Categories
entitled babies evil sex-having women incel ironic nazis irony alert literal nazis men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny reddit twitter

Incels lose it (even more so than usual) after woman jokes about the “aborted girlfriend” meme

whoooooooosh

By David Futrelle 

Incels aren’t really very good at the whole “humor” thing. Last week, I wrote about the “Imaginary Girlfriend” meme in which an earnest stick-figure woman declares that if she hadn’t been aborted she could have grown up to be every incel’s dream girl. “Sorry I couldn’t be there for you,” she says. “But my mom had other plans … would have liked to have a lot of kids with you.”

*Shudder*

To me, the meme looked more like the work of a troll doing a pitch-perfect parody of incel logic than an actual incel meme, but a lot of other people thought it looked real, and it certainly could be. One of these people tweeted this:

https://twitter.com/BobbieA10284800/status/1018114427705585665

Well, long story short, some incel found the tweet and posted it to the Braincels subreddit. And the incels there, not all of whom knew what she was referring to, lost their shit.

fuckbitchesman 36 points 1 day ago Baby killing whore. Burn in hell. permalinkembedunsavereportgive goldreply [–]Zyklon_Bae 23 points 1 day ago Women are soulless Golem. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]Bobodzadza 14 points 1 day ago Fact

Detoxified- 19 points 1 day ago Daily reminder that women's rights were a mistake.

vrcodemonkey 27 points 1 day ago All woman's thinking is sick. They are a disgusting degenerate creature. Guarantee she finds another Chad and gets fucked first night and eventually aborts another. Horrible horrible fucking nasty creatures

AyeThatsAGoodNaggercucked beyond recognition 17 points 1 day ago Supporting abortion is the epitome of female illogic, narcissism, emotionalism, sexual incontinence, and unwillingness to accept the consequences of their own actions.

Huh. Not having a baby when you don’t want to have a baby seems pretty logical to me.

One fellow fantasized about beating her up — and her liking it.

futmut 11 points 1 day ago I would love to hear her jokes from her mouth while i punch her face like a sack of shit as she is...who knows, she might even get excited from that😉

This lovely fellow suggested genital mutilation:

HailSatancel 3 points 20 hours ago She should get her pussy sown shut tbh

Still others reminded us that most incels are only a step or two away (if that) from being straight up Nazis.

based_meme 2 points 1 day ago Is this what you want , Western civilization? Is this this the kind of degenerate filth you want perpetuating society?

Inceller 5 points 1 day ago Women are subhuman trash. Lower than insects

Lovely.

Naturally she gained some new fans on Twitter as well, some of whom also appear to be Nazis or near-Nazis.

https://twitter.com/Archeon_/status/1019045553139838977

https://twitter.com/FashKermit/status/1019260806779809792

I’m still not sure why posting a picture of a delicious looking Arby’s roast beef sandwich, intended to suggest that a woman is a “roastie” who has had so much sex that her labia have mysteriously grown larger and more roast-beef-like, as if that’s really a thing, is considered an “own,” even by these idiots. Sex is good; Arby’s roast beef sandwiches are good. The two of them together would be fantastic, with the only real drawback being the slight danger of getting horsey sauce on a tender area.

It remains funny to me, in a sad sort of way, that incels — whose personalities are basically a collection of red flags — have managed to convince themselves and each other that women hate them for their looks.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

277 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

@Katiekitten420

Okay, I’ll make my position on how I view “pro-life”, however you choose to define it, very clear.

If the pro-lifer (or any other person who identifies as something else) wants to outlaw abortion (or outlaw abortion in all but the most extreme “mother’s life must be in danger” cases), then they’re trying to infringe upon the bodily autonomy of people with uteruses and I will not stand for it. I don’t care how angelic this person is, I don’t care how many fostered kids they have or how much money they give to charity or how much they advocate for other good things. Their pro-life stance is shitty and they deserve to be held accountable for it. They can take a flying leap into a pile of Legos.

If the “pro-life” person is just doesn’t like abortions, will never have one themselves, but won’t try to force other people to keep unwanted pregnancies, then I don’t give a shit. They can keep on doing whatever they want, so long as it doesn’t infringe on other’s rights. If they accept that no matter how lovely the foster system is, no matter how much childcare is available and aid for mothers is provided, I will still get an abortion the SECOND the test shows a positive result, then I’m fine with them. If they respect other people’s CHOICE, (hmm, I wish we had a word for what that stance would be…) then they can do whatever they want.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

And there’s another aspect to this, too. Abortion isn’t only policed by the government but also by society. Even if your friends think it’s okay for people to get abortions in a life threatening situation, they’re clearly vocal enough about their “pro-life” stance that you know all of their beliefs in detail. So they must repeat this a lot. And maybe some person will internalize that message that the fetus’ life is sacred and make decisions that they wouldn’t otherwise make. They’ll feel guilt and pressured into keeping it, into risking their own life, when maybe if they saw it as what it is, a growth that is threatening their health, they would instead try again with another pregnancy. So your friends are contributing to the misogynistic view that abortion is bad and should only be used sparingly.

Imagine if other procedures were treated like this. You have a fatty tumor pressing on a nerve. Should you proactively get rid of it? Well, it might *not* paralyze you. It’s living tissue, so we should allow it the opportunity to continue living.

You want a breast reduction for your back? Won’t you feel guilty for taking life from those tissue cells you’re removing? Can’t you live with the pain a bit longer?

Abortion isn’t bad. It isn’t wrong. It shouldn’t be weighed heavily. No one should feel guilty for it. It shouldn’t be made illegal. It should be proposed as an option to anyone who might want or need one, and preventing someone from getting information or receiving one, or harassing people who enter clinics where they are performed should be illegal.

Katiekitten420
Katiekitten420
2 years ago

Okay I think I understand what people are trying to say now it’s kind of like how saying I don’t see color in the 80s was a progressive point of view but now if you say it it’s essentially a dog whistle. From what people are telling me if you say pro-life people are just going to see you a certain way no matter what.

Like they don’t want to legislate abortion but they personally feel it’s morally wrong except in cases where the mother’s life or health is in danger. I realize that now if you say you’re pro-life people will just assume you want to legislate against abortion and even though in my opinion that is not the literal meaning of pro-life that is what it has colloquially come to mean. So the group of people I’m talking about keep in mind they’ve been calling themselves pro-life for I think about four or five decades, so they may precede the current pro-life movement. I’m honestly not sure when the current hostile ignorant pro-life movement really gained momentum.

So I guess what most people are saying is if these people call themselves pro-life no matter what their actions show cuz I judge by actions words are wind as they say in Game of Thrones LOL. The people I’m speaking out are pro-life in the truest sense of the phrase but since the phrase has been co-opted buy a much larger group of assholes, referring to them as pro-life is just misleading. I just have to explain the whole concept of the group if I’m going to refer to them in the future I guess because saying pro-life even with caveats is just too confusing. It does not convey the actions or intentions of the people I’m speaking of.

Like I’ve said before subtleties are hard for me so that’s why it took me so long to see what people were trying to say. I think most people would agree that the specific actions the people I’m speaking about are taking are good useful/helpful actions but they would not consider those actions to fall under what pro-life has colloquially become to mean currently. If I’m still wrong please correct me. Okay I’m actually going back to sleep for about 2 hours now so I’ll see if anyone responded when I wake. Hope everyone’s having a lovely day.

Moon_custafer
Moon_custafer
2 years ago

@ Alaniel, alan, Dvärghundspossen:

But a lot of the people in need of organs have health problems which are the reason they need them, and which would automatically disqualify them from donating (the one organ recipient I have personally known was a friend from high school and later university whose liver had begun to break down in his teens, due to an auto-immune disorder.) I can imagine a healthy person who’s signed up to be a donor suffering an accident or illness that damages their heart, but I doubt that’s the majority of people in need of new hearts.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

I think most people would agree that the specific actions the people I’m speaking about are taking are good useful/helpful actions but they would not consider those actions to fall under what pro-life has colloquially become to mean currently.

The more you talk about them the more they sound like every other “pro-life” Christian who is against women having abortions and therefore against the bodily autonomy of women. These people don’t always agree that it should be legislated, but they all feel perfectly fine guilt tripping people for getting a medical procedure. They want to see themselves as good and warm and about life, but they don’t look at their own beliefs critically and don’t care about the emotional and physical harm done to people pressured into carrying unwanted pregnancies because of their actions.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

No. Pro life never meant anything but part of the movement trying to outlaw abortion. It’s not an assumption or stereotype.

If one calls themselves pro-life, they are aligning with the movement which was never anything but a backlash against feminism and women’s freedom.

Dvärghundspossen
Dvärghundspossen
2 years ago

@Mooncusafer: We all said you’d only be disqualified if you decide to keep your organs for no reason. Obviously you can still receive organs if you can’t donate for health reasons.

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
2 years ago

‘Quick’ notes, since I got on this late:

The idea that ‘if it came down to either the mother or the child’ fails on the fact that hospitals have been known to actively delay abortion if there is any noticeable heartbeat, even when there is no possibility of a safe birth, and condemn both mother and child to death as a result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

Note that this event a few years ago was almost certainly one of the primary causes for the debate and recent decriminalization in Ireland.

As for how recent anti-abortion sentiment is, Fred Clark has long talked about that:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/

Basic summary: up until the end of the 1970s, the American Religious Right considered abortion to be a Catholic issue, and not one of theirs; it was unfortunate, but sometimes necessary. It only became a Religious Right issue after they lost the fight on desegregation and needed some other way to pretend to be morally superior to everybody else.

The Bible doesn’t forbid it. In fact, one could argue that the Bible actually commands it in one case, as an ordeal when a woman is accused of infidelity.

Amusingly, Fred Clark has a few articles about that particular passage as well, including one with this comment:

This suggests that — contra that NIV subtitle about “The Test for an Unfaithful Wife” — this ritual wasn’t really meant as a way to deal with the problem of an unfaithful wife so much as to deal with the fragile masculinity of a suspicious husband.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2018/02/03/sotah-solomonic-theater-bible-commands-abortion-part-2/

@KatieKitten420:
The most generic way of doing quotes is to just enter the HTML directly in the reply panel, so that:

<blockquote&rt;a quote</blockquote&rt;

becomes

a quote

(I run sites without Javascript, mostly, so while there may be buttons to give you shortcuts for that, they don’t work for me.)

AuntieMameRedux
AuntieMameRedux
2 years ago

@Who?

Quotation strongly needed, can be should be monitored, but nope I know parents who adopted 2 kids from another country, (a boy and a girl) nothing criminal happened there, they just gave both those children a home.

You don’t actually know this. The fact that the buyers are happy with the system? Well, that is who the system is designed to serve. Another thing that adopters are paying for, besides the body of the actual child is to be insulated from the crimes committed. This is part of why so called adoption is so expensive.

Another fact that propaganda has muddied and erased? Actual orphans are rare. Only 14% of children in International Orphanages have even one parent who is dead. When we go to both parents dead? The numbers drop to less than three percent. Then taking the next slice of children who have no extended family and this approaches zero.

I can flood the comments section with citations if you really want, but for the moment, I will limit myself to the following:

he 1997 Australian Parliamentary Inquiry

The Recent Australian Apologies to both Indigenous and White Mothers

You want citations? I am more than capable of flooding the comments section with them. Who? I am not lying about this, not making it up, not trying to destroy anybody’s unicorn fairy dust dreams just to be argumentative. A friend of mine called adoption the perfect crime – and it is and one of the reasons is because records are sealed. Even doing research into it is extremely difficult.

But here are some citations:

https://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/adoption/orphan-statistics.html

See especially The Lie we Love: Orphans and International Adoption

But the entire site is good.

http://www.originsnsw.com/

https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/20136

And see the origins sites for the United States, Canada and England. All of research into the effects and the fact of forced adoption on mothers and children.

Please pay special attention to the menu on the left that leads to research, Dr. Rickarby’s articles, the other origins sites for further research.

http://babyscoopera.com/

This site has a research paper.

Oh, you want to say, this only happened in the bad old days? Nope, not really, in fact I would argue that the coercion and pressure on women who get caught by the traffickers is even worse today, especially a vulnerable woman unlucky enough to be carrying the prize of a healthy white infact. In my lifetime alone, I have seen the time line of the baby scoop expanded. It used to be just the fifties and sixties, then into the seventies and then into the eighties by some estimates. The boundaries of forced adoption expand as the stolen children age into adulthood. Even though adoptees do not enjoy equal treatment under the law, they do at least partially stopped being owned as they age into adulthood – but still unequal under the law.

So, Who? the fact that you know happy customers? Not really that convincing. Please let me know if you would like additional citations because I can provide them. I’ve spent the last thirty years on reproductive issues.

This is a human rights violation of both women and children. Further, this, combined with the never ending, circuitous abortion arguments keeps us from really addressing reproductive safety and freedom for all women.

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
2 years ago

@KatieKitten420:
Sorry, that should have been:

<blockquote>a quote</blockquote>

produces

a quote

(The downside of no Javascript also means no edit button.)

MarshallDog
MarshallDog
2 years ago

I prefer to pronounce it “Bra-incels.”

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEPAEvLIdbY&w=560&h=315%5D

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
2 years ago

@Katamount:

There was nothing to fill that gap except raw consumerism. No community or tradition, just go to Tim’s, root for the Leafs, shop at the Bay and reminisce about the Canadian Tire Scrooge Guy.

Root for the Leafs?

Why on earth would anybody root for the Leafs?

🙂

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
2 years ago

@Surplus to Requirements:

Root for the Leafs?

Why on earth would anybody root for the Leafs?

Obviously, because it’s polite to cheer for the ones who are going to lose. It’s just not nice to leave them without anyone cheering.

Re: organ donation

One of the most interesting, and as far as I can tell rarely talked about, things Dr. Kevorkian argued for was the right for death penalty inmates to donate their organs. Apparently in most death penalty states, they’re legally barred from doing so. As Kevorkian pointed out, if you’re going to have the death penalty, why not allow the inmates a way to genuinely give back, if they want to? Unlike what happens in China, he was adamant that this would have to be the inmates choice.

The answer to why not, of course, is that it would make the death penalty serve a purpose other than revenge, and we can’t have that. Plus probably some concern over the clusterfuck that would happen if someone discovered they’d been given a murderer’s heart or whatever.

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

Kupo makes good points. Pro-lifers who don’t want to make abortion illegal (if they exist), but still want to put up barriers to access for abortion are also awful. Whether that’s with stupid bullshit legislation requiring ultrasounds before an abortion can be performed or legislation meant to force abortion clinics out of business, or harassing people outside of abortion clinics or by setting up sham “pregnancy crisis centers” meant to deceive and guilt trip pregnant people, or actively guilt tripping/blackmailing personal acquaintances and threatening to tear away their social support structure… None of these things are about literally making abortion illegal, but they’re still used to coerce people away from a choice they are 100% entitled to make. And they’re all incredibly shitty and shouldn’t happen.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ rapid rabbit

“Gary Gilmore’s Eyes” notwithstanding, would that even be possible? My understanding of current execution practice is it renders organs unusable anyway.

Lizard
Lizard
2 years ago

Just your daily reminder that incels are the biggest fucking hypocrites on the internet: woman who had an abortion, which proves nothing more than that she had sex exactly once (not that her sex life is anyone’s business but hers), is “passed around like a hockey puck”…according to a bunch of dudes who spend their lives whining that no one will have sex with them.

No sexist double standard here, no sirree!

Who?
Who?
2 years ago

AuntieMameRedux:

You don’t actually know this. The fact that the buyers are happy with the system? Well, that is who the system is designed to serve. Another thing that adopters are paying for, besides the body of the actual child is to be insulated from the crimes committed. This is part of why so called adoption is so expensive.

I should have made clear that I know that no crime was comited to those children after they came to Germany. You called this sex trafic and I know the parents and the children (who are my age btw), and know that the adopters aren’t bad people.
Do I know what happened to my former clasmate before he came here (was 2 btw), no, I know he came from an asian orphanage, had a headtrauma (because somethink happened there). As far as I know, he was in that orphenage before my parents friends tryed to adopt him.

Your links do concern two countrys mostly Australia and the USA. I will not say that what happened here, wasn’t a crime.
I know for a fact, that it isn’t the same here. (Adoption is dificult in Germany and while there may be some presure on exspecially young mothers to give away their children it doesn’t come from the state) Taking away children is hart here. (Has to be to safe the children from a danger)
So our national adoption is not a crime (Second case btw aunt adopted a older girl, who was an orphan)
The country were my cases were from was South Korea if someone knows more (I know of a 3rd case, but this was a politican who was also adopted and made a carrear here)

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
2 years ago

@Alan

It’s been a while since I read the book in which he made his argument. Presumably, as a medical expert in killing people, he had some ideas about how to carry out executions that would make it possible.

the real cie
the real cie
2 years ago

Just to make sure I wasn’t missing some strange change to my anatomy, I went in the bathroom and looked at my bits.
I still have the regular lady parts in place. No roast beef.
Any of you ladies ever look at your bits and see that roast beef has usurped your expected anatomy? I’ve never had that happen.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ rapid rabbit

He was probably angling for the job.

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
2 years ago

Regarding ‘root for the Leafs’:

Well, as someone originally from B.C. and not really a sports fan anyway, I’m not really in the best position to talk; but I will note that I have a good bit of grey hair (I’m 50) and the Leafs haven’t won the Stanley Cup while I’ve been alive. In fact the last time they won, Tim Horton was still playing defence for them.

Besides, there’s a bit of the old ‘evaporative cooling’ thing going on here. Anybody who was ever going to give up on the Leafs already has, so of course the remaining fans are going to be intense.

More generally, I hadn’t really thought about it before, but I can understand what Katamount was saying about ‘raw consumerism’. Again, I grew up in B.C., which has its own weird politics (and a lot of the B.C. identity is about how weird the politics get) but while the comment was focused on Ontario, there’s a fair bit of that which applies to Canada as a whole. Canada is a fairly young nation, with a history that involves a lot of political compromises that make for less rousing legends than revolutions, and there just really isn’t the same sort of ‘national identity’ that a lot of other places have. The closest thing we have to a ‘national identity’ is probably ‘not Americans’. In some ways that’s part of why Canada became such a middle-man in international politics, gaining a lot of goodwill that has been unfortunately largely squandered away of late.

(All of which hasn’t stopped a lot of the proto-authoritarian types like the Proud Boys from importing a lot of ‘national identity’ ideas, thus squandering even more of the goodwill we used to have.)

Regarding adoption:

My younger sister was adopted, actually, though she was maybe a month or so old at the time. In her case, it was relatively local, a family who didn’t feel they could actually take care of a child yet; they later had other children together once they were more financially stable, so my sister has biological full siblings. We never particularly hid the fact that she was adopted, but never made a big deal out of it either. Once she hit 18, we went through the paperwork to get the records unsealed, and she has somewhat connected with the other side of the family; there is understandably still some awkwardness there. (Due to things like tracking inheritable diseases, most provinces have shifted towards allowing the records to be accessed as long as parties agree.)

Granted, that’s also pretty close to a best case as far as adoption is concerned.

Weatherwax
Weatherwax
2 years ago

Sorry if I’m cutting across an existing conversation, but I needed to say.

The point about pregnancy is that it’s irrelevant when “life begins”; it’s always going to be about an existing life and a potential life. Given that pregnancy involves risk, and – once babies are born – we privilege the parents’ opinion on their welfare, I’m a little confused why we don’t beforehand. It’s almost like we recognise that babies are selfish little beggars. Once they’re born. Why would pre-birth be any different?

M K
M K
2 years ago

I was ranting to myself about how Golems aren’t “soulless,” they have God’s name written on their foreheads and protect the Jewish community…and then I realized that for these people, “protects the Jewish community” probably does make you a soulless demonic entity.

Katherine the Adequate
Katherine the Adequate
2 years ago

WTF is sexual incontinence? I don’t want to visit the Incel underworld/mom’s basement to find out.

Skylalalalalalala
Skylalalalalalala
2 years ago

laserqueen
July 18, 2018 at 3:04 pm
She gained the culture of a family- worth it so far.

For you, maybe. Adoptive parents need to stop speaking for adoptees, though. Also, most adoptees don’t realise the damage relinquishment and adoption have done to them until at least their 40s. Half a lifetime of burying it causes all the coping mechanisms to start failing, sometimes literally as cortisol overload, stress & adrenal fatigue kick in. Of course, those are the lucky ones. The less lucky aren’t with us anymore, since adoptees have extremely high suicide & addiction rates.

Robert
July 18, 2018 at 3:21 pm
As it is, my husband and I are being the best parents we can be to the sons we have.

I hope that includes listening to and learning from the voices of adult adoptees and deliberately seeking out blogs, books and podcasts from adoptees, starting with the book The Primal Wound, and including the AdopteesOn podcast. (http://www.adopteeson.com/ They also have a great resources page, although they’re missing adultadopteesupport.org)

Rabid Rabbit
July 18, 2018 at 5:29 pm
One of the most interesting, and as far as I can tell rarely talked about, things Dr. Kevorkian argued for was the right for death penalty inmates to donate their organs. Apparently in most death penalty states, they’re legally barred from doing so. As Kevorkian pointed out, if you’re going to have the death penalty, why not allow the inmates a way to genuinely give back, if they want to? Unlike what happens in China, he was adamant that this would have to be the inmates choice.

The answer to why not, of course, is that it would make the death penalty serve a purpose other than revenge, and we can’t have that. Plus probably some concern over the clusterfuck that would happen if someone discovered they’d been given a murderer’s heart or whatever.

I think that last part is the bigger problem, especially with all the evidence that even just blood transfusions can alter your tastes and the evidence that transplant recipients often have changes to personality, preferences , etc.

I remember a news story years and years ago that had a mouse in lab with a human ear growing out of it. I’ve wondered for a long time why that tech/science has never seemed to make much further progress. It seems the ideal solution – grow people new organs from their own cells. No more risks of rejection, no more wait lists, no conspiracy theories about doctors killing off people for their organs. Seems like nothing but upsides. Well, except if you make anti-rejection drugs, I suppose.

@AuntieMameRedux I admire your willingness to speak the truth for adoptees. Adoption has such a long standing, public brainwashing about how wonderful it is that people find it incredibly hard to hear that it’s human trafficking that hurts children. It’s wonderful for the multi-billion unregulated industry and adoptive parents. It’s a lot less wonderful for children and first families.

Are you a member of the “triad”?

Katiekitten420
Katiekitten420
2 years ago

Okay I’m confused. I have repeatedly state none of the people I have speaking of want to legislate or restrict abortion in any way because they are intelligent people who realize when you do that you don’t stop abortion you just make it more dangerous and women die. That is not pro-life obviously! Focus on preventing unwanted pregnancy is definitely in their top three goals if not number one. They have sent multiple petitions to the pope and the Vatican trying to get them to loosen their stance on contraception and birth control pills and stuff.

I feel like I’m not expressing this well. Name something I’ve said that any of the people I’ve referred to have done, like please quote me directly and tell me why it is bad action in of itself and you’re not just assuming their motivation and projecting bad actions or intentions on to them please. When I get home I’m going to make a list of answers and refutations I’ve gotten that literally having nothing to do with any specific statements I made they are all referring solely to the current majority pro-life movement in general. As I previously said I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to the term pro-life. I specifically said they are not proselytizing, they do not want to make it illegal or even more difficult. They just think you should take every reasonable precaution against unwanted pregnancies.(and let’s be honest, a lot of people don’t come close to doing that, especially if they are college-age or younger. Isn’t it better to use protection than to eventually kill a zygote? And if not, why?)Obviously if the mother’s health or life is in danger abortion is perfectly reasonable and not immoral in their eyes.

And like Susan, the friend of my mother’s I mentioned it’s not like they see people who had abortions is horrible whores or something like that. They realize that there’s a lot of nuance and shades of grey and like Susan some women just get it into unfortunate situations where abortion is the only truly reasonable course of action. For example if you get pregnant and you truly can’t afford to raise a baby. My mother for example think that was a horribly unfortunate situation but she wouldn’t think that the woman should have a baby that she can’t feed or clothes or raise well because she can’t afford to.

How is that actually pro-life? Just cuz the baby gets born doesnt mean it will have a good life. These people I’m referring to focus on all kinds of life not solely and only birth. What pro-life people are is really just pro birth, 99% of the time. They just have great branding. (I kinda like that, pro birth, that’s exactly what they believe and espouse, it’s perfect! Someone must have said that before now.)But seriously please someone tell me how what these people are doing is wrong and immoral.

Don’t assume their motivations and actions are the same or even always similar to the majority of people who call themselves pro-life. Technically politically yes they are pro-choice. But personally and morally they are pro-life and the people I’m speaking of view this as a substantial part of who they are as a person. So I honestly don’t understand what people here think they should refer to themselves as if not pro-life because by truest definition of the words that’s exactly what they are and much more so than the people who claim the term so often for themselves in my opinion.

So all of the people who are disagreeing with me, what’s your opinion, what should they refer to themselves as? What is the concept that encompasses the good things and activism they do in service of life? What would be a better phrase to convey it? I’m being totally sincere, this is not sarcasm or snark. I know I’m oversensitive and maybe I’m being irrational but I feel like since this topic is so polarizing it may be bringing out hostility in people that is unwarranted and my feelings are a bit hurt because I don’t feel like I’m just being disagreed with. I truly feel like some of my words are being twisted and or cherry-picked and/or taken out of context.

If you judge them by actions and not a word or a phrase what are the actions that they are doing that people here find so reprehensible? Or even a bit reprehensible and not just something you happen to disagree with? Again they do not want to legislate abortion or make it more difficult for anyone they would probably prefer the opposite in a bunch of cases because it’s much better in their eyes(now this is an assumption on my part to kill a bunch of cells that’s only 20 days old then when it’s 20 weeks old.)

I personally feel ambiguous about abortion, obviously women should be able to choose what to do with their own bodies. If you want to have 18 abortions that’s your uterus and that’s your right but it would make me personally uncomfortable. I am not trying to push this on anyone I never said any one of these people is trying to push this on anyone because they’re not. They consider their views to be pro-life by the strictest definition. All life is sacred therefore you should do all you can to make sure as many people live as possible and their lives are as pleasant as you can theoretically help them be. So what are they actually do it that is hurting anyone or immoral in any way? That is what I don’t get what are people objecting to? Please no one bring up the great majority of the current pro-life movement for the billionth time. Please I am so far beyond confused at this point I’m begging anybody to please tell me what are these specific people are doing that is so wrong? Thank you in advance for any responses.

I’m sorry if I sound harsh in any way I’m just frustrated and so confused because I’ve known a few of these people since I was a child one of them is my mother and I’ve helped them with so many beautiful things and charitable events since I was little. Though not recently, since I got interested in political activism in the last 3 years starting 2015 I haven’t had the spoons for much of anything else. This is not the only important metric for something like this but if I had to guess the amount of money they have raised and given from their own pocket since I was let’s say 14 because I remember that year and the years after well(junior high is a bit blurry and before junior high is really blurry lol)I’m positive it’s over $1000000 and maybe a lot like maybe three or four million dollars. They are also very careful about the Charities they deal with if at all possible they prefer to handle everything themselves

Alaniel
Alaniel
2 years ago

Also, most adoptees don’t realise the damage relinquishment and adoption have done to them until at least their 40s. Half a lifetime of burying it causes all the coping mechanisms to start failing, sometimes literally as cortisol overload, stress & adrenal fatigue kick in.

Clarify? I believe your statements about the damage and problems of adoption. I also know of exceptions. (I’m in Germany, like Who?)

Are you trying to say that the adoptees who don’t feel damaged by their adoption just haven’t realized it yet?

Alaniel (aka LittleLurker)
Alaniel (aka LittleLurker)
2 years ago

@Weatherwax

I agree with what you said so much. Because even if the embryo or fetus were a person – as the pro-life crowd are so eager to prove with their pictures and everything – as long as that “person’s” “life” can only be protected by forcing another person to act as incubator? The choice is clear. Overtime pro-lifers go on and on about the fetus/embryo being a human or even feeling pain and stuff? Well, as harsh as it sounds, even if you could scientifically prove that it would change nothing. It would then be a case of “too bad”, because being against abortion would still be forcing another person to give their own body as a kind of incubator or life-sustaining device and that would still be an unacceptable human rights violation because it would be a violation of a person’s bodily autonomy. You have a right to maintain that autonomy. If that is only possible by ending another “person’s” “life”…then that would be “unfortunate collateral damage that can’t be helped”. What I mean to say is, in addition to being dishonest and emotionally manipulative as fuck, those “but they are babies” arguments from the pro-life crowd are also somewhat irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if “they” are “babies”. If “they” can only “live” by taking away another human beings bodily autonomy, then I’m sorry, but as it is now, they can’t live.

And no, I’m not a “baby hating bitch” (ridiculously enough that seems to be where they’re headed with these emotionally manipulative arguments). I would simply put a woman’s (and every human being’s) right to self-determination above their “moral obligation” towards any other life. So even if they could prove it was “a life” it would change nothing for me when it comes to the right to abortion.

And the attempts at emotional manipulation by spreading pictures of aborted fetuses/embryos really pisses me off. I came across that yesterday by researching German pro-life activists after reading this thread. “Warning the pictures are really horrific and could shock you!” Yeah? You know what’s just as shocking to me? The idea of having my body f*cking used to grow something in it that I don’t want there. So I’m not asking anyone else to do that, okay dudes? And btw? I’d personally be ecstatic to have a kid under most circumstances, but somehow I still have enough empathy to imagine how horrific it must be to be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

I also can’t help seeing something of a sexist stereotype behind the whole argument it. As in: “But you are a WOMAN, don’t you care about the cute little BABIES?!” I don’t care about any “baby” more than I care about the human rights and human dignity of living women, no.

booburry
booburry
2 years ago

KatieKitten

Your friends thinking I’m not a criminal, but just a murderer who should have taken more responsibility ie contraception isn’t any better than any of the other garbage I’ve heard from prolife people. They can dress it up however they want but it doesn’t make it much better.

And this

. They just think you should take every reasonable precaution against unwanted pregnancies.(and let’s be honest, a lot of people don’t come close to doing that, especially if they are college-age or younger. Isn’t it better to use protection than to eventually kill a zygote? And if not, why?)Obviously if the mother’s health or life is in danger abortion is perfectly reasonable and not immoral in their eyes.

Is some judgey shit that really just rubs me the wrong way.

Katiekitten420
Katiekitten420
2 years ago

I specifically said think don’t think it’s murder I’ve said that three or four times okay everyone is just being reactionary and not reading my words so I’m giving this up. I said they believe it is killing something which is so not murder. If I trip and knock a flower pot out my window and I kill someone is that murder? I also believe it is killing something but I’m on the fence on whether it is immoral or not. I’m also on the fence on whether it is immoral to kill things like mice I catch them and set them free if there ever a problem which is happened twice in my life. Also why is what I said judgy? I said that ideally unwanted pregnancies should be prevented I don’t understand why that’s a controversial stance!

They believe young adults should be educated so they don’t get pregnant when they don’t want to pregnancy can kill you pregnancy can do all sorts of things aside from make a baby which is huge by itself why is it judging to say I would like to prevent unwanted pregnancies as much as humanly possible I don’t get that.

I’m judging from the people I knew in college and high school who were a lot of the time lazy about condom use when they were excited they were going to get laid. Do I understand that? Sure they are horny teenagers! Does that make it brilliant and wise? Of course it doesn’t! Does it make them bad or immoral people? Of course it doesn’t! It was a lapse in judgement which everyone has periodically I have surely had many lapses in judgement and if you are Christian to err is human to forgive divine.

And it just proves my point again everyone saying vague borderline insulting condescending stuff(if it’s not quite insulting and I’m being oversensitive I apologize but I feel insulted.) Why is nobody actually giving a specific answer to anything. Why is it not better to just take 30 seconds and put on a condom then have to go to a clinic to kill the zygote? Even if I was a sociopath, I would rather do that simply for efficiency f*** morality it’s just a better idea.

I don’t understand why what you put in the block is controversial I’m sorry. I think people are just being reactionary because this topic is so polarizing. I shouldn’t have brought it up I’m used to people here not being so hostile. I guess it depends on the topic. I’m sincerely asking questions why I don’t understand and everyone is just vaguely telling me I’m wrong and not telling me why and not only is it hurting my feelings but it’s frustrating the s*** out of me

I don’t understand why someone can’t just tell me be like Katie the reason this is wrong is this and this and this and you’re not seeing these gray areas and blah blah blah I’m sincerely asking but people seem to be escalating not getting less hostile even though I’m just asking and since I’m under strict orders of my psychiatrist and primary partner to not stress myself out because I’m very prone to episodes and severe panic attacks right now most people know I was in the hospital for a while after the election and why. This is getting me emotional cuz I’ve never felt so strongly attacked by this community before.

I’m not trying to make people feel guilty I’m not trying to be nasty. If what I’m saying is socially inappropriate I know I can be accidentally tactless and stuff I don’t mean to and if I’m doing it now I sincerely apologize but I don’t understand why everyone’s just being hostile and not just explaining it step-by-step.

If I’m so incredibly wrong just give me the simple facts and reasons why I’m wrong like people have done with every other topic I was ignorant and occasionally even offensive(obviously not purposefully)about? Especially when I first came here I said some really ignorant stuff and people were much nicer about that then they are about me right now just being confused I just don’t get that. Since it seems absolutely no one is willing to do that yeah I guess I will just leave it alone

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
2 years ago

@booburry

I wish the “people are irresponsible that’s why unwanted pregnancies happen” myth would die among the pro life groups. Teen pregnancies are down, not just because of increased contraception use but AFAIK they’re just having less sex in general.

It’s also fun to pin down the “ABSTINENCE ONLY UNLESS YOU’RE READY FOR A BABY” individuals when it comes to married/LTR couples. Since, let’s be honest, the religious pro lifers also tend to believe “no sex before marriage but after that go wild” so I’m guessing they didn’t think their little abstinence thing through.

Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meanie
Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meanie
2 years ago

@KatieKitten,

It sounds like the philosophy you’re trying to describe could be the Consistent Life Ethic / ‘Seamless Garment’ one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

http://m.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/the-seamless-garment-what-it-is-and-isnt#.W1BoiRYpDv5

Those two links should be enough as an introduction to the concept, including some of the criticisms of it in practice.

Does this help you any with what you’re trying to say?

Megan
Megan
2 years ago

Katie, do the research yourself. It’s not our responsibility to hold your hand through this

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
2 years ago

If bodily autonomy isn’t fundamental, then it has to be legally compulsory – and enforced – for everyone to donate a kidney, half a liver, blood and bone-marrow etc. regardless of their state of health or circumstances. If a man says no, that’s just too bad. He gets arrested and taken by force for those life-saving elements to be removed from him; they will save lives and that matters more than a mere man’s wishes doesn’t it? The pain and the risk to his health and to his life don’t matter, his own choice in the matter is irrelevant, the ways in which it could change his life forever don’t matter.

Sometimes I think a lot of people just don’t get how truly fundamental it is when your own body, your own self, isn’t yours to decide on but that somebody else overrules you; now I know a lot of anti-choicers are women, but very many are men who especially don’t get it because they know it can never happen to them.

Not to mention that of course – as others have pointed out – for anti-choicers overall, taking away women’s autonomy and causing them harm/”punishing” them is the whole point.

Laserqueen
Laserqueen
2 years ago

@ Skylalalalala

I am not speaking for adoptees, I am speaking of my daughter. As much as she can, she understands the trade off made without her knowledge or consent. She understands that if she were raised in place, she would have been out working at the cigarette factory at age 14, instead of going to college at 18.

Of course most children adopted aren’t full orphans. They have family, immediate and/or extended who cannot or don’t want to raise them. My daughter knows she has a birth family in her country of origin. Some of her friends have done the genetic testing and have enjoyed finding connections, she enjoyed finding her genetic heritage, but has not taken the next step to share to find connections.

I do not speak for all adoptive parents, a single adoptee does not speak for all adopteees either. Many, many do not look back but look forward in the life they have now.

WRT adoption being thrown out as the end all be all solution to no abortion, that is complete and utter BS. It’s difficult for all in the triad, never an easy casualty free solution. It’s been my experience that those who throw that one around have no idea of the difficulties involved for all in the triad.

Yes, keep fighting the illegal components in the industry. Absolutely.

But get over the “blood makes the best family” and “the culture of origin is the only culture important for the adoptee.”

I’m sorry for the derail, this is a topic well known and discussed in our family.

@ Robert Much love to you and your family.

ChimericMind
ChimericMind
2 years ago

I’m rather offended by the assertion that all foster-care is genocide, as well. I mean, I suppose that the culture my big sister was taken from, where she was raped by her older brother while her parents knew and let it happen is an important cultural touchstone, and it’s racist to say otherwise. The state had no business profaning her heritage by removing her from their custody and putting her in a soulless orphanage run by horrible cultural imperialists like my mother. Auntiemame is wise to support the ultra-conservatives that gained control of the Kansas legislature and decided that the foster care industry needed to be privatized within an inch of its life, and would have kicked undesired teenagers like my big sister back to their birth families regardless of the reason that they were removed in the first place. Of course, my mother had to fuck it all up by imposing her cultural biases against sibling rape and insisted on adopting her to stop that. Thank you for opening my eyes at how unenlightened my parents were, Auntiemame.

Katamount
Katamount
2 years ago

More generally, I hadn’t really thought about it before, but I can understand what Katamount was saying about ‘raw consumerism’. Again, I grew up in B.C., which has its own weird politics (and a lot of the B.C. identity is about how weird the politics get) but while the comment was focused on Ontario, there’s a fair bit of that which applies to Canada as a whole. Canada is a fairly young nation, with a history that involves a lot of political compromises that make for less rousing legends than revolutions, and there just really isn’t the same sort of ‘national identity’ that a lot of other places have. The closest thing we have to a ‘national identity’ is probably ‘not Americans’. In some ways that’s part of why Canada became such a middle-man in international politics, gaining a lot of goodwill that has been unfortunately largely squandered away of late.

Bingo. That’s the thing that astonished me so much in visiting Mackenzie House; it’s so modest compared to the grandeur of Mount Vernon or Monticello. Mackenzie led a rebellion against the British colonial authorities just as Washington and Jefferson did, only he did it with 200 farmers up in the sticks of Yonge and Eg(linton) and was quickly defeated. No grand battles, no immortalizing paintings by Benjamin West, just a daring escape to the US under cover of darkness. But it triggered the 1840 Durham Report and was the seeds of the gradual adoption of responsible government in Canada. Those we consider the great Canadians were talkers and deal-makers more than warriors and revolutionaries.

It’s funny you should mention the “not the US” concept of identity because… yeah, that’s basically what a lot of the Fathers of Confederation were about. Many had worked in the US at some point in the past and were disillusioned with it for one reason or another; Mackenzie with the corruption and D’Arcy McGee with republicanism as a concept (he lived a charmed life). If you consider the time frame of Confederation… right on the heels of the most destructive war North America has ever seen. Sir John A. Macdonald was like “hmm, yeah, we saw what a weak federalism did to those guys… maybe we should centralize things a bit more….”

So what else is there for a grand national narrative? The aboriginal cultures have been decimated. The remnants of British colonialism are all but swept aside and the Quiet Revolution rendered Quebec mostly secular. Basically, it’s just… Vimy Ridge, your preferred donut chain and yeah, “we’re not as bad as the US.”

I could go on for a while, but last thing I’ll say, there was a striking image I saw on a walkabout in downtown Toronto. It was a pair of young women, one white, one Asian, holding hands and striding past the looming obelisk of Toronto’s Boer War memorial at Queen St. and University Avenue. Kinda says everything about how much things have changed, doesn’t it?

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

KatieKitten,

While I can’t speak for anyone else, given that the right to an abortion is under severe threat right now it the US, I’m pretty sensitive about it. It’s crucial to push back against any anti-abortion sentiment. Because even though a significant majority of people in the US want at least some abortion rights, those who are anti-abortion are so loud that it gives the impression to the media and politicians that only progressives are pro-choice. Even rhetoric like “I’m not saying it should be illegal, but it is wrong” or “some pro-lifers aren’t anti-woman, they just sincerely want to protect life” endangers women’s rights and women’s lives. It also make this

They just think you should take every reasonable precaution against unwanted pregnancies.(and let’s be honest, a lot of people don’t come close to doing that, especially if they are college-age or younger. Isn’t it better to use protection than to eventually kill a zygote? And if not, why?)Obviously if the mother’s health or life is in danger abortion is perfectly reasonable and not immoral in their eyes.

A lot more difficult. Planned Parenthood prevent far more abortions than it performs because of all the other affordable family planning services they provide. But thanks to anti-abortion rhetoric, even the soft anti-abortion rhetoric like calling it a “necessary evil” gives right wing politicians an excuse to cut funding from them and the “moderate” politicians the impression that that’s what their constituents want.

I don’t feel like searching for the stats right now because I don’t remember where to look, but I do remember that countries where the right to abortion is not controversial or considered immoral actually have the lowest rates of abortion. This is in part because when family planning isn’t constantly under attack and stigmatized, people are more likely to have contraception access and now how to properly use it.

And yes, it is judgy. Contraception isn’t 100% effective, people get pregnant due to rape, sometimes a pregnancy is wanted but has to be terminated for medical reasons. Nearly 2/3 of women who have abortions already have kids https://www.guttmacher.org/united-states/abortion/demographics

Again, the stereotype that it’s irresponsible teenagers who are cavalierly using abortion as birth control is false and threatens access to family planning rather than encourages it.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

To clarify on the whole UN saying adoption is genocide thing, that’s a misreading. It says that transferring children from a targeted group to others is. It also says the intent has to be genocidal. The reason I called shady evangelical adoption agencies “stealth genocide” is because of their history of taking kids without confirming for sure that their separation from their families is temporary and because they do foreign adoption for the specific purpose of converting those children to evangelical Christianity. Adoption is genocide only if it is part of a program to wipe out a culture.

That does not mean adoption is always genocide. It does mean if you are looking to adopt from a foreign country you need to do your homework and make sure you’re going through an agency that is on the up and up.

A. Noyd
A. Noyd
2 years ago

Katiekitten420

but I don’t understand why everyone’s just being hostile

Because you’re on a misguided mission to get everyone to accept your particular “pro-life” pals as harmless, which you believe because you’re a) sympathetic to their rhetoric, b) ignorant of the consequences that even the supposedly hands-off stance has on abortion access, and c) clinging to a naive understanding of how and why people get abortions.

For example, you ask, “Why is it not better to just take 30 seconds and put on a condom then have to go to a clinic to kill the zygote?” As if it’s ever that simple. As if there aren’t several rather horrible assumptions built into that question. That you would pose that question at all lets us glimpse the rotten premises behind what you’re trying to sell as benevolence.

There’s no reason for anyone whose actual mission is “to make sure as many people live as possible and their lives are as pleasant as you can theoretically help them be” to concern themselves on a moral level with other people’s abortions. Abortions are a necessary part of making people’s lives as pleasant as possible. So why would your buddies disapprove of them at all? There’s something amiss there—something the rest of us know better than to trust.

A chauvinism for “life” puts its adherents in the uncomfortable position of always weighing one life against another. They can’t help but pit “make sure as many people live as possible” against “make sure…their lives are as pleasant as you can theoretically help them be.” Such conflicted people will try their hardest to relieve their discomfort without making themselves choose, which is what’s so dangerous. It leads to motivated reasoning, even in people who genuinely try to prioritize those who are already born. They’re going to falter whenever they think they can have it both ways.

The “nuance and shades of grey” you mentioned? Those are the fruit of your friends’ motivated reasoning. They’re what poison your premises. They’re unnecessary complications that lend themselves to misinformation and myth-making, to judgment and stigmatization—all of which bolster the more deliberately pernicious kind of “pro-life” activism.

No matter how special you think your friends are, it won’t change the fact that there is no way to be “pro-life” that disapproves of abortion yet doesn’t pose a danger to reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. So maybe stop insisting we believe otherwise. This isn’t some academic exercise. Our bodies and lives are at stake here.

Katiekitten420
Katiekitten420
2 years ago

I just woke up to get some juice but thank you very much for the response as I’ve gotten so far that’s what I wanted to get the whole time. I’m so used to everyone here being kind when I’m ignorant because especially when I first came here I was the epitome of naive and ignorant in a lot of ways and I don’t remember people ever getting this hostile towards me and it got me upset so I’m sorry if I got angry or rude or inappropriate in any way to anyone. I’m just a very high-strung person in general but maybe it’s just cuz I was literally raised somewhat by two of these people like they babysat me when I was teeny tiny and I know that their intention at least are truly good. All of their intentions are good that is true even for the people who didn’t babysit me. That I can definitely swear. But everyone knows where good intentions can lead LOL.

But some people were being hostile and honestly cherry-picking and twisting my words not most people but two or three and it’s just hard to take in information even if it’s true when you are being attacked or even feel like you are especially when you didn’t expect it at all. Anyone with a background in psychology knows this. Hopefully a few more people give me a few more specific answers and I can understand more because now I see a little bit why it’s problematic. It doesn’t keep the good things they do from being good but the overall concept it seems can’t not be problematic is what people are saying.

Also apparently my personal experience is just unusual in the situation because as a teenager yes I definitely saw many people get pregnant through carelessness and I’m horny so I don’t want to take 2 minutes to get a condom. Like this is something I saw happen many times not two or three so if that’s and carelessness is not one of the larger causes of teen pregnancy then that is very happy making but remember I’m talking like 15 to 20 years . I was born April 2nd 1984 so if that’s gotten better awesome!

But when I was a teen especially at High School I would say using condoms was less common than not using condoms overall. I I am speaking about like one night stands and party hookups and stuff like that. Many people I knew which was literally hundreds of people over the course of 4 years. My school had almost 3500 kids and I would definitely bet money that in the circumstances I just stated condoms were more often not used then they were. I’m very glad that that is changed or my anecdotes are just not typical of average teenagers. Anyway I’m going back to sleep thanks again for the people who have already tried to answer me kindly and who answer me kindly while I’m sleeping.

Also, WWTH, that second paragraph never occurred to me at all, the second paragraph of your second comment in response to comment right before this one. That in of itself is definitely a good point. Thank you personally for coming back and being less hostile cuz I always really enjoyed when you give it to me and it honestly hurt my feelings just a tiny bit that it seemed to me maybe because I’m overly insecure and irrational that you thought I was being stupid and unkind.

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

@KatieKitten420

We can’t magically know the intentions of the people you are describing. We don’t know them. We can’t read their minds, and we can’t see their actions. We can only operate off of the information that you have provided to us. And what you have provided to us are that these people identify as pro-life and think things like:

they personally feel it’s morally wrong except in cases where the mother’s life or health is in danger

some women just get it into unfortunate situations where abortion is the only truly reasonable course of action. For example if you get pregnant and you truly can’t afford to raise a baby.

Basically that they think that abortions except in the most extreme circumstances are wrong. That they want those other, “frivolous” to not happen any more. Apparently they don’t plan to try to actively coerce people out of getting abortions. Great, good for them, they respect basic bodily autonomy. They get a gold star. I’ll hold them with the same regard that I have for the people who think that gay marriage should be legal and gay people shouldn’t be harassed, but that homosexuality is still a sin. Sounds fair?

But if they decide to hold the label of pro-life, then they should be aware of how people are going to immediately interpret that and make assumptions, because words mean things.

Like how if someone is a part of All Lives Matter, they’re going to be interpreted as being a part of a group that is a reactionary backlash to Black Lives Matter, people who want to minimize the struggle that black people face and people who are frankly pretty racist. Doesn’t matter if the person is really, genuinely someone who believes that ALL lives are important and of course thinks that some of the killings of unarmed black people by police officers are unwarranted, and totally donates to the ACLU and just thinks that life is really important and we shouldn’t be exclusionary about these things! They’ve decided to throw their lot in with the 99% of All Lives Matter folks who are racist jackasses, and therefore are going to be interpreted as supporting the racist jackasses.

If they don’t care about how they are viewed by both the racist jackasses (who will, at least upon first contact, assume that they’re on the same side) and by the people whose rights are actively under attack by the racist jackasses (who will assume that they are against BLM, and probably still be nasty and accusatory and suspicious of the poor, poor “true” All Lives Matter people, even after being assured that, no, really, they aren’t racist jackasses like 99% of the people who identify as such), then they can keep on their merry way. That’s their right. But if they want to whine about how other people are meaaan and making assumptions about them just because of how they choose to label themselves, then they can suck it up.

Sheila Crosby
2 years ago

TAlking about fetal viability reminded me of this:
https://the-orbit.net/almostdiamonds/2013/01/26/fetal-viability-and-maternal-rights/
She makes the point that the woman doesn’t become any less human just beause the fetus has become more so. And some people do talk like that.

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKetznG0vXs

Here’s a reason people are very emphatic about how pro-life that believes this:

Like they don’t want to legislate abortion but they personally feel it’s morally wrong except in cases where the mother’s life or health is in danger.

Is pro-life.

Assigning a morality judgment to a medical procedure that people will choose to have for a variety of reasons (not only because they were too lazy to put on a condom) (also where are they going to get condoms, pro-lifers have shut down a bunch of planned parenthoods) (also where are they going to learn about condoms/other forms of birth control, pro-lifers have managed to eff that up a bunch as well) (and I know that you claim that your pro-lifers don’t do anything but make people feel like they will go to hell for having an abortion, but it all ties in to the greater pro-life ‘women should just keep their legs closed until they are married and then pop out those babies with no outside controls’ thing) IS BAD.

Based on this quote:

(…) maybe it’s just cuz I was literally raised somewhat by two of these people like they babysat me when I was teeny tiny and I know that their intention at least are truly good. All of their intentions are good that is true even for the people who didn’t babysit me.

Good intentions are, I believe, the paving stone of choice on the road to hell.

You’re going through something that progressive people often go through: The realisation that the people they love and who love them aren’t as good or progressive as we thought. Sorry, it’s shitty, but you’ve got two choices here.

Realise that their version of pro-life IS THE SAME as attempting to outlaw abortion, because it all feeds into the same thing. Or continue to assert that someone evil has co-opted the term, and your friends/family are the real pro-lifers.

Only you can make this call. Sorry for the dissonance, but it is what it is.

I’m sorry that the strong reactions you’ve got have made it difficult for you to understand what people are saying. But I won’t say that anyone was wrong to react this way. This is, like it or not, a war over bodily autonomy for people with a uterus. People will be heavily invested, because lives are literally on the line here.

Violet the Vile, Moonbat Screech Junky
Violet the Vile, Moonbat Screech Junky
2 years ago

@AuntieMameRedux

Fostercare is a tool of the state to control and abuse the poor and their children. This is also inhuman and anti-feminist.

Adoption as we know it is a product of the twentieth century, not something that has gone on for aeons as most people think. Adoption as we know it post WWII seems to be based on a Nazi eugenics program called Lebensborn.

I have seen enough of the way some people treat their children to know that there are children who are miles and miles better off in foster care or adopted.

The system is not perfect; of course not. But honestly, most of the backgrounds these kids come from, they are genuinely better off being removed. I know one girl who was the youngest of 5, born into a chaotic family which heavily featured heroin addiction and alcohol abuse. It had not one but two schedule 1 offenders, and the older children were sexually abused. She wasn’t, because her siblings managed to protect her, but she came into UK care at the age of four knowing less than 100 words and still wearing a nappy. She has been adopted, is now 15 and blossoming at school with good grades, a nice group of friends and an excellent vocabulary. She is aware she is adopted and still in contact with some of the saner members of her birth family.

I have no doubt that she will have some emotional trauma resulting from her adoption. Who wouldn’t? But if you consider the level of trauma she would have if she had been left with her birth family to be neglected and sexually abused, she is a great deal better off. What I know of her siblings confirms me in that belief as they are all sadly troubled adults.

She is not the only one I know; without going into details I have a background in social work and foster care.

Please refrain from making ridiculous sweeping generalisations about a system which has helped a lot of abused, unwanted and neglected children. It’s not perfect – and I certainly take the points made about the system being used for racism and abuse of minorities, which is damning – but at its best it genuinely saves and changes lives.

Note that Fostercare doesn’t apply to the white middle and upper class.

I can assure you it certainly does.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

@KatieKitten420
Someone pointed out earlier that what you’re doing is similar to the incel sympathizers, and I want to expand on that a little further so you can understand why you’re getting the reaction you are. Apologies if I am not coherent this morning; I have a bad headache.

First, you coming in here asking us if we can have any sympathy for some subset of pro-lifers is like when idli came in and was asking us if we can have any sympathy for some incels. In both cases, the term was being used to describe something very different from the mainstream usage of the word. Pro-life is an established philosophy as is incel. In both cases the claim was put forth that the mainstream usage is coopting some more pure, less harmful group but in both cases the movement always was about exactly what people mean when they use the mainstream definition.

Second, even the kinder, gentler usage you both apply to these terms is inherently rooted in misogyny. Just like the belief that, “I’m so ugly I’m undateable, but I don’t blame women for that” is inherently misogynistic, so too is “abortion is wrong and should only be performed if no other option is available, but we shouldn’t legislate against it.” (Apologies if I’m misrepresenting the belief in question; please let me know if I’m misunderstanding. ) People have already gone into what’s wrong with both of those positions, but please let us know if you need some more clarification.

So essentially what you’re doing is asking a bunch of feminists to have sympathy for a misogynistic position. And we’re just not going to do that. You’re not going to convince us we should, and you’re going to get a lot of anger any time you try it.

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
2 years ago

… The youtube link, if it doesn’t embed, is to part of the Sam Bee episode yesterday about Roe vs. Wade. Not to a sketchy video!

I wish I could edit to clarify that on the actual post. It’s only six minutes or so, I believe, so you’re not in for a lengthy screed if you do click it.

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
2 years ago

Oh, and I can’t remember if I’ve mentioned it here before (apologies for the repetition, if so) but I’ve personally used an IUD – supposedly among the most reliable methods of contraception known to woman – and got pregnant, twice.

I’m very pro-abortion, just like I’m pro-appendectomy and pro-antibiotics and pro-dentistry. They’re bloody brilliant when you need ’em.

Plus – though this is purely by the by of course – my kids (born some ten years later) wouldn’t exist today if I hadn’t been able to access safe, free, early, outpatients, non-judgemental (except for one idiot) abortions when I needed them.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

I think it’s kind of like when people come into a discussion about rape and say “of course I’m not pro-rape! Rape is wrong and I don’t blame the victim. However, if women don’t want to get raped, they should not go out and get drunk.”

Anyone here would have no trouble seeing that as a rape apologia argument even if the person states that not the intent. Because it implies that rape is the fault of the victim not being cautious rather than the rapist.

The same applies to the argument that “of course abortion shouldn’t be outlawed because we need it for the good women who deserve it because they have a medical need for it. It’s immoral and shouldn’t be used instead of condoms though.” It implies that women are wrong to have an abortion and justifies restrictions placed on it. You can’t say you’re not trying to undermine reproductive rights if you make this assertion.

If abortion is a right, then the reason for the abortion is not the business of anyone but the person getting it. One can have an opinion that it’s immoral to get an abortion if you were just careless with contraception, but you should keep that opinion to yourself because it’s not your body, and not your business.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

One can have an opinion that it’s immoral to get an abortion if you were just careless with contraception, but you should keep that opinion to yourself because it’s not your body, and not your business.

Yeah, but it’s still a shitty opinion to have. “You shouldn’t get surgery for that leg you busted up while skiing. You knew the risks.” It’s still treating abortion like it’s something other than a medical procedure.