Alabama abortion bill drafted by FEMALE legislator, signed by FEMALE governor, despite common claim it's just MEN legislating women's choice

[–]irrelevant_usernam3 117 points118 points119 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bhullj11 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Adeptest_Astarte 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ixz72 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 234 points235 points236 points 7 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 44 points45 points46 points 7 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]LolwhatYesme 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]WilliamDaGoat 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WilliamDaGoat 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago* (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]WilliamDaGoat 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_war_won 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]WilliamDaGoat 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WilliamDaGoat 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Lmao, all you could do is criticize my analogy? The overall message was simply: Don't exclude an entire group of people from a movement based on the actions of a few people from that group. I happened to use white men because they are the usual victim of this treatment. Of course, all you took from that was "I hate white people because I'm liberal blah blah." Is it my turn to generalize?

To reiterate, the LIBERAL IDEOLOGY does not say anything about hating or disliking white men. Again, you mistake the actions of a few for the ideology itself. If you want a better argument, stop using the same premise over and over. If anything, you would be a prime example of why the MRA has such a hard time creating social bridges. Those such as yourself, who want to manipulate it into being a conservative male thing exclusively, are what causes the social rifts when its brought up. Conservativism has nothing to do with the MRM, just like liberal ideology should've had nothing to do with feminism. Don't make the same mistake.

[–]Vwar 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vwar 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vwar 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Also, between us guys, ever saying “get cucked” or “red pilled” makes us sound incel AF to everyone else in the room

Incel is just a term for men who disagree that women should have more rights than men. I wish I was joking but someone used that term on me and then when I called him out on it he said "I never said incels didn't have sex, it's about 'disrespecting women'" When an incel literally is just a person who wants to have sex but is a virgin. Why would we bow down to the term like dogs reacting to a shock collar?

We can tell people the truth about MR without being unnecessarily abrasive or gross. It doesn’t help our cause, true or not.

Oh yeah let's just lay down and accept the abuse, death threats, violence, slander, libel, etc tossed our way daily instead of growing a pair and fighting for our rights. It's MRAs like you that do the movement no good and it's MRAs like me who actually fight for shit that enact change. When you have feminists calling in bomb threats to hotels to get MRA conferences stopped it's time to take the fucking gloves off.

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ransal 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJ-Roukan 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Voidrith 286 points287 points288 points 7 years ago (207 children) | Copy Link

[–]elebrin 27 points28 points29 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The assumption is that only men are truly religious, or religious conservatives. That totally goes against my personal experiences. If there were actual statistics I could read about who goes to church and who is conservative, I'd be willing to trust them but most of the "I know what's best for you" types of conservatives I have known are women. The people who pay the most lip service to religion have been women. I've known several women who go to services every day and many more who read their bible every day, and very few men who are that devout. Even the guy I know who went to Catholic seminary didn't attend services daily until he was in the seminary.

I also find that I am more likely to find men saying, "Eh, it's your life to ruin, do what you want" and more women likely to say, "this should be illegal!"

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]elebrin 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]C4H8N8O8 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In my country, in our short lived democracy before fascist took over, there was a huge conflict regarding female suffrage. About half the left, didn't want female suffrage. They thought it would only make women, controled by the church and their husbands, go vote against their interest. On the other hand, around half of the right (which at this time were Catholic Fundamentalists), which didn't agree with female sufrage or even democracy supported female suffrage for the same reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Kent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Campoamor

Io and behold, she was right, and lost her seat to the conservative party. Which ruled back all the improvements done. And by the time the left regained power, the failed coup attempt kicked out the extremely bloody civil war.

Here is V. K with republican soldiers, because it's a badass picture : https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f8/8f/69/f88f69a3a0ed6aed4892c4cb1a239a9e.jpg

[–]WikiTextBot 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Victoria Kent

Victoria Kent Siano (March 6, 1891 – September 25, 1987) was a Spanish lawyer and republican politician.

Clara Campoamor

Clara Campoamor (12 February 1888 – 30 April 1972) was a Spanish politician and feminist best known for her advocacy for women's rights and suffrage during the writing of the Spanish constitution of 1931. A child of a working-class family, Campoamor began work as a seamstress at age 13, later working in a number of government positions before securing entry to law school at the University of Madrid. She became active in a number of women's organizations before standing for election as a member of the 1931 Constituent Assembly, to which she and two other women were elected despite that Spanish women could not vote at the time. Her advocacy led to the inclusion of language in the 1931 constitution of Spain that guaranteed equality between men and women.

[–]Mindraker 42 points43 points44 points 7 years ago (159 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]FenixDelta753 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]bucksandbeer 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dev_c0t0d0s0 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]FeierInMeinHose 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[+]dev_c0t0d0s0 -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]BitsAndBobs304 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FeierInMeinHose 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]18Apollo18 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dev_c0t0d0s0 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vicious_armbar9 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]NewYorkJewbag 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NewYorkJewbag 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FadingEcho 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago* (103 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hirudin 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

There's actually several different instances that get confused.

Virginia - where a gaffe-prone governor fumbled through a discussion about what to do with severe deformities and non-viable fetuses and ended up derailing the passage of a law that would have allowed abortion up until delivery.

New York - legitimate post-delivery "abortions" even on healthy infants.

Both the New York law and the (now defunct) Virginia bill allow or would have allowed abortion up until the moment of delivery even for healthy babies when the mother faces no serious health concerns. The new york law (technically a repeal of a previous limitation on when abortions could be performed) also saw ethecists claiming that any circumstance that would have justified an abortion could also allow for the same procedure to be performed post-birth. Their argument seemed to focus around allowing severly deformed children that would die anyway to be aborted but since, as stated above, there is no meaningful limitation that specifies that, then the "any circumstances" limitation doesn't just apply to the instances the ethecists were focusing on.

Edit: To contradict the people trying to weasel around the reality of late term abortion, here's the reasons why women get them. Turns out, the reasons for late term abortions are pretty much the same as earlier abortions: financial stressors, relationship problems, education concerns or parenting challenges. Very few, relatively, have anything to do with medical necessity or any health related concern of the mother, mental or otherwise (and all of the mental reasons are bullshit anyway). Contrary to the claims of late term abortion proponents, not only are abortions of healthy babies from healthy mothers not nonexistent, they're the majority of such procedures. Similar studies have found the similar results

To add to this:

Beth, from Oregon, had an abortion at 28 weeks along despite no health reason

"I feel like it’s important to share my story because my health wasn’t at risk and because I didn’t have a fetal anomaly — I just needed health care and I sought it out.

To anyone saying that later term abortions never happen for non-medical reasons, a single example is enough to disprove that assertion.

Here is also a statement from Ron Fitzsimmons, the former executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers

"In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Mr. Fitzsimmons said. ''The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else,'' he said in the article in the Medical News."

Edit 2:

Lastly

Third trimester abortions are (thankfully) only about 1% of the total abortions done in this country. The numbers are low enough, in fact, that there are only 4 doctors in the entire US that still perform them outside of a hospital:

Unfortunately, three of those four doctors are on record stating that at least some of their third trimester abortions are not for medical reasons.

Dr. Susan Robinson
Dr. Shelley Sella
Dr. Warren Hern
Dr. Leroy Carhart

To anyone arguing now, after the above, that late term or even third term abortions with no medical necessity do not occur. You are out of your minds. I have given you 1) an example of a person claiming that they got one. 2) a study showing the trends of reasons given for those abortions and 3) a majority of the doctors providing those things telling you that they do in fact conduct third term abortions without any physical health reason for doing so. If this does not convince you, then you are a zealot.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]chadwickofwv 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FadingEcho 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FadingEcho 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hirudin 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hirudin 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hirudin 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I'm in awe of how you made an unsourced claim that infanticide/murder is legal in New York:

New York - legitimate post-delivery "abortions" even on healthy infants.

Both the New York law and the (now defunct) Virginia bill allow or would have allowed abortion up until the moment of delivery even for healthy babies when the mother faces no serious health concerns.

...then when I respond with a valid source and actual language rebutting your claim you have the gall to call me disingenuous.

The "necessary to protect the patient’s life or health" has always been the weasel words used to justify abortion at any time, where a claim of emotional or psychological stress enough to get a doctor to sign off on the abortion.

Source?

Like any other operation they leave it to the doctor's discretion based on the "practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment"(from the bill). Do you really think there are a bunch of malicious doctors out there trying to justify infanticide?

[–]Hirudin 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]probablyagiven 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hirudin -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You're suggesting that mother is go through all of the motions of pregnancy, including the costs of prenatal care, and then decide last minute to abort?

Some people are lazy.

You're either dumb or out of touch.

Right back at you.

A small percentage of abortions happened in the 3rd trimester, and of those abortions, virtually all of them are for health related reasons for either the mother or the baby.

health related reasons

"Gee doctor, I'm feeling stressed"

"Say no more, let me get the scissors and vacuum."

It's difficult for me to put myself in the mindset of people like you considering all of the information is out there and accessible, yet you still push nonsense like this comment above.

And it's difficult for me to process how utterly devoted to killing infants for mere convenience you people are and the sheer gusto with which you twist twist the truth and obfuscate in order to do so. I'm pro choice up until the third trimester but I'd put every last one of you in prison if give the opportunity.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FadingEcho 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kravego 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FadingEcho 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]FadingEcho 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

"Health" refers to "all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the well-being of the patient" when it comes to an abortion.

So up to the moment of birth, a woman can empower herself to kill her newborn by simply claiming she's in distress, just like how women can get men fired, locked up, beaten up and or killed by simply accusing assault without proof. You can cherry pick and post "truth" from left-learning politifact all you want. It doesn't change reality. It is not a fabrication, like getting sexual assault from saying grab them by the pussy or claiming racism because you leave out "and I assume some of them are good people." Your world is built entirely on lies and paradox.

All you need is a doctor, like Gov. Blackface (D), and you'll get a moment-of-birth abortion.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

"Health" refers to "all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the well-being of the patient" when it comes to an abortion.

Again, you seem to have decided to ignore all parts that you don't like:

practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case

This is a legally enforceable standard. Brush up on your knowledge of the law then get back to me.

It seems that you've decided to make me the "other" and even went so far to give me positions on a variety of issues that I apparently support despite me never mentioning any of them. All I ask is that you step off the tribal bandwagon for a little bit and reflect on your positions and your lack of substantive evidence to support your wild claims.

Your world is built entirely on lies and paradox.

You're just projecting now. I've provided sources and evidence to support every one of my claims, if you think they're biased then prove it but understand that even a biased source is better than no source.

Edit: Added "of"

[–]FadingEcho -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Agenothree12 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]boxsterguy 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]jameswalker43 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FadingEcho 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NewYorkJewbag 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]FadingEcho 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]NewYorkJewbag 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FadingEcho 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NewYorkJewbag 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FadingEcho 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NewYorkJewbag 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NewYorkJewbag -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]FadingEcho 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]NewYorkJewbag 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I read plenty. You’re clearly talking out your ass. What exactly was said that would mean that the good doctor would “kill a baby” and how would he not be thrown in jail and have his medical license revoked?

Oh, wait, he never said anything of the sort and this is a typical right wing batshit crazy distortion designed to whip up low information voters. This is why smart people don’t take the right seriously. Instead of arguing from a place of intellectual honesty, it’s hysteria. “They’re killing babies!!! We’re being invaded!!! Sharia law is heeeree”.

It’s just foolish. If you want to argue against the bill or abortion, stick to the facts, there are plenty of legitimate arguments.

Here’s what he said, for the record:

"This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent, obviously, of the mother, with the consent of the physicians - more than one physician, by the way. It’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable.”

"So, in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

So, talking about non-viable babies and babies with severe deformities.

[–]FadingEcho 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You've replied to three separate topics of mine. Are you following me?

rightwing crazy

Using your doctor's own words = crazy. Of course, this comes from the people normalizing pedophilia and saying men can be women. Yeah, we're the crazy ones. You keep on believing that.

a cherry picked quote that makes me right

here's his other quote. Consider we are including emotional and physical health when we talk about the mother.

"...impairment of her mental or physical health."

"The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."

So all you need is a Gov. Blackface and you have your post-birth abortion.

You see, the left is about lies. Consider the name of the position, "pro-choice." It's not pro-choice. It's pro-their-choice. It's no more choice than The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a Democratic Republic. Communism is leftism, and this is no different. What you guys are trying to do is fight people from looking at fact and pushing them back to the words of the bill which are intentionally vague at best, not the words of the people doing the procedures. North Korea is a democratic republic! ...that murders its citizens n the most brutal fashions daily.

You are not allowed to dig into the insanity that is leftism.

You guys are lying. Period.

[–]NewYorkJewbag 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rob__T -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]notdonaldduck24 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]branniganbginagain[🍰] 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sour_Badger 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sour_Badger 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sour_Badger 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sour_Badger -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruthGetsBanned 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nocivo 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]probablyagiven -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheVegetaMonologues 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Noisy_Corgi 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terror-Error 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sour_Badger 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]pig666eon -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pig666eon -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]salgat -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]salgat -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]salgat -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]salgat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But if you are going to say there is oppression by men because of the fact that some non-zero percentage of men are engaging in it, then you could just as easily pick any group you want that has a non-zero percentage of people engaging in this practice.

You could just as easily say they are being oppressed by Republicans, Christians, traditionalists, pro-lifers, politicians, "the elite", or an endless list of other groups depending on which way you want to frame the argument.

I am not trying to be difficult or anything. I hope it doesn't come across that way. It is just that I have seen this style of reasoning a lot, and it is the same kind of reasoning used by people who support the idea of the patriarchy, the Zionist conspiracy, the Illuminati, or anything else where you are jumping from a few individuals committing some wrong and then generalizing it to the entire group. This is the kind of reasoning that is used to rationalize conspiracy theories, if you see what I mean?

[–]salgat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]salgat 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OkSoNoQueso 41 points42 points43 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Reptilian_Brain_420 45 points46 points47 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]muslim-shrek 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dharmsara 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrstickman 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saishi-Ningen 49 points50 points51 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup 22 points23 points24 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]OrangeMonad 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atred 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 32 points33 points34 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bhullj11 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealBiggly 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]not_slaw_kid 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It goes way beyond this. Almost half of all woman in the United States are pro-life. So why is it that we all consider it as the vast majority of women crusading against a small group of men? And why do we all consider this to be the most prevalent aspect of women's rights when half of women don't even support it? Ask any blue-pilled guy what he thinks aboit women's rights and 9 times out of 10 the first thing he brings up is abortion. This is the reason that so many men are working to elevate the status of women in society, often at the expense of themselves and their fellow men. They have literally been conditioned to associate women's rights with consequence-free sexual access to a woman's body. So of course feminists are trying to fight against this by denying others access to their bodies. Feminists can't find a way to achieve their goals without leveraging their holes as a bargaining chip, so when their primary method of getting what they want carries a risk of pregnancy, everything falls apart.

[–]Men-Are-Human 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LedZeppelin1602 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwaway46819 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sakura_drop 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwaway46819 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kbell3612 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheToxicWyvern 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]p3ngwin 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ace_W 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]OrangeMonad 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ace_W 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OrangeMonad 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RichardRogers 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Come on, "decent human being"? Props for ditching the ethnosexual politics but attacking pro-lifers as blanketly immoral is probably the worst thing you can do to entrench them in their beliefs and convince them that our beliefs are generated by Satanic influence instead of a shared desire for human well-being.

Pro-life and pro-choice are both predicated on the same uncompromisable value: that the vulnerable must be protected. That's why it's such a contentious issue, attacking the other side's morals just creates a loop because it's all ultimately coming from the same place. Instead you need to argue against the irrational perception of an undeveloped fetus as a person... from direct personal experience I can tell you that's a far more negotiable assumption than attempting to convince someone that their own motivation is the opposite of what it is.

[–]depresso_boi 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]M1GarandDad 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]LedZeppelin1602 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LedZeppelin1602 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s a good point and opens up a whole other can of worms with the “believe (without evidence) women” crowd. If Alabama kept rape as an exception then any woman could get an abortion by just claiming she was raped. For it to work they’d have to have her provide proof in some form and that would kick a whole ‘nother hornets nest.

I’m just guessing here but I bet the lawmakers have the view of “we offered you abortion rights with these restrictions to save the unborn when it's viable, you refused, we offered you abortion rights with different restrictions to still provide you the right but spare the unborn under certain circumstances, you refused, we tried to compromise, you wouldn’t have it so no abortions at all for you”.

In all things there’s a give and take and lately the far-left have been pushing as far as post-birth abortions, which let’s face it is murder, so these lot have gone just as far in the opposite direction by taking away the right all together.

It’s a good example of how neither side is willing to compromise & negotiate and how extreme each side has become, that it’s all or nothing, no middle-ground to be had

[–]Kbell3612 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]coke501 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

If it sounds like I am suggesting something crazy, please don't take it that way. I am just trying to follow your line of reasoning. But anyway:

It seems like you are saying that abortion should be legal in all circumstances because otherwise children could be raised by a mother who doesn't want them. But playing Devil's advocate here, couldn't you achieve the same thing by not allowing the abortion and then having her give the child up for adoption after it is born?

Bear with me for a moment on this next part. And if you want to go a step further and advocate that abortion should be legal in all circumstances so that children don't have to be given up for adoption either, then why wouldn't the same thing apply to a child who has already been born? That a mother would also be allowed to terminate the life of her 10 year old child in order to prevent it from being put up for adoption?

I think the reason it sounds crazy is that if I am thinking it through correctly, there must be some other factor that has been left unstated: that would be that you feel that terminating the life of an unborn child is less undesirable than terminating the life of an already born child. Otherwise, preventing an anwanted child from coming into the world in and of itself would not be sufficient to justify allowing abortion in all circumstances. It seems to me that a person would have to already have a pro-choice view in favor of late term abortion in order to agree with the argument you are making.

If what I said makes no sense, don't worry about it then. I am just trying to follow where you are going because I hear arguments like this a lot, but it seems to me that a pro-life position would not allow for this argument to work by definition because being pro-life necessitates the position that abortion is inherently worse than allowing an unwanted child to come into the world and/or be adopted. I am saying that it seems like this argument would only be convincing to people who already agree with it. Hopefully I didn't go wrong somewhere in my reasoning though.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]coke501 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheCrabWithTheJab 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ace_W 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]M1GarandDad 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]salgat 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Abiogeneralization 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dev_c0t0d0s0 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trosso -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]dev_c0t0d0s0 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]Trosso -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]dev_c0t0d0s0 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trosso -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]dev_c0t0d0s0 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trosso 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dev_c0t0d0s0 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kbell3612 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JCSledge 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]icefire54 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crazycatgirl16 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kbell3612 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Undidiridium_ 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kbell3612 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Undidiridium_ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kbell3612 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Undidiridium_ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IronJohnMRA 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LedZeppelin1602 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrEdinLaw 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kbell3612 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]guillemqv 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Jay_Hardy 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GuyWithTheStalker 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]amberisokay 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Uqtpa 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DustPalacePapa 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ninjaguy5700 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Uqtpa 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AscentToZenith 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mindraker 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]bkrugby78 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ragarnoy 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mindraker 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kbell3612 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tmone -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DeathMind 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You didn't respond to his comment but somebody elses. Also it was a quote from someone in the article so even if u did respond you are now asking someone to defend a comment from someone else to defend a quote from the article?

Also what I think the second guy was trying to say was that this post is about framing the law makers as all male when this is not the case

You can frame the abortion stance as a dichotomy where it's murdering innocent babies but this a far more complex issue.

First, there is the discussion of when you would call a bunch of cells a human. Afaik brain development is only after 5 months or so at which point I would start calling it human but there are varied opinions on what to use as line here.

Secondly, banning abortion under all circumstances also forces 11 year old rape victims to carry the child of the rapist for 9 months, which one could call extreme as this would ruin the chance of a ""normal life""

Thirdly, abortion happens regardless of bans and woman will resort to extreme measures rather than medical professional help

Fourth, it's all nice and dandy that you want to protect "innocent life" before it is born, but forcing people to carry children to terms in shit circumstances (single mom on welfare, extreme poverty, lead paint housing, bad neighbourhood, "16 and pregnant", still studying and no steady job and income) gives the child a high chance of going into crime, drugs and gangs. Also the child makes it financially more difficult for possibly already shit circumstances, decreasing the well-being of both mother and child. Ultimately being a greater tax drain as well.

Giving up for adoption is an option for some people, but if everyone would do this it would flood the system.

So in my opinion, legalised abortion is better for society as a whole.

[–]tmone 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Afaik brain development is only after 5 months or so at which point I would start calling it human but there are varied opinions on what to use as line here.

define brain development. how do you feel about pulling switch on brain dead coma victims?

Secondly, banning abortion under all circumstances also forces 11 year old rape victims to carry the child of the rapist for 9 months, which one could call extreme as this would ruin the chance of a ""normal life""

1)rape abortions account for less than 1 percent of abortions. we make laws that affect the majority, not the minority of cases.

related to that, making exceptions for rape also opens the door for many woman to make false rape claims so they may go through an abortion procedure. Not only destroying the life of the child, but the father as well.

Thirdly, abortion happens regardless of bans and woman will resort to extreme measures rather than medical professional help

this is what they call the coat hangar argument,

It has no solid historical basis. The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson cofounded the National Abortion Rights Action League and helped legitimize the claim that 10,000 women were dying each year from illegal abortions prior to the passage of Roe vs Wade. Before his death, Nathanson admitted that the number was completely fabricated for PR purposes. He wrote before his death in Aborting America:

How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L., we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.7

.

Fourth, it's all nice and dandy that you want to protect "innocent life" before it is born,. . .

There is nothing compassionate or tolerant about killing the weak and helpless.

more black babies were aborted last year than were born. shouldnt that give you pause?

this is a barbaric practice and i am happy to see it go.

[–]DeathMind 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

define brain development. how do you feel about pulling switch on brain dead coma victims?

brain dead = dead. so pulling the switch is no problem for me

1)rape abortions account for less than 1 percent of abortions. we make laws that affect the majority, not the minority of cases.

related to that, making exceptions for rape also opens the door for many woman to make false rape claims so they may go through an abortion procedure. Not only destroying the life of the child, but the father as well.

This is from the article:

The legislation Alabama senators passed Tuesday would make performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony punishable by 10 to 99 years or life in prison for the provider. There is no exception for pregnancies resulting for rape and incest.

so no, there were no exceptions in the new bill. Wether it is 1% or not, this is the case where it is especially necesarry. A victim that has been traumatized is burdened even harder and you don't care because its only 1%? Also, I rather have a legal way for men to fight back against false rape allegations than try to prevent women from making rape allegations (true or false)

It has no solid historical basis

You go on to quote a guy from america, but 1 dude does not disprove this. We can have a literature slinging contest if you want where you have both sides showing research and we can't identify who is right and wrong in the end if you want?

There is nothing compassionate or tolerant about killing the weak and helpless.

Again, I don't consider it life and thus it is not killing either? There is nothing compassionate about forcing mentally ill single mothers below the poverty line to carry a child for 9 months to put it below the poverty line where it is almost guaranteed to have a life filled with drugs, misery, health problems, mental illness and more misery? We can all do this as a feels argument, doesn't help us at all.

more black babies were aborted last year than were born. shouldnt that give you pause?

Why should this give me pause? An overpopulated world with less children? Black woman are the majority of single moms? So this is possibly the reduction of children being born in shit conditions? So if this increases the overall hapiness and well being of the society, I'm glad this is available.

My real question would be, why do you consider it life at conception? Why would you ban abortion rather than alleviate the need for abortion? Did you know the USA had the second highest teen birth rate of any developed nation? Shouldn't we try to limit the amount of abortions by alleviating the needs so that all pregnancies only occur in situations where a child is wanted?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]twistedh8 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dopest_dope 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scaston23 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maheski 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Siganid 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]robert-5252 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluehorserunning -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (30 children) | Copy Link

No, I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Articles keep cherry-picking the senators who voted for the legislation because they were all male. There are a lot of dishonest news outlets and activist groups that are framing it as a men vs women issue when that is not the case. And even if it was all men, that would be irrelevant anyway because women are electing them as well. The whole men thing is just an excuse by bad actors to try to turn this into a male vs female debate when that is really not at all the case.

Edit: I mean, look at it this way... Given that the majority of politicians are men, they could do this with literally anything. The Supreme Court justices who decided Roe v. Wade were all men, so they could just as easily make a big deal out of that one too, but if they did that, it would make men look favorable in their eyes for granting them the right to an abortion, so that is why they choose not to approach it from that angle.

[–]bluehorserunning 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jay_Hardy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluehorserunning 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jay_Hardy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluehorserunning 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jay_Hardy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bluehorserunning 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

I don't think the women who are up in arms about this are thinking that it's "men" who are passing these laws, though; they are up in arms about Republican men.

That still sounds very terrible. I would have extreme difficulty feeling sympathy for someone who has no problem demonizing an entire gender like that, even if they try to soften their bigotry by pairing it up with political party.

Relatively few PLs want abortion outlawed under all circumstances, and relatively few PCs want it legal under any circumstance.

That's one of the things that makes this debate so horrible. It seems like these bills that are being passed (especially the Alabama one) are designed to cater primarily to the hard-core extremists who most people don't agree with, leaving the rest of us shrugging our shoulders and surreptitiously pointing to one of the strangers sitting across from us as if maybe they were the one who wanted this.

I haven't been able to find any polling that asks the more detailed questions and also breaks it down by sex.

I haven't done a ton of searching, but that would be information that I would be very interested in finding someday as well.

[–]bluehorserunning 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Well, the Republican Party has been pretty horrible to women in the last few years.

I am hoping that I am misunderstanding you, but it legitimately sounds like you are trying to rationalize hatred towards men. Please tell me that I am misunderstanding. We are hopefully both in agreement that it is wrong for someone to hate all men, or even to hate all Republican men. I don't understand how someone could justify that kind of thinking.

From ‘Women have ways to just shut that whole thing down,’ to ‘Grab them by the Pussy,’ to ‘I’ve seen cows give birth to stillborn calves on occasion, and they’re sad but they get over it, so why should a woman need medical intervention if a baby dies in utero?’

You 100% have my agreement that all three of the quotes you listed there are ludicrous. It is disturbing that there are people saying things like that who have the kind of authority that they do.

I don't see how that would justify hatred towards men though any more than the anti-male comments coming out of the Democratic party nowadays would justify hatred towards women.

[–]bluehorserunning 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluehorserunning 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I low level hate Republican men, yes, and Republican women.

When I see people saying things like this, it comes across to me as extreme. I don't understand how the actions of pro life extremists (some of whom are Democrats even) would cause you to feel hatred for all Republicans, including those who don't even support such policies. But given the fact that it is very common for people to engage in hyperbole when discussing their feelings of a different political party, perhaps it is plausible that you don't mean that literally.

So, do I 'hate all men'? Of course not. Do I hate men who literally, by their own words want to treat me as a fucking cow? Yes. Yes, I do.

There again you have a fixation on men. Why is it that you seem to focus on pro life men specifically? I obviously don't know you personally, so I probably can't make an accurate judgement of what kind of a person you are through the internet, but when I see people talking like this, it gives me a very negative impression of what their intentions might be.

[–]bluehorserunning 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

That’s fine. I’m here under a pseudonym in order to be honest, not in order to be liked. And yes, it was somewhat hyperbolic- but only somewhat.

If I find a Republican who does not toe the party line of outlawing all abortions, of course I mitigate my opinion. I even respect Catholics, in general, because at least they are logically consistent when they say that they care about potential lives (they’re also against birth control, which limits potential human lives) and about embryos (they’re against fertility treatments, which destroy more embryos than abortion does). I still disagree with them, but at least they do not have the blatant hypocrisy that the Republican Party line shows.

And I do have the same opinion about the female governor, for example, as I do about the male state senators who voted for this bill. But, by and large, the people who both think that I should be treated like a cow, and who have the power to enact their beliefs, are men. By and large, they are Republican, not Democratic men. By and large, they are fundamentalist Christians of one stripe or another, and they not only would force me to bear children that I do not want, they would force their own version of Christianity down those children’s throats if they went to public school. Again, if I lived in a southern state, I’d put my kid in a Catholic school before I let evangelicals at them. Catholics at least accept evolution.

One does not hear Democratic men or women talking about ‘legitimate rape,’ or ‘consensual rape,’ or ‘if you’re famous, you can grab them by the pussy.’ One does not hear Democratic men or women making false claims about reimplanting ectopic pregnancies in the “womb.” One does not hear Democratic men or women comparing pregnant women with fetal demise to cows giving birth to dead calves. One does not, by and large, hear women of either party saying those things.

One does not hear Democratic men or women lamenting that $200 of SNAP benefits each month is so cushy that women aren’t forced to marry the fathers of their children any more, as if that were not a good thing. Seriously, can we not all agree that marrying someone for $200/month is not a good reason to get hitched for life?! One does not hear Democratic men or women lamenting the dearth of white babies while dragging infants and children from their parents at the border, deporting the parents, and locking the kids in cages until they’re 18, at which point the kids get deported too (and, no: the Obama program does not compare in scale or in quality). One does not hear Democratic men or women justifying the literal sacrifice of first graders on the alter of treasonous rebellion against the federal government (Molon Labe, y’all). One does not, by and large, see very many women in either party (the ones that exist are almost all Democrats, with more woman-friendly policies, with a few notable exceptions) enacting these policies at the federal and state levels.

So, yeah. The exceptions that exist are so rare that they do not justify the extra 20 characters it takes to enumerate them. I don’t whine too much when someone says ‘white women voted for Trump’ because it’s statistically true, even though I am a white woman who did not vote for Trump.

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

That’s fine. I’m here under a pseudonym in order to be honest, not in order to be liked.

I don't understand this statement. Why would you not care if you come across as a person who hates men if that is not the kind of person you are? And wouldn't that just decrease the chances of people taking your message seriously?

I don't want to be too harsh because I know a lot of people engage in hyperbole on here. You are not even close to being the only one here who has done that before. You just happen to be the one I am engaged in conversation with at the moment.

But when people say things like what you are saying, it gives me the impression that they are anti-male trolls rather than people legitimately concerned about the abortion debate. I also have the impression many others feel the same way.

If the goal is to oppose radical bills like the one in Alabama, then what is the point in driving away men who agree with you? Shouldn't you want to bring together everyone who is on your side instead of fracturing the pro choice movement by creating a male vs female subdebate within it? It doesn't make any sense to me. It seems not only malicious, but also counterproductive.

If I find a Republican who does not toe the party line of outlawing all abortions, of course I mitigate my opinion. I even respect Catholics, in general, because at least they are logically consistent when they say that they care about potential lives (they’re also against birth control, which limits potential human lives) and about embryos (they’re against fertility treatments, which destroy more embryos than abortion does). I still disagree with them, but at least they do not have the blatant hypocrisy that the Republican Party line shows.

Haha, well I guess if someone is going to take an extreme position, it is better in a way to at least be consistently extreme.

And I do have the same opinion about the female governor, for example, as I do about the male state senators who voted for this bill. But, by and large, the people who both think that I should be treated like a cow, and who have the power to enact their beliefs, are men. By and large, they are Republican, not Democratic men. By and large, they are fundamentalist Christians of one stripe or another, and they not only would force me to bear children that I do not want, they would force their own version of Christianity down those children’s throats if they went to public school.

I still think it is important to draw a distinction between the majority of politicians who support a given policy being members of a particular demographic group vs implying that all the politicians who fit into that group are bad. Otherwise you end up going down the same logical path that actual bigots do, and at that point, there would be no logical difference between you and them. When I see people blaming men for things like the Alabama bill, the most reasonable conclusion that I can come to is that they most likely hate men and are just using the abortion bill as an excuse to troll.

Again, if I lived in a southern state, I’d put my kid in a Catholic school before I let evangelicals at them. Catholics at least accept evolution.

I think maybe I kind of understand what you're trying to say, but I feel like trying to link a position on evolution to Evangelical Christianity in the same way that the Catholic Church has a position on evolution doesn't really stand on solid ground. The Catholic Church has a central leadership structure that decides what the official position of the Church is on issues like that, but Evangelical Christianity doesn't have a central leadership structure because it isn't even a denomination. So there really can't be an official position on evolution among Evangelical Christians.

http://archive.is/bgfXC

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

One does not hear Democratic men or women talking about ‘legitimate rape,’ or ‘consensual rape,’ or ‘if you’re famous, you can grab them by the pussy.’ One does not hear Democratic men or women making false claims about reimplanting ectopic pregnancies in the “womb.” One does not hear Democratic men or women comparing pregnant women with fetal demise to cows giving birth to dead calves. One does not, by and large, hear women of either party saying those things.

One does not hear Democratic men or women lamenting that $200 of SNAP benefits each month is so cushy that women aren’t forced to marry the fathers of their children any more, as if that were not a good thing. Seriously, can we not all agree that marrying someone for $200/month is not a good reason to get hitched for life?! One does not hear Democratic men or women lamenting the dearth of white babies while dragging infants and children from their parents at the border, deporting the parents, and locking the kids in cages until they’re 18, at which point the kids get deported too (and, no: the Obama program does not compare in scale or in quality). One does not hear Democratic men or women justifying the literal sacrifice of first graders on the alter of treasonous rebellion against the federal government (Molon Labe, y’all). One does not, by and large, see very many women in either party (the ones that exist are almost all Democrats, with more woman-friendly policies, with a few notable exceptions) enacting these policies at the federal and state levels.

That's an awful lot of text without references to names for me to know who you are talking about. I see a couple things related to Donald Trump in there, who you definitely aren't likely to find me disagreeing with you on. But what is to stop people on the other side from making the same kind of argument? It comes across to me the same way as hosts on Fox News taking the fact that Maxine Waters and Keith Ellison have met with Louis Farrakhan and trying to use that to paint all Democrats as being black supremacists who hate anyone who is white, Jewish, gay, or transgender and who believe that women should be submissive to men. Why was Barack Obama standing shoulder-to-shoulder with this man and smiling in a recently unveiled photo? Why did Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Bill Clinton feel comfortable being seated next to this man as a guest of honor at Aretha Franklin's funeral? And why did Maxine Waters seemingly endorse the 1992 Los Angeles riots when they were happening in her district? Not to mention all the things that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Joe Biden, and others have said about men. Or Nancy Pelosi telling Congress how happy she was that her grandson wished he wasn't white.

But I don't think that means everyone who voted for these people necessarily agrees with all the horrible things these people have said or done because they might have been just voting for who they felt was the less horrible option.

So, yeah. The exceptions that exist are so rare that they do not justify the extra 20 characters it takes to enumerate them.

Isn't that a really bold statement to make? Have you honestly gone through the list of several hundred Republicans in Congress and verified that there are nearly zero of them who don't fit the description you are giving? I feel like you are presenting a significantly oversimplified hyperpartisan take on things.

I don’t whine too much when someone says ‘white women voted for Trump’ because it’s statistically true, even though I am a white woman who did not vote for Trump.

I don't think there are very many people who get upset when someone just gives a statistic. I think the issue is that there are tons of news articles online that try to claim that all white women now can't be trusted because of this, which is definitely a horrible thing to say. Whether it is your intention or not, the way you are presenting yourself here makes you appear to be the kind of person who would agree with that type of unfair generalization. That's what I am trying to get across.

[–]Trosso -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jay_Hardy 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trosso -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jay_Hardy 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Trosso 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trosso 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jay_Hardy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trosso 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That's because women don't run for office as much as men. That's not my point here though, I just wanted to point out the actual reason of why there's more men in political office. All too often, people don't care about the reasons, only the outcome.

This is what the VOTERS wanted. Not just men. Also, the govorner who signed it into law, is a woman dummy. I don't care about what something "looks" like. I care about the facts and truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Ivey

Opinion polling has repeatedly shown that a broad segment of Alabama voters, including a majority of women, generally oppose abortion rights, and for many of them, passage of the ban was a triumph. Just last year, residents overwhelmingly endorsed a change to the State Constitution declaring it Alabama’s policy “to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/abortion-law-women.html

[–]Trosso 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trosso 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trosso 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]grandmasbroach 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kravego -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wwwhistler -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Uselessmanpig -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Uselessmanpig -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Uselessmanpig -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Uselessmanpig 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kravego -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Uselessmanpig -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kravego 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DignifiedAlpaca[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Alabama abortion bill drafted by FEMALE legislator, signed by FEMALE governor, despite common claim it's just MEN legislating women's choice
Author	DignifiedAlpaca
Upvotes	1575
Comments	326
Date	May 16, 2019 10:13 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bpaqof/alabama_abortion_bill_drafted_by_female/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/alabama-abortion-bill-drafted-by-female-legislator.1206828 https://theredarchive.com/post/1206828

Comments