|il fiore bel - 2015-08-16 |
Not sure what I should give five stars to... the idea of denying an abortion for a rape victim who's a child, or Mr. Fuck-a-bee pretending he gives a shit about some faceless little girl from Paraguay.
|Hooker - 2015-08-16 |
Okay. I've been a "who cares if people believe in science" guy my whole life, but this is pushing me very close to being a "we have to stop Christians from spreading their dangerous ideas" guy.
|The Mothership - 2015-08-16 |
Babies are indeed special, but their mothers are more special, and they get to fucking decide.
|B. Weed - 2015-08-16 |
He is properly named "Child Molester Apologist Mike Huckabee."
|Rodents of Unusual Size - 2015-08-16 |
This doesn't really surprise me. Most people who don't believe in any abortions don't care about stuff like this. They tell themselves God wanted that ten year old raped, or whatever, to make themselves feel better about their stance.
Abortion is sad but for fuck's sake. We have seven billion people, grandpa. Wake the fuck up.
Abortions could increase by tenfold and it wouldn't stem population growth by any statistically significant amount. As a rule of thumb, "too many people" as an argument is untenable at best, fucking dumb at worst. This planet could support A LOT more people if anybody actually cared about efficiency or long-term sustainability. They don't, though, because any day now Jesus is going to come down, explode everyone who ever made fun of us, and take us all to heaven while all the "bad" people get raped by demons.
The proper way to phrase the issue is "should every female be legally obligated to carry every pregnancy to term?" I think what actually makes people comfortable with answering yes is some kind of demented slippery slope argument.
It's just one of the myriad examples of some people believing that they live and prosper disconnected from anyone they don't personally know.
Rodents of Unusual Size
Oh haha, that's cute. You're one of those people that believes that. Okay.
Well, when billions die because we don't have nearly enough resources for everyone, feel free to cheerlead all the idiots who think they can poop out all the kids they want with no consequences once global warming causes major famine and starvation.
Rodents of Unusual Size
And yes, I realize you are going with the theory that if we just used all our resources at hand, we could feed everyone currently on Earth but the fact is those resources are all dwindling too fast to be able to keep up with us, even if we wanted to put our minds to it.
5 stars for evil,
More importantly than IF we can have so many humans, the real question is SHOULD. The answer is obviously "no." Biodiversity matters most of all on this planet. We are guests on this planet like all other life forms. We are unequivocally the dominant life form today. No animal can compete with us. By increasing our own numbers any further we're just risking ecologic catastrophe. By maintaining as many discrete groups apart from each other we keep biologic barriers to protect our entire population from vectors of disease, reduce economic pressure that leads to war, etc etc. We THINK we can "keep going" but we have many problems of our society that do not have a known solution yet, namely, garbage production, pollution, scarcity of precious minerals, etc etc.
We CANNOT keep going, at least not while keeping society as we know it in check. If we want to progress to 10 billion and then have a massive world war that brings it down again to 5 billion, that might be your goal, but it isn't mine.
We need abortions, because abortions themselves may not reduce the population, but freeing up women to get an education and become producers in society rather than "baby factories" is strongly correlated with a lower birth rate. Abortions are critical to our society.
Finally, abortion has existed since the beginning of civilization in the form of infanticide, get over yourselves.
First off, my argument isn't that we can continue to exist as we do now with twice the people. It's that we can comfortably support a lot more people than we could support now if people could wrap their heads around a more spartan lifestyle with better central planning rather than "fuck everyone this is mine FREEDOM".
Secondly, and more importantly, think about what you're saying. Simply being crowded is an ok reason to abort. Why? So you can live? So your children can live? So some other people's children can live? Should we be encouraging people to abort for those reasons? Who do we encourage and who don't we encourage?
I'm not against abortion, but that's kinda fucked up dude. It's uncomfortably close to saying abortion is extra ok as long as you can continue to live your relatively privileged lifestyle of completely fucking over 2/3rds of the rest of the world. It's also uncomfortably echoes certain rhetoric about immigrants.
I've always found the argument of "We're overpopulated!" and the similar opposite of "We have plenty of room" to be just pretentious.
The whole subject of having kids has been grievously misguided with sensationalism amid a real shitty deal of "Well no one is perfect!"
We wouldn't need families of 5, 6, 7 if we stopped feeding the notion that somehow raising a kid from scratch is a lot easier than adopting. We wouldn't need as much section 8 slumlord holes and food stamps if people would actually challenge themselves emotionally than pretend there is some sacred text that will give you a high on life orgasm. And unfortunately, a lot of this has to deal with income inequality, but the sensationalism really doesn't help either when those on the shafted side do not have the resources to even come to a point of understanding that not everything good sold to you is free.
Monkey Napoleon, I will not be victim to your straw man argument. Of course people need to live more humbly. That doesn't mean we shouldn't also have abortion. We need both. I am not disagreeing with that point of yours, so stop claiming that I am, you're wrong.
|That guy - 2015-08-17 |
|magnesium - 2015-08-17 |
This is actually the more intellectually honest anti-choice attitude about abortions for children impregnated by rape than giving them an exception. Anti-choices have already decided that the life of a fetus is more important than, and must be preserved at the cost of, the well-being of the pregnant person. An anti-choicer who believes in exceptions for rape is admitting that it's about punishing women for having sex, and not saving the eventual life of precious proto-babies.
It all really comes down to whether or not the government has the right to force you to use your internal organs against your will to support the lives of other people.
they are really only concerned that abortion might kill the second coming of jesus. Duuuhh. it all comes down to witchcraft and magical thinking.
|Quad9Damage - 2015-08-17 |
The flipside is looking into the eyes of a 10-year-old girl and telling her that her prepubescent, undeveloped body will be ripped apart and mulched to powder regardless of whether she delivers something an eighth her body weight vaginally or via cesarean section, and that she will probably die.
"Well gee, I dunno. Let's not confound the issue here. I would force her to go through with it. I mean I worked for John Connor."
|Binro the Heretic - 2015-08-17 |
We need to do a "Would you kill your wife or daughter to save a fetus?" campaign.
given how popular frontier life is for some of the nutsos, i imagine they would just spin it romantically as a tex-mex level authentic approach to the infant/mother mortality rate of the days of manifest destiny
Binro the Heretic
My mom was raised Catholic and tried to raise me Catholic for a while.
All the devout Catholic men on my mom's side would take their wives to the non-Catholic hospitals to deliver their babies because they knew the Catholic hospital would let the mother die if it was the only way to save the baby.
My theory is nuns hate the living shit out of normal women.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|