New Restrictions on Abortion Have Real World Consequences

Post Reply New Topic

I wonder if liberals ever stop to think why so many of their pet causes revolve around glorifying death, sterility and sickness. Liberals are all in favor of abortion, "liberating" women from motherhood so they can go and be cubicle-dwelling wage slaves, gay marriage, transgender propaganda, feeding puberty blockers to children, the freedom of vulnerable people to ruin their minds and bodies with drugs, and so on. Just check your average left-liberal twitter bio and you'll usually see the owner claiming four or five self-diagnosed mental illnesses as if it's something to be proud of.

Liberals will pretty much support any poisonous ideas if they're presented in terms of "liberating the individual from oppressive social mores", or "rights for marginalized groups" or "sticking it to right-wingers".

I imagine if we reached a situation where a disproportionately high number of aborted babies were those showing evidence of disabilities in the womb, then many liberals would abandon their belief in "freedom of choice" and start demanding that more "healthy" babies get aborted to even things out!

^ Nope.

My mom had my sister. Then she had an abortion. Then she had me.

IMHO, women can have abortions for whatever reason they see fit.

Abbott needs to go, but revolution may be the only way to get him out. We have an election next year, but we’re voter suppression central.

Because of that, a recall election is also out of the question. And even without voter suppression, Abbott would likely survive the recall.

Impeachment and removal from office would mean Dan Patrick becoming governor, and he’s further to the right than Abbott.

It won’t stop at abortion. The Texas GOP is bent on having a theocracy. And this isn’t even counting the situation with the power grid or our piss poor education system.

I suppose we are. But to answer your question:



As I see it, those truly are "potential humans". They are not a life-in-progress until they are implanted, without human intervention they don't yet have a future of which to deprive them - which is the main crime of abortion. Ending a life prematurely, no matter how humanely, painlessly or without the victim's awareness is still wrong because you are depriving someone of a future they will have, accidents and medical issues aside, if you do not take action to end it.

This is what happens when you let men have opinions on abortion. Men constitute nearly the entire opposition to abortion rights.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abo ... ender.aspx





If you put any stock in polling...

Assuming both stories are true, those girls still had much more bodily autonomy than a man whose girlfriend sabotages birth control to get pregnant. He gets to be a slave for the next 18 years without exception.

Coincidentally that's the same argument used to justify the strict liability standard for paternity i.e. that the rights of the fetus or newborn trump the rights of (one of ) the adults. Yet the people making it don't give a crap about the welfare of those kids once they're born; it's purely about money.

Men don't pay child support for pregnant women. They only pay child support once the baby is born.

That's not to say I agree with the current child support laws, but, no, being required to financially support born offspring is not an argument in favor of forcing women to play host to a fetus.

Still waiting to hear how "forced-birth" folks actually "help" the oh-so-important children, other than force the mothers to give birth and pat themselves on the back.

"All life is sacred...!"

But what do you DO?

"Every life is...!"

But what do you DO?

"I just think that..."

But WHAT do you DO? How have you helped? Did you help make sure the woman was healthy? Had all the care she needed for a healthy baby and a healthy birth? Name ONE THING you do, OTHER than force women to give birth?

Besides. Women with money can fly to countries where abortion is legal. Women in general can simply "have accidents" which can cause a miscarriage. Now you'll have to make it so pregnant women can't travel, and restrict their activities to make sure they don't try to pull a fast one - unless of course they have a MAN with them to keep track. But even a woman simply walking around can "have a fall" and potentially cause a miscarriage, even if they have a man to keep track of them. So maybe it's best to not pregnant women move at all, so there's no risk they can do something improper or "have an accident".

It's not about "sanctity of life". Making it ABOUT "life" is just a way of creating a situation where any counter argument can be portrayed as being "pro-murder". If you hold their "pro-life" rhetoric up to anything other than a fetus, it quickly crumbles to dust. Funny how life is "sacred" enough that the mother has to sacrifice her life for the child, but the pretentious fanatics who demand this sacrifice are exempt from having to be even slightly inconvenienced, beyond lecturing other people and cherry picking exactly which lives matter, by how much, and who (other than them, of course) should shoulder the burden of effort and cost (the mother).

"WeLl, I wAs BoRn AnD I'm HaPpY tO bE aLiVe!" Well laa-tee-dah. I'm glad that YOUR life has turned out to be a bowl of cherries. Not everyone is that lucky. And if you weren't born, you'd never even know in the first place, AND we wouldn't have to hear you screeching about it now. Forcing a family to have a kid they can't afford is nothing more than ensuring that family and that kid will live in poverty. "WeLl ThEy ShOuLd hAvE tHoUgT oF tHaT bEfOrE..." Ah, the arrogance of those who have the luxury of already knowing things. "WeLl, ThEy CoUlD hAvE lOoKeD iT uP..." Ah, the arrogance of those who have the luxury of already knowing things. People are supposed to know to look up the thing they don't even know exists in the first place to even think to look it up...? You have the luxury of already knowing this thing exists, to know to look it up. As "precious" as life is, people seem to be adamant that we NOT teach young adults and adolescents about how it is created. Literally prevent them from finding out, and then blame them for not knowing better. Genius.

It's a simple question. It's a relevant question.

WHAT do YOU actually DO to HELP? Something more than "make sure them babies get born!" would be the mark to aim for here. Cos right now, it seems to be a case of "I didn't help them DO it, but I told them WHAT to do, so, I HELPED!"

It's also interesting how the "women who sabotage birth control to trap men" get mentioned, but the men who get women pregnant to trap them somehow escape notice. Please oh please try to explain it.

If I'm making a false argument, PROVE me wrong.

But "LOL tHaTs a FaLlAcY, ThAtS A fAlLaCy!" *drops mic* *looks smug* is NOT actually a counter argument, if you don't explain HOW or WHY it is the thing you claim it is, and merely SAY that it is the thing you claim it is.

Not only that, but you'd think "paying child support" was LITERALLY JUST AS HARD, IF NOT HARDER IN FACT, than actually BEING PREGNANT, and GIVING BIRTH, and TAKING CARE OF AND RAISING THE CHILD.

No, really, at what point does this NOT become about controlling women?

In good faith, but with little hope, I will try again to explain what is wrong using the example used previously.

I see from your previous posts that you were strongly against what happened to George Floyd and were pleased with Derek Chauvin's guilty verdict. In fact here is an excerpt of a post you made in April:



These are actually reasonable points and part of a decent case that his death may have been wrongful and unjust and one hopes the argument and the verdict, right or wrong, will lead to fewer incidents of that nature in future, changing police tactics and perhaps even changing the law. But lets say, hypothetically, I were an unstoppable idiot, I might come along and make an "argument" as follows: You think George Floyd's death was morally wrong, unnecessary and unjustified? You think he shouldn't have been killed?




You might want to scream "What does that have to do with anything?" "Are you saying that drug abuse or forgery is a valid reason to kill someone?" "Have you taken your meds today Mikah?"

But calmer impulses would hopefully prevail and you might instead retort: "opposing unjust killing does not require a pledge of eternal financial support to any future saved victims and whether or not I currently donate all my money to criminal rehabilitation charities or drug clinics or spend my days volunteering in ghettos has no bearing on the argument surrounding George Floyd's death or of police tactics in general."

There are absolutely no laws on the books that require one human to use their body to keep another human alive.

That is the crux of the issue.

Children don't own their parent's bodies whether pre-born or post-born. The rest is just a disgusting attempt at punishing women for their human urges.

How do you help unborn children?

"WeLl GeOrGe FlOyD..."

HELP. CHILDREN. HOW?

"pOlIcE bRuTaLiTy..."

CHIL-DREN. HELP-ING. HOWWWWW???

"I had a kitten once..."

Who knew this was such a hard question. You'd think I was asking Sarah Palin what she reads.

Here. I'll show you how this is supposed to work...

"How do you help kids?"

Me: I've spent thousands of dollars on diapers for kids that weren't even mine. I've gone without food so that kids could eat. I've baby-sat kids so that the mom could continue going to college. I married a single mother and raised her kid as my own until we separated years later. I don't even have any kids of my own.

See? If you actually DO THINGS, it's NOT a difficult question.

Is it the ultimate answer? No. Will it fix or solve everything? No. But it's a helluvalot more than "I lecture and shame women, then go home and live my without any further inconvenience."

And since you like Spongebob memes

https://imgflip.com/i/5c59c9

I think that's true of state laws, but the appellate court precedents I was commenting on aren't limited to kids who are born. They're based on presumed rights of the child, and per Roe v. Wade those become enforceable at the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy.


Agreed. I would prefer to give both genders equal freedom.


If you cared at all about women on a humanitarian basis, you wouldn't have written that. There are lots of childless women stuck in strenuous jobs that chop 10 years off of their life expectancies. If you compare the hardship those women suffer to what an affluent stay-at-home mother goes through, it's not even close. They already have arthritis at 40 and get their first knee replacement at 50 (if the ACA pays for it), while at the same age a suburban housewife is still running marathons.

Paying child support often means working in such a job, and non-custodial mothers can be forced into that position by a court (under penalty of decades of imprisonment if they refuse).


Forcing a non-custodial parent to pay child support so that the custodial parent can neglect, abuse and even kill* the kid is just as hypocritical.

*See the second link in my previous post. The child protection fiasco here (in the bluest state in the union) went on for 30 years before anyone in the state government noticed. During the same period they enforced child "support" laws with a vengeance, without, you know, supporting any kids

Alright. The answer is yes to all of your questions. Whatever you imagine I should be doing, I go above and beyond. Now can we talk about the morality of abortion? Actually I'd like to hear what you do to help black criminals.

"So MaNy qUeStIoNS!! ! I cAnT aNsWeR tHeM aLL!! ! So HaRd!! ! FiNe YeS jUsT pReTeNd I dO aLl ThE tHiNgS!! !"

You mean the ONE question? "How do you help?" If you ACTUALLY DID anything, I wouldn't have to PRETEND that you did things FOR you. This really IS like asking Sarah Palin what she reads. "ThAtS a TrIcK qUeStIoN!" Not if you READ.

Whatever I imagine you should be doing? You mean YOU can't come up with a single way to help protect unborn children other than shaming women? Or even born children?

"YeS yEs WhAteVeR yOu tHiNk I sHoUlD bE dOiNg, YeAh, I tOtAlLy Do ThAt!" Hey neat, not just virtue signaling, LAZY virtue signaling. That's a new one.

"ThErE jUsT pReTeNd ThAt I aCtUaLlY dO aNyThInG oThEr tHaN sHaMe WoMeN, sO I cAn cHaNgE tHe SuBjEcT tO ANYTHING ELSE!! !"

Well, lets see, what do I do to help black criminals? Well, first of all, I don't say things like "black criminals". Which is a nice set up, by the way - cos if I don't help "black criminals", you get to say I don't do anything (while conveniently ignoring your own impotence in the actual topic being discussed here) and if I DO help "black criminals", then you get to start hooting about how I'm "pro-crime", and racist to boot cos I only "support BLACK criminals".

Pairing the words "black" and "criminals" together just serves to make a charged topic that inherently implies a natural relationship between "blacks" and "criminals". Framing the question as to how I support "black criminals" both assumes that I support criminals, and that those I support are criminals - and that I only do so if they are black. So very many assumptions. And they all happen to benefit your flimsy position, or at least make provocative bait for a mediocre distraction.

What if I start you a list?

Things you do to help protect babies:

1. Shame women.
2. AlL tHe ThInGs YoU cAn ImAgInE!! !
3. WhaT aBoUt GeOrGe FlOyD?!
4. "BlAcK cRiMiNaLs!"
5.

Take it from there, O mighty baby protector.