Legislator: Disabled kids are God's punishment for abortions

Cyberwulf wrote:

but a woman who doesn't have access to the resources that would help her with raising a disabled child,

Although I like to think that a healthy society would/should provide that sort of resources and support for parents with disabled children.

But I'm also dreaming about an unconditional basic income paid by the state. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I don't think I've got anything to add to this other than: Get the fuck out of my fucking religion, you fucking fucknuggets!


I know... Classy.. but seriously: FUCK!

Oh, boy. Label whining. Both "choice" and "life" are completely useless terms since they don't refer to that person's stance on any issue aside from abortion. It's just so both parties can feel good at defending "choice" or "life" from people who KILL BABIES or HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM or whatever.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Also, "anti-choice," Zo? LOL. So, I'm gonna call you "anti-life," 'kay? Thanks! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The term "pro-life" is completely meaningless. Arguably, most people are "pro-life": they are in favour of breathing, and of general existence. The Catholic Church, a "pro-life" organisation opposes embryonic stem cell research citing the life of the embryo as more important than developing life-saving treatments. That doesn't sound like it's in favour of life to me. It's a ridiculous term, coined only to serve emotive purposes. At best, the position can rightly be called "anti-abortion". That's meaningful, explaining the belief system.

So why "anti-choice" as opposed to "anti-abortion". Essentialy it boils down to the crux of the issue. We can loosely divide up people into two beliefs.

Group 1: These people believe that women should have the option to have terminate a pregnancy. The vast majority of these people will never actually have an abortion themselves: this is because some are men who will never have to have an abortion, and the majority of women don't have abortions. However, Group 1 people believe that the option should be available to women.

Group 2: Do not believe abortion should be allowed. Do not believe that women should have the option to make this choice.

So it makes sense to conclude that group 1 may be termed "pro-choice", while group 2 are "anti-choice".

ETA: Penguin, you're quite right there. So we'll call it "pro-choice with regards to abortion" and "anti-choice with regards to abortion". Or pro- and anti-choice for short. "Life" is still absolutely meaningless; the woman is also alive.

Less talk more adopted Scottish fetuses

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

ETA: his name is Smappy

ETAA: Smappy o'Feticuddy

ZoZo wrote:

ETA: Penguin, you're quite right there. So we'll call it "pro-choice with regards to abortion" and "anti-choice with regards to abortion". Or pro- and anti-choice for short. "Life" is still absolutely meaningless; the woman is also alive.

I would've just gone with "pro-/anti-abortion." Short and to the point, and if someone REALLY wants to say "well I'm anti-abortion except in rape/incest/whatever holy excuse we deem you may have" that's the only time it has to get long-winded.

Penguin wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

ETA: Penguin, you're quite right there. So we'll call it "pro-choice with regards to abortion" and "anti-choice with regards to abortion". Or pro- and anti-choice for short. "Life" is still absolutely meaningless; the woman is also alive.

I would've just gone with "pro-/anti-abortion." Short and to the point, and if someone REALLY wants to say "well I'm anti-abortion except in rape/incest/whatever holy excuse we deem you may have" that's the only time it has to get long-winded.

I'm against abortion but pro-choice. What now?

Penguin wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

ETA: Penguin, you're quite right there. So we'll call it "pro-choice with regards to abortion" and "anti-choice with regards to abortion". Or pro- and anti-choice for short. "Life" is still absolutely meaningless; the woman is also alive.

I would've just gone with "pro-/anti-abortion." Short and to the point, and if someone REALLY wants to say "well I'm anti-abortion except in rape/incest/whatever holy excuse we deem you may have" that's the only time it has to get long-winded.

Yes, but the problem is pro-choicers aren't pro-abortion. They're in favour of allowing women to choose that option, safely and legally. I suppose it's similar to people who do not own guns yet wouldn't dream of not allowing other people to own guns.

ETA: Maybe a better one: some people think that blanket smoking bans are bad and it should be up to individual businesses to choose whether they allow smoking in their premises. Not all of these people smoke. Some may be distinctly anti-smoking.

klotterbeck wrote:

I'm against abortion but pro-choice. What now?

So you don't believe in abortion and are okay with... which choice, exactly? Pepsi or Coke?

ZoZo wrote:

Penguin wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

ETA: Penguin, you're quite right there. So we'll call it "pro-choice with regards to abortion" and "anti-choice with regards to abortion". Or pro- and anti-choice for short. "Life" is still absolutely meaningless; the woman is also alive.

I would've just gone with "pro-/anti-abortion." Short and to the point, and if someone REALLY wants to say "well I'm anti-abortion except in rape/incest/whatever holy excuse we deem you may have" that's the only time it has to get long-winded.

Yes, but the problem is pro-choicers aren't pro-abortion. They're in favour of allowing women to choose that option, safely and legally. I suppose it's similar to people who do not own guns yet wouldn't dream of not allowing other people to own guns.

In that case, we could just add a word. "Pro-legal abortion" would clearly mean "pro-choice with regard to abortion" rather than simply "pro-abortion."

It seems a bit like splitting hairs to avoid giving "the other guys" a semantic inch, though.

Penguin wrote:

klotterbeck wrote:

I'm against abortion but pro-choice. What now?

So you don't believe in abortion and are okay with... which choice, exactly? Pepsi or Coke?

I don't believe that abortion is the best solution to the problem and that it generally should be avoided at all cost BUT that as long as a society/state doesn't give the necessary support (let's start with equal chances, education, reasonable income for everyone and so on) it should be the choice of every woman wether she wants to keep the baby or considers it too much of a burden/threat.

Anti-abortion, pro-killing kids.

Okay, now that I've got the trollfacing out of the way, why are you guys biting at Kelly's bait? We've had this conversation before, and everyone already knows she is incapable of defending her beliefs through logic, reason, or evidence. Let it go.

But that's what makes them BELIEFS! You don't need no stinkin' logic when you've got faith. [Not being serious.]

Miss Prince wrote:

Then the response is greater education, not shutting down the places where people go for help (PROTIP: Planned Parenthood is not a revolving door of abortions)

Thank you for mentioning this. Nobody ever stops to think that young couples might not have the money for contraceptives, or to get a pregnancy test done. I had my pregnancy test done at Planned Parenthood because regular doctors charged to much, and the ex and I didn't have a lot of money at that point. They were also able to provide me with a list of OB doctors, and even made my first appointment for me.

They test for sexually transmitted diseases. Most importantly, they do NOT judge you. I think providing abortions, or giving referals to abortion providers, makes up maybe 1-2% of the services they offer. And they also provide referrals for girls and women who chose to give up the child for adoption. More to the point, having talked to some friends who went there, they don't push you to do anything. They simply give you the options available; it's up to you to make the choice of what you want to do, and if you chose to have an abortion, they don't try to talk you out of it or make you feel like you're an evil person. In the end, it's your body and your choice, which is how it should be.

Rabid Badger wrote:

Miss Prince wrote:

Then the response is greater education, not shutting down the places where people go for help (PROTIP: Planned Parenthood is not a revolving door of abortions)

Thank you for mentioning this. Nobody ever stops to think that young couples might not have the money for contraceptives, or to get a pregnancy test done. I had my pregnancy test done at Planned Parenthood because regular doctors charged to much, and the ex and I didn't have a lot of money at that point. They were also able to provide me with a list of OB doctors, and even made my first appointment for me.

They test for sexually transmitted diseases. Most importantly, they do NOT judge you. I think providing abortions, or giving referals to abortion providers, makes up maybe 1-2% of the services they offer. And they also provide referrals for girls and women who chose to give up the child for adoption. More to the point, having talked to some friends who went there, they don't push you to do anything. They simply give you the options available; it's up to you to make the choice of what you want to do, and if you chose to have an abortion, they don't try to talk you out of it or make you feel like you're an evil person.

I agree with all this stuff; the far right's utter hatred of Planned Parenthood is certainly not helpful by any means, however...

Quote :

In the end, it's your body and your choice, which is how it should be.

Sorry, this attitude doesn't fly. Yes, a woman has a right to do what she wants to with her own body, but once there is another human life developing inside her, there is more than one body involved, and the ethical issue is infinitely more complex than this argument makes it out to be. There are plenty of reasonable arguments to be made as to why a legal and safe option for abortion should exist, but this is not one of them. It's at best a necessary evil.

I am pro-choice, but I do think it would be a good thing to reduce the number of abortions. This should not be accomplished by legislating what a woman may do with her body, however. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Hence, there should be comprehensive, age-appropriate sex ed., and effective contraceptives should be cheap and easy to get.

It is an incontrovertible fact that women who are not pregnant do not get abortions.

Edit: I am of the opinion that a fetus should be considered a separate person when they are capable of living outside the mother. Once they can do their own breathing and eating, then they are separate people--not before.

Pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. See?

Chaltab wrote:

Rabid Badger wrote:

In the end, it's your body and your choice, which is how it should be.

Sorry, this attitude doesn't fly. Yes, a woman has a right to do what she wants to with her own body, but once there is another human life developing inside her, there is more than one body involved, and the ethical issue is infinitely more complex than this argument makes it out to be. There are plenty of reasonable arguments to be made as to why a legal and safe option for abortion should exist, but this is not one of them. It's at best a necessary evil.

I think you're oversimplifying "your body, your choice" here. Speaking for myself, I don't say that in a glib manner. I say it with a conscious awareness of the social context in which sex, pregnancy, motherhood and abortion takes place. Fact is, having a child, even a healthy, wanted, affordable child, is a huge life-changing experience. And I don't care what you say, it's much easier and much more socially acceptable for a man to bail if fatherhood becomes too much for him to handle. Women who become pregnant outside of what society deems socially acceptable circumstances - a stable relationship (preferably marriage) with a man, a decent level of income, none/one/two existing "normal" children - are still subject to stigma in a way that men who casually impregnate women and then run for the hills are not. Pregnancy is still dangerous, and even a normal, safe pregnancy changes the body permanently. Taking all that into consideration, it's absolutely crucial that a woman have the option to terminate a pregnancy that she doesn't want, isn't ready for, is going to seriously disrupt her life, is going to maybe endanger her life - either through health problems, or by increasing intimate partner violence.

What it comes down to in the end is whether the rights of the embryo/foetus to gestate and be born should trump the rights of an already born woman (or transman) to not undergo a permanent, lifechanging, often risky event.

Lady Anne wrote:

It is an incontrovertible fact that women who are not pregnant do not get abortions.

Then why is it that even though that I, personally would never get an abortion, I still want to get knocked up with quadruplets and then jump down the stairs eight times every time KH starts running her dang-ass holier-than-thou mouth?

I think something that always gets overlooked in the whole "Planned Parenthood is only targeting minority (read: low income) neighborhoods!" wank is that Planned Parenthood is NOT just an abortion factory. They provide low-price or free annual exams as well as contraceptives. And the situation simply is, white women are far more likely to have insurance and recieve their exams/contraceptives from a local clinic. They don't need Planned Parenthood the way a lower income neighborhood would.

Take away Planned Parenthood, and you're going to be leaving a lot of minority women without access to contraceptives or yearly PAP exams. (Oh, but we don't care about whether they can have contraceptives or not, because no contraceptives means they'll stop being giant sluts right?! And if they reaaally wanted their yearly exams they'd get good jobs with health insurance. Cuz that's so easy.) But apparently providing low-cost medical care where it's needed is 'racist.'

Now, if I can find someone who can explain the flip side of this to me, I'll be amazed. And that is: Why are all pro-keep-the-baby-we're-going-to-pretend-we're-real-pregnancy-crisis-centers organizations that I've seen in AFFLUENT neighborhoods? Wouldn't you think that if they were REALLY worried about minorities, they'd set up their own offices in minority neighborhoods as well? And why are the people who are MOST opposed to abortions also opposed to comprehensive sex education AND opposted to increasing wellfare for single mothers?

tachikoma01 wrote:

And why are the people who are MOST opposed to abortions also opposed to comprehensive sex education AND opposted to increasing wellfare for single mothers?

Because it's about controlling people's sexuality - specifically women's sexuality. Therefore pregnancy outside of a socially approved relationship, marriage, must be framed as a punishment for having sex. So teenagers are not to be told about the filthy dirtiness of sex, and single mothers on welfare can go ahead and starve because that's their punishment for "getting themselves" into that situation.

Quote :

But wait, I thought disabled people were being punished for sins of a past life

Isn't that Buddhism?

In Christianity, people are disabled for the sheer lulz.

Penny wrote:

Oh, boy. Label whining. Both "choice" and "life" are completely useless
terms since they don't refer to that person's stance on any issue aside
from abortion. It's just so both parties can feel good at defending
"choice" or "life" from people who KILL BABIES or HATE US FOR OUR
FREEDOM or whatever.

This is a completely straight [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I nearly cracked a tooth with rage.

My mum is from Northern Ireland (where abortion and pre-marital sex is somehow even MORE evil than in America) she never had an abortion or anything like that, and yet here I am, sitting on my ass with Epilepsy.

Besides, do these fuckers really think these statements make their god seem a nice guy?

I mean, what the HELL kind of just and good god would punish a mother for having an abortion by giving her child a disability that dramatically reduces their quality of life?!

Maybe God was preemptively punishing you for your sins.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

I nearly cracked a tooth with rage.

My mum is from Northern Ireland (where abortion and pre-marital sex is somehow even MORE evil than in America) she never had an abortion or anything like that, and yet here I am, sitting on my ass with Epilepsy.

That's because God knew ahead of time you'd turn out to be an overweight, hedgehog fucking, gullible, self-diagnosing dolt.

Edit: DAMN IT MAFI! YOU'VE GOTTEN SHORTER! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

420 eat babbys every day