If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Anti-abortion activists: "We wouldn't murder you if you wouldn't murder babies"   (salon.com) divider line 416
    More: Dumbass, George Tiller, tillers, gun violence, police escort, carrying a gun  
•       •       •

2914 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2013 at 3:12 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



416 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-19 03:28:46 PM

Voiceofreason01: "Coalition for life BIRTH" huh? What a sick euphemism.


Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers BIRTHERS.


Not trying to troll you two, it's just that I keep noting how word "life" is used to refer to these folks when LIVING is the last thing that concerns them.  They are willing to kill people in the name of *birth*, but after that?  Fark you, die already.
 
2013-08-19 03:28:47 PM

Lanadapter: Aarontology: Pretty sure "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't have exceptions, pro-lifers.

Actually, it's more "shall not murder"

Many actions can result in justifiable killings per old testament law: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_punishable_by_death_in_the_Old_Te stament


There's also a specific carve-out for a "pursuing attacker". A witness to the pursuit is allowed - REQUIRED, even - to kill the pursuer (even, as some commentaries point out, if it's not clear that the pursuer has murderous intent).

Of course, we in the US don't base laws on the Old Testament - viz. Obama can wear a cotton-poly blend without also having to bring a sin-offering in Jerusalem to atone. Among many, many other OT prohibitions that presidents and Americans can transgress every day in the eyes of every police department in the nation without reprisal.

The Big 10, just by the by, says pretty clearly to not give false testimony, but I still keep hearing about some supposed links between abortion and breast cancer, depression, bleeding disorders, etc being offered as sworn Congressional statements.
 
2013-08-19 03:28:54 PM

rwhamann: The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?


The fact that you don't think women can be just as authoritarian is men is just sad.
 
2013-08-19 03:29:00 PM
ah yes, the old "both sides bad" from the rugged independent
 
2013-08-19 03:29:01 PM
And before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate over religion, the entire legal basis for abortion being legal is in the concept of rights, and not even any specific, enumerated rights, but the "penumbra of rights" created by the Bill of Rights. Rights are all abstract concepts. You cannot scientifically prove a right. In that regard, it is no different than religion - a construct of the human mind to try to make some order or sense out of the chaos of humanity. You can have faith in rights, and in many respect, I share that faith though we may not all express our faith in the same ways, but rights are only effective so long as we agree they exist and can recognize them, but they are not tangible things that can truly protect us. They are just rules we want to try to play by. You can no more prove the scientific existence of rights than you can prove the scientific existence of God.
 
2013-08-19 03:31:41 PM

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: the fact that you presume that I'm female based on my argument is somewhat telling

Now I'm running through previous threads in my mind trying to remember if you've ever played the "men don't have a say" card, because you're certainly outspoken on the subject.


Nope, but feel free to try that argument. It'll be interesting to see how badly it fares in comparison to the similar "you're the real bigot for recognizing my bigotry" line. Being outspoken to say that women should have the freedom to make private medical decisions without interference is not the same as interfering with those same decisions.
 
2013-08-19 03:32:04 PM
Conservatives who oppose a woman's choice to abort do not care about babies.

If they cared about whether babies lived or died, they'd support free pre and postnatal care. They'd support school lunches and public education and children's health programs.

But they don't. Ergo, they don't care about children. They care about controlling female sexuality because it's the only way left now that domestic abuse is illegal, women can vote and drive and earn real pay, and seek divorce. It's the weak man's way of feeling empowered over women.
 
2013-08-19 03:32:14 PM

theorellior: Nabb1: Apart from seeming inconsistencies in the positions of some people, I am just curious as to why opposition to abortion is constantly couched by pro-choice persons in those terms.

Because the people who are rabid about banning abortion won't stop at just banning the practice. There are several countries in which miscarriages must be reported and investigated as possible abortions, with criminal charges for the mother. There are people who want to have a rational discussion and compromise about abortion and US law, but those aren't the people who are pushing present legislation.


It's coincidentally often the same people who are totally against  social services for the poor so you can immediately rule out that they actually care for the child.
 
2013-08-19 03:32:31 PM

serial_crusher: One of the common arguments I hear in favor of abortion is that regardless of the fetus's personhood or rights, it's wrong for another person to latch onto your body and use your organs without your continued consent.  When I argue that consenting up front at the beginning of pregnancy locks you in to a 9 month commitment that you can't get out of, I'm told I'm a monster.


Well, of course you are.  In what way does that position not make you a monster?
 
2013-08-19 03:32:43 PM

Jackson Herring: ah yes, the old "both sides bad" from the rugged independent


That's not what I said. You have never, ever once had anything worthy to say to me or about me other than insult me. Whereas I have respect for the intelligence of people like Theatetus, you are at the opposite end of the spectrum to me. I don't believe in using the ignore list, but you would be worthy because your useless, banal, pithy comments are of so little value as to be a waste of the electricity it took to post them.
 
2013-08-19 03:32:53 PM

ristst: Not trying to troll you two, it's just that I keep noting how word "life" is used to refer to these folks when LIVING is the last thing that concerns them. They are willing to kill people in the name of *birth*, but after that? Fark you, die already.


Well, that's one of the biggest issues people tend ot have with those who label themselves pro-life.
 
2013-08-19 03:33:46 PM

Nabb1: ikanreed: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

That chart describes exactly the justification for his premise in a quite thorough way.  His own thoughts would be a less presentable version of the same thing, that would take longer to read, be more likely to lack readability due to lack of editing, and not contain formatting to make the argument clear.

I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.

It's not a valid or invalid response in and of itself, it just seems odd for a person who I know to be intelligent and articulate to go that route. Disappointment more than anything.


As I said, how do you know I didn't make that chart? It seems now that you're just attempting to dodge my points, rather than actually responding substantively to them. "Oh, I'm disappointed... that's why I can't actually identify any flaws in your logic: crushing disappointment."
Frankly, your disappointment is not a valid response to my chart.
 
2013-08-19 03:34:03 PM

So advocating murder of opposing ideologies, evil homersexuals, teaching creationism,  increased taxes on the working poor while cutting corporate taxes, increasing sales taxes on 'luxury items' (like food) -- while cutting income taxes. Hey, but don't cut those 'farm' subsidies.
This is the future the GOP plans for the rest of America, serfs.


cuteoverload.files.wordpress.com
Kansas, We're not in Toto anymore.
 
2013-08-19 03:34:42 PM

Nabb1: I doubt you actually read the actual decision. No offense, but the Justices clearly recognized the passions on both sides of the debate, and even Justice White said the trimester system they created was probably imperfect, but they did the best they could based on medical science as it was then, and he said that in the future, as medical science advanced, it would be prudent to revise that. Of course, that hasn't happened, but that's what the Court seemingly hoped for at the time.


No offense taken.  I have read some of it, but I rely on summaries to be sure.  You lawyers take too long to say anything.   I guess my point was that it was decided that abortions are legal and that your statement of both sides (as passionate as they may be) need to come to a consensus seems a bit ridiculous to me.  I see only one side that needs to "get over it".  Pro-choicers just want to be left alone to do what is a legal medical procedure.  Lifers want to stick their nose in someone else's decision because they feel morally obligated to do so even though the USSC said abortions (under certain circumstances, yes) are legal.
 
2013-08-19 03:34:49 PM

rwhamann: says who? I am against abortion because I think it's wrong. I couldn't care less about punishing the mother. Of course, I also support Obamacare and MedicId for all children too, because you can't tell a woman she must carry when she has no means for care for the child after she's done.


You're a minority in that. Check abortion law in Latin American countries. Mandatory investigation of all miscarriages, because nothing should sully the precious fetus. The woman is merely a vessel for her holy offspring. This is what the American Taliban wants, and will get it any way they can.

Be carefull throwing around accusations. The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?

How many women do you know? There are plenty of women who want to control other women and keep them from being evil, evil trollops who have sinful slutty sex and enjoy their bodies like the whores they are.
 
2013-08-19 03:35:37 PM

Nabb1: I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.


I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences."

Speaking of,

Theaetetus: Your two cents have previously advocated charging and convicting women who procure abortions with murder, "but maybe not sentencing them too badly," so I'mma say keep your change.


I recall saying that I'm not qualified to make a sentencing decision, but that applies to regular murderers too.  I wouldn't advocate sentencing anybody "too badly", what with cruel and unusual punishment being unconstitutional and all.
 
2013-08-19 03:35:50 PM

Theaetetus: Nabb1: ikanreed: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

[www.amptoons.com image 575x1330]

Okay. Well, I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

That chart describes exactly the justification for his premise in a quite thorough way.  His own thoughts would be a less presentable version of the same thing, that would take longer to read, be more likely to lack readability due to lack of editing, and not contain formatting to make the argument clear.

I'm not sure why the chart isn't a valid response to your question.

It's not a valid or invalid response in and of itself, it just seems odd for a person who I know to be intelligent and articulate to go that route. Disappointment more than anything.

As I said, how do you know I didn't make that chart? It seems now that you're just attempting to dodge my points, rather than actually responding substantively to them. "Oh, I'm disappointed... that's why I can't actually identify any flaws in your logic: crushing disappointment."
Frankly, your disappointment is not a valid response to my chart.


Most of that chart has nothing to do, at least directly, with anything I was asking about. I asked a rather pointed question, I think, and that chart doesn't really answer it.
 
2013-08-19 03:36:35 PM

serial_crusher: I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences." make me confront my farked-up beliefs.

 
2013-08-19 03:36:39 PM

Nabb1: And before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate over religion, the entire legal basis for abortion being legal is in the concept of rights, and not even any specific, enumerated rights...


Before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate about whether something isn't a specific, enumerated right, they should reread the ninth amendment.
 
2013-08-19 03:37:03 PM

Jackson Herring: ah yes, the old "both sides bad" from the rugged independent


Vaginacrats vs Repeniscans?
 
2013-08-19 03:37:44 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Nabb1: I doubt you actually read the actual decision. No offense, but the Justices clearly recognized the passions on both sides of the debate, and even Justice White said the trimester system they created was probably imperfect, but they did the best they could based on medical science as it was then, and he said that in the future, as medical science advanced, it would be prudent to revise that. Of course, that hasn't happened, but that's what the Court seemingly hoped for at the time.

No offense taken.  I have read some of it, but I rely on summaries to be sure.  You lawyers take too long to say anything.   I guess my point was that it was decided that abortions are legal and that your statement of both sides (as passionate as they may be) need to come to a consensus seems a bit ridiculous to me.  I see only one side that needs to "get over it".  Pro-choicers just want to be left alone to do what is a legal medical procedure.  Lifers want to stick their nose in someone else's decision because they feel morally obligated to do so even though the USSC said abortions (under certain circumstances, yes) are legal.


The Court intended Roe to begin the debate, not be the final word on it. It was supposed to give everyone a framework. It has come to be viewed by both sides of the debate as being carved in stone, in some sense, needing to be rigidly adhered to, or cast aside whole cloth, neither of which is what I believe was intended nor is a productive way to try to resolve a divisive issue.
 
2013-08-19 03:38:04 PM

theorellior: rwhamann: says who? I am against abortion because I think it's wrong. I couldn't care less about punishing the mother. Of course, I also support Obamacare and MedicId for all children too, because you can't tell a woman she must carry when she has no means for care for the child after she's done.

You're a minority in that. Check abortion law in Latin American countries. Mandatory investigation of all miscarriages, because nothing should sully the precious fetus. The woman is merely a vessel for her holy offspring. This is what the American Taliban wants, and will get it any way they can.

Be carefull throwing around accusations. The majority of people I know who are anti abortion are women, are you saying they want to control women?

How many women do you know? There are plenty of women who want to control other women and keep them from being evil, evil trollops who have sinful slutty sex and enjoy their bodies like the whores they are.


popcornjunkie.files.wordpress.com
Approves
 
2013-08-19 03:38:07 PM

Nabb1: Whereas I have respect for the intelligence of people like Theatetus

...

I do love a civil debate.
 
2013-08-19 03:38:14 PM
The Main tab has a great article on women's breasts, much more interesting than this one. Boobies!!!
 
2013-08-19 03:38:20 PM

Nabb1: the entire legal basis for abortion being legal is in the concept of rights, and not even any specific, enumerated rights, but the "penumbra of rights" created by the Bill of Rights. Rights are all abstract concepts. You cannot scientifically prove a right. In that regard, it is no different than religion - a construct of the human mind to try to make some order or sense out of the chaos of humanity.


This is a pretty dumb argument. I expect better from one of the few rational conservatives around here.
 
2013-08-19 03:38:59 PM

Theaetetus: Nabb1: And before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate over religion, the entire legal basis for abortion being legal is in the concept of rights, and not even any specific, enumerated rights...

Before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate about whether something isn't a specific, enumerated right, they should reread the ninth amendment.


Still an abstract concept, too. You could have quoted the entirety of my statement. You're off your game today, counselor. I think I caught you at a bad time. No worries. Some other time.
 
2013-08-19 03:39:43 PM

Nabb1: Theaetetus: Say Star Trek-style teleporters existed and allowed you to transfer an implanted fetus (or blastocyst) at any stage of pregnancy into an artifical womb (assume those exist, too), without any harm to the mother or fetus. Would banning abortion then be reasonable? And if so, what would the state do with the resulting millions of parentless children born each year?

I think it would be moot: once abortion bans became unavailable as a way to control women's fertility (and lives), anti-abortion folks wouldn't care.

Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.


The "you need to have an ultrasound shoved up your vagina before you can have an abortion" law that's being passed all over the place.  What does that achieve other than more or less raping the mother?
 
2013-08-19 03:40:26 PM

Nabb1: The Court intended Roe to begin the debate, not be the final word on it. It was supposed to give everyone a framework. It has come to be viewed by both sides of the debate as being carved in stone, in some sense, needing to be rigidly adhered to, or cast aside whole cloth, neither of which is what I believe was intended nor is a productive way to try to resolve a divisive issue.


The part that pretty much is carved in stone is that a sentient human being has a right to decide what happens to his or her body, is it not?  If you accept that a woman is sentient, abortion must be legal.
 
2013-08-19 03:40:30 PM

Aarontology: Nabb1: Why do you think abortion opponents actively want to control women's lives? That seems silly, to me. That's like saying people support abortion because they want to kill babies, which I do not believe to be the case, either.

Because more often than not, they also oppose things like comprehensive sex education, easy access to birth control and family planning, which would dramatically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore, the number of abortions. If they were truly "pro-life" instead of anti-sex zealots, they would be supportive of things that would do a lot to prevent the abortions they so hate.

It's not necessarily wanting to control the lives of women, but since they are the only ones biologically capable of becoming pregnant, they bear the brunt of the policies pro-lifers support. Informing people of contraception and having easier access to it shouldn't be the same sort of moral issue that abortion access is, yet they continually oppose it in favor of "abstinence only" which simply doesn't work on a societal scale.




They would also be pro homosexual. After all, who has fewer abortions than gays and lesbians?
 
2013-08-19 03:41:18 PM

serial_crusher: One of the common arguments I hear in favor of abortion


No, that's not an argument you "commonly hear". It's an argument you heard once or twice and then decided to run with because you're a dishonest little troll.
 
2013-08-19 03:41:28 PM

serial_crusher: Nabb1: I asked for your own thoughts on it, and I got a chart instead.

I really wish people would stop posting that thing.  It's a false dichotomy and presents ridiculous extremes like "expressly protect the mother from all legal consequences."


That's not a false dichotomy. It would be if they had another box with the opposite extreme of "sentence the mother to capital punishment," with the implication that there couldn't be your previously expressed position of "convict the mother of a felony, but sentence her less than the doctor."
The chart is incomplete, in the interest of conciseness, but that doesn't invalidate it.
 
2013-08-19 03:41:31 PM

Dafatone: The "you need to have an ultrasound shoved up your vagina before you can have an abortion" law that's being passed all over the place. What does that achieve other than more or less raping the mother?


It's clearly punitive and restrictive, so it's pretty much accomplished everything it set out to do.  Or did you think that such laws were actually based on medical reasons?
 
2013-08-19 03:44:27 PM

Nabb1: Most of that chart has nothing to do, at least directly, with anything I was asking about. I asked a rather pointed question, I think, and that chart doesn't really answer it.


Yes, it does - specifically, the right side. More specifically, the actions of anti-abortion folks are much more consistent with them wanting to control women than with them being pro-child. As I believe they intend the results of their actions, then I must logically believe that control of women is their intention. The chart then goes into specific examples of those consistencies.
 
2013-08-19 03:44:34 PM

Mercutio74: Dafatone: The "you need to have an ultrasound shoved up your vagina before you can have an abortion" law that's being passed all over the place. What does that achieve other than more or less raping the mother?

It's clearly punitive and restrictive, so it's pretty much accomplished everything it set out to do.  Or did you think that such laws were actually based on medical reasons?


Obviously, they aren't.  Nabb1 is asking why people keep thinking anti-choicers want to punish women.  This is an example of punishing women.

It's also actually rape, as far as I'm concerned.  It's hard to give consent when there's that much of a "let us do this to you or else" hanging over your head.
 
2013-08-19 03:45:36 PM

Nabb1: Theaetetus: Nabb1: And before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate over religion, the entire legal basis for abortion being legal is in the concept of rights, and not even any specific, enumerated rights...

Before anyone goes all half-cocked into some debate about whether something isn't a specific, enumerated right, they should reread the ninth amendment.

Still an abstract concept, too. You could have quoted the entirety of my statement. You're off your game today, counselor. I think I caught you at a bad time. No worries. Some other time.


Oh, hush you. That was just snark about your "not even any specific, enumerated rights, but..."
 
2013-08-19 03:45:58 PM
If you actually believe blastocysts are people, that is a rational statement.

If it were legal to kill left-handed people, and someone was doing that, I would consider killing them back.

But that doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.
 
2013-08-19 03:46:31 PM

Nabb1: I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting


The large numbers of pro-lifers willing to make exceptions for rape and incest don't support this claim. I guess some precious innocents are more precious than other precious innocents?
 
2013-08-19 03:46:39 PM

Nabb1: The Court intended Roe to begin the debate, not be the final word on it


Did it not state that a woman has the right to an abortion under the 14th?  Can't we at least start the "consensus" around that ruling?  Yes, yes, trimesters and health of the mother and all of that, sure.  But today's Pro Lifers aren't that nuanced.  They want all abortion eliminated.  Santorum and his nutters even want it outlawed in the case of rape, for crying out loud.
 
2013-08-19 03:47:58 PM

The Why Not Guy: Nabb1: I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting

The large numbers of pro-lifers willing to make exceptions for rape and incest don't support this claim. I guess some precious innocents are more precious than other precious innocents?


I'm totally and entirely for the right to choose.  I don't much like this argument.  To me, it sounds like most anti-choicers would oppose those exceptions, but view them as a slight compromise.  Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.
 
2013-08-19 03:48:32 PM
The question of the day, for Nabb1 and Nabb1 alone, is how on earth he defines "human life".    Because it seems to me to be void of any of the traits unique to humans.
 
2013-08-19 03:48:34 PM

Soup4Bonnie: Santorum and his nutters even want it outlawed in the case of rape, for crying out loud.


And when Santorum has the more intellectually consistent belief system, that should be a sign that you're on the wrong side of history.
 
2013-08-19 03:48:59 PM
Weird how so few people who claim to be in favor of "life" never protest here:

cdn01.dailycaller.com

You'd never believe what their primary job is. And they're not bombing little gobs of goo that may or may not be people.
 
2013-08-19 03:49:46 PM

Dafatone: The Why Not Guy: Nabb1: I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting

The large numbers of pro-lifers willing to make exceptions for rape and incest don't support this claim. I guess some precious innocents are more precious than other precious innocents?

I'm totally and entirely for the right to choose.  I don't much like this argument.  To me, it sounds like most anti-choicers would oppose those exceptions, but view them as a slight compromise.  Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.


So you think they should get credit for merely wanting to control MOST of the women, as opposed to all of the women? No thanks.
 
2013-08-19 03:50:09 PM
Gietzen refused to say whether he or his fellow protesters are armed. "That's not a polite question to ask an individual," Gietzen said. "That's why it's concealed."

Oh fark you.
 
2013-08-19 03:50:09 PM
why is it that we never see anti abortion folks with signs saying "we'll take your unwanted child" or "you birth it, we'll do the rest"
 
2013-08-19 03:50:57 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Conservatives who oppose a woman's choice to abort do not care about babies.

If they cared about whether babies lived or died, they'd support free pre and postnatal care. They'd support school lunches and public education and children's health programs.

But they don't. Ergo, they don't care about children. They care about controlling female sexuality because it's the only way left now that domestic abuse is illegal, women can vote and drive and earn real pay, and seek divorce. It's the weak man's way of feeling empowered over women.


which is why I'm no longer a Republican, despite still being a born again Christisn who opposes abortion. It's inconceivable to me that God cares about abortion but doesn't care about children starving or income inequality, or for that matter, thousands of Muslim fatalities from war or sanctions.
 
2013-08-19 03:51:46 PM

vygramul: FloydA: So, can we finally stop the charade of calling these people "pro-life" now?

Some of them are true to that term, some are not. But really, it's a politically-motivated choice, just like pro-choice is. There's really no reason not to call someone what they want to be called. I suppose it might be helpful if all one wants is an ideologically satisfying hostile confrontation, but if one wishes to convince people, pissing them off by calling them names isn't going to help.


Except that "pro-choice" people actually are pro-choice -- whatever their own personal feelings are on abortion, and there are many that have an intense dislike for the idea, they believe it's the woman's right to choose to carry the baby en potentia to term, or not.

OTOH, "pro-life" people are nothing of the sort.  Many do not care if the child will be stillborn, if the pregnancy will kill the mother, if the child will be profoundly disabled, if the mother will actually be able to take care of the child, etc.  Simply put, they care only that the child is carried as close to term as the mother possibly can, and damn the consequences.  And once the child is born, it's on its own.    And that's not even getting into the murderous asshats like those in TFA.

People who are actually pro-life would do their damnedest to ensure that all life is preserved to the best of their ability.  "Pro-lifers" do nothing of the sort, once you leave abortion out of the picture.
 
2013-08-19 03:52:34 PM

un4gvn666: Dafatone: The Why Not Guy: Nabb1: I think they truly believe that abortion takes a human life, and those lives are worth protecting

The large numbers of pro-lifers willing to make exceptions for rape and incest don't support this claim. I guess some precious innocents are more precious than other precious innocents?

I'm totally and entirely for the right to choose.  I don't much like this argument.  To me, it sounds like most anti-choicers would oppose those exceptions, but view them as a slight compromise.  Let's not punish compromise by flipping it around rhetorically.

So you think they should get credit for merely wanting to control MOST of the women, as opposed to all of the women? No thanks.


It's just a bad way to debate.  "Let's do A." "No, let's do B." "No, let's meet in the middle, much closer to A than B."  "Ha you are willing to compromise at all and therefore you can't truly be right."
 
2013-08-19 03:52:49 PM

Isitoveryet: why is it that we never see anti abortion folks with signs saying "we'll take your unwanted child" or "you birth it, we'll do the rest"


Because they don't give a shiat about children. They want to punish women for having recreational sex without long-term consequences.
 
2013-08-19 03:53:35 PM

Isitoveryet: why is it that we never see anti abortion folks with signs saying "we'll take your unwanted child" or "you birth it, we'll do the rest"


There's a (modestly) big Christian adoption movement that has really taken hold in foreign countries, where they'll go in and pressure women who have already decided against an abortion to give up their kid because the white American Christian parents will do a better job of raising them. It's very creepy.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/04/how_the_christian_right_perverts_ado pt ion/
 
Displayed 50 of 416 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report