ibbity t1_jeapiba wrote

Oh, I'm not saying that this mindset isn't completely bonkers in fuckin younkers. But yes, they do assume that nearly all abortions are because some single party girl partied a little too hearty and is now trying to "avoid consequences" (you would not believe how many times they will say that word, it's like their favorite.) And the thing is that if you get one of them alone and talk to them rationally (which is a trick in itself; there's very little if any rationality in this mindset, even if it does have its own coherent internal logic), you can sometimes get them to open the door just a millimeter or so to almost acknowledge that sometimes it is necessary. But it never sticks. And you can't explain to them that "children as a punishment for sex" is fucked up, because they will just tell you that "murdering babies" is much worse.


ibbity t1_jeam2go wrote

I know hella people who are aggressively anti-abortion, and the thing is that it's not that they actively want lots of women to die in pain, as such. What they want is for women to know that that might be their fate if they have sex outside of marriage, and to stay virgins/celibate out of terror. For those who still have sex anyway, they want them to experience pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment for having sex, and then immediately hand over the baby to a more worthy adopting family.

The actual agonizing deaths are more desirable as a threat than as a constant reality, because if they are happening a lot, people might start to turn against the draconian anti-abortion laws. If they only happen occasionally, they serve as deterrents much better. It's not about sadism so much as it's about maintaining control over women and forcing them to "experience consequences" for having sex. Women (specifically) having sex "without consequences," they consider the height of moral depravity. Making it so that women will suffer for having sex is a means to an end (stopping them from having sex), not the end in itself.