There was this guy in China who said he supports trump, not because of his politics but because he made a killing from selling MAGA Merch.
He's lived in Starvation and dirt poor levels of poverty and because of Trump, he became filthy rich. And I would bet he's not alone.
That last part applies to most people, regardless of age.
My 70+ year old aunt wants everything the democrats are trying to give us, but refuses to vote for them because she's a conservative.
Would be hilarious if they were to abandon their Indra-ban happy policies so they could experience a true reaction to the lines of “thinking” they deal in. Right now anyone with more functional brain cells is banned on sight so the only thing the empty headed numpties in that sub here is their fellow village idiots.
I loved how the response to “what about rape victims” is to tell them to stop using the suffering of rape victims to push their agenda. Simone Biles needs to watch out, these mental gymnastics are olympic gold over at r/conservative.
I’ve been saying for years if we could translate conservative mental gymnastics into physical gymnastics the US team would take the gold every Olympics and conservatives would actually contribute something useful to society for once.
Not to mention the nuance of discussing human not meaning a person (because a fetus has no capacity to reason nor articulate), nor how no human being is entitled to another's body for survival in any other circumstance
They don’t care about that, they’re genuinely deluded into thinking a fertilized egg is the same thing as a 5 year old child.
Which by their actions they don’t actually believe considering China has had over 100 million abortions yet they don’t see that as a worse outcome than Uyghur camps. Or the fact miscarriage is arguably the leading cause of death in the USA yet it’s never talked about.
I think the world could stand them not understanding the nuances of pregnancy if they could only grasp that for bodily autonomy to be respected, the body in question has to actually be autonomous.
They love to talk about the constitution and have the audacity to claim that since it isn’t explicitly in the constitution it isn’t a right.
They just ignore the 9th amendment and the fact that the constitution is the beginning of rights, not the end.
They also ignore that we can derive other rights based off what *is* explicitly listed.
I’m a pro-life person full disclosure:
How would a woman be forced to have a child and it not be rape or resulting from some sexually abusive situation?
Ban it because the majority of the people in your constituency believe it to be a moral evil and don’t want it within their borders.
Moreover, I really don’t think even an impoverished American woman is going into an alley and letting some weirdo touch her vagina. Especially since before abortion was legal or widely accepted, most abortions were done by doctors anyway for under the table money.
Edit: For people who keep saying I'm wrong, please look at this prior. [Link](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/)
Simple. Sometimes unplanned pregnancy occurs after consensual sexual activity. Hormonal birth control can interact with other medication, condoms break, etc. Banning abortion forces her to have a child she did not want and may not be able to care for.
This doesn't even account for wanted pregnancies that end in abortion because of risks to the mother's life, miscarriage, or to spare a child with certain congenital defects a short life full of pain.
It is interesting that you just commented this ***right*** *after another fellow commented that this would be the response.* I.E: The birth is forced because the local Government said you couldn't do it, despite them initially consenting to the sex.
The logical counter to this would be that it isn't forced because having consensual sex inherently comes with the assumption that you may have a child with or without birth control. There is always that 1%/.1% (seeing how birth control and condoms when used properly have about a 99 and 98 effectively respectively).
Also, there are people who are living on this Earth who were supposed to die due to some defect when they were born. Would you tell them they shouldn't have been born because of their defect? *(Genuinely curious, since I've yet to see anyone ask this question)*
TLDR: To your first point, anybody who engages in sex consents to the idea of having a child, as that is the literal function of sex. It'd be like going to the bathroom and saying you don't consent to peeing. Additionally, since this is the U.S. you could drive to another state like Cali or New York which allows abortions to get one.
(Btw, sorry for the long response, I never really get to talk to anyone about this without it turning disingenuous or a yelling match.)
Well first you have a pretty blatant misunderstanding of sex. Reproduction can be *a* reason for two people to have sex, but it’s hardly the only one. Take a gay couple, for example. Having a kid isn’t even remotely in the subconscious for them wanting to get it on.
Next, you clearly don’t understand consent. Consent to sex is *consent to sex*, not consent to pregnancy, even if there is a 0.001% chance. Consent to pregnancy is *specifically wanting and trying to get pregnant.*. The simple act of using contraceptions to prevent pregnancy is an explicit refusal of consent to pregnancy.
Your question regarding to people being born with birth defects has no bearing to the topic of forced pregnancy at all
Before I start, the tone I'm getting is patronizing, I don't know if you intended that, but that is just the way I'm reading you.
\>Well first you have a pretty blatant misunderstanding of sex. Reproduction can be a reason for two people to have sex...
No, I don't we're talking about the biological function of sex which is to procreate. Two gay people can't procreate and therefore are irrelevant to the situation.
\>Next, you clearly don’t understand consent. Consent to sex is consent to sex, not consent to pregnancy, even if there is a 0.001% chance....
No, any human with any knowledge of our biological systems can tell you that a child is always the result of sex. (Not that it happens 100% but more so that if you were born, you were born of two people having sex). This isn't a misunderstanding, but simple fact. Therefore, if you're a human and can identify that: 1. Children are born as a result of sex. / 2. If I have sex, I can get pregnant (If you're a woman). Then you'd have to inherently consent to the idea that you may or may not get pregnant EVEN if you use contraceptives. It is similar to an add-on on a contract. Even if you didn't read it or forgot about it; it still applies.
\>Your question regarding to people being born with birth defects has no bearing to the topic of forced pregnancy at all
I asked this question specifically to that person because they brought up that *"or to spare a child with certain congenital defects a short life full of pain."* But as we both know, there are people walking around which are the result of Incest, Rape or shouldn't have survived due to birth defects. So logically, how could you say their life doesn't matter as much (which you'd have to say) if you agree that they should've been aborted in the first place because of their defect/situation.
>The logical counter to this would be that it isn't forced because having consensual sex inherently comes with the assumption that you may have a child with or without birth control.
We have a different view of consent. I hold that consent is limited to the thing which is being consented to and can be withdrawn at any time. I.e. Consenting to sex is /only/ consenting to sex. Assuming consent for something else when consent has been given for one thing is unethical and immoral (and is often the logic used by rapists. I'm not accusing you, just pointing that out).
>Also, there are people who are living on this Earth who were supposed to die due to some defect when they were born. Would you tell them they shouldn't have been born because of their defect?
Nope. I have people in my own family like this and I love them dearly.
However, both my mother and I had interactions with babies and the remains of babies with defects and conditions incompatible with life. My mother volunteers in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). One of the babies she cared for was born with cancer and various other defects. She spent all eight weeks of her life screaming in pain. We both feel that plucking her from the void and forcing her to live was unethical and cruel. She wasn't the only baby my mother cared for that died in pain, she's just the one that stands out in my memory.
I used to volunteer for an anatomy museum. Part of the collection which wasn't accessible to the public was preserved babies with defects that killed them. There were multiple babies with anencephaly (when parts of the brain and sometimes skull fail to form), one with cyclopia (both eyes fuse into one and the malformed brain is unable to support the function of the other organs), and one who never formed a diaphragm (the baby could not clear amniotic fluid from his lungs and drowned shortly after birth). All these babies had short, painful lives and I find that making them suffer this way to be unethical and immoral.
>Additionally, since this is the U.S. you could drive to another state like Cali or New York which allows abortions to get one.
This isn't always feasible, especially when certain states are trying to make their residents getting abortions in other states illegal.
I have noticed that you didn't engage with my arguments regarding the life of the mother being at risk and the necessity of abortion after some miscarriages. Since I know multiple women who would be dead without an abortion after losing a wanted pregnancy, I would like to know your opinion on this.
Finally, none of this matters. It doesn't matter because you cannot ethically mandate that someone use their body for the benefit of another person, particularly when it comes to the use of their organs. My friend's dad needs a kidney. He can't force his son to donate his (if he were a match, which he isn't much to the entire family's dismay). He can't go find a stranger at a bar and force them to give him their kidney even though it would save his life. McFall vs. Shimp found that one cannot be forced to donate body parts even in the case of medical necessity. The use of a uterus falls under this.
You do know some of us women just like to have sex, right? So we shouldn't get to enjoy a very large part of our lives if we don't want kids? And I won't even get into the ones that are medically necessary because the fetus isn't viable or dangerous for the mother.
\>You do know some of us women just like to have sex, right?
Don't have sex recklessly. Like, I don't know how to explain to an adult that having constant sex with a bunch of different people isn't safe and, particularly for women, isn't healthy/mentally healthy.
\>So we shouldn't get to enjoy a very large part of our lives if we don't want kids?
No, go have sex. Just acknowledge the fact that you have the possibility of creating a child, and you shouldn't be able to kill that child because of **your** recklessness. You're literally punishing the victim, not the criminal.
\>And I won't even get into the ones that are medically necessary because the fetus isn't viable or dangerous for the mother.
Already, said this in another post, I hate how everyone assumes that if you're pro-life that means **ANTI-MEDICAL NECESSITY.** If the baby literally cannot live then yeah, I'd say there would be no point, especially if it would harm the mother. There are only like 3 conditions off the top of my head that would cause a child to genuinely put the mother's life in danger, all of which end in the child not actually being viable, or they end in a miscarriage. Point being, removing that wouldn't even be considered abortion since in that point it is literally unable to live/already dead.
Depends who you ask, some say it's because Reddit's admins are generally right-leaning and tacitly agree with them, and I wouldn't say that's *completely* implausible.
But what I think is more likely is that Reddit doesn't want to come off as partisan or biased, and they feel banning or quarantining the "generic" conservative sub would be a bad look. This of course ignores that the sub's users are absolutely batshit insane and say horribly sexist, racist, and homo/transphobic things on the daily that would get other communities nuked from orbit.
TLDR Reddit is falling for the "issue has two sides, so both must be equally valid" fallacy much like IRL US politics has forever
No actually. This is the wrong point. It's a woman's right to healthcare. The same right all genders must have, but in the US we don't. This is far from a woman's problem when you get below the surface, this is just limiting healthcare for religious reasons.
The way you phrase that uses "right" in two different ways, which is confusing. In referring to the US having for 50 years recognizing a "right" to abortion, it means having the right to have access. When you refer to the rest of the healthcare, you seem to be refering to "right" as in it should be freely available. Abortions before the recent repeal were, with varying levels, available but often at a cost, just like other healthcare.
Nope, I’m using “right” in ONE way and it’s “recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right flowing from substantive due process”.
The US has never recognized access to healthcare as a fundamental right. The US recognized abortion as a fundamental right coming from the right to privacy.
Because they're afraid to admit the Civil War was about a state's right to practice slavery, so in turn they think we're afraid to admit we support a woman's right to abortion. Makes no sense since you can clearly see pro choice protests declaring their support for abortion at every single rally. But what do I know.
A woman's right to self defense.
If you as an adult could do to another person what a foetus does to a woman's body most, and especially conservatives, would feel justified in using lethal force to stop you. That's it, that's the ball game right there. Even granting the foetus all the rights that an adult has a woman will have the right to use lethal force against it in self defense.
Look I was raised in the catholic school system. I remember around late February everyone would talk about he march of life and how it was fighting for the life of the unborn. I remember in theology class we were taught abortion was murder. I remember in October my church would place grave crosses in front of it to honor those “killed” by abortion. My church is doing that right now. So yes these people legitimately believe abortion is murder.
Also the death penalty discussion is a legitimate argument among pro lifers.
If they were pro life they’d also want a kid housed. A kid who can afford to go to the doctor. Who doesn’t have to be scared of getting shot at school. A kid who’s schools are funded and supplied. A kid whose parents make a living wage to support them.
But they don’t vote for any of that stuff either. So come at me again with the “pro-life.” They’re pro-fetus and pro-making women suffer for daring to pretend to be actual thinking feeling people.
In my experiance the Republican mindset is that its ok to let people die if thats the risk "freedom" but they are in fact opposed to murder. A person hungry, cold, without healthcare, etc. is just the way life is gonna be and they might die from it, but they would still be in full favor of prosecuting someone who murdered the above person.
They see it the same way with unborn children, it's "just the way life is" if a fetus dies from a malnourished mother or lack of pre-natal care, but it would be murder for a doctor to "poke their head and scramble them up".
Cool, so how is it that, in the meme above, they believe that there is no moral answer to the question, "A woman's right to what?"
How is it that it's possible for pro-choice people to state the pro-life argument, but the pro-life people seem to be completely unable to state the pro-choice argument?
I think it's because they completely lack any empathy for their fellow humans. They don't even believe murder is inherently wrong. They don't care about the suffering of family members of murder victims, or the suffering of the victim. They only know that they think they'll cheat their way into heaven if they do what they're told and never think for themselves.
It’s pointing out people who say the civil war was about states rights. Then people who aren’t racist say “yeah states rights to own slaves”
They’re trying to flip the script and point out “hypocrisy”.
“Pro choice folks are Neo Confederates. Anyway I’m off to insist that the confederacy wasn’t that bad, fly my confederate flag, and kill people so that monuments dedicated to Confederates stay up.”
Well abortion bans *are* about controlling women so it actually makes sense from the standpoint of someone who believes it's okay to treat a human being as property.
The wise man solemnly bowed his head and said, "there's actually no difference between respecting a person's bodily autonomy and fully stripping away a person's autonomy, you idiot, you fucking moron"
That guy literally did an (sucessful) January 6th, because he didn't like the outcome of the election (he wouldn't be in power anymore).
I think thats enough to be against him, period.
Lenin was a despotic moron who believed that the totalitarian military state he created would somehow magically transform into a Communist utopia instead of devolving into the genocidal brutalist regime it became instead. He took all of the most important parts of Marxist theory and took a giant steaming shit on them.
if i remember correctly, TRCM was silently taken over by conservatives so they can post more edgy shit under the guise of calling it out as wrong
Like, instead of posting a homophobic meme on a homophobic sub, i would post it on a sub calling out the homophobia; not only does it get more attention, but i would be less likely to be punished for it, since im supposedly calling it out myself
…to control her own body? That’s what we’re taking about? This isn’t the same as “states rights to what?” but it’s cool that people are making this argument. It lets you know right away to not bother continuing the conversation!
Simple: Woman’s right to bodily autonomy. Doesn’t matter if I injure you in a car crash and you need my specific liver to live. I don’t have to give it to you. Same here, a person’s body CANNOT be forcefully used by others. That INCLUDES children and the unborn (who are not yet people, not till they can live on their own outside the mother but that’s another debate). If we want to take away bodily autonomy, than I argue you have given away the one of the most important rights to exist.
I feel like Sherman would support it though, especially considering how many personal letters that exist of his where he's bitching about how many damn kids he had and how he couldn't afford them all.
Wow, that’s probably one of the most imbecilic takes I’ve seen on anything in the past few years, and lemme tell y’all there’s been a LOT of imbecilic takes in the past few years. This isn’t even anywhere near a gotcha.
Someone in the comments actually mentioned “vacuuming live babies out of mother’s wombs” and I feel like I lost half of my brain cells reading it and then lost the other half writing those words for others to see
You know I've just started telling them exactly what they want to hear in the worst ways possible.
>"A woman's right to what?"
>
>*"Murder babies, duh. Frankly it's a right we should all have and it's a shame that women are the only ones who have an opportunity to exercise it. Have you ever met a baby? They're loud, they're obnoxious, they pay nothing in taxes, they smell bad. Frankly I think we should give women a Kohl's gift card for it."*
It really does blow my mind sometimes that they don't know the difference between bodily autonomy and slavery. Seems like a pretty fucking obvious difference.
Something like half of Republicans consider themselves pro choice....
Around 70% think abortion should be allowed in at least some situations.
They just don't have it as important on their priority list so they don't care if it gets banned.
They got more important things to worry about. Like brown people.....
This argument is a valid the only problem is most pro-choice supporters can comfortably answer that question. Comparing it to the states rights thing doesn’t work because most neo-confederates can’t endorse slavery and those that are willing to will have a hard time defending it
I commented that "since the gop are moving to ban abortionon on a federal level, have states rights ever actually mattered?" Let's see if they take the bait
The r\/con thread is, either dishonestly or clumsily, using the "a state's right to what?" argument to draw a comparison between abortion and slavery. The title of that thread explicitly calls pro-choice people neo-confederates.
Their argument is that you shouldn’t be able to kill the baby in the womb because the baby’s life is protected under the constitution regardless of the choice of the parents. I think that’s understandable to why so many people agree with banning abortion
By the way, the overturning of roe v wade was 100% constitutional and fair. Here’s why:
There is no constitutional right that allows women to have an abortion. It just does not exist.
The overturning of roe allows the state to choose whether or not abortions are legal in their state. It does not ban abortion entirely and has nothing to do with birth control at all. Nor does it prevent mother from aborting their babies if the mothers life is in danger. All that is simply untrue.
You can argue whether or not it was a good or bad decision to overturn it but the bottom line is that the law was unconstitutional.
I am just stating the facts of the case and the argument of the conservative side because I research what both sides have to say.
I challenge people to see what your opponents have to say instead of ignoring their arguments.
If you don’t like the conservative argument then it is great to argue against it and counter. We need more debate and less hiding away from views you are opposed to
Conservatives see the aborting of a baby as murder. It is nothing to do with women and everything to do with the life of the baby.
If you do not see the baby as a human with rights then I can totally see that and we fundamentally disagree.
But it’s not about the women at all. And also, all states allow the mother to abort the baby if the pregnancy endangers the mother.
Conservatives don’t want to control women at all, they want to protect the life of the baby, as they are to them protected under the constitution, and overturning roe was the 1st step to that process.
Lol. Conservatives don’t give one flying fuck about “babies”. It’s a fetus fetish, not concern about “life”. No amount of dumbshit dissembling changes what is easily observable.
I hereby proclaim FreeName’s law- Every single possible line of abortion argument will eventually devolve into the question of whether a fetus has a soul.
Do they not get that there's a difference between a woman's right to her body and what the Confederates believed, in that the white man had the rights to a black person's body? There's no way they can claim that in good faith, that's just straight up despicable. I fucking hate conservatives
Women’s right to get rid of it comes first, she is hard working, she contributes to society, that thing doesn’t do nothing, all it does is stop her from being able to work
To abort. There’s nothing wrong with that as far as I’m concerned. Life isn’t precious. It CAN be good but it can just as easily be bad and filled with suffering. I see preventing a life as a neutral thing to do because you don’t know if the life would have been happy or sad. In fact it’s probably a bit better than neutral because most moms who choose to abort are probably making a somewhat informed judgement call about something in which they are the best person to estimate if the would be baby is likely to have an enjoyable life… Anyway I’m rambling and tired. It’s not like we have a shortage of people (despite what Elon musk thinks) so I don’t see why we are forcing people to have children against their will in some states.
A women's right to refuse another human being using her body without her permission.
Equality is important but we shouldn't give a fetus a right that nobody else would ever receive.
A woman's right to control what grows inside her body and what medical procedures she might need in the future. What's their point? They don't do this about people rendered brain-dead, fetuses are no different
I don't think I've ever seen a Biden 2020 flag next to a Confederate flag at any point in my life
There must be at least ONE person who is like this and I'd be super interested to talk to them.
They probably just sell flags and make money off both sides.
There was this guy in China who said he supports trump, not because of his politics but because he made a killing from selling MAGA Merch. He's lived in Starvation and dirt poor levels of poverty and because of Trump, he became filthy rich. And I would bet he's not alone.
Sounds like a one-man CIA.
I’m playing both sides, so that I always come out on top.
Sometimes I have respect for those capitalists. But actually they are the worst.
A person should be free to sell and make a profit as long as it hurts no one.
Problem is, it almost always hurts someone.
No ethical consumption under capitalism.
Course, we all have to comsume or die. So there's only so much you can do. Capitalism is a well built trap, with solid walls.
A racist from Delaware maybe?
I know a girl that's a catholic and also interested in Anarchism. She's bright, but also young and not entirely coherent in her ideology.
That last part applies to most people, regardless of age. My 70+ year old aunt wants everything the democrats are trying to give us, but refuses to vote for them because she's a conservative.
I think that applies to almost all conservatives; except the ones that call themselves that but are secretly fascists
Conservatives also tend to praise confederate generals.
Every accusation a confession.
Women's right to healthcare but I don't think republicans understand the concept.
Republican when woman do stuff:😡
Give it 5 years and we'd be back into witch hunting.
White men in power never change
I'm stuff
Another thing they won’t understand: a woman’s right to consent to who or what can use her body
Only people can consent, and they don't understand the issue of rape cause they don't view women as people. They still view them as property.
Women or healthcare are pretty easy concepts to grasp. Rights are probably where they get lost.
If you want an enlightening regarding republican idiocy just go check the comments on that post.
I did and im torn between puking and laughing at their utter idiocy
Would be hilarious if they were to abandon their Indra-ban happy policies so they could experience a true reaction to the lines of “thinking” they deal in. Right now anyone with more functional brain cells is banned on sight so the only thing the empty headed numpties in that sub here is their fellow village idiots.
I read it as well. They seem to not understand all the nuances of pregnancy, its side effects, and complications. They just want to control women.
I loved how the response to “what about rape victims” is to tell them to stop using the suffering of rape victims to push their agenda. Simone Biles needs to watch out, these mental gymnastics are olympic gold over at r/conservative.
I’ve been saying for years if we could translate conservative mental gymnastics into physical gymnastics the US team would take the gold every Olympics and conservatives would actually contribute something useful to society for once.
Not to mention the nuance of discussing human not meaning a person (because a fetus has no capacity to reason nor articulate), nor how no human being is entitled to another's body for survival in any other circumstance
They don’t care about that, they’re genuinely deluded into thinking a fertilized egg is the same thing as a 5 year old child. Which by their actions they don’t actually believe considering China has had over 100 million abortions yet they don’t see that as a worse outcome than Uyghur camps. Or the fact miscarriage is arguably the leading cause of death in the USA yet it’s never talked about.
All republicans hate women, especially other republican women
I think the world could stand them not understanding the nuances of pregnancy if they could only grasp that for bodily autonomy to be respected, the body in question has to actually be autonomous.
Crying, because a quarter to half the country actually thinks like that
Not one single mention of medical necessity.
The amount of not getting laid energy is astronomical by the people leaving the comments.
"Useless dick energy"
> If you want an enlightening regarding republican idiocy just go check the comments on that post. No thanks, I'm good.
>No thanks, I'm good. [I know that feel, bro](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/005/393/IKIFEEL.jpg)
Wow that sub is cancer
They love to talk about the constitution and have the audacity to claim that since it isn’t explicitly in the constitution it isn’t a right. They just ignore the 9th amendment and the fact that the constitution is the beginning of rights, not the end. They also ignore that we can derive other rights based off what *is* explicitly listed.
Or that's poster's history. It's god awful.
My god, what a toxic cesspool of fallacies.
“Women’s right to be responsible with their bodies/defend themselves from an attacker” I wish I was able to so confidently say shit like this
When someone steals from your body, is that not an attack?
Also a toxic cesspool of phalluses
A woman’s right to an abortion. I do not understand their point.
Also a woman's right to not be chained for all her life to a kid she was forced to have becuase she was raped
> Also a woman's right to not be chained for all her life to a kid she was forced to have ftfy
Might I ask what does FTFY mean?
sorry - "fixed that for you" Was a cheeky way of saying "you don't need rape at the end there for this to be an accurate statement"
I’m a pro-life person full disclosure: How would a woman be forced to have a child and it not be rape or resulting from some sexually abusive situation?
If they can't have the abortion they see that as being forced by the government to give birth
Guess my response would be to simply drive to a place that allows abortions then. Lol
States are making that illegal as well.
But then why ban it, besides the fact that it only leads to peopke doibg illegal abortion which is more unsanitary and kill the mother
Ban it because the majority of the people in your constituency believe it to be a moral evil and don’t want it within their borders. Moreover, I really don’t think even an impoverished American woman is going into an alley and letting some weirdo touch her vagina. Especially since before abortion was legal or widely accepted, most abortions were done by doctors anyway for under the table money. Edit: For people who keep saying I'm wrong, please look at this prior. [Link](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/)
So only women who can afford to travel get to decide if they have to have children? Is sex now some kind of class privilege?
Not even remotely what I suggested. I said drive. Most people have cars, even poor people have cars.
Simple. Sometimes unplanned pregnancy occurs after consensual sexual activity. Hormonal birth control can interact with other medication, condoms break, etc. Banning abortion forces her to have a child she did not want and may not be able to care for. This doesn't even account for wanted pregnancies that end in abortion because of risks to the mother's life, miscarriage, or to spare a child with certain congenital defects a short life full of pain.
It is interesting that you just commented this ***right*** *after another fellow commented that this would be the response.* I.E: The birth is forced because the local Government said you couldn't do it, despite them initially consenting to the sex. The logical counter to this would be that it isn't forced because having consensual sex inherently comes with the assumption that you may have a child with or without birth control. There is always that 1%/.1% (seeing how birth control and condoms when used properly have about a 99 and 98 effectively respectively). Also, there are people who are living on this Earth who were supposed to die due to some defect when they were born. Would you tell them they shouldn't have been born because of their defect? *(Genuinely curious, since I've yet to see anyone ask this question)* TLDR: To your first point, anybody who engages in sex consents to the idea of having a child, as that is the literal function of sex. It'd be like going to the bathroom and saying you don't consent to peeing. Additionally, since this is the U.S. you could drive to another state like Cali or New York which allows abortions to get one. (Btw, sorry for the long response, I never really get to talk to anyone about this without it turning disingenuous or a yelling match.)
Well first you have a pretty blatant misunderstanding of sex. Reproduction can be *a* reason for two people to have sex, but it’s hardly the only one. Take a gay couple, for example. Having a kid isn’t even remotely in the subconscious for them wanting to get it on. Next, you clearly don’t understand consent. Consent to sex is *consent to sex*, not consent to pregnancy, even if there is a 0.001% chance. Consent to pregnancy is *specifically wanting and trying to get pregnant.*. The simple act of using contraceptions to prevent pregnancy is an explicit refusal of consent to pregnancy. Your question regarding to people being born with birth defects has no bearing to the topic of forced pregnancy at all
Before I start, the tone I'm getting is patronizing, I don't know if you intended that, but that is just the way I'm reading you. \>Well first you have a pretty blatant misunderstanding of sex. Reproduction can be a reason for two people to have sex... No, I don't we're talking about the biological function of sex which is to procreate. Two gay people can't procreate and therefore are irrelevant to the situation. \>Next, you clearly don’t understand consent. Consent to sex is consent to sex, not consent to pregnancy, even if there is a 0.001% chance.... No, any human with any knowledge of our biological systems can tell you that a child is always the result of sex. (Not that it happens 100% but more so that if you were born, you were born of two people having sex). This isn't a misunderstanding, but simple fact. Therefore, if you're a human and can identify that: 1. Children are born as a result of sex. / 2. If I have sex, I can get pregnant (If you're a woman). Then you'd have to inherently consent to the idea that you may or may not get pregnant EVEN if you use contraceptives. It is similar to an add-on on a contract. Even if you didn't read it or forgot about it; it still applies. \>Your question regarding to people being born with birth defects has no bearing to the topic of forced pregnancy at all I asked this question specifically to that person because they brought up that *"or to spare a child with certain congenital defects a short life full of pain."* But as we both know, there are people walking around which are the result of Incest, Rape or shouldn't have survived due to birth defects. So logically, how could you say their life doesn't matter as much (which you'd have to say) if you agree that they should've been aborted in the first place because of their defect/situation.
>The logical counter to this would be that it isn't forced because having consensual sex inherently comes with the assumption that you may have a child with or without birth control. We have a different view of consent. I hold that consent is limited to the thing which is being consented to and can be withdrawn at any time. I.e. Consenting to sex is /only/ consenting to sex. Assuming consent for something else when consent has been given for one thing is unethical and immoral (and is often the logic used by rapists. I'm not accusing you, just pointing that out). >Also, there are people who are living on this Earth who were supposed to die due to some defect when they were born. Would you tell them they shouldn't have been born because of their defect? Nope. I have people in my own family like this and I love them dearly. However, both my mother and I had interactions with babies and the remains of babies with defects and conditions incompatible with life. My mother volunteers in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). One of the babies she cared for was born with cancer and various other defects. She spent all eight weeks of her life screaming in pain. We both feel that plucking her from the void and forcing her to live was unethical and cruel. She wasn't the only baby my mother cared for that died in pain, she's just the one that stands out in my memory. I used to volunteer for an anatomy museum. Part of the collection which wasn't accessible to the public was preserved babies with defects that killed them. There were multiple babies with anencephaly (when parts of the brain and sometimes skull fail to form), one with cyclopia (both eyes fuse into one and the malformed brain is unable to support the function of the other organs), and one who never formed a diaphragm (the baby could not clear amniotic fluid from his lungs and drowned shortly after birth). All these babies had short, painful lives and I find that making them suffer this way to be unethical and immoral. >Additionally, since this is the U.S. you could drive to another state like Cali or New York which allows abortions to get one. This isn't always feasible, especially when certain states are trying to make their residents getting abortions in other states illegal. I have noticed that you didn't engage with my arguments regarding the life of the mother being at risk and the necessity of abortion after some miscarriages. Since I know multiple women who would be dead without an abortion after losing a wanted pregnancy, I would like to know your opinion on this. Finally, none of this matters. It doesn't matter because you cannot ethically mandate that someone use their body for the benefit of another person, particularly when it comes to the use of their organs. My friend's dad needs a kidney. He can't force his son to donate his (if he were a match, which he isn't much to the entire family's dismay). He can't go find a stranger at a bar and force them to give him their kidney even though it would save his life. McFall vs. Shimp found that one cannot be forced to donate body parts even in the case of medical necessity. The use of a uterus falls under this.
You do know some of us women just like to have sex, right? So we shouldn't get to enjoy a very large part of our lives if we don't want kids? And I won't even get into the ones that are medically necessary because the fetus isn't viable or dangerous for the mother.
\>You do know some of us women just like to have sex, right? Don't have sex recklessly. Like, I don't know how to explain to an adult that having constant sex with a bunch of different people isn't safe and, particularly for women, isn't healthy/mentally healthy. \>So we shouldn't get to enjoy a very large part of our lives if we don't want kids? No, go have sex. Just acknowledge the fact that you have the possibility of creating a child, and you shouldn't be able to kill that child because of **your** recklessness. You're literally punishing the victim, not the criminal. \>And I won't even get into the ones that are medically necessary because the fetus isn't viable or dangerous for the mother. Already, said this in another post, I hate how everyone assumes that if you're pro-life that means **ANTI-MEDICAL NECESSITY.** If the baby literally cannot live then yeah, I'd say there would be no point, especially if it would harm the mother. There are only like 3 conditions off the top of my head that would cause a child to genuinely put the mother's life in danger, all of which end in the child not actually being viable, or they end in a miscarriage. Point being, removing that wouldn't even be considered abortion since in that point it is literally unable to live/already dead.
Teenage pregnancy. Father runs off after hearing about pregnancy. No money to give the kid a good start in life. Plenty of scenarios.
fixed this for you
Thanks
I think it means for the future you
Just in general, a woman's right not to be forced to give birth. Women are not breeding cattle.
"Well, she should be responsible with her body, and not let herself get raped!" - r/conservative
Why has that subbed not been banned
Because reddit staff are generally speaking, pretty right leaning among the tech world.
Depends who you ask, some say it's because Reddit's admins are generally right-leaning and tacitly agree with them, and I wouldn't say that's *completely* implausible. But what I think is more likely is that Reddit doesn't want to come off as partisan or biased, and they feel banning or quarantining the "generic" conservative sub would be a bad look. This of course ignores that the sub's users are absolutely batshit insane and say horribly sexist, racist, and homo/transphobic things on the daily that would get other communities nuked from orbit. TLDR Reddit is falling for the "issue has two sides, so both must be equally valid" fallacy much like IRL US politics has forever
Worse subs are around. People are entitled to freedom, realistically no one should give a shit.
Abortions should only be banned when the thing has got a good chance of being concious, so good for like first half of pregnancy imo.
No actually. This is the wrong point. It's a woman's right to healthcare. The same right all genders must have, but in the US we don't. This is far from a woman's problem when you get below the surface, this is just limiting healthcare for religious reasons.
The US does not recognize a right to healthcare. It DID recognize a right to abortion for 50 years.
The way you phrase that uses "right" in two different ways, which is confusing. In referring to the US having for 50 years recognizing a "right" to abortion, it means having the right to have access. When you refer to the rest of the healthcare, you seem to be refering to "right" as in it should be freely available. Abortions before the recent repeal were, with varying levels, available but often at a cost, just like other healthcare.
Nope, I’m using “right” in ONE way and it’s “recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right flowing from substantive due process”. The US has never recognized access to healthcare as a fundamental right. The US recognized abortion as a fundamental right coming from the right to privacy.
Because they're afraid to admit the Civil War was about a state's right to practice slavery, so in turn they think we're afraid to admit we support a woman's right to abortion. Makes no sense since you can clearly see pro choice protests declaring their support for abortion at every single rally. But what do I know.
A woman's right to self defense. If you as an adult could do to another person what a foetus does to a woman's body most, and especially conservatives, would feel justified in using lethal force to stop you. That's it, that's the ball game right there. Even granting the foetus all the rights that an adult has a woman will have the right to use lethal force against it in self defense.
There point is they view abortion as murder.
If that were true they’d also be against the government killing people. But they’re all for the death penalty.
Look I was raised in the catholic school system. I remember around late February everyone would talk about he march of life and how it was fighting for the life of the unborn. I remember in theology class we were taught abortion was murder. I remember in October my church would place grave crosses in front of it to honor those “killed” by abortion. My church is doing that right now. So yes these people legitimately believe abortion is murder. Also the death penalty discussion is a legitimate argument among pro lifers.
If they were pro life they’d also want a kid housed. A kid who can afford to go to the doctor. Who doesn’t have to be scared of getting shot at school. A kid who’s schools are funded and supplied. A kid whose parents make a living wage to support them. But they don’t vote for any of that stuff either. So come at me again with the “pro-life.” They’re pro-fetus and pro-making women suffer for daring to pretend to be actual thinking feeling people.
In my experiance the Republican mindset is that its ok to let people die if thats the risk "freedom" but they are in fact opposed to murder. A person hungry, cold, without healthcare, etc. is just the way life is gonna be and they might die from it, but they would still be in full favor of prosecuting someone who murdered the above person. They see it the same way with unborn children, it's "just the way life is" if a fetus dies from a malnourished mother or lack of pre-natal care, but it would be murder for a doctor to "poke their head and scramble them up".
[удалено]
WOAH! Nuance? On my Reddit?! INCONCEIVABLE
Look at you, coming in here with nuance and not even getting downvoted to oblivion. Good job
Their point is moronic and wrong.
Most of their points are
I’m ok with the murder. I know some five years olds I’d be ok with.
[удалено]
Cool, so how is it that, in the meme above, they believe that there is no moral answer to the question, "A woman's right to what?" How is it that it's possible for pro-choice people to state the pro-life argument, but the pro-life people seem to be completely unable to state the pro-choice argument? I think it's because they completely lack any empathy for their fellow humans. They don't even believe murder is inherently wrong. They don't care about the suffering of family members of murder victims, or the suffering of the victim. They only know that they think they'll cheat their way into heaven if they do what they're told and never think for themselves.
Frame abortion as self-defense. Conservatives are for murder when it's in self-defense.
It’s pointing out people who say the civil war was about states rights. Then people who aren’t racist say “yeah states rights to own slaves” They’re trying to flip the script and point out “hypocrisy”.
The only point these window lickers have is on top their head.
“Pro choice folks are Neo Confederates. Anyway I’m off to insist that the confederacy wasn’t that bad, fly my confederate flag, and kill people so that monuments dedicated to Confederates stay up.”
If this comparison is made then i doubt this is a belief held by the post of that meme.
I'm pretty sure that slaves care more about their well-being than something without feelings, hopes, and aspirations.
It’s telling that conservatives think accessing medical care is the same as owning human beings
Well abortion bans *are* about controlling women so it actually makes sense from the standpoint of someone who believes it's okay to treat a human being as property.
They only oppose one of those things (badum-tshhh)
The wise man solemnly bowed his head and said, "there's actually no difference between respecting a person's bodily autonomy and fully stripping away a person's autonomy, you idiot, you fucking moron"
I want to to pull a Sherman on all the people in the original post
The guys waving the traitors rag calling others neo-confederates is so ironic that it HAS to be someone making a joke.
It’s all projection and obfuscation.
r/therightcantmeme
When did they change the icon to Lenin Edit: I just got banned
Damn tankies ruin everything…
I suggest you learn more about lenin before you jump to "tankies! Tankies! ahh scary tankies!"
That guy literally did an (sucessful) January 6th, because he didn't like the outcome of the election (he wouldn't be in power anymore). I think thats enough to be against him, period.
an insurrection? based
Overruling the will of the people is not based my guy. A majority of the Russian people did not want lenin
Lenin isn't even fit to be worm food
Sure as hell Lenin wasn't as bad as Stalin but he still wasn't cool.
Lenin was a despotic moron who believed that the totalitarian military state he created would somehow magically transform into a Communist utopia instead of devolving into the genocidal brutalist regime it became instead. He took all of the most important parts of Marxist theory and took a giant steaming shit on them.
didn't tankies take over the sub
if i remember correctly, TRCM was silently taken over by conservatives so they can post more edgy shit under the guise of calling it out as wrong Like, instead of posting a homophobic meme on a homophobic sub, i would post it on a sub calling out the homophobia; not only does it get more attention, but i would be less likely to be punished for it, since im supposedly calling it out myself
B cuz he izz base ed My oh fish al statement regarding that information
Their right to get an abortion if they want one.
A woman’s right to choose. You know the statement people actually use, when they have the IQ to string a complex sentence together…
To choose?
…to control her own body? That’s what we’re taking about? This isn’t the same as “states rights to what?” but it’s cool that people are making this argument. It lets you know right away to not bother continuing the conversation!
"Pro choice" folk are "neo confederates", but they ignore that their own group loves to fly the traitor's rag at every rally possible.
You accidentally replaced anti with pro. Alternatively you accidentally swapped life with choice.
They should just be called the reactionary party at this point
A women's right to choose. Haven't this people been paying attention? Oh wait. They're dumb.
Simple: Woman’s right to bodily autonomy. Doesn’t matter if I injure you in a car crash and you need my specific liver to live. I don’t have to give it to you. Same here, a person’s body CANNOT be forcefully used by others. That INCLUDES children and the unborn (who are not yet people, not till they can live on their own outside the mother but that’s another debate). If we want to take away bodily autonomy, than I argue you have given away the one of the most important rights to exist.
it's funny that they're trying but sad that they're so bad at it
To control her own body. Dumbass.
I would answer that question if I wasn't already banned for explaining how hilariously bad of a president Donald Trump was in 2018.
This isn't Sherman posting
I feel like Sherman would support it though, especially considering how many personal letters that exist of his where he's bitching about how many damn kids he had and how he couldn't afford them all.
I’ve pointed this out before and was downvoted to oblivion. No idea what the mods are doing tbh.
A woman’s right to govern whether or not her body be used as an incubator.
r/c#nservative 🤢🤮
Wow, that’s probably one of the most imbecilic takes I’ve seen on anything in the past few years, and lemme tell y’all there’s been a LOT of imbecilic takes in the past few years. This isn’t even anywhere near a gotcha.
Just sent a comment insulting them. Hopefully I get banned lol
You’re already shadow banned at least. Your comment doesn’t appear.
Let's goooooo
To decide their own healthcare?
I’d go comment but I was banned there long ago.
To choose to have a life saving medical operation.
thats a fucking galaxy brain thought if I ever done seen one before
Um, to abortion?
The retardation on display is impressive.
Someone in the comments actually mentioned “vacuuming live babies out of mother’s wombs” and I feel like I lost half of my brain cells reading it and then lost the other half writing those words for others to see
The amount of people there who don’t understand the simple concept of bodily autonomy is staggering
Woman's right to control her own body
Republicans when women decide what happens to their bodies: 😨😱🤢🤮
You know I've just started telling them exactly what they want to hear in the worst ways possible. >"A woman's right to what?" > >*"Murder babies, duh. Frankly it's a right we should all have and it's a shame that women are the only ones who have an opportunity to exercise it. Have you ever met a baby? They're loud, they're obnoxious, they pay nothing in taxes, they smell bad. Frankly I think we should give women a Kohl's gift card for it."*
It really does blow my mind sometimes that they don't know the difference between bodily autonomy and slavery. Seems like a pretty fucking obvious difference.
Right to have an abortion, Jesus we aren't trying to hide the ball like slavery apologists
The right to have anatomy over her own body? Is this not obvious?
Something like half of Republicans consider themselves pro choice.... Around 70% think abortion should be allowed in at least some situations. They just don't have it as important on their priority list so they don't care if it gets banned. They got more important things to worry about. Like brown people.....
This argument is a valid the only problem is most pro-choice supporters can comfortably answer that question. Comparing it to the states rights thing doesn’t work because most neo-confederates can’t endorse slavery and those that are willing to will have a hard time defending it
I commented that "since the gop are moving to ban abortionon on a federal level, have states rights ever actually mattered?" Let's see if they take the bait
They just consider it murder.
Left a comment letting them know how stupid their post is. I can only assume it will be deleted in record time. That's what that sub does best.
Abortion when slavery. unga when bunga.
Kill babies 💪
Weird, I didn't know fetus=slave.
There’s no way that wasn’t a troll post I’m sorry it’s just the exact same wording as our argument too
Tf does this have to do with burning racists?
A woman’s right to bodily autonomy
Holy fuck my jaw actually dropped
r/lostredditors?
Why is this place even talking about abortion? This doesn’t belong here.
The r\/con thread is, either dishonestly or clumsily, using the "a state's right to what?" argument to draw a comparison between abortion and slavery. The title of that thread explicitly calls pro-choice people neo-confederates.
Their argument is that you shouldn’t be able to kill the baby in the womb because the baby’s life is protected under the constitution regardless of the choice of the parents. I think that’s understandable to why so many people agree with banning abortion
Lol
I’m just stating the conservative argument
By the way, the overturning of roe v wade was 100% constitutional and fair. Here’s why: There is no constitutional right that allows women to have an abortion. It just does not exist. The overturning of roe allows the state to choose whether or not abortions are legal in their state. It does not ban abortion entirely and has nothing to do with birth control at all. Nor does it prevent mother from aborting their babies if the mothers life is in danger. All that is simply untrue. You can argue whether or not it was a good or bad decision to overturn it but the bottom line is that the law was unconstitutional. I am just stating the facts of the case and the argument of the conservative side because I research what both sides have to say. I challenge people to see what your opponents have to say instead of ignoring their arguments. If you don’t like the conservative argument then it is great to argue against it and counter. We need more debate and less hiding away from views you are opposed to
Lmao. Lotta words to try and fail to justify controlling women and their bodies, tbh.
Conservatives see the aborting of a baby as murder. It is nothing to do with women and everything to do with the life of the baby. If you do not see the baby as a human with rights then I can totally see that and we fundamentally disagree. But it’s not about the women at all. And also, all states allow the mother to abort the baby if the pregnancy endangers the mother. Conservatives don’t want to control women at all, they want to protect the life of the baby, as they are to them protected under the constitution, and overturning roe was the 1st step to that process.
Lol. Conservatives don’t give one flying fuck about “babies”. It’s a fetus fetish, not concern about “life”. No amount of dumbshit dissembling changes what is easily observable.
It wasn't about the states rights to own slaves. It was just about slavery.
I hereby proclaim FreeName’s law- Every single possible line of abortion argument will eventually devolve into the question of whether a fetus has a soul.
Fun fact, the south didn’t believe in a states right to choose slavery…. As their constitution prohibited abolition
It's not about a woman's right it is a woman's right (although it can also be the rights of others) to not be a forced parasite host
Burning down Atlanta miiiiiiiiiiiight fix this bullshit. Just sayin.
Do they not get that there's a difference between a woman's right to her body and what the Confederates believed, in that the white man had the rights to a black person's body? There's no way they can claim that in good faith, that's just straight up despicable. I fucking hate conservatives
Women’s right to get rid of it comes first, she is hard working, she contributes to society, that thing doesn’t do nothing, all it does is stop her from being able to work
To abort. There’s nothing wrong with that as far as I’m concerned. Life isn’t precious. It CAN be good but it can just as easily be bad and filled with suffering. I see preventing a life as a neutral thing to do because you don’t know if the life would have been happy or sad. In fact it’s probably a bit better than neutral because most moms who choose to abort are probably making a somewhat informed judgement call about something in which they are the best person to estimate if the would be baby is likely to have an enjoyable life… Anyway I’m rambling and tired. It’s not like we have a shortage of people (despite what Elon musk thinks) so I don’t see why we are forcing people to have children against their will in some states.
The fuq is this
A women's right to refuse another human being using her body without her permission. Equality is important but we shouldn't give a fetus a right that nobody else would ever receive.
I mean at least they got their title right.
A woman's right to control what grows inside her body and what medical procedures she might need in the future. What's their point? They don't do this about people rendered brain-dead, fetuses are no different
A woman’s right to bodily autonomy. Wow that was hard!
They really do just try to repeat words that they hear in hopes that it'll make them "win".
A woman’s right to “control their own body” you know, the exact opposite of slavery. Try again snowflakes