60
"Keep the legs closed!"
(www.salon.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
60 points (75.0% liked)
conservative
920 readers
36 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why do lefties make this argument like its some gotcha?
I don't think anyone should be murdered, that doesn't mean I can or should take care of everyone. Its such a stupid argument to make if you actually think about it instead of just parrotting each other.
Because it's the logical conclusion of mainstream pro-life rhetoric. If one believes that all human life is sacred and must be protected, then it follows that they should want all humans to be safe and protected, not just the ones that are still gestating.
The reality is that, to many of us on the pro-choice side of the debate, pro-life seems to be more about punishing women than it does about protecting (future) children. At the very least, the way many of the pro-life policies are implemented cause direct and sometimes deadly harm to women.
In my mind, if abortion is murder, so is preventing life saving treatment for women. There are times when abortion is medically necessary to protect women's lives and we should allow them to make that choice for themselves.
By what standard? Nobody genuinely believes that the "logical conclusion" of the mainstream "don't murder homeless people" point of view must reasonably be a welfare state. Just because we don't kill people, doesn't mean they're entitled to welfare.
And what would you say is the over/under on the amount of women who die as a result? And what does that number look like as a ratio to the children killed by abortions? Because at least from the numbers I've seen, it seems like an entirely trivial ratio to be putting at the front of concern.
And you'll find overwhelming support for abortion in those cases. Just as I can't sucker punch some poor schmuck at the store and then just decide it was self defense because I wanted it to be, a medically necessary abortion actually has to be, well, medically necessary by some standards beyond "I want it to be".
Because to reiterate, there are vanishingly few people who oppose any and all abortions, including in medically necessary situations, especially once you exclude the pedants arguing that those situations aren't abortions by technicality, so therefore don't count when they say they oppose all abortions. This is also where those stupid "80% of people support abortion" propaganda pieces come from. Almost everyone supports some form of narrow allowance, at the minimum, for abortion.
So you'd rather they get birthed and slowly starve rather than just not be born?
If you don't support social programs to help people when they're alive then you're a massive hypocrite, as you're just letting them die a slower and more painful death, which most would consider the inhumane thing to do
For the record, I did not argue for no welfare. I said that the argument was stupid. Its perfectly logical to say "I'm anti-murder but not pro-welfare."
Imo, we need welfare, especially for babies and children.
Hell, you can give a lot of reasons. Theres even one for feminists. I forget the exact wording I heard, but it hinges on the lack of mens reproductive rights, and women being equal to men.
Men are considered smart enough and responsible enough to not fuck unless they want to risk children. Women are not stupid, they are just as smart and responsible as men.
Theres also the racism argument since its mostly minorities aborting.
I dunno, I'd say if you say both in the same sentence, you probably haven't actually cared enough to consider welfare to counteract your "anti-murder" stance
So it's perfectly fair to say that what you are arguing would lead to unnecessary death just from your negligence to follow through. You're effectively just trying to hand waive it off as "we'll worry about it later" when it's already too late.
Only if you ignore the context that said "murder" being stopped will result in the need for welfare. In that case you're 100% right
Too bad reality doesn't ignore context as easily as cuckservatives such as yourself
Your post history indicates that you hate minorities, so that doesn't feel like a point you believe in, but I don't think you believe in anything, so there is that.
Wtf are you talking about? What comment have I made that hates minorities?
Fucking "indicates", is that the new version of dogwhistle?
You're arguing a flimsy murder prevention for what will be a realistic ruining of multiple peoples' lives. That's the crux of the argument.
No safety nets while pushing people to do something that doesn't make any logical or financial sense to do.
It's a pretty strong gatcha, you want to force yourself into someone else's life with literally no benefit to them.