10 Likes
I’m afraid I don’t know how to make my point any better than I have. As always, you’re free to disagree. I dare say your characterization of his positions is not one he’d acknowledge.
But it’s correct. He has no interest in freedom for women. Being able to make critical medical decisions should be a baseline for bodily autonomy. If women can’t do that, they are not free. He opposes women having that freedom, agrees that women should be told what to do by the government, and it directly contradicts his stated view that the government should stay out of people’s lives. Him insisting that he believes in freedom for coercion from the government is absolutely contradicted by his believe in forced birth.
You either believe in bodily autonomy for EVERYONE, or you do not. He does not, whatever he says. 
21 Likes
Freedom for me but not for theeee!
I don’t really care what his idiotic rationalizations for it are tbh.
20 Likes
This is a good point! How often do people justify oppressing others, by arguing that they need freedom for themselves, but others are not entitled to the same. People who scream about oppression when it comes to their own lives, but advocate for restrictions on others are by definition being inconsistent. I’m not sure why we should not push back against that, especially if we are part of the groups that they wish to deny autonomy to…
As I said, you either believe in freedom for all, or you do not. This guy clearly does not. Hence he’s being inconsistent. We really need to call that shit out for what it is, given the very real world consequences this is having for lots of Americans (not just on reproductive care, either).
22 Likes
That’s because there is no internal logic to what I’ll generously call his thought process. You can twist yourself into pretzels claiming otherwise on his behalf, but the fact remains that this individual himself obviously (see his t-shirt) lacks rudimentary critical thinking skills.
No, we don’t, because in cases like this, we have the ability to forestall criticisms of our consistency and logic by A) generally not making absolutist blanket statements or B) providing disclaimers that allow for exceptions.
This clown is incapable of those things. His argument is incoherent in and of itself. I’m not sure what the point is in trying to help make sense of his garbage or giving him the benefit of the doubt as to his motives. These are fascists, so let them bury themselves in their own contradictions.
15 Likes
No, you made that clear. You’re just wrong.
And we pretty much all addressed that point specifically.
It’s pretty simple: if you examine the meaning of his words, and the actual policies that he’s endorsing, that’s where his whole point falls apart specifically due to inconsistency and lack of logic.
- Except for a handful of Catholic nuns, people who are for laws against abortion are also in favor of the death penalty. So their attempt at the moral high ground is shot right from the start. It is inconsistent. As for saying that fetuses haven’t had a chance to make decisions but people on death row have, and should be punished for their actions; you just have to look at the large number of falsely convicted people we have in the US prison system and how incredibly difficult it is to get a conviction overturned even with compelling evidence of the prisoner’s innocence or of police/prosecutorial misconduct. In other words, in the US, just because someone has been convicted and sentenced to die doesn’t actually mean that they even committed a crime.
- Again, sticking to the so-called “sanctity of life” position, under policies outlawing abortion, we know statistically that there are more abortions - they are just shitty, dangerous ones that destroy not only the fetus but often kill the mother. In addition, these laws outlaw treating miscarriages (more dead women) and treating pregnancies that are dangerous to the mother with unviable fetuses (more dead women). So the policies that outlaw abortion don’t even accomplish the stated goal of reducing “death” of fetuses. The anti-abortion policies actually accomplish the opposite, while killing a whole lot of women. We have the data to prove this. So more inconsistency.
- Anti-abortion laws go against scientific and medical logic as well. Along with the conflict pointed out in #2 above, prior to viability, a fetus is functionally just a cluster of cells that the host has manufactured. Medically, scientifically, it’s no different than a tumor. I guarantee that, at the “heartbeat” cutoff around 6 weeks, this guy could not pick out a fetus from a prostate tumor. In fact, some of the nastier anti-abortion propaganda shows pictures of excised tumors rather than actual fetuses because a fetus doesn’t look anything like a baby at that stage.
- The religious basis for the anti-abortion movement in the US is a vaguely interpreted line about protecting children. Meanwhile, those same people who are willing to shoot doctors and bomb clinics ignore much more clearly-worded prohibitions in their same religious text, such as prohibitions against wearing mixed fabrics. It’s unambiguous, and the punishment is stoning. So they aren’t even consistent within their own religious doctrines.
- To point 4, this movement is a fundamentally religious one. The First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion by the government. A.k.a. no religious laws. So making anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional. Yet this guy doesn’t want the government taking away his guns. So he’s perfectly fine to run roughshod over other people’s civil liberties to enforce his religious beliefs on others, but at the same time wants protection from the government based on an extreme and tenuous interpretation of the very next amendment in the Constitution. Are you seeing a theme here, yet?
- The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution provides equal protection under the law. If women are subject to restrictions or prohibitions against abortion, where is the balancing restrictions or prohibitions on men? I’m not sure what would even could balance the scales. More inconsistency.
- The rhetoric of the anti-abortion movement is all about children, and they weaponize the supposed rights of people who are born with birth defects as a gotcha of sorts. But, and this is very important, they do nothing to support healthy births, prenatal care, or children post-birth. In fact, they harm all of the above by attacking (physically, socially, and politically) Planned Parenthood, which is a primary provider of prenatal care. So the real hypocrisy of the position shows in that (again, other than maybe a handful of nuns) they don’t actually give a shit about children. The anti-abortion movement isn’t about caring for children, it is about controlling women.
I could actually just keep going. But I think the 7 points above make the logical inconsistency of this man’s position and the anti-abortion movement overall very clear. Whether you disagree with them or not, it is logically proveable that the movement and it’s implementation is fundamentally contradictory. His added inconsistency is that he is unwilling to accept regulation of his own actions while advocating for the regulation of others’.
24 Likes
Nah, its all a part of using religion as an excuse for malice. Belief is meant to bind others, never themselves.
There is no perceived consistency because people are expecting something more than just “screw THOSE people and feel good about myself”.
Its all very consistent when one just regards it as sociopathy and hate.
Anti abortion belief is just immoral malicious garbage feigning concern for a fetus while attacking people.
10 Likes
If you sincerely believe that – a big IF – then you do so because of your religion.
In the U.S., we are expected to respect and follow the rules laid down in the Constitution. That first amendment always seems to be overlooked in the eagerness to get to the second, but it’s first for a reason: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
So, you’d actually be illogical (and unlawful) if you didn’t take the stance that abortion should be left to the individual and their own beliefs rather than codified into law.
17 Likes
You don’t. You work to make it too embarrassing or difficult for people to implement such beliefs. Like how you deal with bigots.
3 Likes
11 Likes
8 Likes
You made your point fine. The thing is it’s wrong, as people have generously explained to you. You’re free to ignore that but it would be better to consider what you’ve been told.
13 Likes
There is no sincere belief abortion is murder.
There is the belief that women are their property to command and the belief they are people.
11 Likes
12 Likes
11 Likes
9 Likes
It’s only half as bad as starting off a post with a preemptive deflection of any disagreement as being “shunned.”
I’m sure I’ll be shunned for saying it
14 Likes
So is not listening to any of the numerous responses made to you, doctor. 
13 Likes
13 Likes
