The Abortion Thread

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15455
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by dhex » 09 Sep 2018, 21:46

Jennifer wrote:
09 Sep 2018, 20:46
Plus, let's not forget the vast numbers of "pro-lifers" who actually believe (and unashamedly admit they believe) shit like this:

Those are really good death metal lyrics.

Abortion is your goooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwdddddddd
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

User avatar
Tuco
Posts: 137
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 21:00

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Tuco » 10 Sep 2018, 06:48

Bangin my head right now.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9029
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by nicole » 10 Sep 2018, 08:32

lunchstealer wrote:
09 Sep 2018, 18:34
Living in South Carolina and Texas for the vast bulk of my conscious years gave me a first hand observation of the overlap.

I'd say that if less than 95% of abstinence-only types self-identify as pro-life I will eat your shorts. I will not eat your shorts but nonetheless look shellshocked if it's less than 99.44%

The number of pro-lifers who are okay with real sex ed is probably much higher but I doubt it is more than 50%.

The thing is that you'd never be able to determine by direct questioning who had what primary motivation because the talking points are so refined. Anybody in the prolife movement knows that you focus on 'life' rather than being 'anti-abortion' and that you treat the women as victims, too. Unless the mask slips, it's all compassion. I've seen the mask slip from time to time.
It slips regularly. Just look at any H&R thread about abortion and there will be comments about how women need to face the consequences of their decision to have sex.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22799
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 10 Sep 2018, 17:42

nicole wrote:
10 Sep 2018, 08:32
lunchstealer wrote:
09 Sep 2018, 18:34
Living in South Carolina and Texas for the vast bulk of my conscious years gave me a first hand observation of the overlap.

I'd say that if less than 95% of abstinence-only types self-identify as pro-life I will eat your shorts. I will not eat your shorts but nonetheless look shellshocked if it's less than 99.44%

The number of pro-lifers who are okay with real sex ed is probably much higher but I doubt it is more than 50%.

The thing is that you'd never be able to determine by direct questioning who had what primary motivation because the talking points are so refined. Anybody in the prolife movement knows that you focus on 'life' rather than being 'anti-abortion' and that you treat the women as victims, too. Unless the mask slips, it's all compassion. I've seen the mask slip from time to time.
It slips regularly. Just look at any H&R thread about abortion and there will be comments about how women need to face the consequences of their decision to have sex.
And let's not forget the old canard "You HAD a choice -- you could CHOOSE to keep your legs together!"

The "abortion hysteria" Twitter twit above has of course doubled down on her disdain, openly stating that no woman should have sex unless she is willing to become a mommy nine months later. (Though at least she was willing to toss a bone to a rape victim who was not enthused about carrying her rapists' offspring to term: "Your story, if it's true—and if so, I'm very sorry for your pain—is irrelevant to the discussion. Rape is not the free choice of a woman to have sex, so clearly you're not one of the women unhinged about irresponsible sex." Which again shows this woman's motivation has fuck-all to do with protecting Da Babeez, and is entirely about punishing women for their sexuality.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JD
Posts: 10406
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by JD » 10 Sep 2018, 18:05

Jennifer wrote:
10 Sep 2018, 17:42
The "abortion hysteria" Twitter twit above has of course doubled down on her disdain, openly stating that no woman should have sex unless she is willing to become a mommy nine months later. (Though at least she was willing to toss a bone to a rape victim who was not enthused about carrying her rapists' offspring to term: "Your story, if it's true—and if so, I'm very sorry for your pain—is irrelevant to the discussion. Rape is not the free choice of a woman to have sex, so clearly you're not one of the women unhinged about irresponsible sex." Which again shows this woman's motivation has fuck-all to do with protecting Da Babeez, and is entirely about punishing women for their sexuality.
I was always puzzled by the rape exception to abortion bans. I mean, on the one hand, sure, it seems like a hideous punishment to make a woman carry her rapist's child. But if you really believe abortion is murder, why does rape make it acceptable? If you're raped, you get a free pass to murder an innocent third party? That doesn't make any sense. The logical conclusion is, as you say, that it's more about controlling women's sexuality. (Anti-abortion types who don't even make an exception for rape at least get points for logical consistency, I guess.)
"Millennials are lazy. They'd rather have avocado toast than cave in a man's skull with a tire iron!" -FFF

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22799
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 10 Sep 2018, 18:19

JD wrote:
10 Sep 2018, 18:05
Jennifer wrote:
10 Sep 2018, 17:42
The "abortion hysteria" Twitter twit above has of course doubled down on her disdain, openly stating that no woman should have sex unless she is willing to become a mommy nine months later. (Though at least she was willing to toss a bone to a rape victim who was not enthused about carrying her rapists' offspring to term: "Your story, if it's true—and if so, I'm very sorry for your pain—is irrelevant to the discussion. Rape is not the free choice of a woman to have sex, so clearly you're not one of the women unhinged about irresponsible sex." Which again shows this woman's motivation has fuck-all to do with protecting Da Babeez, and is entirely about punishing women for their sexuality.
I was always puzzled by the rape exception to abortion bans. I mean, on the one hand, sure, it seems like a hideous punishment to make a woman carry her rapist's child.
I seriously wish somebody would ask one of the "state should outlaw abortion even for rape victims" politicos: if the state is going to force a woman to carry and birth her rapists' offspring, would the state at least be willing to cover the costs involved: medical and prenatal care, lost wages, childrearing expenses if the woman does end up keeping it rather than hand it over to the state, etc.? Plus compensation for pain and suffering? Or is the woman to be left on the hook for it all?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 16085
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by lunchstealer » 14 Sep 2018, 14:26

Jennifer wrote:
10 Sep 2018, 18:19
JD wrote:
10 Sep 2018, 18:05
Jennifer wrote:
10 Sep 2018, 17:42
The "abortion hysteria" Twitter twit above has of course doubled down on her disdain, openly stating that no woman should have sex unless she is willing to become a mommy nine months later. (Though at least she was willing to toss a bone to a rape victim who was not enthused about carrying her rapists' offspring to term: "Your story, if it's true—and if so, I'm very sorry for your pain—is irrelevant to the discussion. Rape is not the free choice of a woman to have sex, so clearly you're not one of the women unhinged about irresponsible sex." Which again shows this woman's motivation has fuck-all to do with protecting Da Babeez, and is entirely about punishing women for their sexuality.
I was always puzzled by the rape exception to abortion bans. I mean, on the one hand, sure, it seems like a hideous punishment to make a woman carry her rapist's child.
I seriously wish somebody would ask one of the "state should outlaw abortion even for rape victims" politicos: if the state is going to force a woman to carry and birth her rapists' offspring, would the state at least be willing to cover the costs involved: medical and prenatal care, lost wages, childrearing expenses if the woman does end up keeping it rather than hand it over to the state, etc.? Plus compensation for pain and suffering? Or is the woman to be left on the hook for it all?
Socialism is everyone looking for a handout, Jennifer. #MAGA

Also I kind of think that a lot of these people are of the 'well she shouldn't have dressed like that' mindset. Women are responsible for getting raped ain't just a river in Mesopotamia. Just look at the attitude on display - "Your story, if it's true..." in these minds, rape is mostly a manufactured excuse by a woman who feels guilty at letting her dirty whoring ways get the best of her and she's taking it out on the innocent guy. Unless the bad guy is one of _those_ people. (but even then what were you doing being around one of _those_ people without a [white] man to protect you?)
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests