Comment on "Keep the legs closed!"
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 11 months agoWhy do lefties make this argument like its some gotcha?
I don’t think anyone should be murdered, that doesn’t mean I can or should take care of everyone. Its such a stupid argument to make if you actually think about it instead of just parrotting each other.
So you’d rather they get birthed and slowly starve rather than just not be born?
If you don’t support social programs to help people when they’re alive then you’re a massive hypocrite, as you’re just letting them die a slower and more painful death, which most would consider the inhumane thing to do
For the record, I did not argue for no welfare. I said that the argument was stupid. Its perfectly logical to say “I’m anti-murder but not pro-welfare.”
Imo, we need welfare, especially for babies and children.
Hell, you can give a lot of reasons. Theres even one for feminists. I forget the exact wording I heard, but it hinges on the lack of mens reproductive rights, and women being equal to men.
Men are considered smart enough and responsible enough to not fuck unless they want to risk children. Women are not stupid, they are just as smart and responsible as men.
Your post history indicates that you hate minorities, so that doesn’t feel like a point you believe in, but I don’t think you believe in anything, so there is that.
Wtf are you talking about? What comment have I made that hates minorities?
Fucking “indicates”, is that the new version of dogwhistle?
Its perfectly logical to say “I’m anti-murder but not pro-welfare.”
Only if you ignore the context that said “murder” being stopped will result in the need for welfare. In that case you’re 100% right
Too bad reality doesn’t ignore context as easily as cuckservatives such as yourself
For the record, I did not argue for no welfare.
.
Its perfectly logical to say “I’m anti-murder but not pro-welfare.”
I dunno, I'd say if you say both in the same sentence, you probably haven't actually cared enough to consider wellfare to counteract your "anti-murder" stance
So it's perfectly fair to say that what you are arguing would lead to unnecessary death just from your negligence to follow through.
How brave of you to say that with a throwaway account
So you have decided that death before birth is a worse situation for every potential human, regardless of how hard their life would be?
That’s quite all knowing of you.
Murder bad.
Keep that eugenics shit to the 1940s if you wouldn’t mind.
It’s only eugenics if you’re targeting specific traits.
And it’s nice to have such a simple view of the world. I really wish the world was that simple. But it’s not.
Is not murdering someone painlessly before they even have the capacity for a single thought ethically better than forcing them into circumstances where everyone around them essentially wishes they were dead because at one end “They ruined my life by existing” or at the other they “are not my problem?”
It is natural to oppose someone if the option they put forward still has cruel outcomes.
You're arguing a flimsy murder prevention for what will be a realistic ruining of multiple peoples' lives.
And it doesn’t actually reduce the “murder” rate. States with more restrictive abortion law tend to have slightly more abortions than their counterparts.
valaramech@kbin.social 11 months ago
Because it's the logical conclusion of mainstream pro-life rhetoric. If one believes that all human life is sacred and must be protected, then it follows that they should want all humans to be safe and protected, not just the ones that are still gestating.
The reality is that, to many of us on the pro-choice side of the debate, pro-life seems to be more about punishing women than it does about protecting (future) children. At the very least, the way many of the pro-life policies are implemented cause direct and sometimes deadly harm to women.
In my mind, if abortion is murder, so is preventing life saving treatment for women. There are times when abortion is medically necessary to protect women's lives and we should allow them to make that choice for themselves.
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 11 months ago
A single look at republican climate policy tells you all you need to know. They children can go fuck themselves, they don’t deserve a habitable world. Who cares that we are risking extinction?
TJD@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
By what standard? Nobody genuinely believes that the “logical conclusion” of the mainstream “don’t murder homeless people” point of view must reasonably be a welfare state. Just because we don’t kill people, doesn’t mean they’re entitled to welfare.
And what would you say is the over/under on the amount of women who die as a result? And what does that number look like as a ratio to the children killed by abortions? Because at least from the numbers I’ve seen, it seems like an entirely trivial ratio to be putting at the front of concern.
And you’ll find overwhelming support for abortion in those cases. Just as I can’t sucker punch some poor schmuck at the store and then just decide it was self defense because I wanted it to be, a medically necessary abortion actually has to be, well, medically necessary by some standards beyond “I want it to be”.
Because to reiterate, there are vanishingly few people who oppose any and all abortions, including in medically necessary situations, especially once you exclude the pedants arguing that those situations aren’t abortions by technicality, so therefore don’t count when they say they oppose all abortions. This is also where those stupid “80% of people support abortion” propaganda pieces come from. Almost everyone supports some form of narrow allowance, at the minimum, for abortion.