Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

moneyforsoy t1_jdixcso wrote

Reply to comment by vexingsilence in NH House passes abortion-rights protections by IBlazeMyOwnPath

Nice strawmans you got there. And, hey man, if you’re so against abortions, don’t get one. But why are you so deadset on making sure nobody else gets one? I don’t believe that a fetus is a person, you do. There’s no way to determine who’s right and who’s wrong and for that reason alone, we cannot codify laws preventing people from getting abortions. I’ll leave you with this quote:

>The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

Pastor David Barnhart

12

vexingsilence t1_jdiz16f wrote

>But why are you so deadset on making sure nobody else gets one?

I'm generally anti-murder. I'm weird like that.

>There’s no way to determine who’s right and who’s wrong and for that reason alone, we cannot codify laws preventing people from getting abortions.

Given an unknown, the ethical choice is to do the least harm. Ending a life is clearly more harmful than allowing the reproductive process to continue.

I love it when pro-abortion folks suddenly become religious in a debate. Now that's a sign of an argument that has no logical defense. Suddenly one must act on faith! Sorry, no sale there. Tell God I said hi if you see Him.

−3

moneyforsoy t1_jdizfvh wrote

I’m not religious, and it’s not murder. Cope.

10

vexingsilence t1_jdj7ske wrote

>I’m not religious

Ahh, so you're just using religion as an appeal. Nice.

1

moneyforsoy t1_jdj8gms wrote

wtf are you talking about? I can be agnostic and still agree with aspects of a religion or even just the sentiment of a pastor. you should take your username to heart and shut up for once lmao

5

vexingsilence t1_jdj9lfc wrote

By replying, I see that as you wanting to have a discussion. Otherwise, why would you? Feel free to fuck off at anytime.

1

moneyforsoy t1_jdji1fa wrote

I do want to have a discussion, but clearly we aren’t going to get anywhere meaningful. I hope you have a nice weekend.

6

pinetreesgreen t1_jdj12bm wrote

So you don't think a woman should get one to save her life? That is pretty pro manslaughter.

9

vexingsilence t1_jdj8qok wrote

Like I linked elsewhere in here, convenience/lifestyle-choice is the vast majority of abortions. You're referring to the extremely small percentage of cases. I'm not.

1

pinetreesgreen t1_jdjeuxg wrote

I'm not even sure you can describe a definition of a convenience abortion. What is that? Is having an abortion so you can take care of your other kids a lifestyle abortion? Probably by your definition. But not to the woman caring for 2 kids and already struggling.

If you approve of one kind of abortion when the womans life is in danger, you don't actually think it's murder. It would still be murder. You just want to control a woman's body based on some outdated notion of morality, but understand her dying without an abortion is really messed up and unpopular.

7

vexingsilence t1_jdjj6kq wrote

>If you approve of one kind of abortion when the womans life is in danger, you don't actually think it's murder.

Didn't say I approved of it, did I? You were using a very weak debating tactic. It's like people that bring up disabled people or children in a discussion that isn't about them, just to try to divert the flow.

1

pinetreesgreen t1_jdjk6no wrote

You said before women should be able to get abortions if their life is in danger.

So now we are just debating if You get to control them in all other situations or not based on arbitrary personal morality. The murder thing clearly isn't real, just an excuse for control. It can't be murder only in one situation, but not in another, correct?

6

moneyforsoy t1_jdkmi09 wrote

>It’s like people that bring up disabled people or children in a discussion that isn’t about them, just to try to divert the flow.

this guy a few comments ago:

>There are grown adults with conditions that prevent them from feeling pain. Can we terminate them?

I tried, too. You’re better off saving your energy for someone more receptive and capable of thinking critically.

1

vexingsilence t1_jdlgc97 wrote

Context matters. Saying it's okay because they don't feel pain, a rare disorder involving not feeling paid is relevant despite being rare since it's directly on point.

Like I said in the first quote, bringing up a thing that isn't about it.. that's a situation where something isn't on point.

One of these things is not like the other.

0

vexingsilence t1_jdlgg4l wrote

>It can't be murder only in one situation, but not in another, correct?

If you kill someone in self defense, is that murder? You have the thinking skills of a rock.

0

Cantide756 t1_jdlrfyh wrote

Logic won't change their minds, in their hearts, they know its wrong because they use pro choice instead of pro abortion. They want it as birth control, so they don't have to worry about being responsible for remembering to take a pill or use a condom. The purpose of sex throughout the history of life is to procreate, but no one wants the responsibility, just the pleasure. If they put into law that the father could "abort" the financial responsibility, you would hear them saying all this stuff about a baby is a natural consequence of sex and they agreed to the risk when they agreed to sex. Double standards are rife when it comes to being pro abortion. And the reasoning they use to try and justify it are smoke screens, try and compromise by saying "to save the mothers life" or "for instances of rape and/or incest" doesn't satisfy them because they know that's only a token amount of the numbers. Vast majority are for selfish reasons, even the word convenience shouldn't be accepted. If you are in a situation where you can't afford or handle or want a baby and you don't want to use, can't afford, or can't use the myriad of other forms of birth control, you should abstain. Oh, they want to protect women from getting back alley abortions because they are going to find a way, even if image and illegal? That's their choice, they don't make a robbery legal to protect the life of a criminal do they? And you can't forget the racial component, I think the count reached 20 million black children being aborted? FFS, planned parenthood was started by a eugenics enthusiast.

At the end of the day, pro abortionists are selfish narcissists, using the same faulty logic they used during slavery to dehumanize a class of people to make it ok to murder them. They will spin whatever they can to make a "right" out of not having to take responsibility for their actions.

0