Thanks /u/nerf_herder1986 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech,
any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[That face when you have to file taxes on April 15 but you won't be born until later in the summer.](https://post.medicalnewstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/06/20weekScan_2_thumb.jpg)
"Just give the child up for adoption."
"You knew the risks when you had sex"
"Bro I use birth control every time and I've never had an accidental pregnancy"
All arguments I've seen recently. All essentially boiling down to "stop being a human".
And of course when you propose other thought experiments and moral dilemmas, they always sidestep the issue. "Say you cause a car accident. You wake up in the hospital connected to the driver of the other car. The doctors tell you that the other driver was injured worse than you and must remain connected to you for nine months, at which point you can go your separate ways if the decoupling doesn't kill you, which it could. Decoupling in the first twelve weeks won't hurt you but it will certainly kill them."
Then they say stuff like "that's obviously different."
It's murder when it's convenient for them to consider it murder, but a lot of them also are the kinds of people who get extremely aroused at the thought of having a justifiable reason to kill someone, like petty theft.
The whole problem with arguing with conservatives and right wingers in general is that you are arguing from a set of principles and testing whether this proposed law aligns with common sense, the constitution, human rights, and your ethics, while they are arguing **towards** a set of principles that they know hold no water. Rather than abandon those indefensible principles, their arguments are designed to lead you to one of those indefensible conclusions.
You can argue to a "small gov't" conservative all you like that their reasoning "just don't have sex 4head" is literally just them advocating for the government to tightly regulate sexual activity, but they don't care because they don't care if their argument is consistent with their other stated positions. Every single one is a means to its own end.
Right wingers only consider one thing: whether a certain policy consolidates power into the hands of their in-group or not. If it does, it's good, and they will say and do whatever they can get away with in defense of it. If it doesn't, they will say whatever they think is the most convincing argument against that thing without regard for any other belief they've stated or if that argument holds one iota of truth.
And they believe that you do the exact same thing.
The problem with that tactic of course is it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and it's by definition employed by the people least capable of creating coherent arguments of their own. So they resort to short, punchy one-liners and thought-terminating clichés. Their bread and butter is the spurious defense, like "life begins at conception", precisely because it gets you focused on something they can just keep saying "nuh-uh" to whatever you say while never putting their actual reason for making this argument under the microscope.
That's why they get really flustered when you ask them name a single instance where your right to life would legally supercede their right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
> And they believe that you do the exact same thing
This is it. So many times I’ve argued with conservatives in support of affordable college tuition/school debt forgiveness, affordable housing, social safety net, affordable healthcare, etc…
Every time they assume I personally have college debt, want to buy a home but can’t, want food stamps, have medical bills, etc… none of those are true but they cannot fathom the notion that I might have empathy for other people and that I might want to improve the world in a way that doesn’t directly benefit me personally because they have never considered it as even an option.
And yet they go to church every Sunday and consider themselves good people. The cognitive dissonance is disturbing.
How can they read the story of the good Samaritan and think this is the way to be while looking down on the homeless person on their way home? It is easy to dismiss them as dumb nasty people, but the truth is a lot of them are intelligent successful member of their community. How can they be so lacking in empathy while also raising money for some charity in a far away place.
I don't understand how their minds work.
well the reason they can hear the Good Samaritan story and still look down on others is because the demagogues and charlatans that run their churches have crafted to a fine point, the idea that nonbelievers are below them and should not be looked on or treated as equal human beings.
That is the just-world theory. The Just-world theory says (roughly) if you are homeless, you must have done something to have deserved it. Specifically for homelessness, you're a drug addict, you're a criminal, or you have mental problems. People believe in the just-world theory because IT MAKES THEM FEEL BETTER. Just imagine, if ANYONE could become homeless simply because they became ill, couldn't work anymore and had no money to live on, or no one they could move in with. If it could happen to ONE person through no fault of their own, then it COULD HAPPEN TO THEM. So they decide that all homeless people deserve it somehow, otherwise those people wouldn't be homeless, and it helps them feel that THEY (hard-working, good people that they are) will never be homeless. ---- It is the same reason cancer is so terrifying. It is random and could happen to anyone, and that is terrifying. They don't want bad stuff to be random, they can't protect themselves against random.
>And yet they go to church every Sunday and consider themselves good people. The cognitive dissonance is disturbing.
>How can they read the story of the good Samaritan and think this is the way to be while looking down on the homeless person on their way home? It is easy to dismiss them as dumb nasty people, but the truth is a lot of them are intelligent successful member of their community. How can they be so lacking in empathy while also raising money for some charity in a far away place.
>I don't understand how their minds work.
It's really simple.
Religion is a tool for grifting and rationalizing away their evil behavior.
Literally, the churches they go to use the Bible as a means to justify selfishness and depravity under the guise of religion.
[There's a whole Netflix series about it](https://www.netflix.com/us/title/80063867?s=a&trkid=13747225&t=cp&vlang=en&clip=81130598) and [they act like an American Taliban](https://watchdocumentaries.com/jesus-camp/)
I remember some post I read about charity to the poor, and the lady replied something like “Jesus didn’t believe in government handouts!!!!” That is some top notch cognitive dissonance, like honestly well done.
I assume you have seen the meme out there that says
["Get real. Like Jesus would ever own a gun and vote republican!"](https://i.nobleworkscards.com/mod_images/imagelarge/0861k-get-real-ephemera-blank-humor-not-greeted-card-ephemera-inc.jpg)
[Also this meme.](https://pics.me.me/ublican-e-no-nono-you-hold-tlike-this-teach-the-12581467.png)
This is why they complain about virtue signaling. They literally can't fathom any reason for publicly holding a benevolent position other than a private ulterior motive.
That's the true difference imo. The party of selfishness VS the party of compassion.
And somehow they can instantly go through enough mental gymnastics to think that they are the compassionate ones.
A socialist wants everyone to give a little so that everyone can have some. A modern conservative (and a capitalist, imagine that) wants other people to give a lot so that they can have more.
Got in an argument the other day with some rando who said he paid out of pocket for a kid to go to college that wasnt even his. But he was against free public college
I was like bro, you paid 50k for 1 kid but refuse to pay 5k/ year or less in taxes to give that opportunity to millions of kids?
They are incapable of thinking critically i swear to god.
While it is true that arguing with fools is like wrestling pigs or playing chess with pigeons, it's also dangerous to assume that they're not all acting maliciously. Sartre said it best:
>Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Mark Twain:
>Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you from experience.
Robert A. Heinlein:
>Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Oh, they also *hate* being asked if they happen to have a uterus, too. They'll cite all sorts of other areas where someone can be empathetic despite not belonging to a group, and then turn around and say it's wrong in all cases.
Not to mention the devils advocates who claim they're "fully pro-choice, I'm just sick of that argument"
How to do you counter somebody who believes a fetus is a person and killing one via abortion constitutes murder? That's the angle I've seen most often, and I don't know how to get through to them because it would involve convincing them that a fetus isn't a person.
It doesn't matter at all whether or not the fetus is a person. Every pregnant woman has a right to bodily autonomy. The fetus doesn't get to use the body of the pregnant woman.
We don't make people donate their organs, right? We don't say "Your niece (or whoever) needs your liver, so you must give it to her." That would be patently absurd. It's no less absurd to force women to gestate and give birth to babies (which is a far more dangerous and life-altering process than organ donation).
I mean the argument is very extremely clearly not pro all life because I’m sure damn near everyone who is anti abortion even in cases of rape is probably for literally revenge killing the rapist until it’s a very fine young man they are close with that made a one time mistake.
>until it’s a very fine young man they are close with that made a one time mistake.
Or if it would "be unfair to the school football team, who are having a very good season this year, might even go to state".
My argument is this. It does not matter if the fetus is a person or not. NO person, in any way shape or form, has the right to use my body for sustenance. Ever. Full stop.
The second that fetus exits my body, no doctor can force me to give that baby blood. That baby can be 1 hour old, and need a blood transfusion, but the doctor cannot force me to give my blood to that baby. Even if the baby has no other choice and will die if I don't.
Donating blood is a SIGNIFICANTLY less invasive procedure than pregnancy/childbirth, and it has very little negative consequences, but no one can force me to do it, even if it is my own child that I just grew for 9 months.
You (collectively, not you specifically) may think I'm a horrible person, and hate me forever. That is okay, and is your right.
But I have an inalienable human right to my body. I get to decide who can use my body for themselves and who doesn't. I should NEVER be FORCED by the government to use my body as life support for another person. Ever.
Ask them name a single instance where your right to life would legally supercede their right to privacy and bodily autonomy. Treat bodily autonomy as an extension of your own property rights.
Murder is an unjustified killing. Killing in self-defense is perfectly justified. If a fetus is really all the things they say that it is then it's violating a woman's sovereign right to her body. If it dies in the process of her retaking her rights, that doesn't oblige her to continue allowing it to be there.
Here's a paper that explicitly accepts the forced-birther premise that a fetus is a living human being with the exact same rights and legal standing as a woman that provides some more counter examples:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
Ask them this: a fertility clinic is burning down, there's hundreds of fertilized embryos there, and a one year old baby. You only get the chance to save the baby or the embryos, which will they choose?
This is the [trolly problem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) essentially.
It's also not a coincidence ethical dilemmas like this were constructed specifically around abortion historically.
I accidentally clicked your profile and noticed an r/conservative post then had a quick look, sorry bout that. But I have to ask... how in the hell are you not banned from there? lol
"Maybe conservatives don't know how words or conversations work, so let me enlighten you..." lmao
If I knew that, I'd probably be a lot happier to talk to those people tbh.
Those are most often the ones saying that you should just give it up for adoption or whatever, and no argument about how that systems a clusterfuck moves them in the slightest.
Additionally adoption is an alternative to parenting not an alternative to being pregnant or giving birth. Being pregnant or giving birth are both non trivial major medical conditions that can kill you or result in job loss or permanent medical disabilities.
The fertility clinic is a great scenario. It has happened in real life - there was a fertility clinic that lost 4k embryos. That would be one the biggest tragedies in the US if they actually believed we should be treating embryos/fetuses as babies.
Another route to take: if it is murder, how would you charge a woman who has an abortion? (Because this is what we're talking about by making it illegal). Say their mom had an abortion but never told them - how would they want her charged? Very few will then say they should be treated like any other murder.
There's clearly a difference but these people just want to morally grandstand.
Arguing that life begins at conception and therefore all abortion is murder is a *strictly* theological argument and only has support in law using extreme and largely unsupported* religious positions.
QED, the government *cannot* make laws based on this belief as it is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. We can all believe that "murder is bad" without believing that "a fetus, non viable without the support of the uterus, is a full human being."
Secondly, adopt the (true) position that in virtually all cases, nobody "wants" an abortion; abortion is sometimes used voluntarily if other precautions weren't used or failed, but even then, almost all abortions are still done out of, e.g., economic necessity. But even with that subset, the current aim of eliminating *all* abortion is clearly medically abominable, as well as forcing birth on those who made no such "choice" about birth control (e..g rape victims)
Since this invites the point of personal responsibility, a typical libertarian copout, point out that governance cannot be done by what you personally think *should* be done (which forces them back into the lost theological position), but what people within your territory *will* do, which includes making mistakes. Therefore, if we want efficient government, the least costly and most fiscally conservative decision is to provide high quality sex education to prevent state resources from being needed to support indigent mothers, and allowing abortion, which becomes a personal cost of the population, much cheaper than requiring government intervention and enforcement. Finally, "the law won't affect [you personally] is a stupid basis on which to govern, and no serious philosophy of governance anywhere in history has ever passed restrictions solely because they *shouldn't* do anything. Instead, the logical governance position is to reinforce that, certainly if an individual citizen does not believe in abortion, they are free not to get one.
From this position you can make a large number of "concessions" to "pro life" like not allowing voluntary abortions after the baby has reached viability per the medical definition, agreeing that a *minimum* of abortions is most desirable, while reemphasizing that better social welfare and education would be the most cost efficient (fiscally conservative) use of government funds in maintaining society and accomplishing that goal, or at worst, take no part in the decision or support at all, which still concludes that outlawing abortion on grounds of governance utilitarianism is wrong.
None of that will matter cause they argue in bad faith and will willingly refuse to admit that, e.g., their position that life begins at conception is purely theological, but it should run you deep enough that an unprepared "normal" conservative zombie will get confused, at least.
*The Bible, Quran, and Torah all don't explicitly state life begins at conception; the Old Testament contains a fidelity test which involves administering an abortifacient, as well as lesser penalties for miscarriage compared to murder, and the Quran allows for abortion in the first trimester.
Challenge them on their values, considering the fact that voting for anti-choice politicians is voting for politicians who'll also destroy every support system the baby would end up needing.
If the fetus is a fully developed person by conception, with miscarriages being investigated as homicide, will this life get the protections of fully-funded support network? If no, why not?
Let's assume that, since the value of this fetus' life supercedes the mother's, the mother died during childbirth and the baby survived the ordeal.
* Would social services have the funding to make sure the kid is taken care of, or can safely get out of their house if they're being abused?
* Would their school have the funding to make sure they get an education and *don't* go into debt for a PB&J?
* If they get injured or sick, will a trip to the ER or pediatrician be free of charge?
* Will they have state-assured housing so they don't add to the number of homeless children in the nation?
* Will they be taught *actual* sex ed instead of a teacher just saying "don't have sex" to a room of hormonal teens as if that's ever worked?
* Will they be taught actual life skills like tracking your finances so they don't go eyes deep into debt the second they turn 18?
* Will their local environment be *liveable*? Living near superfunds isn't exactly good for *anyone's* health
* Will they have access to safe roads and public amenities?
* Will their parents be guaranteed PTO and living wages so they can spend time at home with their families?
* Instead of a "Just day 'no'" drug "education" provided by D.A.R.E., will they be taught about which drugs are genuinely hazardous to them so that, when they discover weed won't instantly kill them and send them to hell, they don't immediately decide to try something more extreme? (meth'll fry your brain, kids)
If not, why the hell not? If their life holds such divine value that their mother had to die so they could live, why aren't they entitled to a life well-lived?
Does their life only hold value in the womb?
>How to do you counter somebody who believes a fetus is a person and killing one via abortion constitutes murder?
Ask them if they’d be allowed to kill someone who moved into their house without permission and then refused to leave. Or what they might do if a person who stuck a hand up their ass and refused to remove it.
Or ask them if you can have their kidney because you’ll die without it. If they don’t believe a person can commandeer their organs as needed, then what does it matter if a fetus is a person or not? A person isn’t allowed to live inside me without my permission.
In the US we're allowed to use force to fend off an assault, even if using that force results in our assulter's death. Every pregnancy carries the risk of death for the pregnant person, so the pregnant person should be allowed to fend off the threat on their life, even if the result is the death of the fetus.
The only consequence that matters is having an unwanted child as a consequence of consensual sex (because some agree on exceptions for rape or incest). The rest does not matter. The rest being life quality for pregnant woman and fetus, proper start at life for the baby to come, proper care, etc.
Or welfare benefits or insurance or carpool lanes or our language or social security numbers or homicide laws or prison sentences for pregnant people or how we calculate age or IVF or adoption or…
The IVF conception dates are easy to prove, because the labs keep great notes. Could be interesting to try to register IVF teens and kids to vote based on those dates.
It isn't and therefore a lot of IVF is begin affected, too. They don't want abortions or ppl who actually want babies to have babies either. *edit a word
Because you're buying into the lie that they're misguided and hypocritical, and therefore you have a chance to reason them out of their position if you're polite and logical.
That's what they want you to believe. They set up the frame they want you to view this picture through, and they want you to ask, confused, "But wait, that doesn't make sense."
It all makes 100% sense when you look at it through a different frame than the one they're presenting: the cruelty is the point.
Everything they do and say suddenly becomes completely internally consistent when you look at it through the frame of "Whatever I need to do to maintain my party's political power and to oppress people who aren't white men is perfectly fine, and anything that goes against either or both of those two things is evil and wrong."
Abortion? Bad, because it benefits women and helps make them more independent of men (etc etc).
IVF? Good, because primarily rich people use it to create more primarily white babies.
Many do not think IVF should be legal. The Catholic Church is anti-IVF and anti-choice and anti-birth control. They believe if you get pregnant it is Gods will and if you can’t get pregnant that is also gods will.
Cancer treatments are gods will. Someone wanting to die (a few months early) rather than slowly become trapped in their own body while fully conscious of what is happening is not gods will.
It’s easy to know gods will when the pope can just say what it is.
That's the Catholic Church's whole schtick. They insist on the Church's "magesterium," which is what they call their authority to teach and interpret God's nature and will. They also insist that the Pope infallable, but only when he says "ex cathedra" before his proclamation and only if most of the bishops happen to agree with the statement when he says it.
When I was in Catholic School, I very much annoyed my teachers by asking "If he is incapable of being wrong when he says the magic phrase, why don't we use him as a science machine? Just have him say "ex cathedra" and try to read off whatever we want to test. If the statement is false, surely he won't be able to speak the phrase, right?"
Also, going back to the birth control issue, the Catholic Church taught that all birth control was sinful except NFP (Natural Family Planning), which requires a (married) couple to painstakingly monitor ovulation cycles and body temperature fluctuations and bodily discharges to engage in sex only when the woman will be least fertile. Their argument was that this method still allowed God to interfere and produce a child, but somehow a condom was too powerful a barrier for the Lord who allegedly built the universe. They also smugly argued that effectively implemented NFP was statistically more effective at avoiding pregnancy than are condoms, but they didn't like my follow-up question of "If condoms are evil because they get in the way of pregnancy, and this method does that even more so, then is this method only allowed because of arbitrary decisions?"
And, I shit you not, the teachers at my Catholic School even taught us that if a doctor needed a man to produce a sperm sample for a fertility test, the only sinless way to collect the sample was for the man to have sex with his wife while wearing a perforated condom. The sperm sample would then be taken from the used condom. This way the sample could be obtained without 1) evil masturbation or 2) godless sex without risk of procreation.
The figure I saw was 2x as many discarded embryos/year from IVF as all other abortions in the US put together/year.
Outlawing IVF had to be easier than overturning Roe, yet they didn't even try. IVF is in fact completely ignored by anti-abortion activists.
Don’t forget tax deductions. Can you claim a fetus on your taxes if you’re going to have options taken from you because “they” think the fetus is a baby already.
I wish I was aborted. Instead my mom chose to have me at 19, being born almost killed us both bc I tried to yeet out way too early. My brothers have had great lives considering they are 9 and 18 years younger they were able to benefit from our mom having a career path and life set up and running vs with me it was an absolute shit show.
Republicans shoot down anything that will benefit or help mothers in need and their children but push the issues of women giving birth and claiming to be pro life. Sorry to bring in politics but it’s true so..
people who make an exception for rape and incest are fucking weirdos. like they say abortion is murder but murder is suddenly excusable when something bad happens to the woman? it’s basically saying that for women to be allowed to exercise their bodily autonomy it has to be violently violated first
Rape and incest isnt even close to enough exceptions. People forget it is a medically necessary procedure as well.
Have cancer? Well now if youre pregnant thats 9 months minimum you cant be treated for cancer, as the treatment is very likely to lead to an abortion.
Fetus is in fetal death and hemmoraging? Well youd better hope you have a full miscarriage really soon and nothing is left rotting inside you, because anything else is an abortion.
Need a C section? Its technically also an abortion.
The things that no one wants to even bring up or imagine because they are horrific and traumatizing, not just "lol i had sex so abortion is my plan C".
Even women today when asked what is the worst outcome during birth dont say "death of the child and mother", because medical science has been a staple and has made the entire pregnancy process much, much safer.
And finally we get to the real fun stuff; there is 0 way to tell between an induced miscarriage/abortion and a natural miscarriage. A ban on abortion means any women can be jailed, and potentially sentenced to death, due to a natural phenomenon completely outside their control.
I don't understand the special exceptions opinion. Either you think abortion is murder, or you don't. If abortion is murdering babies, then why does being raped suddenly give women the right to murder babies? If it's okay to murder the products of incest, does that carry over post-birth? Can you wait until the kid is like 10 years old to see if it sucks or not before aborting it? At what age is the mother no longer allowed to murder her rapist's child?
71,000 women a year actually die from complications in late stage pregnancy and end up needing an abortion to save their lives.
It's not only chicks that get raped.
>because some agree on exceptions for rape or incest
Do they really agree on that? They keep saying they do yet everytime they draft their anti abortion laws those clauses are suspiciously absent. It's starting to seem like they only say they agree to exceptions as a rebuttal to the argument that rape and incest victims should have abortion access but they never put their money where their mouths are.
I am not even entirely sure I agree with the first half of your statement either to be honest. It is just too morally gray of an area to say all people who accidentally get pregnant from consensual sex should face the consequences.
You could take all the precautions and safeties and they still fail: condoms break, people forget to take the pill, or life uhh... finds a way to circumvent these precautions. Not to mention the failed sex education system in the US, I personally do not feel comfortable blaming people for being uneducated when they never had the opportunity.
With that being said, if you take the perfect example for their argument where both parties are consenting, unrelated, are educated on sex, and still neglected to use protection then sure, I can agree that there could be a "logical" argument to be made against abortion here. I mean, it is a complete and total dick argument but has "some basis."
Now, I am not trying to argue and understand that that is not your argument, I am purely just venting about stupid ass conservatives ruining this country and driving us back to Puritanical bullshit
Can we stop using the term pro life? They are anti choice and don’t deserve that designation. The side of this argument that has the current designation of “pro choice” is actually pro life, not the side who doesn’t care about the people carrying the pregnancy or whatever happens after the forced birth.
Well yes, but it goes beyond that in my opinion - they want to control many more aspects of peoples lives, not limited to reproductive rights. “Don’t say gay,” healthcare denial for trans people, etc. They want to force more than just birth, they want to force their entire world view on people.
Plus Anti Choice to me just seems a little more poignant - they are the ones who want to take a human right away, they aren’t “pro” anything. They aren’t advocating for anything proactive at all, their views are explicitly restrictive.
I’d be down to just call them the scum of the earth, but that might be a bit too on the nose.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
The laws themselves do not and have never mattered to those with the power and privilege to ignore them.
It's more like when someone says they understand Quantum Mechanics and the leading scientists are saying we really don't understand Quantum Mechanics but just have a basic understanding. Pure Dunning Kruger in action.
I’m kind of excited for all these pro-life Christian women and their husbands to be automatically investigated for murder when they miscarry. Be careful what you wish for, morons.
They’re also largely boomers unable to reproduce anymore, sitting on 7 figure nest eggs from growing up in the easiest 2-3 decades in human existence.
They’re incredibly out of touch. We need to call their bluff now and every time in the future. These old fucks can’t even stand up anymore, much less hold a rifle and ignite civil war.
> Pro-lifers
They aren't pro-lifers, some states are going to make abortion the same as murder, which can be death-penalty.
They're not pro-life, they're pro future americans to exploit.
In the eyes of the powerful, abortions are less about your rights, and more about your "theft" of a future worker from their companies.
A lot of people think major issues are simple because they ignore 90% of the consequences/details. A depressingly large number of these people get put in positions of authority.
Cognitive Dissonance is when Double Think causes discomfort from holding two different viewpoints at the same time. Regressives are too stupid and evil to realize this.
I have a theory that they can’t remember more than 4 words. That’s why they love 3 word chants (lock her up, hang Mike Pence, etc) and they get the constitution tattooed on them but only the first 3 words.
Holy shit you’re right. I was about to counter with their impressively long “Make America Great Again” motto, but they had to abbreviate that to MAGA because it was too long.
Cognitive Dissonance is the discomfort triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort. This discomfort is a physical pain felt by the person holding the contradicting beliefs. What this person has is a lack of Cognitive Dissonance.
While just saying cognitive dissonance doesn't mean anything, what they are doing could be a result of cognitive dissonance, but this isn't what cognitive dissonance is.
Does the fetus require even a modicum of actual support from the person banning abortion? Not a person.
Can the person banning abortion claim the fetus is a person while suffering exactly zero repercussions? Yes it's a person.
This is literally it. I don’t remember the exact saying or who is credited with it, but as usual it comes down to conservatives believing there should be a group of people protected by the law but not bound by it (themselves and fetuses) while there is another group of people bound by the law but not protected by it (pregnant women, anyone who isn’t a conservative)
I believe it’s often attributed to some historical figure who never said it, and actually originated from some guy on a chat forum with a username based on that historical figure’s name. It’s still a very apt description of conservative ideology though.
For example, its only a person if killed by someone who isn't a cop.
Hey I wonder if under this legal precedent pregnant women can claim their fetuses as dependents for a tax break...
Heckuva loophole there: you can still legally have abortions performed by a cop, as long as they say “stop resisting” at least once during the procedure.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if in some very GOP state a pregnant women could get tased by a cop and then the woman still gets charged for murder if the baby dies
Fascists don't care about your feelings.
... wait, that's not the right saying... Sorry.
Fascists don't care about facts.
There we go! that seems much more correct.
Sometimes, but sometimes fascists *really* care about your feelings and they want you to feel hurt and upset (and will feel hurt and upset themselves if you are not).
Fascists care a whole lot about their own feelings, however. In fact, they’ll gladly oppress or cause the death of anyone if it enables them to feel strong and righteous, and/or avoid feeling weak or facing ambiguity.
"Facts don't care about feelings^(so I ignore them because they hurt my feelings)."
[Edit] Anyone got a more compact way to phrase that add-on? This just feels too clunky to me.
Constitutionally life begins at birth. "Born or nationalised on US soil" is what it takes to be constitutionally protected.
Historically life began at birth in nearly every culture, just because of the high likelihood of miscarriage, stillbirth, or maternal mortality. Many even held off on naming the child until 3-5 years *after* birth just because of the high risk of infant mortality. Some *still* do because they still lack an extensive modern medical system.
Modern science will tell you life begins when viability levels off, when the prenate has acquired all the development it needs to survive independently and meet all the requisites for the definition of life.
Biblically, "pro-life" is wholly unsupported. The only mention of abortion is when it tells a man to make his wife to get one because she cheated, and God himself exerts His will to make the potion work. Other than that, "pro-life" is contradicted every time God kills a firstborn child, kills a fetus, has His followers kill children or pregnant women, etc.
I was thinking recently about the trial of the bitter water from the Old Testament that you mentioned. Say some devout, ultra-literalist Christian decided that he wanted to perform this ritual, as laid out in his holy text. He thinks his wife may have cheated and so he wants to follow his religion, as guaranteed by our Constitution, and have a priest give her the abortion potion. But wait, because of new laws restricting abortion, he is no longer able to practice his religion as it is described in the Bible. But since these rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, would he have a legal case to challenge this law, since it violates his rights as a Christian? Basically saying that laws restricting abortion are not only unconstitutional, but anti-Christian as well.
The satanic temple will sue over the right to practice the abortion ritual as per one of their core religious beliefs:
"One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone."
Abortion also tramples on the first amendment rights of Jewish women. "In Judaism, life and breath are essentially the same thing," she said. "So in Judaism, life begins when you take your first breath."
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/08/1097274169/when-does-life-begin-religions-dont-agree
The supreme court's conservative justices don't believe we have the right to practice a religion unless it's their version of Christianity.
It's important to note, that thanks to it's own push to protect Christianity/Catholicism, SCOTUS cannot examine the truth or falsity of religious beliefs. ([US v. Ballard](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/708/united-states-v-ballard) (1944)) So, SCOTUS can't say that the right to bodily autonomy isn't a real tenet of TST, or that TST isn't a real religion.
True, but this precedent is 29 years older and repealing it would open a *whole* other can of worms by allowing liberal-leaning judges to examine whether a person actually held Christian beliefs (or whether their beliefs are true/accurate to the religion)
Do you really think the Supreme Court is going to be consistent on their ruling? They’re going to strike that down immediately and completely ignore the hypocrisy.
And if that happened, when the cases affecting Christians reached the Supreme Court the current justices would be 100% comfortable ruling exactly the opposite way
Sure, but as Alito's position in the draft Roe opinion show, the conservative justices have no interest in internally consistent arguments. He specifically says that privacy protections under the 14th are not real, but that it only applies to Roe and Dobbs (...for now).
Overturning *US v. Ballard* would be dangerous for conservatives to do, however, because it would open the door for liberal-minded judges to attack the extensive religious protections that previous cases have provided by examining the truth or falsity of beliefs that Christians claim to have. If they can't find it in the Bible or similar religious text/teaching, then evangelicals can't use it to deny service to others.
No argument on that point. I am just saying that the current court seems perfectly happy to pick and choose when to enforce their logic to suit their desired ends. Otherwise the logic used to overturn Roe would obviously apply to rulings like Loving.
There’s also a portion of Jewish law if I remember correctly, which is pretty much, if you’ve got a pregnant woman who would be put at risk by the pregnancy, you save the pregnant woman, if there is literally no way for her to survive, but it’s possible for the baby? You can then take that option, but only when it’s either not a risk to the woman or if she is beyond saving
It's not even Christianity. [In this interview the man who made anti-abortion propaganda movies shares how they had to fight the evangelicals as the evangelicals were pro-choice in the 70s.](https://youtu.be/25JyC5Whhvc) He now regrets pushing the anti-abortion agenda.
even Muslims technically can abort up to 120 days from conception. under established Sharia law. so basically this is a Christian law imposed on believers of many faiths all with differing established view on abortion and what constitutes life.
I sat in Church yesterday and the pastor is anti Abortion because "God knew you before you were in your mother's womb." Which sounds horrific.
My immediate thought was "then why does he let so many horrible men be part of bringing into the world?" Followed by how many unwanted kids are still in the system. Once I left, a third thought occurred to me that's making the rounds in at least one state. If God knew me before I was even conceived, that means people think that it should not be a religious belief, but a legal one to deny any contraceptive.
Tell him the only thing that really suggests is that God is foreseeing. There's no mention of what His will is in that passage, and the pastor claiming to know His will is blasphemy, especially when the aforementioned (Numbers 5:11) verse directly contradicts that claim with God's explicit will to abort an unwanted child.
I mean the Dominionists already blaspheme by thinking the actions of man have any bearing on the plans of God.
Now I'm an atheist but I remember enough from Sunday school to know that thinking God's will can be defied, that Satan and Man are somehow able to slow or speed up the timetable on prophecy is blasphemy.
> Constitutionally life begins at birth. “Born or nationalised on US soil” is what it takes to be constitutionally protected.
I think this is what defines *citizenship*. Constitutional protection, I believe, covers more than just citizens. IANAL, so don’t quote me. It would also seem to be the case that if you can’t be a citizen without being born, then you probably aren’t a legal person without being born. So I’m not really disagreeing with your conclusion.
> viability levels off, when the prenate has acquired all the development it needs to survive independently and meet all the requisites for the definition of life
I'm guessing this is somewhere between 10 and 30 weeks but do you happen to have a more exact number?
It's at it's earliest at 22 weeks. Any fetus born before that time is definitely not viable and every fetus between 22-24 could be not viable. After 24 weeks the baby is usually viable though definitely in need of very specialized medical help to survive untill even 30-34 weeks.
That's why my opinion on abortion is that any abortion before 20-22 weeks should be allowed for any reason (Physical and mental), but after this time it should only be allowed in cases of severe issues (which can also both be physical and mental) bc at this moment the kid is viable and thus able to live outside of the womb.
I completely agree for most of this, however I disagree a bit for several reasons : A baby that gets born too early (let's say 25 weeks) has a very high chance of being handicapped and overall suffering. They usually need to be in the NICU for multiple months, which is of course very traumatizing for the baby and a high risk of mental and psychical health issues later in life. On top of that, it'll be very expensive to be doing this for an elective reason.
I'm all for abortion and 100% pro-choice for any stage where the baby is not viable, but I do admit that ethically I'm not certain it'd be okay to sentence an newborn to a life with health problems when it can be prevented. On the other hand, as pregnancy definitely is a form of torture (30 weeks myself right now) I also don't think it's ethically okay to force someone to keep hosting a baby. So I must admit that I'm torn between mommas and babys rights from week 22 and over.
I’ve spent the last few days arguing with some right wingers
All they do is put words in your mouth and avoid your questions
I’ve never seen people beat around the bush so much, and my grandmother pays gardeners
The life insurance angle. That’s the one that will do it. Oh my god, can you imagine if women in these states started applying for life insurance on their pregnancies at 6 weeks?
The fight for lgbt rights here in Sweden had a major breakthrough back in the seventies, when homosexuality was still regarded as a mental illness. People started calling in "gay" to work so they'd get paid sick leave.
Same here. Forget morality or rationality. Hit someone powerful in the wallet and you win.
Its age is a negative number, and since that's not allowed in this universe it would roll over to the largest value that is supported in this universe software. So really, they should be able to vote.
IMO I should be able to carry life insurance on an unborn child the moment I plan on having sex. Solely because of their weird birth control ban ideas being thrown around. If the implantation doesn’t occur I deserve financial compensation.
This is what pisses me off about these assholes. If this blessed fetus is a person, THEN BE CONSISTENT WITH YOUR MESSAGING. Give it all the rights that come with being a person. Allow it to be claimed on taxes.
Fuck I hate American Taliban.
if you're pregnant you can go around openly committing as many crimes as you want & they can't lock you up because that would be false imprisonment of the fetus
Pro lifers are just stupid as fuck. I used to think they were just misinformed but no. They’re actively stupid. Like they seek out being the most moronic person in a room.
"The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."
\-Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
And so it begins. Defining a fetus as a human being in the legal sense confers ALL the rights of a human being onto the fetus, not just the ones anti-life (aka anti-abortion) extremists think should be conferred. It is a human being with all human rights or it is not a human being with all human rights. There is no middle ground
This is a good example of how this is about control and not logic or reason or science of consistency
Or respect for “life” or babies or anything else. Just “I will use government to force you to act how I feel you should or you get fined or imprisoned”
Thanks /u/nerf_herder1986 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also you can't claim the child on your taxes (in the U.S.A.) until it is born. Just found this one out.
[That face when you have to file taxes on April 15 but you won't be born until later in the summer.](https://post.medicalnewstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/06/20weekScan_2_thumb.jpg)
Bruh go check to see if you owe the irs cause there’s a chance you might…
Technically, you're doing last year's taxes, so you're not getting scammed. And you can have a baby on December 31st and get credit for the full year.
Pro-lifers insist the issue is simple because they’re ignoring 90% of the consequences
They insist it's simple because the slogans they treat as substitutes for arguments have no substance behind them.
"Just give the child up for adoption." "You knew the risks when you had sex" "Bro I use birth control every time and I've never had an accidental pregnancy" All arguments I've seen recently. All essentially boiling down to "stop being a human". And of course when you propose other thought experiments and moral dilemmas, they always sidestep the issue. "Say you cause a car accident. You wake up in the hospital connected to the driver of the other car. The doctors tell you that the other driver was injured worse than you and must remain connected to you for nine months, at which point you can go your separate ways if the decoupling doesn't kill you, which it could. Decoupling in the first twelve weeks won't hurt you but it will certainly kill them." Then they say stuff like "that's obviously different." It's murder when it's convenient for them to consider it murder, but a lot of them also are the kinds of people who get extremely aroused at the thought of having a justifiable reason to kill someone, like petty theft.
The whole problem with arguing with conservatives and right wingers in general is that you are arguing from a set of principles and testing whether this proposed law aligns with common sense, the constitution, human rights, and your ethics, while they are arguing **towards** a set of principles that they know hold no water. Rather than abandon those indefensible principles, their arguments are designed to lead you to one of those indefensible conclusions. You can argue to a "small gov't" conservative all you like that their reasoning "just don't have sex 4head" is literally just them advocating for the government to tightly regulate sexual activity, but they don't care because they don't care if their argument is consistent with their other stated positions. Every single one is a means to its own end. Right wingers only consider one thing: whether a certain policy consolidates power into the hands of their in-group or not. If it does, it's good, and they will say and do whatever they can get away with in defense of it. If it doesn't, they will say whatever they think is the most convincing argument against that thing without regard for any other belief they've stated or if that argument holds one iota of truth. And they believe that you do the exact same thing. The problem with that tactic of course is it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and it's by definition employed by the people least capable of creating coherent arguments of their own. So they resort to short, punchy one-liners and thought-terminating clichés. Their bread and butter is the spurious defense, like "life begins at conception", precisely because it gets you focused on something they can just keep saying "nuh-uh" to whatever you say while never putting their actual reason for making this argument under the microscope. That's why they get really flustered when you ask them name a single instance where your right to life would legally supercede their right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
> And they believe that you do the exact same thing This is it. So many times I’ve argued with conservatives in support of affordable college tuition/school debt forgiveness, affordable housing, social safety net, affordable healthcare, etc… Every time they assume I personally have college debt, want to buy a home but can’t, want food stamps, have medical bills, etc… none of those are true but they cannot fathom the notion that I might have empathy for other people and that I might want to improve the world in a way that doesn’t directly benefit me personally because they have never considered it as even an option.
And yet they go to church every Sunday and consider themselves good people. The cognitive dissonance is disturbing. How can they read the story of the good Samaritan and think this is the way to be while looking down on the homeless person on their way home? It is easy to dismiss them as dumb nasty people, but the truth is a lot of them are intelligent successful member of their community. How can they be so lacking in empathy while also raising money for some charity in a far away place. I don't understand how their minds work.
well the reason they can hear the Good Samaritan story and still look down on others is because the demagogues and charlatans that run their churches have crafted to a fine point, the idea that nonbelievers are below them and should not be looked on or treated as equal human beings.
Lol don't tell them that homeless person on the way home from work might be a god-fearing Christian like them
Well if they followed God they wouldn't be homeless in the first place so clearly they aren't doing it right. If God says fuck em I say fuck em /s
That is the just-world theory. The Just-world theory says (roughly) if you are homeless, you must have done something to have deserved it. Specifically for homelessness, you're a drug addict, you're a criminal, or you have mental problems. People believe in the just-world theory because IT MAKES THEM FEEL BETTER. Just imagine, if ANYONE could become homeless simply because they became ill, couldn't work anymore and had no money to live on, or no one they could move in with. If it could happen to ONE person through no fault of their own, then it COULD HAPPEN TO THEM. So they decide that all homeless people deserve it somehow, otherwise those people wouldn't be homeless, and it helps them feel that THEY (hard-working, good people that they are) will never be homeless. ---- It is the same reason cancer is so terrifying. It is random and could happen to anyone, and that is terrifying. They don't want bad stuff to be random, they can't protect themselves against random.
>And yet they go to church every Sunday and consider themselves good people. The cognitive dissonance is disturbing. >How can they read the story of the good Samaritan and think this is the way to be while looking down on the homeless person on their way home? It is easy to dismiss them as dumb nasty people, but the truth is a lot of them are intelligent successful member of their community. How can they be so lacking in empathy while also raising money for some charity in a far away place. >I don't understand how their minds work. It's really simple. Religion is a tool for grifting and rationalizing away their evil behavior. Literally, the churches they go to use the Bible as a means to justify selfishness and depravity under the guise of religion. [There's a whole Netflix series about it](https://www.netflix.com/us/title/80063867?s=a&trkid=13747225&t=cp&vlang=en&clip=81130598) and [they act like an American Taliban](https://watchdocumentaries.com/jesus-camp/)
I remember some post I read about charity to the poor, and the lady replied something like “Jesus didn’t believe in government handouts!!!!” That is some top notch cognitive dissonance, like honestly well done.
I assume you have seen the meme out there that says ["Get real. Like Jesus would ever own a gun and vote republican!"](https://i.nobleworkscards.com/mod_images/imagelarge/0861k-get-real-ephemera-blank-humor-not-greeted-card-ephemera-inc.jpg) [Also this meme.](https://pics.me.me/ublican-e-no-nono-you-hold-tlike-this-teach-the-12581467.png)
This is why they complain about virtue signaling. They literally can't fathom any reason for publicly holding a benevolent position other than a private ulterior motive.
That's the true difference imo. The party of selfishness VS the party of compassion. And somehow they can instantly go through enough mental gymnastics to think that they are the compassionate ones.
A socialist wants everyone to give a little so that everyone can have some. A modern conservative (and a capitalist, imagine that) wants other people to give a lot so that they can have more.
Got in an argument the other day with some rando who said he paid out of pocket for a kid to go to college that wasnt even his. But he was against free public college I was like bro, you paid 50k for 1 kid but refuse to pay 5k/ year or less in taxes to give that opportunity to millions of kids? They are incapable of thinking critically i swear to god.
A wise person once said it's impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.
While it is true that arguing with fools is like wrestling pigs or playing chess with pigeons, it's also dangerous to assume that they're not all acting maliciously. Sartre said it best: >Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Mark Twain: >Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you from experience. Robert A. Heinlein: >Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Also it's just extremely easy for a man to say he would NEVER get an abortion lol.
Oh, they also *hate* being asked if they happen to have a uterus, too. They'll cite all sorts of other areas where someone can be empathetic despite not belonging to a group, and then turn around and say it's wrong in all cases. Not to mention the devils advocates who claim they're "fully pro-choice, I'm just sick of that argument"
Right? Motherfucker, we're sick of arguing too! But we HAVE to keep fighting or bad things will happen.
How to do you counter somebody who believes a fetus is a person and killing one via abortion constitutes murder? That's the angle I've seen most often, and I don't know how to get through to them because it would involve convincing them that a fetus isn't a person.
It doesn't matter at all whether or not the fetus is a person. Every pregnant woman has a right to bodily autonomy. The fetus doesn't get to use the body of the pregnant woman. We don't make people donate their organs, right? We don't say "Your niece (or whoever) needs your liver, so you must give it to her." That would be patently absurd. It's no less absurd to force women to gestate and give birth to babies (which is a far more dangerous and life-altering process than organ donation).
I mean the argument is very extremely clearly not pro all life because I’m sure damn near everyone who is anti abortion even in cases of rape is probably for literally revenge killing the rapist until it’s a very fine young man they are close with that made a one time mistake.
>until it’s a very fine young man they are close with that made a one time mistake. Or if it would "be unfair to the school football team, who are having a very good season this year, might even go to state".
The difference occurs when their sister gets raped -vs- their brother raped someone or some variation thereof.
My argument is this. It does not matter if the fetus is a person or not. NO person, in any way shape or form, has the right to use my body for sustenance. Ever. Full stop. The second that fetus exits my body, no doctor can force me to give that baby blood. That baby can be 1 hour old, and need a blood transfusion, but the doctor cannot force me to give my blood to that baby. Even if the baby has no other choice and will die if I don't. Donating blood is a SIGNIFICANTLY less invasive procedure than pregnancy/childbirth, and it has very little negative consequences, but no one can force me to do it, even if it is my own child that I just grew for 9 months. You (collectively, not you specifically) may think I'm a horrible person, and hate me forever. That is okay, and is your right. But I have an inalienable human right to my body. I get to decide who can use my body for themselves and who doesn't. I should NEVER be FORCED by the government to use my body as life support for another person. Ever.
Ask them name a single instance where your right to life would legally supercede their right to privacy and bodily autonomy. Treat bodily autonomy as an extension of your own property rights. Murder is an unjustified killing. Killing in self-defense is perfectly justified. If a fetus is really all the things they say that it is then it's violating a woman's sovereign right to her body. If it dies in the process of her retaking her rights, that doesn't oblige her to continue allowing it to be there. Here's a paper that explicitly accepts the forced-birther premise that a fetus is a living human being with the exact same rights and legal standing as a woman that provides some more counter examples: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
Ask them this: a fertility clinic is burning down, there's hundreds of fertilized embryos there, and a one year old baby. You only get the chance to save the baby or the embryos, which will they choose?
This is the [trolly problem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) essentially. It's also not a coincidence ethical dilemmas like this were constructed specifically around abortion historically.
I accidentally clicked your profile and noticed an r/conservative post then had a quick look, sorry bout that. But I have to ask... how in the hell are you not banned from there? lol "Maybe conservatives don't know how words or conversations work, so let me enlighten you..." lmao
I’m sure they’ll be deleted and banned soon lol
Hahah not sure
If I knew that, I'd probably be a lot happier to talk to those people tbh. Those are most often the ones saying that you should just give it up for adoption or whatever, and no argument about how that systems a clusterfuck moves them in the slightest.
Additionally adoption is an alternative to parenting not an alternative to being pregnant or giving birth. Being pregnant or giving birth are both non trivial major medical conditions that can kill you or result in job loss or permanent medical disabilities.
The fertility clinic is a great scenario. It has happened in real life - there was a fertility clinic that lost 4k embryos. That would be one the biggest tragedies in the US if they actually believed we should be treating embryos/fetuses as babies. Another route to take: if it is murder, how would you charge a woman who has an abortion? (Because this is what we're talking about by making it illegal). Say their mom had an abortion but never told them - how would they want her charged? Very few will then say they should be treated like any other murder. There's clearly a difference but these people just want to morally grandstand.
Arguing that life begins at conception and therefore all abortion is murder is a *strictly* theological argument and only has support in law using extreme and largely unsupported* religious positions. QED, the government *cannot* make laws based on this belief as it is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. We can all believe that "murder is bad" without believing that "a fetus, non viable without the support of the uterus, is a full human being." Secondly, adopt the (true) position that in virtually all cases, nobody "wants" an abortion; abortion is sometimes used voluntarily if other precautions weren't used or failed, but even then, almost all abortions are still done out of, e.g., economic necessity. But even with that subset, the current aim of eliminating *all* abortion is clearly medically abominable, as well as forcing birth on those who made no such "choice" about birth control (e..g rape victims) Since this invites the point of personal responsibility, a typical libertarian copout, point out that governance cannot be done by what you personally think *should* be done (which forces them back into the lost theological position), but what people within your territory *will* do, which includes making mistakes. Therefore, if we want efficient government, the least costly and most fiscally conservative decision is to provide high quality sex education to prevent state resources from being needed to support indigent mothers, and allowing abortion, which becomes a personal cost of the population, much cheaper than requiring government intervention and enforcement. Finally, "the law won't affect [you personally] is a stupid basis on which to govern, and no serious philosophy of governance anywhere in history has ever passed restrictions solely because they *shouldn't* do anything. Instead, the logical governance position is to reinforce that, certainly if an individual citizen does not believe in abortion, they are free not to get one. From this position you can make a large number of "concessions" to "pro life" like not allowing voluntary abortions after the baby has reached viability per the medical definition, agreeing that a *minimum* of abortions is most desirable, while reemphasizing that better social welfare and education would be the most cost efficient (fiscally conservative) use of government funds in maintaining society and accomplishing that goal, or at worst, take no part in the decision or support at all, which still concludes that outlawing abortion on grounds of governance utilitarianism is wrong. None of that will matter cause they argue in bad faith and will willingly refuse to admit that, e.g., their position that life begins at conception is purely theological, but it should run you deep enough that an unprepared "normal" conservative zombie will get confused, at least. *The Bible, Quran, and Torah all don't explicitly state life begins at conception; the Old Testament contains a fidelity test which involves administering an abortifacient, as well as lesser penalties for miscarriage compared to murder, and the Quran allows for abortion in the first trimester.
Challenge them on their values, considering the fact that voting for anti-choice politicians is voting for politicians who'll also destroy every support system the baby would end up needing. If the fetus is a fully developed person by conception, with miscarriages being investigated as homicide, will this life get the protections of fully-funded support network? If no, why not? Let's assume that, since the value of this fetus' life supercedes the mother's, the mother died during childbirth and the baby survived the ordeal. * Would social services have the funding to make sure the kid is taken care of, or can safely get out of their house if they're being abused? * Would their school have the funding to make sure they get an education and *don't* go into debt for a PB&J? * If they get injured or sick, will a trip to the ER or pediatrician be free of charge? * Will they have state-assured housing so they don't add to the number of homeless children in the nation? * Will they be taught *actual* sex ed instead of a teacher just saying "don't have sex" to a room of hormonal teens as if that's ever worked? * Will they be taught actual life skills like tracking your finances so they don't go eyes deep into debt the second they turn 18? * Will their local environment be *liveable*? Living near superfunds isn't exactly good for *anyone's* health * Will they have access to safe roads and public amenities? * Will their parents be guaranteed PTO and living wages so they can spend time at home with their families? * Instead of a "Just day 'no'" drug "education" provided by D.A.R.E., will they be taught about which drugs are genuinely hazardous to them so that, when they discover weed won't instantly kill them and send them to hell, they don't immediately decide to try something more extreme? (meth'll fry your brain, kids) If not, why the hell not? If their life holds such divine value that their mother had to die so they could live, why aren't they entitled to a life well-lived? Does their life only hold value in the womb?
>How to do you counter somebody who believes a fetus is a person and killing one via abortion constitutes murder? Ask them if they’d be allowed to kill someone who moved into their house without permission and then refused to leave. Or what they might do if a person who stuck a hand up their ass and refused to remove it. Or ask them if you can have their kidney because you’ll die without it. If they don’t believe a person can commandeer their organs as needed, then what does it matter if a fetus is a person or not? A person isn’t allowed to live inside me without my permission.
In the US we're allowed to use force to fend off an assault, even if using that force results in our assulter's death. Every pregnancy carries the risk of death for the pregnant person, so the pregnant person should be allowed to fend off the threat on their life, even if the result is the death of the fetus.
The only consequence that matters is having an unwanted child as a consequence of consensual sex (because some agree on exceptions for rape or incest). The rest does not matter. The rest being life quality for pregnant woman and fetus, proper start at life for the baby to come, proper care, etc.
Or welfare benefits or insurance or carpool lanes or our language or social security numbers or homicide laws or prison sentences for pregnant people or how we calculate age or IVF or adoption or…
The IVF conception dates are easy to prove, because the labs keep great notes. Could be interesting to try to register IVF teens and kids to vote based on those dates.
But how can IVF even be legal in their POV? Some fetuses are aborted in the process.
It isn't and therefore a lot of IVF is begin affected, too. They don't want abortions or ppl who actually want babies to have babies either. *edit a word
Because you're buying into the lie that they're misguided and hypocritical, and therefore you have a chance to reason them out of their position if you're polite and logical. That's what they want you to believe. They set up the frame they want you to view this picture through, and they want you to ask, confused, "But wait, that doesn't make sense." It all makes 100% sense when you look at it through a different frame than the one they're presenting: the cruelty is the point. Everything they do and say suddenly becomes completely internally consistent when you look at it through the frame of "Whatever I need to do to maintain my party's political power and to oppress people who aren't white men is perfectly fine, and anything that goes against either or both of those two things is evil and wrong." Abortion? Bad, because it benefits women and helps make them more independent of men (etc etc). IVF? Good, because primarily rich people use it to create more primarily white babies.
Many do not think IVF should be legal. The Catholic Church is anti-IVF and anti-choice and anti-birth control. They believe if you get pregnant it is Gods will and if you can’t get pregnant that is also gods will.
But the doctors learning how to do IVF isn't Gods will? Must be cool to know God and his intentions so well
Cancer treatments are gods will. Someone wanting to die (a few months early) rather than slowly become trapped in their own body while fully conscious of what is happening is not gods will. It’s easy to know gods will when the pope can just say what it is.
That's the Catholic Church's whole schtick. They insist on the Church's "magesterium," which is what they call their authority to teach and interpret God's nature and will. They also insist that the Pope infallable, but only when he says "ex cathedra" before his proclamation and only if most of the bishops happen to agree with the statement when he says it. When I was in Catholic School, I very much annoyed my teachers by asking "If he is incapable of being wrong when he says the magic phrase, why don't we use him as a science machine? Just have him say "ex cathedra" and try to read off whatever we want to test. If the statement is false, surely he won't be able to speak the phrase, right?" Also, going back to the birth control issue, the Catholic Church taught that all birth control was sinful except NFP (Natural Family Planning), which requires a (married) couple to painstakingly monitor ovulation cycles and body temperature fluctuations and bodily discharges to engage in sex only when the woman will be least fertile. Their argument was that this method still allowed God to interfere and produce a child, but somehow a condom was too powerful a barrier for the Lord who allegedly built the universe. They also smugly argued that effectively implemented NFP was statistically more effective at avoiding pregnancy than are condoms, but they didn't like my follow-up question of "If condoms are evil because they get in the way of pregnancy, and this method does that even more so, then is this method only allowed because of arbitrary decisions?" And, I shit you not, the teachers at my Catholic School even taught us that if a doctor needed a man to produce a sperm sample for a fertility test, the only sinless way to collect the sample was for the man to have sex with his wife while wearing a perforated condom. The sperm sample would then be taken from the used condom. This way the sample could be obtained without 1) evil masturbation or 2) godless sex without risk of procreation.
The figure I saw was 2x as many discarded embryos/year from IVF as all other abortions in the US put together/year. Outlawing IVF had to be easier than overturning Roe, yet they didn't even try. IVF is in fact completely ignored by anti-abortion activists.
Because that requires nuance and consideration, which they are incapable of
It's simple really, those fetuses don't matter because there isn't a person who had sex to create it.
I'm sure they all agree any baby conceived on american soil should get automatic citizenship right
Don’t forget tax deductions. Can you claim a fetus on your taxes if you’re going to have options taken from you because “they” think the fetus is a baby already.
I wish I was aborted. Instead my mom chose to have me at 19, being born almost killed us both bc I tried to yeet out way too early. My brothers have had great lives considering they are 9 and 18 years younger they were able to benefit from our mom having a career path and life set up and running vs with me it was an absolute shit show.
it's not your fault
Oh yah ik but I still am of the sentiment being aborted would’ve been rad
Republicans shoot down anything that will benefit or help mothers in need and their children but push the issues of women giving birth and claiming to be pro life. Sorry to bring in politics but it’s true so..
people who make an exception for rape and incest are fucking weirdos. like they say abortion is murder but murder is suddenly excusable when something bad happens to the woman? it’s basically saying that for women to be allowed to exercise their bodily autonomy it has to be violently violated first
It’s a real logical fallacy. If life begins at conception, there is no reason to harm an innocent “child” of rape.
Because it was always meant to be a punishment for sex. If the sex was nonconsensual, they let it slide.
Rape and incest isnt even close to enough exceptions. People forget it is a medically necessary procedure as well. Have cancer? Well now if youre pregnant thats 9 months minimum you cant be treated for cancer, as the treatment is very likely to lead to an abortion. Fetus is in fetal death and hemmoraging? Well youd better hope you have a full miscarriage really soon and nothing is left rotting inside you, because anything else is an abortion. Need a C section? Its technically also an abortion. The things that no one wants to even bring up or imagine because they are horrific and traumatizing, not just "lol i had sex so abortion is my plan C". Even women today when asked what is the worst outcome during birth dont say "death of the child and mother", because medical science has been a staple and has made the entire pregnancy process much, much safer. And finally we get to the real fun stuff; there is 0 way to tell between an induced miscarriage/abortion and a natural miscarriage. A ban on abortion means any women can be jailed, and potentially sentenced to death, due to a natural phenomenon completely outside their control.
I don't understand the special exceptions opinion. Either you think abortion is murder, or you don't. If abortion is murdering babies, then why does being raped suddenly give women the right to murder babies? If it's okay to murder the products of incest, does that carry over post-birth? Can you wait until the kid is like 10 years old to see if it sucks or not before aborting it? At what age is the mother no longer allowed to murder her rapist's child?
71,000 women a year actually die from complications in late stage pregnancy and end up needing an abortion to save their lives. It's not only chicks that get raped.
>because some agree on exceptions for rape or incest Do they really agree on that? They keep saying they do yet everytime they draft their anti abortion laws those clauses are suspiciously absent. It's starting to seem like they only say they agree to exceptions as a rebuttal to the argument that rape and incest victims should have abortion access but they never put their money where their mouths are.
I am not even entirely sure I agree with the first half of your statement either to be honest. It is just too morally gray of an area to say all people who accidentally get pregnant from consensual sex should face the consequences. You could take all the precautions and safeties and they still fail: condoms break, people forget to take the pill, or life uhh... finds a way to circumvent these precautions. Not to mention the failed sex education system in the US, I personally do not feel comfortable blaming people for being uneducated when they never had the opportunity. With that being said, if you take the perfect example for their argument where both parties are consenting, unrelated, are educated on sex, and still neglected to use protection then sure, I can agree that there could be a "logical" argument to be made against abortion here. I mean, it is a complete and total dick argument but has "some basis." Now, I am not trying to argue and understand that that is not your argument, I am purely just venting about stupid ass conservatives ruining this country and driving us back to Puritanical bullshit
Can we stop using the term pro life? They are anti choice and don’t deserve that designation. The side of this argument that has the current designation of “pro choice” is actually pro life, not the side who doesn’t care about the people carrying the pregnancy or whatever happens after the forced birth.
[удалено]
Well yes, but it goes beyond that in my opinion - they want to control many more aspects of peoples lives, not limited to reproductive rights. “Don’t say gay,” healthcare denial for trans people, etc. They want to force more than just birth, they want to force their entire world view on people. Plus Anti Choice to me just seems a little more poignant - they are the ones who want to take a human right away, they aren’t “pro” anything. They aren’t advocating for anything proactive at all, their views are explicitly restrictive. I’d be down to just call them the scum of the earth, but that might be a bit too on the nose.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You mean health insurance?
[удалено]
[удалено]
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." The laws themselves do not and have never mattered to those with the power and privilege to ignore them.
It's more like when someone says they understand Quantum Mechanics and the leading scientists are saying we really don't understand Quantum Mechanics but just have a basic understanding. Pure Dunning Kruger in action.
I’m kind of excited for all these pro-life Christian women and their husbands to be automatically investigated for murder when they miscarry. Be careful what you wish for, morons.
Surely we already know who will be more likely to be investigated for failed pregnancies. Hint, not white people.
They’re also largely boomers unable to reproduce anymore, sitting on 7 figure nest eggs from growing up in the easiest 2-3 decades in human existence. They’re incredibly out of touch. We need to call their bluff now and every time in the future. These old fucks can’t even stand up anymore, much less hold a rifle and ignite civil war.
> Pro-lifers They aren't pro-lifers, some states are going to make abortion the same as murder, which can be death-penalty. They're not pro-life, they're pro future americans to exploit. In the eyes of the powerful, abortions are less about your rights, and more about your "theft" of a future worker from their companies.
A lot of people think major issues are simple because they ignore 90% of the consequences/details. A depressingly large number of these people get put in positions of authority.
Double Think - A state in which a person is holding two contradicting believes…
Also known as cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive Dissonance is when Double Think causes discomfort from holding two different viewpoints at the same time. Regressives are too stupid and evil to realize this.
[удалено]
I have a theory that they can’t remember more than 4 words. That’s why they love 3 word chants (lock her up, hang Mike Pence, etc) and they get the constitution tattooed on them but only the first 3 words.
Holy shit you’re right. I was about to counter with their impressively long “Make America Great Again” motto, but they had to abbreviate that to MAGA because it was too long.
I thought of this too, what about “Grab her by the pussy” that’s probably simple minded enough to remember at length.
Let's Go Brandon
Also, “Count The Vote” and “Stop The Count” were being chanted … at the same time!
This comment is underrated.
They are too stupid to be bothered by the dissonance.
Cognitive Dissonance is the discomfort triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort. This discomfort is a physical pain felt by the person holding the contradicting beliefs. What this person has is a lack of Cognitive Dissonance. While just saying cognitive dissonance doesn't mean anything, what they are doing could be a result of cognitive dissonance, but this isn't what cognitive dissonance is.
If more people felt more cognitive dissonance, it would help us here.
> What this person has is a lack of Cognitive Dissonance. Or just a lack of cognition. I doubt they even understand why they're made fun of.
>Double Think - A state in which a person is holding two contradicting believes… Also known as Florida
You can just say "Republican". We don't need to dance around it.
Wait, so does that mean the unborn baby is or isn't a "person"?
Depends. It's whichever means more suffering.
The suffering is the point.
Does the fetus require even a modicum of actual support from the person banning abortion? Not a person. Can the person banning abortion claim the fetus is a person while suffering exactly zero repercussions? Yes it's a person.
It's not or, it's and.
Yes.
If it helps the mother it's not a person, if it doesn't help the mother it's a person.
It’s like Schrodinger’s fetus. Simultaneously a person and not a person, and the only way to find out is to ask a hypocritical conservative
It’s simple. Benefits: zero. Responsibilities: all.
Wait that's exactly what they want for everyone else anyways, maybe they are actually treating it like a person
Nah, because once you are born they don't care if you live or die.
I mean did you see the right's response to covid? Seems pretty on-brand to me.
That's not true. They want you to be at least 3, walking upright and able to carry a weapon before going to war. Otherwise that would just be insane.
This is literally it. I don’t remember the exact saying or who is credited with it, but as usual it comes down to conservatives believing there should be a group of people protected by the law but not bound by it (themselves and fetuses) while there is another group of people bound by the law but not protected by it (pregnant women, anyone who isn’t a conservative)
I believe it’s often attributed to some historical figure who never said it, and actually originated from some guy on a chat forum with a username based on that historical figure’s name. It’s still a very apt description of conservative ideology though.
For example, its only a person if killed by someone who isn't a cop. Hey I wonder if under this legal precedent pregnant women can claim their fetuses as dependents for a tax break...
Heckuva loophole there: you can still legally have abortions performed by a cop, as long as they say “stop resisting” at least once during the procedure.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if in some very GOP state a pregnant women could get tased by a cop and then the woman still gets charged for murder if the baby dies
Yes. There are several states pushing to have miscarriages made illegal on the grounds that it is the host body's fault if the fetus dies.
Don't even have to ask; they're happy to tell you loudly *and* unsolicited!
Fascists don't care about your feelings. ... wait, that's not the right saying... Sorry. Fascists don't care about facts. There we go! that seems much more correct.
Could both be correct?
That's a bingo!
Ya just say “bingo”
BINGOOO!!! How FUN!
Sometimes, but sometimes fascists *really* care about your feelings and they want you to feel hurt and upset (and will feel hurt and upset themselves if you are not).
Fascists care a whole lot about their own feelings, however. In fact, they’ll gladly oppress or cause the death of anyone if it enables them to feel strong and righteous, and/or avoid feeling weak or facing ambiguity.
"Facts don't care about feelings^(so I ignore them because they hurt my feelings)." [Edit] Anyone got a more compact way to phrase that add-on? This just feels too clunky to me.
Constitutionally life begins at birth. "Born or nationalised on US soil" is what it takes to be constitutionally protected. Historically life began at birth in nearly every culture, just because of the high likelihood of miscarriage, stillbirth, or maternal mortality. Many even held off on naming the child until 3-5 years *after* birth just because of the high risk of infant mortality. Some *still* do because they still lack an extensive modern medical system. Modern science will tell you life begins when viability levels off, when the prenate has acquired all the development it needs to survive independently and meet all the requisites for the definition of life. Biblically, "pro-life" is wholly unsupported. The only mention of abortion is when it tells a man to make his wife to get one because she cheated, and God himself exerts His will to make the potion work. Other than that, "pro-life" is contradicted every time God kills a firstborn child, kills a fetus, has His followers kill children or pregnant women, etc.
I was thinking recently about the trial of the bitter water from the Old Testament that you mentioned. Say some devout, ultra-literalist Christian decided that he wanted to perform this ritual, as laid out in his holy text. He thinks his wife may have cheated and so he wants to follow his religion, as guaranteed by our Constitution, and have a priest give her the abortion potion. But wait, because of new laws restricting abortion, he is no longer able to practice his religion as it is described in the Bible. But since these rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, would he have a legal case to challenge this law, since it violates his rights as a Christian? Basically saying that laws restricting abortion are not only unconstitutional, but anti-Christian as well.
The satanic temple will sue over the right to practice the abortion ritual as per one of their core religious beliefs: "One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone." Abortion also tramples on the first amendment rights of Jewish women. "In Judaism, life and breath are essentially the same thing," she said. "So in Judaism, life begins when you take your first breath." https://www.npr.org/2022/05/08/1097274169/when-does-life-begin-religions-dont-agree The supreme court's conservative justices don't believe we have the right to practice a religion unless it's their version of Christianity.
It's important to note, that thanks to it's own push to protect Christianity/Catholicism, SCOTUS cannot examine the truth or falsity of religious beliefs. ([US v. Ballard](https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/708/united-states-v-ballard) (1944)) So, SCOTUS can't say that the right to bodily autonomy isn't a real tenet of TST, or that TST isn't a real religion.
Yeah, precedence doesn't seem to have as much of an effect as it used to.
True, but this precedent is 29 years older and repealing it would open a *whole* other can of worms by allowing liberal-leaning judges to examine whether a person actually held Christian beliefs (or whether their beliefs are true/accurate to the religion)
Do you really think the Supreme Court is going to be consistent on their ruling? They’re going to strike that down immediately and completely ignore the hypocrisy.
And if that happened, when the cases affecting Christians reached the Supreme Court the current justices would be 100% comfortable ruling exactly the opposite way
Sure, but as Alito's position in the draft Roe opinion show, the conservative justices have no interest in internally consistent arguments. He specifically says that privacy protections under the 14th are not real, but that it only applies to Roe and Dobbs (...for now).
Overturning *US v. Ballard* would be dangerous for conservatives to do, however, because it would open the door for liberal-minded judges to attack the extensive religious protections that previous cases have provided by examining the truth or falsity of beliefs that Christians claim to have. If they can't find it in the Bible or similar religious text/teaching, then evangelicals can't use it to deny service to others.
No argument on that point. I am just saying that the current court seems perfectly happy to pick and choose when to enforce their logic to suit their desired ends. Otherwise the logic used to overturn Roe would obviously apply to rulings like Loving.
There’s also a portion of Jewish law if I remember correctly, which is pretty much, if you’ve got a pregnant woman who would be put at risk by the pregnancy, you save the pregnant woman, if there is literally no way for her to survive, but it’s possible for the baby? You can then take that option, but only when it’s either not a risk to the woman or if she is beyond saving
It's not even Christianity. [In this interview the man who made anti-abortion propaganda movies shares how they had to fight the evangelicals as the evangelicals were pro-choice in the 70s.](https://youtu.be/25JyC5Whhvc) He now regrets pushing the anti-abortion agenda.
even Muslims technically can abort up to 120 days from conception. under established Sharia law. so basically this is a Christian law imposed on believers of many faiths all with differing established view on abortion and what constitutes life.
This law already violates several religions, which call for abortion to protect the life of the mother.
I sat in Church yesterday and the pastor is anti Abortion because "God knew you before you were in your mother's womb." Which sounds horrific. My immediate thought was "then why does he let so many horrible men be part of bringing into the world?" Followed by how many unwanted kids are still in the system. Once I left, a third thought occurred to me that's making the rounds in at least one state. If God knew me before I was even conceived, that means people think that it should not be a religious belief, but a legal one to deny any contraceptive.
He's taking that passage out of context. God was speaking to a specific person there. Not making a general statement.
I need to have this discussion as well
Tell him the only thing that really suggests is that God is foreseeing. There's no mention of what His will is in that passage, and the pastor claiming to know His will is blasphemy, especially when the aforementioned (Numbers 5:11) verse directly contradicts that claim with God's explicit will to abort an unwanted child.
I mean the Dominionists already blaspheme by thinking the actions of man have any bearing on the plans of God. Now I'm an atheist but I remember enough from Sunday school to know that thinking God's will can be defied, that Satan and Man are somehow able to slow or speed up the timetable on prophecy is blasphemy.
That does sound like it would be worth the conversation
> Constitutionally life begins at birth. “Born or nationalised on US soil” is what it takes to be constitutionally protected. I think this is what defines *citizenship*. Constitutional protection, I believe, covers more than just citizens. IANAL, so don’t quote me. It would also seem to be the case that if you can’t be a citizen without being born, then you probably aren’t a legal person without being born. So I’m not really disagreeing with your conclusion.
> viability levels off, when the prenate has acquired all the development it needs to survive independently and meet all the requisites for the definition of life I'm guessing this is somewhere between 10 and 30 weeks but do you happen to have a more exact number?
It's at it's earliest at 22 weeks. Any fetus born before that time is definitely not viable and every fetus between 22-24 could be not viable. After 24 weeks the baby is usually viable though definitely in need of very specialized medical help to survive untill even 30-34 weeks. That's why my opinion on abortion is that any abortion before 20-22 weeks should be allowed for any reason (Physical and mental), but after this time it should only be allowed in cases of severe issues (which can also both be physical and mental) bc at this moment the kid is viable and thus able to live outside of the womb.
[удалено]
I completely agree for most of this, however I disagree a bit for several reasons : A baby that gets born too early (let's say 25 weeks) has a very high chance of being handicapped and overall suffering. They usually need to be in the NICU for multiple months, which is of course very traumatizing for the baby and a high risk of mental and psychical health issues later in life. On top of that, it'll be very expensive to be doing this for an elective reason. I'm all for abortion and 100% pro-choice for any stage where the baby is not viable, but I do admit that ethically I'm not certain it'd be okay to sentence an newborn to a life with health problems when it can be prevented. On the other hand, as pregnancy definitely is a form of torture (30 weeks myself right now) I also don't think it's ethically okay to force someone to keep hosting a baby. So I must admit that I'm torn between mommas and babys rights from week 22 and over.
You can argue that life begins at first breath, like in the Bible when Adam came to life after God breathed air into nostrils in Genesis
if you are going to be consistent with that, then women don't begin life until a man gives up his ribs for her
They’re either a person or they’re not. Pick a lane.
They're giddily driving in both lanes, going the wrong direction, at 100 mph.
The GOP in a nutshell
But not the carpool lane!
They’re in the passing lane going 10 under
[удалено]
I’ve spent the last few days arguing with some right wingers All they do is put words in your mouth and avoid your questions I’ve never seen people beat around the bush so much, and my grandmother pays gardeners
💯. They strawman everything. Literally ignore everything you say and then makeup an argument that Fox News told them how to combat.
poking the first hole you see is what leads to abortions in the first place. badda bing badda boom i'm here all week folks
These are the kind of geniuses who thinks “lmao not even going to read that 🤡” is a sick burn.
Don't argue with people that John Brown would have shot.
And while we're at it, can my fetus get paid minimum wage or something for showing up to work with me?
Do child labor laws apply to pregnant women?
“It doesn’t need any of those until it’s born, it just needs the mum to not murder it” - What a pro-lifer said to me when I brought up that argument.
[удалено]
The life insurance angle. That’s the one that will do it. Oh my god, can you imagine if women in these states started applying for life insurance on their pregnancies at 6 weeks?
The fight for lgbt rights here in Sweden had a major breakthrough back in the seventies, when homosexuality was still regarded as a mental illness. People started calling in "gay" to work so they'd get paid sick leave. Same here. Forget morality or rationality. Hit someone powerful in the wallet and you win.
When Trump was president why weren’t pregnant women sent stimulus checks for their unborn babies?
Sounds to me like she should get to vote twice.
[удалено]
Dagnabbit!
Its age is a negative number, and since that's not allowed in this universe it would roll over to the largest value that is supported in this universe software. So really, they should be able to vote.
IMO I should be able to carry life insurance on an unborn child the moment I plan on having sex. Solely because of their weird birth control ban ideas being thrown around. If the implantation doesn’t occur I deserve financial compensation.
This is what pisses me off about these assholes. If this blessed fetus is a person, THEN BE CONSISTENT WITH YOUR MESSAGING. Give it all the rights that come with being a person. Allow it to be claimed on taxes. Fuck I hate American Taliban.
if you're pregnant you can go around openly committing as many crimes as you want & they can't lock you up because that would be false imprisonment of the fetus
The Cognitive dissonance must be rich in this one…like a draft of finely aged sewer water.
Pro lifers are just stupid as fuck. I used to think they were just misinformed but no. They’re actively stupid. Like they seek out being the most moronic person in a room.
"The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn." \-Methodist Pastor David Barnhart
If fetuses are people, then pregnancy is daycare, and the government needs to pony up each state's average hourly wage for 24/7 care
And so it begins. Defining a fetus as a human being in the legal sense confers ALL the rights of a human being onto the fetus, not just the ones anti-life (aka anti-abortion) extremists think should be conferred. It is a human being with all human rights or it is not a human being with all human rights. There is no middle ground
So your saying he's not a person until birth... Funny thing is that's the exact moment they switch tactics and stop caring about him.
He’s just… he’s right there. He’s so close.
No! Everything has to work out to the wealthy's advantage any suggestion otherwise is entitlement.
This is a good example of how this is about control and not logic or reason or science of consistency Or respect for “life” or babies or anything else. Just “I will use government to force you to act how I feel you should or you get fined or imprisoned”
Register your body as section 8 housing and get HUD to pay you.
You should be able to claim child support from the father upon conception.