Jump to content

Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

bad_teammate

By bad_teammate
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Popular Post
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11358

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

my god, this thread.

the answer is clearly legal, safe, and rare for abortion. we should pull out all the stops: proper sex education, public funding of planned parenthood for people without access to a primary care physician, and free birth control for everyone. 

you want to control abortion? you attack the root causes. all pro-life people seem to want to do is address the endpoint. how about we not get to that endpoint, or at least attempt to limit those results? it's fairly basic. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

No. Fuck off with that. Not every abortion is about trauma and tragedy and using that framing plays into the christofascist’s hands. Women are humans. Humans have bodily autonomy. Ergo, women have b

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

I do love this argument. I really do. It’s as convenient a way to label yourself a drooling moron as exists, outside of towing around a giant neon “I’M A MORON” sign. No, they didn’t teach us that

hayden_horn
hayden_horn

of course you do. thing is, i would support that. if they choose that. and the real thing is, i'm actually pro life. both my sons were very premature, and had they been born in the 80s, they

Posted Images

Woland

Woland 729

Posted
Posted
my god, this thread.
the answer is clearly legal, safe, and rare for abortion. we should pull out all the stops: proper sex education, public funding of planned parenthood for people without access to a primary care physician, and free birth control for everyone. 
you want to control abortion? you attack the root causes. all pro-life people seem to want to do is address the endpoint. how about we not get to that endpoint, or at least attempt to limit those results? it's fairly basic. 

The Drug War is an example of why outlawing abortion will not reduce abortion. I say this all the time and no one listens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goofyboy

Goofyboy 3103

Posted
Posted
my god, this thread.
the answer is clearly legal, safe, and rare for abortion. we should pull out all the stops: proper sex education, public funding of planned parenthood for people without access to a primary care physician, and free birth control for everyone. 
you want to control abortion? you attack the root causes. all pro-life people seem to want to do is address the endpoint. how about we not get to that endpoint, or at least attempt to limit those results? it's fairly basic. 

Abstinence only education means you don’t need any of what you just wrote. These assholes in charge don’t believe Women should have sex outside of marriage. Teaching anything besides abstinence goes against that and their puritanical insanity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Woland

Woland 729

Posted
Posted
my god, this thread.
the answer is clearly legal, safe, and rare for abortion. we should pull out all the stops: proper sex education, public funding of planned parenthood for people without access to a primary care physician, and free birth control for everyone. 
you want to control abortion? you attack the root causes. all pro-life people seem to want to do is address the endpoint. how about we not get to that endpoint, or at least attempt to limit those results? it's fairly basic. 

The Drug War is an example of why outlawing abortion will not reduce abortion. I say this all the time and no one listens.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34161

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

you attack the root causes. all pro-life people seem to want to do is address the endpoint.

conservatives rarely want to attack root causes because then they have to think about systemic problems and if there's such a thing as a systemic problem then there needs to be a systemic solution and if there needs to be a systemic solution then government has a reason for being.  and they definitely don't want that. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29146

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

conservatives rarely want to attack root causes because then they have to think about systemic problems and if there's such a thing as a systemic problem then there needs to be a systemic solution and if there needs to be a systemic solution then government has a reason for being.  and they definitely don't want that. 

This is very much true and part of it, but they really just want to force women to have lots of babies and stay at home and raise them. That's how they think things are supposed to be and that we've fucked with the natural order of things by letting women work. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45439

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, elfenix said:

conservatives rarely want to attack root causes because then they have to think about systemic problems and if there's such a thing as a systemic problem then there needs to be a systemic solution and if there needs to be a systemic solution then government has a reason for being.  and they definitely don't want that. 

 

17 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is very much true and part of it, but they really just want to force women to have lots of babies and stay at home and raise them. That's how they think things are supposed to be and that we've fucked with the natural order of things by letting women work. 

the-road-to-el-dorado-both.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChuckNorrisActionJeans

ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2654

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

This is very much true and part of it, but they really just want to force women to have lots of babies and stay at home and raise them. That's how they think things are supposed to be and that we've fucked with the natural order of things by letting women work. 

which has the desirable side effect of keeping people stupid and mired in poverty

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31085

Posted
Posted
On 12/15/2021 at 2:09 PM, trauma babe said:

Jfc, Ana. You literally said "eugenicists gonna eugenics" in response to a discussion of modern PP and not the historical underpinnings. Those underpinnings, again, are condemned by PP. 

Stop.

Bears a remarkable similarity to the Eyes of Texas beef.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I've been asking this for a week.  Am I misremembering?  I feel like he was one of the trust fund kids that liked to take pot shots at the poor.  He seems like a genuinely good poster as of late.

He very clearly upthread noted that he’s been a part of one in the past. Probably gives you some perspective that might not necessarily align with other politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31085

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, trauma babe said:

I'd be interested in you expounding on that in either thread

Meaning, I can connect something that has no current or inherent racial bias (EOT, PP) to something or someone (Prather, REL, Margaret Sanger, eugenics, minstrel shows) that did or may have 100 years ago.

QED, it's bad and should be canceled or eradicated.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tchookem

tchookem 3899

Posted
Posted
conservatives rarely want to attack root causes because then they have to think about systemic problems and if there's such a thing as a systemic problem then there needs to be a systemic solution and if there needs to be a systemic solution then government has a reason for being.  and they definitely don't want that. 
They're simple people that can only process simple solutions. Like building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out.

Once a solution involves more than 1, maybe 2, steps... they're lost
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29146

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Supremes may have fucked around and let the 5th Circuit stick this pile of shit into an unreviewable box.

That was pretty clearly the majority's goal. Steve Vladeck called it the day of immediately upon reviewing SCOTUS's opinion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19025

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/21/2021 at 11:00 AM, hayden_horn said:

my god, this thread.

the answer is clearly legal, safe, and rare for abortion. we should pull out all the stops: proper sex education, public funding of planned parenthood for people without access to a primary care physician, and free birth control for everyone. 

you want to control abortion? you attack the root causes. all pro-life people seem to want to do is address the endpoint. how about we not get to that endpoint, or at least attempt to limit those results? it's fairly basic. 

You know the answer.  It is because the pro-lifers really don't give a rats ass about life.  What they do want to do is exercise control.  Control over half of the population (women) which certain of the minority (men) believe are inferior and should be obedient and are no better than property.  

Edited by PenelopeWitherspoon
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2028

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You know the answer.  It is because the pro-lifers really don't give a rats ass about life.  What they do want to do is exercise control.  Control over half of the population (women) which certain of the minority (men) believe are inferior and should be obedient and are no better than property.  

And y'all gave @Anastasis a hard time for "Eugenicists gonna eugenicists."  

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2028

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, capnamerca said:

Tell me how that's wrong?

Cause the underlying thought is that it's only about control of women. People don't care if others have sex for the most part. It's how babies are made. It's the killing of the unborn. You can call it whatever, that's what they believe is happening. You can yell at people that they're trying to control women, they'd argue they're trying to save a baby. Y'all aren't trying to be eugenicists, they're not trying to control women. 

Can we agree to my last sentence? If not, we can't go further since people prescribing the worst from the get go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45428

Posted
Posted
Just now, workswithseed said:

You can yell at people that they're trying to control women, they'd argue they're trying to save a baby. Y'all aren't trying to be eugenicists, they're not trying to control women. 

Can we agree to my last sentence? If not, we can't go further since people prescribing the worst from the get go.

If they were trying to save a baby, they'd give a single solitary shit about that baby once it's born, and they clearly don't.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
capnamerca

capnamerca 568

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

If they were trying to save a baby, they'd give a single solitary shit about that baby once it's born, and they clearly don't.

Or about social and welfare programs before women get pregnant. Or education services for under-served communities before women get pregnant. Or access to birth control. Or about a thousand other things that can help reduce abortion. 

 

But they don't care about those things either.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21071

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Cause the underlying thought is that it's only about control of women. People don't care if others have sex for the most part. It's how babies are made. It's the killing of the unborn. You can call it whatever, that's what they believe is happening. You can yell at people that they're trying to control women, they'd argue they're trying to save a baby. Y'all aren't trying to be eugenicists, they're not trying to control women. 

Can we agree to my last sentence? If not, we can't go further since people prescribing the worst from the get go.

LOL.  I'd believe this whole 'protecting the unborn' shit if the R party (of today) didn't treat poor colored folk like complete garbage.  I'm not sure what circles you run in but there's plenty of people doing quite well in the R world that have zero problem making jokes about poor black people - in front of me, a brown dude.  I mean the worst shit you can imagine - BUT they don't say nigger.  So welcome to the new R party.  Because everyone knows if you don't actually say nigger, you can't be racist.  But I digress, you really believe these people care about unborn colored babies, but somehow magically give ZERO fucks about BORN colored babies?  WTF drugs are you on? 

Edited by ChiTownDoc
  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104226

Posted
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

LOL.  I'd believe this whole 'protecting the unborn' shit if the R party (of today) didn't treat poor colored folk like complete garbage.  I'm not sure what circles you run in but there's plenty of people doing quite well in the R world that have zero problem making jokes about poor black people - in front of me, a brown dude.  I mean the worst shit you can imagine - BUT they don't say nigger.  So welcome to the new R party.  Because everyone knows if you don't actually say nigger, you can't be racist.  But I digress, you really believe these people care about unborn colored babies, but somehow magically give ZERO fucks about BORN colored babies?  WTF drugs are you on? 

Bravo, and bingo.  Was amazed by the shit I was privy to in rooms full of Repubs just because I look like a regular gringo.

Also, I have offered this deal to every loudmouth "pro-lifer" I know, and I've never had anyone say "I'd support that" -- would you agree to a policy with three elements: 1) no more abortion, 2) real sex education, discussing all aspects of sexual reproduction including birth control, and 3) free access to birth control?  Because that policy actually WOULD help reduce the hell out of abortions.

I don't even need to get into the next phase of "giving a single fuck about a baby after it's born."  We never even get past my proposal.  Because....as observed above....it's not about human life, it's about harsh enforcement of gender roles and "consequences" on slutty women who won't close their legs.....with zero consequences for the men who impregnate them.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12769

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Cause the underlying thought is that it's only about control of women. People don't care if others have sex for the most part. It's how babies are made. It's the killing of the unborn. You can call it whatever, that's what they believe is happening. You can yell at people that they're trying to control women, they'd argue they're trying to save a baby. Y'all aren't trying to be eugenicists, they're not trying to control women. 

Can we agree to my last sentence? If not, we can't go further since people prescribing the worst from the get go.

No we can’t agree to that because we don’t have our heads buried in the sand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12769

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

You're a eugenicist then. This gets us nowhere, but we said what we believe the worst of the outgroup. 

The fact that you don’t even understand the argument you are attempting to make  is pretty telling about your critical thinking skills.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104226

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Y'all aren't trying to be eugenicists, they're not trying to control women. 

Can we agree to my last sentence? If not, we can't go further since people prescribing the worst from the get go.

If I lived in a state that didn't stand hard on the following two stances at the exact same time, maybe I could: 1) NO abortion, and 2) abstinence-only sex education.

Dude.  Come on.  The exact same people pushing item 1 are the exact same people who insist on item 2, and typically oppose birth control (or at the very least, any dissemination of information about birth control) to boot.

It's about puritanical morality -- that's LITERALLY what their positions are.  There is no "we must eliminate abortion, so let's do everything possible to get rid of it" approach, because that approach would CHAMPION sex education and contraception.

So, no, we cannot agree to your last sentence, because there is no such position of "we want to eliminate abortion, but not take measures that are puritanical controlling bullshit."

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19025

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
3 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Cause the underlying thought is that it's only about control of women. People don't care if others have sex for the most part. It's how babies are made. It's the killing of the unborn. You can call it whatever, that's what they believe is happening. You can yell at people that they're trying to control women, they'd argue they're trying to save a baby. Y'all aren't trying to be eugenicists, they're not trying to control women. 

Can we agree to my last sentence? If not, we can't go further since people prescribing the worst from the get go.

You are really this stupid, aren't you.  

They don't care if women have sex, do they?

The architect of the Texas abortion law had this to say:

“Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse,” Mitchell wrote in the brief. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/12/us/politics/texas-abortion-lawyer-jonathan-mitchell.html

Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up about things you obviously are completely ignorant about.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 14
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21071

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
25 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You are really this stupid, aren't you.  

They don't care if women have sex, do they?

The architect of the Texas abortion law had this to say:

“Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse,” Mitchell wrote in the brief. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/12/us/politics/texas-abortion-lawyer-jonathan-mitchell.html

Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up about things you obviously are completely ignorant about.  

 

Seems like that politician doesn’t want you to…work with seed.  
 

I’ll see myself out.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 6
  • Haha 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2028

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

If I lived in a state that didn't stand hard on the following two stances at the exact same time, maybe I could: 1) NO abortion, and 2) abstinence-only sex education.

Dude.  Come on.  The exact same people pushing item 1 are the exact same people who insist on item 2, and typically oppose birth control (or at the very least, any dissemination of information about birth control) to boot.

It's about puritanical morality -- that's LITERALLY what their positions are.  There is no "we must eliminate abortion, so let's do everything possible to get rid of it" approach, because that approach would CHAMPION sex education and contraception.

So, no, we cannot agree to your last sentence, because there is no such position of "we want to eliminate abortion, but not take measures that are puritanical controlling bullshit."

 I will agree that when you believe that humans are being murdered at an astronomical rate, that there is a moral dilemma. You don't care who it hurts to stop innocent people from being killed. The fastest way to do that is top down government, which I don't think is good.

People who say that those people couldn't care about babies after they are born probably only think government is the only correct way to give. Most seem to think that there aren't private charities that do what they're asking for already, and since no one on the right is asking for more government intervention that way, they must not care. 

I'd argue that they don't believe that would get rid of abortion, or even reduce abortion. It would give more money towards a government program that would suck away thier charity donatiotn, and actually be run down by the beuracracy that is the government to end up to be less useful to the people they want to help. 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...