Checkmate, Pro-Choicers!

So, I think Sakurelf posted this in the something bad thread, and out of curiosity, I went and had a look at it. YES, this definitely deserves its own page... holy christ.

Checkmate, Pro-Choicers!

Some of them weren't too bad or offensive, but it's obviously a heavy pro-life, Christian tumblr. There were some which made me scratch my head, but this is the one which made me have to link the page:

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

I sit and rock myself in a corner and tell myself it's a trollblog.
It has to be. It has to be a trollblog.

On the About Me page wrote:

(Please keep all submissions, comments, and reblogs kind and Christ-like. Even though many girls who have abortions may be sluts, this blog is not about calling them sluts. It is about stopping the new Holocaust!)

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

Must be troooooollll D:

I'm mainly just confused...

I didn't think it was possible but I think this is even stupider than that one movement in which participants vowed to give up stuff until abortion is outlawed. As though someone will say, "My God this person in Bumfuck, Texas has decided not to drink diet coke until abortion is outlawed. Such courage! Surely I cannot hope to stand against such fortitude. Guess I better give up on such foolish ideals as control over my own body."

Love that one of their "checkmates" is that if you stay pregnant, you have nine months of no periods. Can't say I've ever been pregnant but I think I can do a fairly accurate comparison.

Nine Months with an average of one period per month: a few days in which you take midol and have an excuse to binge on chocolate while watching chick flicks

Pregnancy: morning sickness, weight gain, god-only-knows how many months of looking like a hippo with a gland problem, hemmoroids, swollen ankles, only to culminate in a god-only-knows how long period of labor in which in the words of Scrubs, "you'll cry, poop, and pee in front of twelve complete strangers all of whom will be staring intently at your vagina which has an 80% chance of tearing."

Not to mention, your average bill for delivery costs 10 thousand dollars and that's assuming that it goes completely as planned: no c-sections, no epidurals, no nothing. And the bill will go up like a pinball score if the baby so much as sneezes.

Raise your hand if you think any of the pro-lifers would be willing to support a strong welfare system so that mother will be supported during pregnancy (pre-natal care plus lost wages), delivery (remember the medical bills incurred as a result), and afterwards so that mother and baby are properly taken care of.

That's what I thought.

This is very obviously either trolling or attempted parody.

No one should even contemplate that it is otherwise.

Hot Cancer is right; the blog is clearly parody. The fact that so many people can't actually tell right away says a lot, though.

Well, I could see a genuine, serious pro-lifer coming out with the Steve Jobs one.

But the pregnancy is great cos no periods and the welfare ones are a bit of a giveaway.

"Abortion causes breast cancer"? Are you kidding me? What kind of twisted logic is that?

EileenK98 wrote:

"Abortion causes breast cancer"? Are you kidding me? What kind of twisted logic is that?

then you realize this site is a joke.

Reidmar wrote:

EileenK98 wrote:

"Abortion causes breast cancer"? Are you kidding me? What kind of twisted logic is that?

then you realize this site is a joke.

This is a thing a lot of people actually believe.

Okay I'm apparently the most gullible person in existence...still I'll save my little rant for the next time some pro-life idiot says that adoption is the answer to all problems.

Mouse wrote:

Okay I'm apparently the most gullible person in existence...still I'll save my little rant for the next time some pro-life idiot says that adoption is the answer to all problems.

Hey, don't feel bad for being fooled. There actually are some idiots that say shit like this, so it's reasonable to assume it was genuine.

This got me curious about the ethics of time travel.

Call it the Terminator Paradox. If you go back in time to prevent your child from being conceived, is that murder? Is it a "pre-conception abortion"? How wrong is it to cause someone not to have existed? It doesn't even have to be an important person, just anyone off the street. If, say, my mother went back in time and talked herself out of going to that dance*, where would I be?



*The story: my parents met at a dance in Boston in the mid-Sixties. She didn't want to go because she had just broken up with someone, but her friend talked her into it. She met my father, and here I am. What if neither of them had been there that night? Where am I?

EileenK98 wrote:

Where am I?

With Chris.

EileenK98 wrote:

This got me curious about the ethics of time travel.

Call it the Terminator Paradox. If you go back in time to prevent your child from being conceived, is that murder? Is it a "pre-conception abortion"? How wrong is it to cause someone not to have existed? It doesn't even have to be an important person, just anyone off the street. If, say, my mother went back in time and talked herself out of going to that dance*, where would I be?

You should watch an episode of Supernatural called My Heart Will Go On. It deals with the ethics of having gone back in time to *stop* the Titanic from sinking and then dealing with the consequences of all of the "unscripted" survivors and their descendants. That kind of begs the question of: if you could go back in time and stop tragedies from occurring, would you have a moral obligation to do so?

Aggie wrote:

EileenK98 wrote:

This got me curious about the ethics of time travel.

Call it the Terminator Paradox. If you go back in time to prevent your child from being conceived, is that murder? Is it a "pre-conception abortion"? How wrong is it to cause someone not to have existed? It doesn't even have to be an important person, just anyone off the street. If, say, my mother went back in time and talked herself out of going to that dance*, where would I be?

You should watch an episode of Supernatural called My Heart Will Go On. It deals with the ethics of having gone back in time to *stop* the Titanic from sinking and then dealing with the consequences of all of the "unscripted" survivors and their descendants. That kind of begs the question of: if you could go back in time and stop tragedies from occurring, would you have a moral obligation to do so?

Depends if you believe in remedial chaos theory or not. Y'know, step on a butterfly and everything changes, or, fate exists and no matter what you do the same outcome will always happen.






This is, in fact, the darkest timeline.

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

If something on Mars had cells but no heartbeat, it would still be life. Most organisms don't have heartbeats, because they don't have hearts. Hearts only exist in organisms in the kingdom Animalia--and not all of those species have them.

Edit: Lobsters have heartbeats. Is it murder to kill a lobster?

Checkmate, troll.

Lady Anne wrote:

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

If something had a heartbeat on Mars, I would fucking run away as fast as I could. But that's just the seen-too-many-horror-movies-that-started-like-this cynic in me talking.

I've seen things like this is real pro-life sites/posters/from their mouths. I've found out that the best way NOT to counter it is by going "What if Hitler's mom had gotten an abortion?" Because it ends with your mom and dad angry at you for a month.


..... It was worth it though...

bleachedblackcat wrote:

I've seen things like this is real pro-life sites/posters/from their mouths. I've found out that the best way NOT to counter it is by going "What if Hitler's mom had gotten an abortion?" Because it ends with your mom and dad angry at you for a month.


..... It was worth it though...

Another good one:

"What if the baby you just saved grows up to be gay?"

I've actually seen some marriage contracts that say that if the baby is found out to be female, then the husband has the right to demand his wife have an abortion.

So should pro-choicers rail on the husband for putting that in the contract, or the wife for agreeing to it?

It gets hazy when the law is brought into it.

And also, what if the mother has preeclampsia early in the pregnancy? Should she just go ahead and let her heart explode so she can be a good mother in heaven?

Braigwen wrote:

I've actually seen some marriage contracts that say that if the baby is found out to be female, then the husband has the right to demand his wife have an abortion.

So should pro-choicers rail on the husband for putting that in the contract, or the wife for agreeing to it?

It gets hazy when the law is brought into it.

I don't think any such contract is enforceable in the US. Other countries, however, I have no idea.

Braigwen wrote:

I've actually seen some marriage contracts that say that if the baby is found out to be female, then the husband has the right to demand his wife have an abortion.

So should pro-choicers rail on the husband for putting that in the contract, or the wife for agreeing to it?

I'm pretty sure that in places where that sort of contract exists, the wife has very little choice BUT to agree to it. You know, since it says that female children are undesirable and a woman's uterus is the property of her husband. Doesn't exactly point to an enlightened, egalitarian society. Use your head, please.

You support killing babies but not serial murderers. Checkmate pro choicers.

Full disclosure: I stopped supporting the death penalty after they didn't give Troy Davis a new trial.

Oh, it's been a while since I've been here. Heh. This site cracks my shit up. XD

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
And that guy over there died getting a TOOTH EXTRACTED! DOWN WITH DENTISTS!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Hell, let's legalize every crime. Pfft. Society, who needs one?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
How dare you feminists get all uppity about this "equal rights" bullshit?! THINK OF THE BAYBEES!

MAN. But the BEST part about this is reading the comments on the tumblr. People do think it's real. I did (initially), but some of them are too wtfery. I think it says something about the pro-life movement that people do think this is a real blog/tumblr.