Pro-lifers politely and passionately argue their side.
Pro-choicers scream "fuck you"
Seems Katie is right again.
@110 -- "Pro-lifers politely and passionately argue their side."
When they're not busy murdering abortion doctors.
and "Pro-choicers scream 'fuck you'"
See @101, 102, 103, 106, 107, and 109
@110: Such sanctimony! If I may ask, just how much starch DO you use in your underwear? These laws are, pardon my French, and do sit down if you feel faint, are a fucking existential threat to the women of America. We are unsurprisingly salty about it, so if you would be so kind, please shovel your shit elsewhere.
Thank you so much
@110 Miss MAGA Moron: Are your undies a wee bit too tight, or crawling up your butt crack? Take off that silly MAGA cap before you lose any more vital brain tissue.
@112 Lissa For the WIN!! You GO, Grrrrl! Agreed, spot on, and seconded. :)
Pro-lifers/anti-abortion religious folks could choose a number of issues on which to push their "Sanctity of Life" agenda. For example, endless war, poverty in the US a/o around the world, prison reform, child abuse, racial injustice ... any of these issues are opportunities to act, align and protect the sanctity of human life.
But those narratives don't legitimize church because church has had a hand in perpetuating ALL of these issues. Instead, what legitimizes a church the most is fear -- fear of the after-life.
Making abortion the single-issue rally call for the sanctity of life serves the only narrative these folks care about: that god-fearing men and god-fearing women will have god-fearing children that go to god-fearing churches to pray and fear god in their god-fearing towns. It's Disneyland plus fire & brimstone, where happy white Christian families make happy white Christian families.
But of course, sometimes that story goes awry and sometimes daddy-patriarch rapes people, or he commits incest on his god-fearing children.
But there's an answer for that too: whatever god-fearing men do is their god-given right as long as it keeps up with the god-fearing Disney version of the Bible. Even a rapist or a child-molester can go to heaven in the after-life.
And They* All Lived Happily Ever After.**
these views don't represent the incest survivors or rape victims
* PTSD and myriad other symptoms doesn't necessarily imply happy or happily ever after.
The part where Alabama Republicans voted down providing free prenatal care for women who are denied abortions really undermines the claim that it's really just all about the fetus. This should outrage pro-life voters, yet you never hear them complain about this sort of thing, afaik.
@115 -- BINGO.
Also, here's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on far right wing extremist hypocrisy --
"To the GOP extremists trying to invoke “the unborn” to jail people for abortion:
Where are you on climate change? OH right, you want to burn fossil fuels til there’s hell on Earth.
If they were truthful about their motives, they’d be consistent in their principles. They’re not."
"If they were truthful about their motives,
they’d be consistent in their principles.
The flower Queen Anne's Lace, a relative of the carrot, and a weed that grows readily in urban areas and vacant lots, can be used as an abortifacient. Recipe unknown.
Similarly, False Hellebore was used historically on the North American continent. Although Extreme Caution is advised because it can easily kill you if you do anything more than "bite, then spit" (Note: NOT bite ^off^ a piece, just make teeth marks in the leaf.) Even that much will send a person into paroxysms of awful for hours. Don't fuck with False Hellebore until you know what you are doing.
There are probably many others too.
@115 Forky McSpoon and @116 kristofarian: Thank you and bless you both.
Da Nada and Likewise, auntie Gee!
I probably just wasted ten minutes of my time looking to see if any pro abortion advocates were really interested in why someone might have a logical or defensible argument for being against abortion. It's really simple. I don't pretend to know when life begins or how or when a person's soul comes to exist. I do know that nobody in this discussion is responsible for those events which resulted in his or her own life; i.e., we are not responsible for our birth. If you are in favor of abortion, then it seems that you either view your own life as worthless, or more likely are the ungrateful benefactor of a view you now theoretically oppose. There's nothing logically inconsistent in believing that murderers and rapists should be executed, but something which will become as much a person as you or me, which is innocent, should be protected. It's not about punishing the mother or the living who got the chance. Besides national defense, sovereignty, perhaps the environment and some welfare programs, I can't name a more legitimate issue warranting government intervention than the protection of the completely defenseless. It's not a question of imposing my views on someone else. I also believe there should be exceptions for rape, which is repugnant primarily because it takes the choice from the mother; and if the health of the mother is at significant risk. The latter is a matter of practicality over ideology and what is admittedly unknowable. I've never heard an argument, certainly not in this discussion, which persuaded me that anyone should sponsor abortion in any sense. Name calling or asinine insults even less so.
@120: That's a lot of words to say you don't actually understand what logic ( let alone biology) is. Your whole argument is a mishmash of the appeal to emotion and just world fallacies.
@30 - I think your right (or my right) to bodily autonomy stops at the body of another.
What is the extraordinary justification for prohibiting murder of anybody? Would it be fair to say it is because murder robs the victim of their future?
I argue the same justification applies to abortion.
---David in Shoreline on May 15, 2019 at 5:19 PM ·
Well, that is a fairly context-free justification: If the mother is impoverished and/or underage and/or has a chronic disability and/or 'rape/incest' and/or unable to take care of said future child and/or myriad other LIFE CONTEXT situations, ....what "future" will the blastocyst-fetus-eventual-child have?
Is it moral to require a human to be born into and exist in totally miserable conditions?
Is their future not MORE robbed by forcing them to endure substandard conditions of care, love, and basic human rights? [shelter, food, health, safety, etc.]
If you say "i cannot say"... well then, leave it to the person that CAN say and decide, the pregnant woman.
And ensure that she has the option.
(And this is all aside from the point: Can you even "rob" "someone" of something "they" don't actually have? -- e.g. autonomous existence.)
@121 So, where's the illogical part of Ronswan's position? And please enlighten us with your biological knowledge so we all know what you know about life and the soul.
@121 Lissa: You GO, Grrrrrl! You and your carnivorous lop keep on rocking the house.
@122 treacle: Doofus in Shoreline has his MAGA cap on too tight, as usual. He's been leaking vital brain tissue for some time now.
@123 D'Oh!: Spoken like another clueless MAGA cap wearin', Trump (or is Joey Gibson? Matt Shea? Mitch McDumbbell? Brett Babyface Kavanaugh?) lovin', NRA worshippin', gun-totin' pro birth male who doesn't know and doesn't care because abortion bans don't affect his sorry ass.
Right. So no logic or biology referenced at all. Just more mob rules cheerleading. Compelling...
"Is their future not MORE robbed by forcing them to endure substandard conditions of care, love, and basic human rights? [shelter, food, health, safety, etc.]"
This is probably the worst argument I've ever seen or heard to justify abortion. How is it that a mother can't provide love and basic care? And you think America is so bad that we don't have basic human rights? Termination of the pregnancy = more humane for the unborn because his or her life will certainly be horrible. I concede that certain situations should be left to the mother. But, encouraging abortion is not the answer, precisely because people share your view that you're doing the unborn a favor. Unbelievable.
@136: "How is it a mother can't provide love and basic care"...? LOL
Oh my dear. What a beautiful fairy tail world you live in.
Although! I'm very happy that you had such a mother. You're very lucky.
You're right in that I was lucky and some people aren't. But, there are mothers who want to adopt the unwanted, if that is the reason for considering abortion. My point is that the argument that you're doing the unborn a favor is a terrible one.
@129: There is a demand for healthy white babies. Not babies who are born with issues due to a lack of prenatal care (Don't forget! The free prenatal care amendment was voted down on Georgia's forced birth bill) or substance abuse. Cuz the foster care system is chock full of those kind of babies. Where are all these ladies you say want to adopt them hmmm?
Would you like to roll again?
Not really, because you're changing the subject entirely. I'm merely pointing out that if the rationale of the person I was responding to was applied; i.e., abortion is more humane if the birth mother can't provide love and care- some of us wouldn't be here. I wasn't talking about any extreme circumstances, because the person I was responding to didn't qualify their statement.
You say you don't believe abortion is murder. And yet you didn't give a single supporting fact to explain why you believe that. THIS IS THE DISCONNECT. Not the other stuff you wasted time writing about.
Pro-lifers find it rather obvious that abortion is murder simply because the thing that comes out otherwise is none other than gasp a human being. If you want to prove to me that somehow "terminating" a human being isn't murder, you're going to have to do a lot better than the childish implication that one day I'll see the light of your astronomically superior intellect .
@132: I'm sorry you can't tell the difference between a dozen eggs and a bucket of chicken. It must make dining a challenge for you. Now why don't you go try to sit in the shade of an acorn since you think it's the same thing as a tree.
Seriously, a clump of cells the size of a quarter stick of Wrigley spearmint gum:
Is. Not. A. Baby.
@131: I'm not talking about any extreme circumstances. I'm talking about the reality of the existing foster care system. Adoption is not the easy fix you seem to think it is for unwanted children. There are, right now, many, many children that are so challenging to place that they will live in care until they are booted out at 18 to end up on the street. That's right NOW, while we still have access to abortion.
It will only get worse if all women are forced to give birth. This mean MORE babies born to drug addicted women. MORE babies born to women too poor to get pre natal care. MORE babies with dire medical conditions and special needs. Alllllllll ending up in a system already under funded and stretched thin with insufficient oversight leading to neglect and in cases abuse.
You want to see the future? Look at what happened in Romania.
I never remotely suggested that adoption is an easy fix. I was responding to #122 and the claim that it is more humane to have abortions because we would be forcing "substandard conditions" upon people.
But since you brought it up, consider doing some research on adoption before you imply that adopting families are racist. That has not been my experience and Department of Education statistics don't back that up.
I understand wanting government out of the mother's decision. But, some arguments don't fly, and 122 was one of those.
@135: Ok :)
I wasn't familiar with the Romanian history, but I followed your suggestion. A compelling example of what government should not do. In that, I think we agree.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134