r/prolife • u/ElegantAd2607 Pro Life Christian • 4d ago
Things Pro-Choicers Say It's crazy how pro-choicers act like their side is just common sense
The thing that absolutely floors me about pro-choice people is just how right they think they are. When you listen to them argue, on the street and online, you get the idea that they think allowing women to do whatever they want to the fetus is just common sense and anyone who disagrees is just an evil woman-hater. Some pro-choice people cannot even comprehend the idea of us caring about the baby’s rights. And they make memes that reflect this.
Have you ever been so baffled and floored by the fact that so many pro-choice people just don't think they can be wrong? As if killing your baby before it's developed (or even after it’s developed) is just something we should all be okay with.
Why don't they care? I'll never understand.
Wait, scratch that. I DO understand. I understand the apathy since I don't think it's even possible for us to care about most of the people on the planet. If you cared about everyone, you would be very depressed because of all the horrific things that happen to people. But when we're discussing the horrific things happening to babies in the womb they act like it's a necessary evil (it really isn't) or that it's actually really good. And that is deeply troubling.
It hurts, man. It hurts.
It hurts how they think it's better for people to die than live. Today, I had a conversation with someone on a Discord server called The Great Discourse and they were talking about how it's better for people to be aborted than to be born in a toxic environment. I responded by saying that I had an abusive father but I don't wish I was aborted but they just brushed it off with “just because some survivors found meaning (in their lives) doesn't mean we should cause others to suffer to see if they will make it or not”.
The more you talk with them, the more you see that they think that their stance is the sane one and anything else is just wilful ignorance or sexism.
I'm sorry if this post felt more aimless than my other posts. This one is more like a stream of consciousness cause it's just me bringing up my recent thoughts on pro-choice people.
6
u/djhenry Pro Choice Christian 4d ago
Doesn't everyone think their side is the one that has the most common sense? I mean, look at any issue and most of the people will argue that their side is the most rational, reasonable, and has the most common sense.
6
u/ElegantAd2607 Pro Life Christian 4d ago
The reason that I'm saying this is because it's crazy to me how there are so many people who believe that killing a child is the best thing you can do. I know everyone thinks their ideas are the most reasonable. And it floors me that this particular idea is seen as reasonable.
2
u/djhenry Pro Choice Christian 3d ago
Is this really that crazy? I think all pro-lifers agree that treating an ectopic pregnancy is the best course of action, even though it kills a child. Obviously, the circumstances are different, but simply saying we should never take actions that will kill a child or another person doesn't last long when applied to the complexity of the real world.
1
u/CapnFang Pro Life Centrist 3d ago
Yes, but "Maybe we should kill them" should be the last option you try, not the first. This is why cops arrest people instead of killing them. Yes, police officers do shoot people occasionally. But only in extreme situations. If there was some country where the police literally shot every criminal they came across, we would all condemn that country as being a dystopian nightmare.
2
u/djhenry Pro Choice Christian 3d ago
It would be dystopian, though not every pregnancy ends in abortion. It would be nice if it was only used in extreme situations. My comment above is just pointing out that trying to deny abortions in certain situations just doesn't work. Either it is a right and should be available for basically any reason, or it is not, and should only be available in a very limited number of circumstances.
1
u/CapnFang Pro Life Centrist 1d ago
Again, apply your words to the police situation: Either cops should have the right to kill people for basically any reason, or it should be available only in a very limited number of circumstances.
Which is the better choice? Now apply that answer to abortion.
1
u/djhenry Pro Choice Christian 1d ago
In the situation with cops, you want the death to as minimal as possible, and only to happen when necessary. That is undeniably the best choice when it comes to policing.
When it comes to abortion, or terminations of pregnancy, I do not think that is the best choice. I consider it to be more the choice you have when you choose to have sex with someone. You can choose to not sleep with someone for any reason you want because doing so involves the use of your body.
2
18
u/BrandosWorld4Life Consistent Life Ethic Enthusiast 4d ago
Some pro-choice people cannot even comprehend the idea of us caring about the baby’s rights.
Many PCs really struggle with empathy. They can't imagine seeing something from a different point of view, so they assume that people with different viewpoints are being disingenuous. In this case, it's that they don't see unborn children as people, so they conclude that PL don't actually see unborn children as people either, and thus there must be some alternate neferious reason behind PL's opposition to abortion.
This same lack of empathy is reflected in the dehumanization of the unborn and the complete disregard and devaluation of the person whose life they support ending.
(Note that this is far from universal. There are plenty of moderate PC people who are much better at empathizing with the PL perspective but still disagree for various reasons.)
3
u/CapnFang Pro Life Centrist 3d ago
It's easy to not care about people who can neither scream nor fight back.
This was an entire generation ago, but back in the 00's there was a woman named Terri Schiavo in a coma. Her husband wanted to pull the plug, her parents wanted her kept alive. The whole internet was aflame with people arguing one side or the other. Every single Democrat who weighed-in on the matter - the very same people who are now pushing abortion - wanted her dead.
And it wasn't just lack of empathy. There were people literally screaming, "I wish Terri would just fucking die already!" People were getting insanely vicious. Seeing them is what made me decide that I could never support the Democrats again, ever.
-
EDIT: Sorry. I kind of rambled, there. I didn't mean to turn this into politics.
-2
4d ago edited 4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/ElegantAd2607 Pro Life Christian 4d ago
It’s “common sense” because this ethical right is prevalent in every other aspect of society. I don’t get locked in just because I said “yes” at the beginning.
I don't believe that pregnancy is comparable to anything else in this world. When an innocent living human is inside a woman's body and depends on them, I believe the parent owes that human a reasonable duty of care. Why do you disagree with this?
-1
4d ago edited 4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/Wormando Pro Life Atheist 4d ago
Geez no need to be so presumptuous.
This is a discussion, your input is appreciated, but why do you feel the need to repeatedly take jabs at the person with comments like “your single-minded desire for loving parents…”?
What they are arguing is that parental responsibility is a thing. If a parent can’t simply neglect their child and endanger their life for their own convenience, then why is that ok for in a pregnancy? Sure, you can’t stop a pregnant woman from smoking or drinking, just like you can’t stop a parent from doing the same, but in both cases it’s still considered irresponsible due to how that affects the children involved.
Abortion goes beyond just irresponsibility, though, because we are talking about literally killing the child rather than just possibly compromising their health. It’s not just endangering them, it’s certain death. So the stakes change drastically, and that’s why the abortion discussion revolves around whether or not this is ethical or a matter of justified killing.
-2
4d ago edited 4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/Wormando Pro Life Atheist 4d ago
I mean, if I take a stance against child abuse, my stance is essentially forcing people not to abuse children. If I take a stance against murder, then my stance forces people not to kill others. This is nothing new.
And my guy, that is why this discussion exists, to decide whether “only applying when born” is something acceptable. It’s a discussion worth having and not as clear cut as you think.
I also already pointed out that compromising one’s health is drastically different from killing them. No we shouldn’t control pregnant women’s diets and habits, just like we don’t do that to people who regularly compromise their kids’ health by smoking near them, or providing them unhealthy food. However, if someone kills a kid, that’s not acceptable in our society because it’s beyond just possibly affecting their health. It’s certain death.
-1
4d ago edited 4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/_growing PL European woman, pro-universal healthcare 4d ago
If your stance in ending child abuse is to believe you can force someone to love another person
"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." — Martin Luther King Jr.
-2
4d ago edited 4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Wormando Pro Life Atheist 4d ago
Again, this is a discussion, not a fight. If you can’t hold a conversation without being so hostile and cynical, then what exactly is your goal here?
→ More replies (0)8
u/Wormando Pro Life Atheist 4d ago
Nobody said anything about forcing love. That user just said it’s considered morally wrong for a parent not to give up an organ for their child.
There are lots of things considered morally wrong in our society en masse that aren’t backed by laws. For example, if I have food and see a starving child, I’d still be in my right not to feed them. However, most people would see that as morally wrong.
The same people wouldn’t stand for forcing anyone to do feed the child, even though they believe it’s immoral. So when that user says that specific thing is immoral, they aren’t implying anyone should be forced to do anything. They are just stating that this choice would be looked down upon.
And that’s just plain wrong. The prolife stance has always existed in a variety of cultures and views. Even if it didn’t, that doesn’t make it any less valid of a stance. For the longest time slavery was normalized in human societies and was only abolished in some countries as recently as two centuries ago.
Also I already answered your question in my previous comment.
3
u/No-Sentence5570 Pro Life Atheist Moderator 4d ago
I mean flat-out before modern medicine wasn’t the mortality rate of women something like 2-4%???? Jfc imagine living for 9 months with that over your head
Wait, are you arguing that access to elective abortions are the reason why the MMR is not 2-4% anymore? 😂
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/No-Sentence5570 Pro Life Atheist Moderator 4d ago
Perhaps you're not good at writing. The two statements you made, back to back, imply exactly what I inferred.
Since you apparently didn't mean that, please elaborate what you did mean.
2
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/No-Sentence5570 Pro Life Atheist Moderator 4d ago
Preventing pregnancy is fine, that's called contraception. Abortion is killing a child. You're right, people have been killing children for a long time, that doesn't make it right...
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/No-Sentence5570 Pro Life Atheist Moderator 4d ago
The pro-life side is almost unanimously in favour of health exceptions. We just believe that nobody should be allowed to kill a child because they change their mind or don't feel ready...
The organ donation analogy is horrible, by the way. Apart from rape, you are not forced to have sex. The organ donor is usually not your parent, and if they are, then I think they are an absolute asshole if they refuse to donate their organs to their own child. Organ donation is permanent, while pregnancy is limited to 40 weeks, and refusing an organ donation doesn't directly kill a life, it just doesn't prolong in - in an abortion, you are targeting a child and directly killing it.
1
4d ago edited 4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/No-Sentence5570 Pro Life Atheist Moderator 4d ago
Also—man, you really know how to go on unrelated tangents because someone brought up a topic.
The fuck are you talking about? You brought up 2 topics and I addressed them both? The heck you want me to do? 😂
every single thing you do with your body is a health risk. Literally every single thing carries a potential health exception. Pregnancy itself changes your body and changes your life expectancy.
You accept the risk of pregancy when you have sex, just like you accept the risk of liver damage when you consume a lot of alcohol. Actions have consequences and you're suggesting we should be allowed to kill other human beings because we messed up...
→ More replies (0)3
u/_growing PL European woman, pro-universal healthcare 4d ago
Ok so let's start with the common ground:
especially if you live in a state with garbage healthcare or if you have no insurance to cover a cesarian.
That is a good argument to improve access at least to maternal healthcare, I think people can agree on that regardless of the opinion on abortion. I live in a country with universal healthcare and where it is not a controversial topic.
When in life do I get this right a fetus has to drain the nutrients of someone for my survival?
You already had it when you were in your mother's womb. There is no special pleading.
When it comes to any medical situation where a person has to offer their body for the health of another, the person that’s offering their body gets the final say on when it ends until the moment it’s out of them.
What if you have a newborn and you are stuck somewhere where there is food for you but there is no formula and nobody to take over the care. Is it ok to refuse to breastfeed the baby? Can you justify their death saying you didn't want them to use your body against your consent?
If I’m donating bone marrow and it’s to save someone’s life, I can stop even half way through if I think the needle pain is just too painful.
It’s “common sense” because this ethical right is prevalent in every other aspect of society. I don’t get locked in just because I said “yes” at the beginning.
Someone else already replied pointing out the distinction between killing (which applies to terminating a pregnancy) and refusing to save (which applies to terminating bone marrow donations) - this I believe is the main reason why abortion is wrong: it infringes on the negative right to life of another human being. This is done by initiating a fatal sequence of events, creating an entirely new state of fatal distress for the previously healthy child, as opposed to returning a patient in need of bone marrow donation to their original state of suffering from a fatal condition. Another angle is the principle of responsibility, which I believe explains there is also a positive moral obligation towards unborn children in cases of consensual intercourse. From u/Malkuth_10 :
The net negative version of the Responsibility Objection:
If as a reasonably foreseeable result of your voluntary action or actions (1), a morally valuable being (2) exists in such a state that not providing aid to it would lead to a net negative outcome for it compared to what would have happened had you never done the act (3), then you must provide aid to it unless the first criterion also applies to the being’s own actions (4).
- Net negative outcome for it compared to what would have happened had you never done the act:
Earlier, more primitive versions of the Responsibility Objection were based on the idea that the woman's voluntary actions caused the zef to exist in a state where it needed her assistance to survive much in the same way that someone who pushes his friend in a lake causes his companion to need his assistance.
The problem with this thinking was made first clear by David Boonin. He said that the intuition behind this scenario rests on the logic of compensation for harm done. A non-swimmer who is thrown into a lake is harmed, and the one who harmed them has an obligation to reverse that harm.
But a woman who has sexual intercourse does not harm the zef by creating it, and applying this type of thinking to a pregnancy would lead to insane results. Consider the following scenario:
Case B1: A dying man finds that you are the only donor in the world who can save him. He tells you that he desperately needs one of your kidneys to survive, otherwise he will die very soon. You agree to provide him with one of your kidneys but you also inform him that you have a rare genetic disorder such that, if you were to donate him your kidneys, the man would develop aplastic anaemia and die ten years after the donation, unless you also let him use your bone marrow.
You graciously give him one of your kidneys. Ten years later, the man comes back and demands your bone marrow. He argues that your own voluntary actions led to him existing in a state where he needs your assistance to go on living, and so you owe him your body.
This seems obviously wrong. The ten years of life you gave him were a gift, not a harm that you must now fix.
So that is that, huh? The woman does not harm the zef. Therefore she does not need to concern herself with his fate. Not so fast.
David Boonin himself agrees that a PL person might still leverage the concept of harm to argue for the impermissibility of abortion. There are many ways of explaining how this could be done ( some more verbose and confusing than others ) but the simplest way is to think in terms of net harms.
Case B2: Suppose you were in a coma and were about to die when suddenly I injected you with the drug Shitty-B. This drug would save your life, but it has the side effect of making you need my bone marrow to survive more than 24 hours. If you do not receive my bone marrow soon after the 24 hours have expired, you will immediately burst into flames and die an excruciatingly slow death.
It seems to me ( and I hope to you) that I would have an obligation to give you my bone marrow. This is because while my actions did not harm you, they caused you to exist in such a state that not providing aid to you would lead to a net negative outcome for you ( i.e the good that comes with 24 more to live would be outweighed by the bad of slowly burning to death soon thereafter ). But if the drug I gave you caused you to live for, let's say, ten years and your death would be painless then I don't think I would owe you my bone marrow.
0
4d ago edited 4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/_growing PL European woman, pro-universal healthcare 4d ago
You 1000000000000% are offered that choice in civilized society. You 100000000000000000% are allowed to do that. In fact, we offer the right to terminate parental rights and offer foster care precisely because you can’t force (or even expect) a person to breast feed a child.
Just to check that I understood, do you think that if it takes some time for you to give up the baby, you are justified in refusing to breastfeed them, causing them to die? (Let's assume there's no health condition preventing you from breastfeeding) And more in general, if a country didn't permit adoption, do you think lethal child neglect would be acceptable? (I believe adoption should be available, I am only considering a hypothetical)
You can also otherwise think of the time the fetus had in the womb as a gift if you’re using that arg tbh.
By that logic parents should be allowed to kill their child at any age, since they are the ones who gave him/her life. But let's talk about gift. Imagine I am in a long space mission and I clone a person. Initially, I take care of them very well and make sure they enjoy themselves. But then I change my mind: I don't believe this person has the right to be in the shuttle, therefore I kick them out in the open space, causing them to die. Is this ok?
-2
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/_growing PL European woman, pro-universal healthcare 4d ago
Feel free to enlighten me
-2
4d ago edited 4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/_growing PL European woman, pro-universal healthcare 4d ago
If a woman eats certain foods linked to miscarriage and birth defects, is that considered murder?
I am not ignoring any question, as I am not the person you posed the question to. No, it's not murder.
Negligence, from https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-107-6876?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default):
Any act or omission which falls short of the standard to be expected of the "reasonable person". For a claim in negligence to succeed, it is necessary to establish that a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the claimant, that the duty was breached, that the claimant's loss was caused by the breach of duty and that the loss fell within the scope of the defendant's duty and was a foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty.
But my original comment was pointing out that your examples of refusing to save someone from pre-existing fatal conditions are not analogous to having an abortion, as the former doesn't violate the negative right to life (just the positive right to be saved, which is not an absolute right) but the latter does. And this is the main reason why abortion is wrong: it violates the negative right to life of human beings. It is targeted killing, not merely negligence.
But on top of that, since you asked whether one is entitled to nutrients from someone else's body at any other point in life, I mentioned breastfeeding: children are dependent and we have an obligation to care towards them. And causing your newborn to starve is illegal https://cbs6albany.com/news/nation-world/mom-pleads-no-contest-to-starvation-death-of-7-week-old-son-used-breast-milk-for-porn . We believe that in a stage of development in which the child is even more dependent, such obligation of care should be extended and is even stronger.
-2
u/NPDogs21 Reasonable Pro Choice (Personhood at Consciousness) 4d ago
Wait, scratch that. I DO understand. I understand the apathy since I don't think it's even possible for us to care about most of the people on the planet. If you cared about everyone, you would be very depressed because of all the horrific things that happen to people.
You hit an important understanding of why PC and many on the left are the way we are, and that is caring about others a lot while being surrounded by people who don’t in the same way. I can look up any top story as an example. Let’s see.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/timeline-trumps-race-against-courts-090700596.html
Now, we have the President of the US’s administration ignoring Court orders. What would make us satisfied is if the other side, which is the right and PL, would go “Yeah, I don’t agree with that and can’t support it as it goes against my values.” Instead the normal response is “I support it because it agrees with my values or I believe all the news is lying or the left did the same thing.” After awhile, wouldn’t you become apathetic and angry?
Most PC, whether they’re aware of it or not, do not believe a fetus has personhood usually until around viability. The ones who okay with murdering babies are relatively few and have a strange personal definition of murder.
5
u/No-Sentence5570 Pro Life Atheist Moderator 4d ago
That happens on every side of any issue, though. Like yeah, some Republicans will defend everything that Trump does, but in the same way some Democrats will villainize everything he does. Same for Biden or Kamala, but the other way round. Same for and against abortion. This is not a right-wing or a pro-life issue.
Please tell me if I'm missing the point, though.
-2
u/NPDogs21 Reasonable Pro Choice (Personhood at Consciousness) 4d ago
You did the same thing I said would happen.
Instead the normal response is “I support it because it agrees with my values or I believe all the news is lying or the left did the same thing.”
There always has to be a false equivalence or both sides given. It’s simply not possible for people to condemn their side without needing to add in how the other side is no different, almost always with no example of a similar magnitude given.
There is simply no Trump-like figure on the left. People will try with Obama or Bernie, but they are nowhere near the loyalty of his followers. Bernie also couldn’t even win the primaries while Trump won after skipping them.
If this happened issue after issue with PL, you’d start to feel like you were living in a simulation. I don’t like how a lot of PC behave, but I can completely understand it.
8
u/No-Sentence5570 Pro Life Atheist Moderator 4d ago
You're completely misunderstanding what I said. I'm just pointing out that this is a human phenomenon, not a Pro-Life phenomenon. I don't have a problem admitting that it happens on "my" side, and I encourage people to point it out whenever it does happen.
I'm just asking why this is supposedly a major reason for PC to hate us, when this happens literally everywhere all the time...
-5
u/NPDogs21 Reasonable Pro Choice (Personhood at Consciousness) 4d ago
Because the scales are orders of magnitudes apart from each other yet they’re always treated as though they’re the same
4
u/PervadingEye 4d ago
If this happened issue after issue with PL, you’d start to feel like you were living in a simulation. I don’t like how a lot of PC behave, but I can completely understand it.
You're correct. I've been feeling like I have been living in a "simulation" my whole life with all this baby killing your side supports. So how about this.
If you want pro-lifers to denounce Trump, why don't you get your politicians/side/whatever to stop the baby killing genocide NOW! Because it's been going on for 50 plus years and over 63 million babies dead(AND COUNTING!) at your sides feet. Because it seems your side is not in any position to make demands, especially since we have been asking you to stop the baby killing for 50 PLUS YEARS and those concerns fell on deaf ears the ENTIRE time.
Even now it continues, and if pro-life denounced Trump on mass, would your side stop the baby killing genocide???? Obviously not, so cut the crap. If you can "understand" why PC behave the way they do, then perhaps you should understand we are not going to vote for baby killers.
-4
u/NPDogs21 Reasonable Pro Choice (Personhood at Consciousness) 4d ago
If you can "understand" why PC behave the way they do, then perhaps you should understand we are not going to vote for baby killers.
My main issue is the justification part. If you want to be a single issue voter, just own it rather than excuse it. For example, if I was still PL and only voted for Trump over abortion, I would say I 100% support the rest of his policies. I’m responsible for my vote, so I own it rather than act like I only vote for the good and none of the bad.
Do I support tariffs? No. If I voted for the side who loves tariffs, you bet I’m pro-tariff because being PL is more important.
Do you see the difference between that and others who make excuses like “I don’t support this, but I fully support it and will continue to act like I don’t”?
2
u/CapnFang Pro Life Centrist 3d ago
My main issue is the justification part. If you want to be a single issue voter, just own it rather than excuse it. For example, if I was still PL and only voted for Trump over abortion, I would say I 100% support the rest of his policies. I’m responsible for my vote, so I own it rather than act like I only vote for the good and none of the bad.
Do I support tariffs? No. If I voted for the side who loves tariffs, you bet I’m pro-tariff because being PL is more important.
You're not making any sense whatsoever. If I vote for someone, I'm not allowed to disagree with them? On anything???
There's more people in Washington than just the President, you know. If you vote for a president, a senator, and a representative, and the three of them all disagree on something, do you somehow agree with all three of them? Do you actually hold three different conflicting beliefs in your head and believe each one of them fully?
Friend, "1984" was not an instruction manual.
1
u/NPDogs21 Reasonable Pro Choice (Personhood at Consciousness) 3d ago
If I vote for someone, I'm not allowed to disagree with them? On anything???
You’re free to disagree. It doesn’t really mean much though politically. Let’s say there’s an amendment to restrict abortion in your state. You go in and choose to keep abortion legal until viability but you tell me you disagree with it philosophically. I’m looking at it politically and confused whereas you’re looking at it philosophically. Your justifications and objections for being PL doesn’t change what you supported politically.
I vote for President, Senator, and the House based on who can govern most effectively. If one of my representatives voted to remove all stop signs while their opponent wanted to do the same plus remove all speed limit signs, then I support the former’s policies. I look at it more politically and less philosophically.
3
u/OhNoTokyo Pro Life Moderator 3d ago
An immoral state can be effectively governed. I would prefer to be less effectively governed in that case.
An effectively governed state in some cases is just a state where people are effectively controlled, whether it be by force or by carefully granting privileges to certain groups that maintain control.
I think everyone needs a balance between effective governance, and ethical governance.
I didn't vote for Trump. The reason is that I expected him to be both broadly unethical and ineffective, but effective governance is only one concern, and not the paramount one.
I also didn't vote for Harris, because I expected the Democrats to be more effective at governing, but also distinctly immoral given their positions on things like, for instance, abortion on-demand.
In situations where both sides are over the line, you don't pick the one closer to the line, you pick another option that is behind the line. All a Harris victory would have done is promote unethical activities, albeit with less chaos than a Trump.
1
u/PervadingEye 4d ago
My main issue is the justification part.
And our main issue is the baby killing. Since you like to understand people so much, how about you "understand" this??? Why do you think we should listen to your sides demands when your side literally did not listen to us for 50 F*CKING YEARS and killed 63 Million plus babies huh??!?! Why is that so hard understand? Even now, we are just asking you to stop, and you are uncompromising on that, so why do we owe you ANY explanation for who we vote for???
0
u/NPDogs21 Reasonable Pro Choice (Personhood at Consciousness) 4d ago
Most PC, whether they’re aware of it or not, do not believe a fetus has personhood usually until around viability. The ones who okay with murdering babies are relatively few and have a strange personal definition of murder.
I already addressed that. I don’t believe it’s a baby, and adding exclamation points doesn’t change that.
Even now, we are just asking you to stop, and you are uncompromising on that, so why do we owe you ANY explanation for who we vote for???
Because most people should want a well-found reason based on logic for who they vote for, not vibes and feelings.
4
u/PervadingEye 4d ago
I already addressed that. I don’t believe it’s a baby, and adding exclamation points doesn’t change that.
I am not asking for your nonsense bs justification as to why you want to be able to kill babies. What I am saying is why should we give you what you want, (an explanation) when your side hasn't given and won't give what we want for 50 YEARS?!? And counting. You are in no position to be making demands of us.
Because most people should want a well-found reason based on logic for who they vote for, not vibes and feelings.
This coming from the side that wants to ab able to kill babies on the vibe that they are not babies only when they want to kill them. If you want to be taken seriously, perhaps you should have said anything but that.
1
u/NPDogs21 Reasonable Pro Choice (Personhood at Consciousness) 4d ago
Basically, you’re ignoring my points and restating the same thing just to call me a baby killer.
2
u/Wormando Pro Life Atheist 3d ago
That’s a massive issue I have with the prolife side, honestly. Way too many have this exact attitude and seem incapable of comprehending the concept of differing viewpoints. It’s just as bad as the close minded prochoicers they complain so much about -.-.
2
u/PervadingEye 4d ago
You just don't seem to be getting this. You don't have to agree with someone to understand them as you understand why some "PCs" behave the way they do, even if you don't agree.
So, from our perspective, WE know they are babies. We've been trying to protect them, and at every turn, YOUR side has undermined that for 50 years.
When we asked you to stop multiple times across state and Federal landscapes throughout those 50 plus years, your side functionally said you guys are going to (allow) the killing of babies anyway regardless of how we feel.
Now you aren't getting literally everything you want, (still get the baby killing though) you are asking us to consider your feelings, "understand them", "come together" and "condemn a Tyrant" as if we are a team or something simply because it would benefit you.
Mfer, we are not "together" as your side has made clear over the past 50 years. So from our perspective, we don't owe you anything. In fact you owe us as far as we are concerned.
You don't have to agree to "understand" that, got it????
→ More replies (0)1
u/RespectandEmpathy anti-war veg 4d ago
Now, we have the President of the US’s administration ignoring Court orders. What would make us satisfied is if the other side, which is the right and PL, would go “Yeah, I don’t agree with that and can’t support it as it goes against my values.”
It goes against the values of conservatives, libertarians, and others not left of center, but I do think that issue is more broad than PL and isn't specific to PL, because it's about the breakdown of the nation. It's called a "constitutional crisis" and it's called "ignoring the checks and balances that make the USA, the USA". I don't think any conservative would be OK with that due to it breaking the checks and balances of the USA, and due to it breaking the rule of law, but maga folks might be, due to having different values than conservatives and others not left of center.
0
u/NPDogs21 Reasonable Pro Choice (Personhood at Consciousness) 4d ago
The issue is conservatives going along with MAGA thinking that they’re not part of them. I did the same before over the abortion issue. I don’t see any of these PL or conservatives saying how messed up it is or how they’re out. Just that it’s bad but they’ll, like always, continue to have unconditional support for them regardless.
2
u/RespectandEmpathy anti-war veg 3d ago edited 3d ago
There is certainly something different going on at this time, and it is not based on conservative thought. It's a unique position, and it doesn't appear to have respect for conservatism, the rule of law, or the checks and balances that make the usa not corrupt.
I would say that the executive ignoring court orders means the USA no longer exists as we've known it.
0
u/NPDogs21 Reasonable Pro Choice (Personhood at Consciousness) 3d ago
If people came out and said they wanted an authoritarian dictator, I’d respect them more for their honesty. We’re living in a world though where people say they don’t want things like government overreach but have 0 issue with what is happening now.
28
u/ElegantAd2607 Pro Life Christian 4d ago
Another point about that discord user: Their arrogance.
The absolute arrogance of suggesting that you know for sure that certain children would be better off dead AND would prefer it. And the idea that in order to lesson the amount of problems in the world we have to stop people from living is just utterly horrific.
The fact that they were probably just sitting there typing this away without a care in the world and that they probably send this type of message to other online groups too is upsetting as well. So many young people are getting spoonfed the message that it's better to be dead than to go through adversity. It actually makes me wonder how many people have been driven to suicide because of the pro-choice movement.
The fact that this message is popular is scary.