Is it really “we” damning “ourselves” 
… nope, just you showing up to damn the rest of us
14 Likes
It didn’t sound any better in context fwiw. First of all there is no “we” as you definitely don’t have my health and best interests in heart when discussing my bodily rights while, of course, I do… or at least certainly not to the extent I do. And I definitely do not have to give anyone a pass on their personal value system when it directly impacts my life and health.
Since it’s my skin in the game I don’t care about logical consistency. The way I see it… My life is worth more than any fetal tissue anywhere and I would like that codified into law. It’s not like just the right semantic or rhetorical device is going to hypnotize me with words into valuing my own life less.
17 Likes
15 Likes
i wouldn’t give people too much credit by simply writing it off as being ignorant, stupid, or misinformed. i believe people mostly understand what they’re supporting and why.
so if they don’t support women’s autonomy, it’s not because they don’t know the statistics about abortion. they don’t care to know, because i think really and truly they don’t care about women
they need to change their heart, not their mind
all marriages are mixed. otherwise you’re marrying yourself or a sibling. ick
9 Likes
That said, I think an important point here is that even if fetuses were humans, it still wouldn’t be fair to mandate women to incubate them. We don’t force people to risk their lives for others like that. Hell, people like this generally don’t even believe in to asking them to put down their AR-15s, or chip in a small amount of taxes to make sure the would-be mothers are properly nourished, or anything.
There is only one way it can become a consistent position – not thinking the fetus is human, but thinking that the woman is not. And yeah, we should all reject that as soundly as possible. To hell with these guys.
21 Likes
As Margaret Atwood said:
It ought to be simple: If you believe in “ensoulment” at conception, you should not get an abortion, because to do so is a sin within your religion. If you do not so believe, you should not—under the Constitution—be bound by the religious beliefs of others.
16 Likes
Of course it is, but then that’s both kind of beside the point, and even more it’s not actually the case here. You claimed that too, you know, and people have explained that you’re wrong…and you have ignored all that. I don’t know in what way you’ve been shunned – I guess by us daring to point out that you’re wrong? – but we have definitely been frustrated to have someone refuse to acknowledge anything we say. What response should we have for someone whose only goal is apparently to talk over everyone else?
You mean the ones who insist women are people, the ones who are arguing you’re mistaken in claiming anti-abortion crusaders are at all consistent…or the one guy who came in declaring everyone was going to be unreasonable and is now pretending it’s the case instead of considering he might have been wrong about the topic? 
14 Likes
Maybe you should look around - at the reasoned disagreement. That’s not being “shunned.” If you are going to post something, you can expect responses, and you can reasonably expect disagreement.
Please don’t conflate disagreement with being shunned. That doesn’t play around here.
18 Likes
If we give up and say sowwy will you stop trying to tell us all off for having opinions?
13 Likes
Wow, this is something else. You received a lot of very ernest and respectful disagreement. Some was emotional and heartfelt. Some was skeptical of your motivations. But nowhere were you attacked.
Stop playing the victim. It doesn’t fit.
16 Likes
No. What you said was this:
You claimed a man who said these two things is logical and consistent:
- That Dobbs was right and good. That the government stepping in and controlling women is what the government should do
And
- [quote=“frauenfelder, post:1, topic:241222”]
The government needs to stay out of our business.
[/quote]
We pointed out, politely, that those two things are in fact not consistent. That it is illogical to say the government should stay out of people’s business and the government should stop pregnant people from making their own decisions.
Along the way, many of us also expounded on how forced-birthers are incredibly inconsistent and illogical. Because they are. As well as being liars and so full of cruelty it’s a miracle they don’t burst
You chose to defend the thinking of a person who believes that women aren’t capable or worthy of making our own decisions. Someone, and his ilk, who believes women are not as human as he is and should not have control over our own bodies. Frankly, the community has treated you with kid gloves. Especially given how many of us, women and uterus havers, for which this is not some intellectual exercise. It it our bodies and our lives.
19 Likes
13 Likes
… pretty sure nobody here has asked you to provide us with therapy or spiritual guidance 
17 Likes
Also: fully paid maternal / parental leave, followed by options for free childcare. This would reduce the weight of economics on the decision to have a child.
11 Likes
Even worse. He claimed that man’s opinions should be considered but
As others have said, this poster has been disagreed with with utmost respect, but instead of reconsidering their position, has determined that they just aren’t stating it clearly enough.
16 Likes
Even worse, they keep saying that they personally disagree with the statement while arguing that the statement is logically sound based on a subjective logic in which anything makes sense as long as you believe it.
6 Likes
Who are you asking? Who is the “you” in your statement? The entire bbs? One of us personally? Which one?
11 Likes
This idea is even codified in an example older than any of us. (I’m guessing at least)
Going from memory:
A world-class violinist is dying and you personally uniquely have the right blood to fix him. So doctors hook you up to him in the middle of the night. If you disconnect the treatment, he dies.
Edit to add:
This example is less theoretical than it used to be. People die every day for the lack of a kidney or liver transplant, both of which can be given by living donors. Unless they’ve got poor kidney function, pro-lifers with 2 kidneys are hypocrites.
11 Likes
I’ll just leave this here:
9 Likes
9 Likes
