argument pro-right. Don’t sound too dissimilar now huh?
Can you try again, because I have no idea what the hell you’re trying to say?
That’s cause she probably wanted it, look at how she was dressed.
Its not the conservatives fault, that children are so arousing /s fucking obviously
It has nothing to do with the subject, but fuck You for reminding me about that anyways.
Well, it most definitely should be closer. It’s already emotionally taxing enough for the child to do it on their own and hide it. No point to make it worse by having to travel that far.
Love your username. Hope you’re good. ❤️
Thank you, even though the username might say otherwise, i am doing rather well or as well as one can these days.
Glad to hear it, buddy!
They are the best.
You’ve had previous interactions? 🙂
So let me guess, his solution is to register all menstruating women and restrict them from leaving state lines right? Freedom.
I’m waiting for them to legalize sex slavery as punishment for a crime, I never thought it would actually get that bad but at this point…
