They don’t like ANYTHING with the word ‘critical’ in it.
10 Likes
It also neglects the statistical fact that, after Roe, the number of abortions decreased dramatically. If you are against abortion, you should want it to be legal, since it decreases the number of abortions performed. But it simply isn’t about abortion; it’s about controlling women.
27 Likes
Absolutely, and it’s also about getting votes. And owning the libs, and being obedient to a twisted veesion of Christian mythology. Both of which also get votes.
22 Likes
The same mechanism decreased teen pregnancies in Colorado once they started a comprehensive sex education program in high schools complete with making condoms available.
How much a person sees the government as an alien, outside force pressing in on their actions, as opposed to a system they are a part of is often an outgrowth from religion, with god and government being opposing forces, since Satan has be working somewhere.
9 Likes
Anyone who thinks outlawing abortion will save lives is either willfully ignorant or too stupid to live.
23 Likes
Then “you” should actively support sex ed, birth control, and be out there adopting every unwanted child that you can afford.
And yet the very same people who claim to believe what you glibly posted hardly ever seem to do any of that.
Bodily autonomy for ALL, full fucking stop.
36 Likes
And free prenatal care, no questions asked. Free birth care, no questions asked. Free food for pregnant people as well. If they actually cared about the unborn, then they would be supporting these things. Because free prenatal care, free birth care, and adequate nutrition during pregnancy will save more fetuses than outlawing abortion ever can. The infant mortality rate in this country is beyond sickening.
But they never do, do they? Just like they don’t support sex ed or education or free lunches for children. Because they are god’s damned liars. They do not care about the unborn or children. At all
30 Likes
I read an essay (written by a pastor) which said that the “unborn” are easy to campaign for. Unlike people who have been born, they don’t make any demands of you, they don’t get into trouble and they don’t have any opinions which might conflict with yours. You can advocate for them without changing or examining your own life, unlike, for instance, campaigning for the environment or against animal cruelty. You don’t have to seek any systemic political or economic change, and you aren’t fighting against powerful vested interests. You can feel righteous and superior without having to do anything.
24 Likes
Thanks, I knew I was leaving some important stuff out.
Agreed; it’s just about controlling and punishing women.
24 Likes
They should also mandate donating blood and organs. I mean, they think women have a duty to risk their health to save this little embryonic life instead of pulling it off support and letting nature take its course, right? Well we all have the means to save lives with a lot less risk than that, so why not require that?
And yet I have never talked to anyone who doesn’t think that would be the government getting in their business when it’s anything other than a pregnant woman. It’s never consistent at all.
18 Likes
this.
how can you ever change this mentality?
the guy is so oblivious to what he believes in it is appalling and sad.
he probably identifies as a critical thinker too. you know, because he watched 200 mules.
3 Likes
Um, just, what?
I don’t think you’ll find anyone here arguing that we shouldn’t have speed limits or food safety laws. The guy in the video is the one claiming he doesn’t want the government all up in people’s business.
But the value of laws is not about stopping things “we don’t like,” it’s about preventing harm, or protecting the public commons. 
17 Likes
You’d get close to 100% agreement that the government should make things like murder, rape, theft, torture illegal. Blanket bans on abortion like we’re seeing in many states now? Sub 10% approval. So when you say “we” - there is no we. It’s a teeny-tiny them that want the government to make a law to govern women’s bodies.
Nope, that’s not logical. At best it’s fringe.
22 Likes
It might be if it wasn’t for social anarchists who do believe in the position that Davram puts forward. The VSG won’t accept that position though because it is socialism and won’t let him have power over other people.
7 Likes
Christ what an asshole.
3 Likes
Evil makes you stupid.
4 Likes
To @DukeTrout as well: I clearly didn’t make the point as well as I could have. I’m not endorsing anything about this man’s opinions or values, both of which are indeed fringe, and deplorable. I just addressed the fact that the article and many comments are deriding him for being illogical and inconsistent.
He is no more inconsistent than anyone who isn’t a total anarchist or extreme libertarian. We all agree that there must be limits on government involvement in our lives, and we all have hard lines. That his lines are not ours does not make him inconsistent, just different, and wrong from our point of view.
He’s probably a stupid man, and his opinions are deplorable. But we have to give him and others like him a pass on consistency and logic. Otherwise we damn ourselves as well.
Why is it okay for him to say that the government can tell women what to do, but not him? How is that NOT inconsistent?
18 Likes
That would be me. Being a trans woman on TERF Island will do that to you. Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman make more sense to me every day.
Have you seen what the Hoppean “Libertarians” believe? They are even more inconsistent.
16 Likes
Hard disagree here.
It behooves us to hold our own positions, and those of others, up to the light of logic and consistency.
Ask that guy, or, heck, most any R politician, “what is the role of government?” They can’t answer. Because they either have no idea, or they do but it can’t be admitted in polite society.
For those of us who can answer that, it’s relatively easy to have consistent and logical policy positions.
18 Likes
