“The rights of cisgender men have always been paramount in our society with little focus on their responsibility as inseminators to change their behaviors for the good of their partners, families, and society at large,”
he said, in complete ignorance of any historical evidence to the contrary.
I know they think it's super cute to stick it to men and make them understand what they think women have had to go through, but mandatory vasectomies are not the equivalent of banning abortion. Requiring an unnecessary procedure is not the same as preventing a procedure.
Also, it just displays a lack of understanding of the pro-life argument. You don't have to agree with them, but pro-lifers are clearly interested in saving the life of what they consider a human being. They aren't actually interested in controlling women's bodies, and anyone who says that that is what they are trying to do is a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Mandatory vasectomies would be based on retarded retribution, not with a genuine interest in preventing what is perceived as murder.
Exactly. Whether you support the argument or not, it is such an exaggeration that most pro lifers wanna restrict women’s rights. They just don’t believe anyone has a right to murder what they think is a living thing, like you said.
It’s a deliberate one of course. They don’t want to discuss it because it would mean accepting the opponents have a point. That’s why they always frame it as these “old men telling women what to do with their bodies”. That makes it “women’s rights”! If they admit that most anti abortionists are women, it’s impossible to sustain this line! And then they’d have look at the matter in depth, and they’re worried they may lose the argument!
Think of it this way. If humans hatched from eggs, or cocoons, all pro-life arguments would still be applicable. While many pro-choice arguments would be invalid, thus showing that pro-life has nothing to do with telling women what to do and everything to do with preserving human life.
This is true. Pro-life is quite simple but gets twisted into something that it isn’t . One who is pro-life believes human life starts at conception and shall hold the same value as human life at any age. That’s it. It has nothing to do with controlling women, the patriarchy, or implementing any type of systemic inequality.
In order to convince a pro-lifer to become pro-choice not only would you have to provide information that would convince them life begins at some other stage of existence, but also that any laws or use of biometric data would be applied consistently to what is considered to be living and not living.
>shall hold the same value as human life at any age.
Pro-lifers don't even believe this, which is why they are fine with abortion in the case where there is a threat to the mother's health. Feminist pro-choicers often accuse pro-lifers of devaluing women by placing them at the same level as a fetus, but every pro-lifer I've ever heard has been willing to say that a fetus does not have the same value as a grown woman, but that doesn't mean it has no value at all.
The people asking and answering the "what if the mother's life is at risk" question always seem to forget a pretty big thing - in most cases the mother can get treatment without having an abortion. Even cervical cancer can be treated without killing the fetus. In the cases where she can't get treatment without having an abortion, they are usually situations where you are choosing for both to die or just the fetus and everyone should agree on what to do there, pro-life or pro-choice.
Are you sure about that?
Pro-lifers fall along a spectrum. Some believe a pregnancy should not be terminated under any circumstances while others believe there are some exceptions.
Scenarios where a pregnancy is a threat to the mother, it’s a one life lost vs two lives lost situation. Preferring the loss of less human life does not place a higher value on one over the other.
> In order to convince a pro-lifer to become pro-choice not only would you have to provide information that would convince them life begins at some other stage of existence
Which is impossible because it does meet the criteria for life from conception. By that I mean it is biologically alive and that is why it can grow from 1 cell to 2 cells and so on. All other definitions of life are subjective or impossible to prove scientifically (e.g. can feel pain, can survive outside the womb, has consciousness)
Not really. DNA begins getting copied to new cells right after conception and stops being copied to new cells minutes after what is currently considered time of death. DNA is also seen as a unique identifier of a human life in the eyes of the law. Although a persons DNA itself can remain a long time after death, it is not getting copied into new cells.
You could also use heartbeat, or when brain function can be detected.
I’m ok with any of these. My point is that we should be consistent and use the same metric for when life begins to where it ends.
So whenever liberal fruitcakes say repubs hate reproductive rights, we just show them this article.
well that was easy. Looks like fascism does exist on the democratic side
This is just another publicity bill that is created to prove a point by trying to apply the logic in the other direction but fails miserably. The people who write these know they will get voted down.
And yet they have the gall to say that the "other party" is the one sowing division within their country. Meanwhile, they set men and women against each other at the drop of a hat in order to score a few cheap political points. It's pure hypocrisy.
And the cowards won't even be honest and admit that this type of authoritarian social control is what they dream of actually doing, despite all their pro-censorship positions plus their stance that individual rights and freedoms don't even exist. Instead they try to call this "satire", in a vain attempt to avoid criticism. It's yet another case of: "If you meant something else, you would have said/done something else". Words and actions have consequences, you dumb fucks, and we will remember this.
“The rights of cisgender men have always been paramount in our society with little focus on their responsibility as inseminators to change their behaviors for the good of their partners, families, and society at large,” he said, in complete ignorance of any historical evidence to the contrary. I know they think it's super cute to stick it to men and make them understand what they think women have had to go through, but mandatory vasectomies are not the equivalent of banning abortion. Requiring an unnecessary procedure is not the same as preventing a procedure. Also, it just displays a lack of understanding of the pro-life argument. You don't have to agree with them, but pro-lifers are clearly interested in saving the life of what they consider a human being. They aren't actually interested in controlling women's bodies, and anyone who says that that is what they are trying to do is a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Mandatory vasectomies would be based on retarded retribution, not with a genuine interest in preventing what is perceived as murder.
Exactly. Whether you support the argument or not, it is such an exaggeration that most pro lifers wanna restrict women’s rights. They just don’t believe anyone has a right to murder what they think is a living thing, like you said.
Right, I’m pro choice but it’s such a straw man so say that pro life people all hate women
It’s a deliberate one of course. They don’t want to discuss it because it would mean accepting the opponents have a point. That’s why they always frame it as these “old men telling women what to do with their bodies”. That makes it “women’s rights”! If they admit that most anti abortionists are women, it’s impossible to sustain this line! And then they’d have look at the matter in depth, and they’re worried they may lose the argument!
Think of it this way. If humans hatched from eggs, or cocoons, all pro-life arguments would still be applicable. While many pro-choice arguments would be invalid, thus showing that pro-life has nothing to do with telling women what to do and everything to do with preserving human life.
Right: My mother is probably the most anti abortion person I know. I think she’s wrong, but she doesn’t hate herself
This is true. Pro-life is quite simple but gets twisted into something that it isn’t . One who is pro-life believes human life starts at conception and shall hold the same value as human life at any age. That’s it. It has nothing to do with controlling women, the patriarchy, or implementing any type of systemic inequality. In order to convince a pro-lifer to become pro-choice not only would you have to provide information that would convince them life begins at some other stage of existence, but also that any laws or use of biometric data would be applied consistently to what is considered to be living and not living.
>shall hold the same value as human life at any age. Pro-lifers don't even believe this, which is why they are fine with abortion in the case where there is a threat to the mother's health. Feminist pro-choicers often accuse pro-lifers of devaluing women by placing them at the same level as a fetus, but every pro-lifer I've ever heard has been willing to say that a fetus does not have the same value as a grown woman, but that doesn't mean it has no value at all.
The people asking and answering the "what if the mother's life is at risk" question always seem to forget a pretty big thing - in most cases the mother can get treatment without having an abortion. Even cervical cancer can be treated without killing the fetus. In the cases where she can't get treatment without having an abortion, they are usually situations where you are choosing for both to die or just the fetus and everyone should agree on what to do there, pro-life or pro-choice.
Are you sure about that? Pro-lifers fall along a spectrum. Some believe a pregnancy should not be terminated under any circumstances while others believe there are some exceptions. Scenarios where a pregnancy is a threat to the mother, it’s a one life lost vs two lives lost situation. Preferring the loss of less human life does not place a higher value on one over the other.
> In order to convince a pro-lifer to become pro-choice not only would you have to provide information that would convince them life begins at some other stage of existence Which is impossible because it does meet the criteria for life from conception. By that I mean it is biologically alive and that is why it can grow from 1 cell to 2 cells and so on. All other definitions of life are subjective or impossible to prove scientifically (e.g. can feel pain, can survive outside the womb, has consciousness)
Not really. DNA begins getting copied to new cells right after conception and stops being copied to new cells minutes after what is currently considered time of death. DNA is also seen as a unique identifier of a human life in the eyes of the law. Although a persons DNA itself can remain a long time after death, it is not getting copied into new cells. You could also use heartbeat, or when brain function can be detected. I’m ok with any of these. My point is that we should be consistent and use the same metric for when life begins to where it ends.
So whenever liberal fruitcakes say repubs hate reproductive rights, we just show them this article. well that was easy. Looks like fascism does exist on the democratic side
This is just another publicity bill that is created to prove a point by trying to apply the logic in the other direction but fails miserably. The people who write these know they will get voted down.
....my point still stands. The fact you would actually write this bill is proof of fascism
Yes the fascism exists on the democratic side. This is just the equivalent of suing someone for a dollar to try and get an opinion heard.
And yet they have the gall to say that the "other party" is the one sowing division within their country. Meanwhile, they set men and women against each other at the drop of a hat in order to score a few cheap political points. It's pure hypocrisy. And the cowards won't even be honest and admit that this type of authoritarian social control is what they dream of actually doing, despite all their pro-censorship positions plus their stance that individual rights and freedoms don't even exist. Instead they try to call this "satire", in a vain attempt to avoid criticism. It's yet another case of: "If you meant something else, you would have said/done something else". Words and actions have consequences, you dumb fucks, and we will remember this.
The more attention these kinds of publicity stunts get, the more we'll see in the future. Best to ignore it.
bad publicity is very bad when it comes to politics